What began as a modest experiment to secure a more stable water supply for California’s fisheries is now in danger of becoming an economic Godzilla crushing farms and whole communities under its feet.

 

The Environmental Water Account (EWA) is a part of Calfed, the joint state and federal program to help solve some of California’s ongoing water woes.  During dry times when water is deemed critical for fishery habitat the EWA is supposed to buy supplemental supplies from the water market.

 

The EWA began in 2001 and is scheduled to sunset in 2004, but a movement is a foot to extend EWA’s life for several more years and increase the amount of water from 185,000 acre feet to 600,000 acre feet.

 

According to a written statement by Calfed, “In simplest terms, the EWA is aimed at adding flexibility to the state's water delivery system. It is designed to provide water at critical times to meet environmental needs without water supply impacts on cities, farms and businesses.”

 

For some, the crucial words in the statement are “without water supply impacts.” Ron Pistoresi, a Madera County farmer and the president of the Madera Irrigation District, has some stern reservations regarding the impact on Valley water supplies due to the EWA.

 

“The EWA has inflated water prices and harmed our supply availability,” said Pistoresi. “The bottom line is the EWA can have a very negative impact on the Valley’s economy. It could devastate us, and it’s nothing more than a water grab by the government.”

 

Pistoresi is referring to figures that show how much money was paid for EWA water by the state’s Department of Water Resources and the United States Bureau of Reclamation. While farmers and municipalities in the Valley typically pay between $55 to $75 an acre foot there were purchases made for the EWA that cost from $300 to $566 an acre foot. Depending on which source you consult.

 

One example: on May 3, 2001 the government spent $406 for 10,000 acre feet of water. It bought the water from the Kern County Water Authority for a total of $4.6 million. In comparison, on August 15, 2001 it spent $1.87 million at $75 an acre foot for 25,000 acre feet from the Merced Irrigation District.

 

“You can see what could happen if the EWA is expanded,” said Pistoresi. “Farmers can’t afford those prices and cities can’t afford those prices. Madera [Irrigation District] farmers are paying, at the highest rate, only $65 an acre foot. After the impacts of EWA, we’re looking at $150 an acre foot.”

 

Martin McIntyre, Public Utilities Director for the City of Fresno expressed concern about the price EWA could impose on municipalities. “Fresno’s spending about $70 an acre foot for water. Only L.A. and the Bay Area could afford it. I understand those high prices were more of an emergency purchase than a long-term contract rate. But if this should become the norm it can certainly hit us.”

 

Gary Serrato, general manager of Fresno Irrigation District said if the high amounts paid were to continue the situation could get bad. “I can tell you this, at those prices agriculture and M&I [municipal and industrial] will be left out of the market.”

 

So who’s paying for EWA water? Unlike farmers who pay for ag water, or cities and industries that pay for M&I water, the fish don’t have bank accounts. The taxpayer steps in and buys all the environmental water.

 

“Don’t think the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council are footing the bill,” said Pistoresi, “The taxpayers are subsidizing this.”

 

Jeff McCracken, spokesman for the USBR said EWA was designed to supplement water taken from contractors for environmental uses. He said the prices are negotiated and it’s an ongoing process but the Bureau is working to minimize the costs.

 

Jerry Johns, Chief of Water Transfers for the state’s Department of Water Resources agreed the EWA is an on going program. He said there are still bugs to be worked out but the original Calfed Record of Decision called for 150,000 acre feet of EWA water to come from south of the delta. Water south of the delta is more expensive, but conveying water south of the delta has limitations due to pumping. “That meant we had to purchase water at a higher price the first year. And the first year [2001] was a dry year,” said Johns.

 

Tim Ramirez, who worked for Mary Nichols the Secretary of Resources appointed by Governor Davis, recently told a group of farmers, elected officials and staffers who voiced concerns about EWA, “We’re not proud of some of our purchases.”

 

An annual review of the EWA will take place in October.