Some House Republicans say local water authorities in California's Central Valley are unhappy with environmental regulations being imposed by the Biden administration.
"Our Central Valley is the backbone of our nation's food supply, yet unreliable water allocations and overreaching regulations continue to hurt our farmers and our community," said Rep. John Duarte, R–Calif. "We can do better, and we must do better."
The field hearing was held last Friday in Santa Nella, California, by the Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee. The hearing presented a one-sided review of water management techniques being overseen by the federal government.
"The committee invited the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to testify today," said Subcommittee Chair Chairman Cliff Bentz, R–Ore.
"The Biden-Harris administration has chosen not to participate," he added. "These are the same agencies that claim there has been an unprecedented display of openness as they push forward new biological opinions for the so-called coordinated operations of the CVP (Central Valley Project) and the State Water Project."
California's water issues pit environmental issues focused on protecting endangered species against the water scarcity needs of a farming community that produces one quarter of the food consumed in the nation. Alternating years of droughts and record rainfall further complicates matters. Silt accumulation and inadequate water storage are key elements to the conflict.
"Voters have approved $27 billion in water bonds, all promising to enhance California's water supply," said Rep. Tom McClintock R-Calif. "There's another ten billion bond on the November ballot, and yet not a single major reservoir has been built in California since the New Melones in 1979."
Proposition 4, otherwise known as the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024 would include a $10 billion issuance to pay for climate and environmental projects, some of which were cut out the state's earlier budgets.
According to the state's proposal, $3.8 billion would be allocated to water projects, including safe drinking water efforts, recycling wastewater, storing groundwater and controlling flooding. An additional $1.5 billion would be spent on wildfire protection, while $1.2 billion would go toward protecting the coast from sea level rise.
The proposition is opposed by taxpayer groups concerned about runaway construction costs but is supported by labor unions, environmentalists and water agencies.
At the same time, some of the local level water authority managers believe the state is suffering from a long history of ill-advised water management decisions.
"Starting in the early 1900s unelected officials began to force change to how water is managed in California and not for the better," said Jason Phillips, CEO of the Friant Water Authority in Lindsay, north of Bakersfield.
"It just keeps getting worse. These decisions have been taking water away from farms and communities in increasing quantities yet have made no discernible change to help in the decline of species populations."
Witnesses for the committee questioned the veracity of biological opinions about salmon levels and questioned the competency of the Bureau of Reclamation which operates under the U.S. Department of the Interior.
The Bureau of Reclamation is charged with overseeing the CVP which covers federal water management policy over an area that stretches from Redding, California to Bakersfield.
The CVP works with the State Water Project which is administered by the California Department of Water Resources. The CVP has a history of attracting controversies and litigation over the Endangered Species Act. The CVP is subject to biological opinions about the species in question by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
