Farm Bureau Policies 2022
No. 305 State Ownership of the Central Valley Project (CVP) We cannot support the CVP transfer to the State of California until the following concerns are accommodated: (1) Assurances are given that the original contractors and ex- change contractorswill be recognizedand receive allocatedwater supplies. The integrityof theexistingcontractsandexchangeagree- mentsmust bemaintained; (2) No new contractors will be added to the CVP without the development of new supplies of water; (3) The contract duration must be long enough for growers to acquire agricultural capital financing (minimumof 30 years); (4) Water costs to CVP users will be tied directly to the original capital costs for constructionof theCVPandnormal operationand maintenance expenditures; In addition, the paying water users must be identified together with an articulated schedule of financial responsibility. Waterusers should includeagricultural,municipal, recreational, aesthetic, industrial and environmental users or interests. (5) The demands of meeting endangered species, water qual- ity, wetlands, marsh, fish and wildlife requirements are to be fully outlined and be shared by all water diverters; (6) “Drainage”: The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s (USBR) re- sponsibility for drainagemust be assumed by the state; (7) Any transfer of the CVP to the State of California should be approvedby amajority voteof theoriginal CVPcontractors includ- ing both districts and users; (8) Protectionsmust be assured to the areas of origin; and (9) Central Valley Project contractors must not be made finan- cially, or otherwise responsible for environmental mitigation be- yond the degree to which the operation of the relevant diversion and export facilities are clearly responsible. In themeantime, joint operation between the state and federal projects shouldbe streamlined to theextent possible.Wealso favor a thorough study by the agencies involved to determine the feasi- bility of the idea. The “study” should include workshops, or other opportunities for public participation, during the negotiations for contractor and users affected by the proposal. (1993) No. 306 Local Agency Control of Federal and State Water Projects We support thecontrol andownershipby theusersof the federal and state water projects in California if the following conditions are all satisfied: (1) The respective rights of settlement contractors, exchange contractors, andother contractors areprotectedandmaintained in the samemanner andpriority as under federal or stateownership; (2)Water rights and areas of origin are not impaired; (3) The transfer of control and/or ownership in itself should not cause a direct increase in the cost of water unless approved by the water users; (4)Obligations to satisfywater quality andother environmental needs are not reallocated to other agricultural water users; (5) No newcontractors will be addedwithout the development of new supplies; and (6) State and federal agencies must honor their commitments to provide an adequate supply of water for urban and agricultural as well as environmental uses. Land retirement and the downsizing of water districts are not successful remedies for an inadequate water supply. (Rev. 2000) No. 307 Water Rights Existing water rights must be inviolate. Adjudication is one means for farmers and ranchers to determine ownership of both groundwater and surface water rights. In the future, prescription should not be an allowable means of obtaining a right to the use of water. Existing prescriptive rights should be recognized when proven and quantified. All pertinent riparianrights shouldbequantifiedat theappropriate timeaccord- ing to the greatest potential agricultural use. Unexercised riparian rights should be given priority equal to exercised riparian rights, andwe favor legislation toguarantee thesehistorical rightswithout required reporting. Based on the history of reported use under Section 5101 et. seq. of the Water Code, previously unquantified water rights shouldnot be subject todiminution. No limits should be placed on agricultural water to undermine water rights or to promote reallocation or “forced” sales of water fromagriculture’s beneficial use. As a resource of global significance, there should be no higher long-termpriority use of water than California agriculture. Adjudicated riparian rights should not be subject to forfeiture as the result of non-use. Current methods give adequate protection for instreamwater
uses. No condemnation authority should be permitted for the purposeof providingwater for instreamuses. Instreamuses should have priority only forwaterwhich is developed for those purposes and paid for by the beneficiaries. These dedications of water for instreamuse should not be permitted to interfere with supplying water for themaintenance andenhancement of the state’s agricul- tural, municipal and industrial uses. TheCentral ValleyProject Improvement Act reallocated800,000 acre-feet of water per year fromagricultural use to stream flow for fish, and200,000acre-feet ofwater for application towetlands. The Act stated that thiswaterwouldbe replaced for its original purpose of usewithin15 years, but this has not happened. TheEndangered Species Act also has had the effect of reducing agricultural water deliveries and diversions by holders of water rights. The Federal government has a responsibility to develop new water to offset these losses of agricultural water supply. Favorable cost-benefit ratios are not more important for water projects than they are for welfare programs, health, wilderness, endangered species, or recreational programs.Most projects built to provide irrigation, flood control and electricity also benefit fish and wildlife by ensuring summer and fall flows in streams that otherwise could have gone dry. No increased authority should be given the StateWater Resources Control Board for the issuance of cease and desist orders or restraining orders. Board actions having adverse economic consequences should be supported by environmental and economic impact reports. Reclaimedwastewater should remain in the district whichper- forms the reclamation, to theextent it canbeput toreasonableben- eficial use. Excess reclaimedwastewater shouldbemade available for sale, transfer, exchange, groundwater recharge, groundwater re- plenishment, or other beneficial use ina financially viablemanner. Water district laws should empower a district to sell surface water, for use outside the district, only that water which is surplus to the demands within the district and the sale of which is not at the expense of agriculture. Forfeiture of water rights should not accrue as a result of temporary water transfers, conservation or use of substitute supplies. The beneficiary water rights of agricultural water users must be honored and protected against takings should the controlling interest of an irrigation district change from its original structure. Any sale of a right to use water for transfer fromone hydrologic or groundwater basin to another, or from agricultural use to mu- nicipal and industrial use, formore thana