August 1994 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Fate of the SWP

A list of 20 ways to restructure or even sell off the State Water Project was presented to the Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee on August 1. The 20 options include eliminating agriculture as the first user to face water cuts; creating a "feebate" system that would allow a water district to buy cheaper water if it agrees to take less water on a permanent basis; establishing a surcharge to promote water conservation; allowing project contractors to buy and sell entitlements; giving water to the environment but at a price; extending the project to the year 2050 to lower long-term costs; even selling off the whole shebang. These and other proposals for settling the fate of the project will be the focus of intense study after the current legislative session ends, according to the office of committee chair Senator Dan McCorquodale.

Back in 1960, Governor Edmund Brown envisioned the State Water Project as a way to quench the thirst of farms and cities well into the 21st century. Public bonds financed the project, on the promise that it would eventually deliver 4.2 million acre feet of annual water. But that was before environmental concerns derailed the Eel River Dam, the San Joaquin Drain and the peripheral canal. With new problems threatening all delivery of Lake Oroville water through the Delta, new ideas are needed.

"The urban folks are still very optimistic they can solve problems and don't see the need for outside help from the Legislature," says options analyst Dennis O'Connor of the state's California Research Bureau. "That is not the case with the Kern County growers."

The Department of Water Resources' Bob Potter says some of the ideas may be impossible or even illegal. He says selling the project could jeopardize its AA bond rating. O'Connor concedes that worries about losing the ratings are a prime concern but says, "The clients of this study are the Legislature, and their thinking is that we make the law, we can change it."

Contact: Dennis O'Connor (916)653-7843

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project