California Watch

A bill authored by Representatives Jim Costa, D-Fresno, and Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, is winding its way through Congress and would make federal money, including stimulus funds, available to pay for a slew of California water projects.

Under present regulations, local stakeholders share the cost of water projects with the federal government; the bill would allow federal dollars to pay for the whole thing.

As justification for the increased federal expense, Costa and Cardoza cite the record unemployment and drought conditions affecting California.

They argue that increased federal spending would create jobs directly, through water projects, and indirectly, through agricultural businesses, which would benefit from increased water.

"Our Valley’s farms cannot exist on a 10 percent allocation this year," Costa said in a statement posted on his Web site. "It’s unacceptable."

"If we are at 117 percent of snowpack in the Sierra, and to give our farmers a 10 percent allocation is nonsensical and unexplainable. Our farmers and farm workers need to be put back to work to grow the best food and fiber in America."

Taxpayers for Common Sense and the National Wildlife Federation came out against the bill. In a  joint statement, the organizations content that in addition to "undermining decades of hard won cost-sharing principles," the looseness of the language in the bill could allow for abuse:

"The relatively loose project eligibility criteria in H.R. 4225 could allow funding for projects that: (a) are not authorized by Congress; (b) are owned by private or other-non federal interests; (c) have not been subjected to National Environmental Policy Act; and (d) have not been subjected to a federal feasibility study. In fact, all that is required is that a project had received some federal funding at some time. There are hundreds of projects that meet that very low bar and without sufficient environmental review, some or many could be devastating to the environment."

The Obama administration also opposes the bill, according to an article by McClatchy correspondent Michael Doyle. The article quotes U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Michael Connor as saying, "It's important to retain the commitment of non-federal investment."

Taxpayers for Common Sense and the National Wildlife Federation have also expressed concern that if the bill does become law, it will not be limited solely to California.

"It is difficult to envision Congress passing legislation only benefiting California when other areas of the country are experiencing similar problems. The costs of this legislation could be enormous," the groups' statement said.

As of last week,  the bill has received a hearing in the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power. This "hearing sets the stage for the bill to move through committee and onto the House floor for a vote," said Costa's statement.