Dispute blocks San Joaquin river restoration

WASHINGTON – Someone will pay to restore the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam. On that, at least, everyone agrees.

Congress remains stymied, though, on precisely how to account for the ambitious river fix. The dollar amount, the funding sources and even the way it's described incite persistent debate.

Follow the money, and the river's future starts swimming into focus.

The San Joaquin River's salmon population is supposed to be revived, as part of a lawsuit settlement. Environmentalists filed the lawsuit in 1988 over complaints that Friant Dam destroyed the river's historic salmon run. They won.

Facing a federal judge, Friant-area farmers cut a deal that would reduce their annual irrigation deliveries by an average of 19 percent. Now, federal legislation is needed to put the September 2006 lawsuit settlement into practice.

The measure has a $500 million federal price tag. Lawmakers must offset, through either increased revenue or decreased spending, about half of this under budget rules written by House Democrats.

"After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no deficit spending," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared Jan. 4.

The first complication: Where is the offset to cover roughly $170 million of the river restoration work? Lawmakers initially targeted funds collected from oil and gas companies doing business in the Gulf of Mexico. The industry objected.

More recently, lawmakers considered a fund used to decontaminate and decommission nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry objects.

The second complication: What does the offset really mean? River restoration bill supporters insist river funds won't actually be taken from whoever is identified for the so-called PAYGO offset. They call the requirement an inside-the-Beltway bookkeeping maneuver. The real money, they say, will come from Congress, California and Friant farmers.

"It's an accounting thing," said Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno.

Costa is now chief House author of the San Joaquin River restoration bill. He took it over from Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, who introduced the first bill last December.

Radanovich still supports river restoration. He sharply differs from Costa, though, in contending that the PAYGO offset amounts to real money. "They're going to raise taxes on the nuclear industry to pay for the river work," Radanovich said. "It's pretty simple."

Thirty-eight House members, including six Democrats, took a similar stance last week in a letter to congressional leaders. They dispute claims that the offset is merely an accounting flourish.

"Anybody who says that doesn't know what's going on," said Rep. Devin Nunes, a Visalia Republican and staunch critic of the river restoration plan.

The conflict divides lawmakers who often work together.

"The notion that offshore (oil and gas) or nuclear funds will be diverted to the river restoration is inaccurate," Costa said.

Everyone agrees literal dollars would not flow from the PAYGO offset into river restoration. A utility company, for instance, won't be paying into a San Joaquin River account.

Instead, the House panel that writes a bill must raise revenue or cut programs within its jurisdiction. For instance, the House Natural Resources Committee must offset the San Joaquin River bill with offsets in the energy and natural resource areas.

Viewed one way, only a tangential relationship links the offset and the new spending. The river money is taken from one pot while the offset money is tagged in a separate pot. Viewed another way, identifying the offset money means it can't be designated for other federal purposes.

The court settlement itself identifies several sources of funding.

Friant farmers currently contribute to a Central Valley-wide environmental program; these funds will be dedicated to San Joaquin River restoration. Friant farmers currently repay the federal government for dam construction; this money, too, will go to river restoration. California has also promised $110 million, mostly from a water bond.

About the writer:

• Call Michael Doyle, McClatchy Washington Bureau, (202) 383-0006.