singlewater yearmust be contingent on the following findings by the StateWater Resources Control Board: (a)Water sold for export fromahydrologicor groundwater basin must be surplus tocurrent and foreseeablebeneficial needs of that basin both as to quantity and quality, including the water needed for use of the lands in the basin for production of food and fiber; (b) The agricultural protection provided by county ordinances andother lawsmust not be jeopardizedormade ineffective by the proposed sale or transfer; and (c) In some cases, the saleofwater is predicatedon replacement of the water that is sold by use of reclaimed or pollutedmunicipal and industrial water, or other sources of replacement, other than agriculturedrainagewater. Useof that replacementwatermust not damage thewater quality or supply for uses by other parties in the basin inwhich it is used. Wheneverwater rights are condemned, theprior owner should receive compensation for the full value the use of such water provided the owner and not just the cost of having acquired the water right. All protestedwater right applications shouldbegiven field inves- tigations. Hearings neednot be held onunprotested applications. We support the position of the Department of Interior Solicitor General opinions of July 28, 1988, and the concurrence of the AttorneyGeneral, statingCongress didnot intend to create federal reserved water rights when it provided for the designation of wil- derness areas. We believe any water rights claimed for any public lands shouldbe subject toacquisitiononlyunder statewater rights law and subject to doctrine of unexercised rights, which would give those lands prioritybelowthosewater rightswhichhavebeen exercised by previous use. (Rev. 2019) No. 308 Water Marketing and Transfers FarmBureau supports themovement of water between public and/or private entities, on a voluntary basis, when it is in the best interestof thecontractingparties tochangetheplaceand/orpurpose ofwateruseandwhenpotential impactson thirdpartywater rights, non-transferringusers andcommunitieswithin thedistrict, andon thewaterneedsof areasoforiginof surfaceandgroundwaterare first evaluatedandappropriateprotectionsof theseentities areassured. The voluntary movement of water in California should lessen the potential for the reallocationof waterwithout compensation. Openmarketing of newor conservedwater should be allowed.
use of water should be respected by federal agencies. We urge the enactment by Congress of legislation to provide for this. The increasingneeds of thepeopleof theUnitedStates for flood control,water conservationanddistributionareof serious concern to the public, and in some areas have reachedurgent proportions, as illustrated by the recent dry periods. Maximum cooperation between agencies of the state and federal governments will be required tomeet these needs. When it is desirable that cooperationand, coordinationof oper- ations exist between the stateand federal governments indevelop- ment of water resources of the state, the state-federal relationship shouldbe clearly statedby contract. Suchcontracts shouldprovide for the affected state project to store and transfer water, through use of its facilities, for ultimate delivery through facilities of the af- fected federal projects and, inappropriate instances, for the federal project tostoreand transfer, throughuseof its facilities, for ultimate delivery through facilities of the state project. We consider the 1985 Coordinated Operation Agreement between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources to qualify as such a contract. In the event facilities of the state project are of service to the federal project, theUnited States should pay an appropriate share of the costs, including capital costs, on a proportionate use basis consistent with other deliveries of the state project. In the event facilities of the federal project are of service to the stateproject, the state should pay an appropriate share of costs, including capital costs, onaproportionateusebasis, consistentwithother deliveries of the federal project. The renderingof such reciprocal serviceby a federal project toa state project should not subject the state project’s water deliveries to federal laws restricting theuseofwater. The state shouldexercise controlwithrespect to thedeterminationandadministrationof the right to the use of water. We are opposed to encroachment by the federal government into vested water rights, and to the development of federal water projectsnot incompliancewithstate law.We support theprinciple of statedominanceover the federal government in the fieldofwater rights. (Rev. 2013) No. 304 Water Pricing and Contracts State Project Contracts for the delivery of water from state projects should include but not be limited to: (1) Short-termcontracts for interimdeliveries which confer no right; and (2) Thirty (30) year minimum renewable contracts providing long-term rights to the use of water. The state’s water export contract requirements under the CaliforniaWater Plan shouldbe at uniformrates, for similar classes of water, adjustable sufficiently to pay to the state the reimbursable costs for such water, water development and delivery to the delta. To the extent possible, these contracts should bemaintained on a long-termbasis. When the statedelivers saiddeltawater toa contracting agency, the cost to the state for such delivery, including operation and maintenance, should be added to the rate established for water at the delta. The state’s responsibility for the pricing and distribution of water should not reach beyond the local contracting district or agency. The distribution of and establishment of rates for water to individual water users should be a responsibility of the local district or agency to work out, consistent with its financial and operational policy. Federal Project Realistic water pricing should form the basis for negotiation of any future contracts and renegotiation of expired existing con- tracts or those for which mutual renegotiation is agreed. We are opposed to a pricing structure that is ameans to limit agriculture’s ability to purchase affordable water and causes it to give up a portion of its contract water supply to the benefit of other water users. Future contracts should be of sufficient duration to allow farmers to secure long-termcapital or financing. Any percentage reduction in water supply must be accompanied by a commen- surate reduction in capital repayment obligations on present or future contracts. Thedevelopment of federalwater contracts andprices, together with the allocation of supply, should be sensitive to not only the agricultural benefits of the resource, but the environmental and economic benefits of agricultural water use. Diverters of natural channel waters per prior water rightsmust not be involuntarily subjected to federal laws restricting water use when federal projects either use natural channels for project water conveyance or divert upstream or delta water for project use and then replace that water with water from project facili- ties. (Rev. 2013)
January 26, 2022 Ag Alert 23
Powered by FlippingBook