Sacramento Bee - Editorial: House should pull the plug on water grab

The other daunting fact is that the water system is dramatically oversubscribed - paper allocations of water are larger than actual availability in most years.

As a result, water-thirsty interests are constantly seeking to secure supplies from others, through proper means (such as water marketing) or less savory methods. The latter is at play with House Resolution 1837, proposed by Reps. Devin Nunes of Tulare, Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield and Jeff Denham of Atwater. It would explicitly favor one set of water users - farmers on the west side of the southern San Joaquin Valley - over all the others.

So what has been the reaction of Northern California members of Congress?

Oddly, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Elk Grove, has promoted the bill as chairman of the House Water and Power Subcommittee.

But every other Northern California member of Congress opposes it.

Republicans in the Northern California delegation are concerned about upstream water rights and the bill's pre-emption of state water law.

Rep. Wally Herger of Chico, in a courageous stand against fellow Republicans, argues persuasively that the bill in its current form "would negatively impact Northern California water rights and pre-empt state water law."

Rep. Dan Lungren of Gold River echoes those concerns. His spokesman said, "Mr. Lungren is not in support of HR 1837 in its current form."

Democrats strongly oppose the bill.

Rep. Doris Matsui of Sacramento calls it "a shameless attempt to draw water from Northern California for the use of junior water right holders in the Central Valley."

Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena calls the bill "nothing more than an attempt by powerful water districts south of the Sacramento River Delta to take water they aren't entitled to from farms to the north."

Rep. John Garamendi of Walnut Grove calls the bill "outright theft of water by Westlands Water District"

Rep. George Miller of Martinez believes the bill "throws a live grenade into all the bipartisan, north-south negotiations resulting from legislative efforts in the last couple of years."

Since the outcry, McClintock has said through his spokesman that "no markup for the bill will be scheduled until a general consensus is achieved among senior water rights holders that the legislation fully protects these rights, and he has solicited amendments from several Northern California water districts to assure this."

That's all well and good. But the only reason the bill has legs is that Westlands wants more water and McClintock appears to be pandering to it. Redistricting could bring parts of the San Joaquin Valley into McClintock's district. Is it possible that the congressman is looking out for the interests of future constituents ahead of his current ones?

Regardless of the answer, McClintock may be in over his head on this bill, apparently unaware that payoffs such as this for Westlands will come at the expense of those who have senior water rights. Rather than spark war, California's congressional delegation should deposit this bill in the Capitol loo, and give it a good flush.