Water Education Foundation
This is just one post in the Central Valley Project Category
Click here to view all posts

Lawsuit takes aim at pre-dam water rights

Posted by: Maven on December 3, 2009 at 8:19 am

From the Chico Enterprise-Record:

“Environmental groups filed a legal challenge to water rights of some of Northern California’s oldest agricultural water users, stating that contracts for use of Sacramento River water for the next 40 years violate the Endangered Species Act.

The suit goes to the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and seeks to revisit 40-year water contracts approved in 2005 between the federal Bureau of Reclamation and water districts including Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District in Willows, Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District, Provident Irrigation District, Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District, city of Redding, M&T Chico Ranch, and others.

Also named in the suit are 25-year contracts with water districts in the San Joaquin Valley, which get water from the delta.

The water agencies are known as “settlement contractors,” who had water rights before the Central Valley Project was completed, with some water rights dating back to the 1880s. … “

Read more from the Chico Enterprise-Record by clicking here.

December 3, 2009 · Filed Under Central Valley Project, Wildlife & Endangered Species

Comments

2 Responses to “Lawsuit takes aim at pre-dam water rights”

  1. dfb on December 3rd, 2009 4:15 pm

    This brings up an important issue that the environmentalists are intentionally ignoring, or at least conveniently using as part of their strategy (I’m not really sure how). That is, these water contractors have underlying water rights that still exist. If CVP reneges on the water contracts or the contracts disappear, these parties will start diverting/pumping on their own subject to actual water rights. San Joaquin River water exchange contractors are similarly situated. If water from the Delta dries up, they will rely on their underlying water rights to take water from the San Joaquin River, to the detriment of Friant contractors in the East S.J. Valley. I should note that Westlands is not similarly situated in that its rights are wholly contractual so voiding the contracts leaves it without recourse.

  2. waterwise on December 3rd, 2009 10:42 pm

    It’s true. Judge Wanger, on pp. 85-86 of his April 27, 2009 Decision in this case, concluded as follows: “More than forty-five years ago, the United States and the SRS Contractors accepted the directions of the Water Board and the United States Congress to bring certainty to, and to enable the long-term operation of, the CVP through their compromised contractual recognition of senior Sacramento River System water rights, rather than undergo a complex, years-long stream adjudication. After a more than one-year study of the history and extent of all parties’ SRS water rights, the parties settled on long-term water contracts to continue for a 40 year term and renewals thereafter, for fixed, contractually defined quantities, allocations, and places of use. This facilitated the continued operation of the CVP . . . This is not unfair, unjust, or against the public interest, because without the SRS Contractors’ contribution of their senior water rights to the CVP, the CVP Units served by the Sacramento River System could not exist or effectively function.”

    Plaintiffs in this appeal intentionally attempt to paint all contractors — whether water service contractors or water rights settlement contractors — with the same broad brush. They know better, but assume and hope that the greater public does not. It’s shameful.

Leave a Reply