July 2004

A Wolk on the Wild(Life) Side

Despite overwhelming opposition, Assemblywoman Lois Wolk continues to push Assembly Bill 1983, an imprudent proposal that is attempting to give the Reclamation Board authority to participate in ecosystem restoration, changing its current focus away from flood control.

Assemblywoman Wolk drafted this legislation with the assistance of the Sierra Club, neglecting to get input from most flood control and agriculture interests. The Nature Conservancy, the Natural Resource Defense Council, and Friends of the River support the bill. Wolk claims this bill is necessary to remove the institutional barriers to flood control projects, thereby improving flood protection. Yet, in what can only be called a comedy of absurdity, she continues to ignore the objections that have been almost unanimously voiced by the flood control community. Instead, she chooses to rely on advice from environmental advocates on the issue of flood control, oftentimes the very people causing the conflicts with flood protections.

Most flood control and agriculture interests, including Family Water Alliance (FWA) strongly believe this legislation will harm flood control by diluting the authority of the Reclamation Board, causing a permanent conflict of interest between the environment and flood control projects. Further, this legislation will actually increase the institutional barriers and environmental hurdles necessary to accomplish much needed maintenance to our current flood control system by conditioning state financial support for flood control projects on environmental goals. Moreover, the legislation furthers the concept of setback levees, a proposal that would result in vast amounts of agricultural land coming out of production, causing further economic strain on rural agricultural communities.

This legislation has changed dramatically since its genesis. Initially, Assemblywoman Wolk proposed to give the Reclamation Board the authority to "collaborate with state and federal agencies on multi-objective floodplain management projects". She then amended the legislation to replace multi-objective floodplain management with the real purpose of her legislation – environmental protection and restoration, leaving out important components such as recreation, agricultural conservation, and water storage that normally would be considered multi-objective.

Numerous groups throughout the Central Valley, intent on preserving the flood control system and assuring the safety of the residents of the Central Valley, are actively opposing this legislation. Groups expressing opposition to AB 1983 include the following: Family Water Alliance, California Farm Bureau Federation, Sacramento Valley Landowners Association, Association of California Water Agencies, Northern California Water Association, California Central Valley Flood Control Association, Colusa County, Sutter County, Glenn County, Yolo County Farm Bureau, Sutter Mutual Water Company, RD 108, RD 1500, RD 787, RD 70, RD 1660, RD 2068, Sacramento River West Side Levee District, Knights Landing Ridge Drainage District, Meridian Farms Water Company, Tisdale Irrigation and Drainage District, Pelger Mutual Water

Company, Regional Council of Rural Counties, Department of Finance, Central California Irrigation District, Columbia Canal Company, Firebaugh Canal Water District, Friant Water Users Authority, Lower San Joaquin River Levee District, Madera Irrigation District, San Luis Canal Company, San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, San Joaquin River Task Force.

To Assemblywoman Wolk’s credit, after overwhelming opposition was presented to this bill, she did take time to meet with interested parties to discuss this legislation. At this meeting, Ms. Wolk refused to answer questions or participate in any constructive dialogue regarding the impetus for such legislation, yet the meeting did result in some substantive amendments to the bill.

However, the impetus of the bill remains the same. The statutory revisions she proposes are still problematic, and fail to get to the heart of the controversy, namely the role of the Reclamation Board. As such, many of the groups mentioned above offered up a gut and amendment alternative, promising to work to explore and remove the so-called institutional barriers necessary to assure necessary flood control projects go forward. In a letter to Assemblywoman Wolk, this coalition of concerned groups stated the following:

"We firmly believe that the Reclamation Board should continue to focus like a laser on flood control and this focus should not be diluted in any way. In our analysis of the bill, we see the bill adding authority and direction to the Reclamation Board to pursue environmental restoration projects. We are very concerned that this direction will prevent the Reclamation Board from serving as a strong advocate for projects that protect the Central Valley from flooding. Placing the Reclamation Board in the difficult position of balancing flood control and ecosystem restoration may also result in potential liability on the part of the State of California."

Unfortunately, Assemblywoman Wolk has refused this responsible proposal to work together. Instead, she has chosen to continue, undeterred, in her effort to appease the environmental groups, no matter what the risk to the citizens of the Central Valley.

Also of concern, this legislation proposes that to receive state funding, a flood control project would be required to (a) "strive to maintain or restore the natural, physical, and biological processes of the river or waterway", and (b) evaluate opportunities to "support the recovery of threatened or endangered species."

As such, this bill actually increases the institutional barriers for flood control projects, requiring that the project overcome environmental hurdles even more onerous than the ESA itself. And if these conditions cannot be met, I guess those of us dependent on the flood control system to protect our lives and property will be left to crossing our fingers. Needed flood control projects that preserve the health and welfare of the people living in the Central Valley should not be reduced to a bargaining chip to further environmental restoration schemes.

Moreover, promotion of river meander will greatly reduce our ability to use the number one mechanism for addressing levee erosion, which leads to failures – rock. Rock is great for shoring up erosion points and stabilizing levees. Presently 186 erosion points were identified on the Sacramento River, 25 deemed critical or potentially critical. However environmentalists are seeking to allow these rivers to meander wherever they want. Should this legislation pass, it will make it that much harder to maintain hard points such as diversions, bridges, roads, etc., along the river, not to mention keeping the river confined within the levees, off of farms, and out of our homes.

The Bill has passed the Assembly on a mostly partisan vote by a margin of 47-30. However, of those in the Assembly who actually represent a district that is within the jurisdiction of the Reclamation Board, and whose constituents will be directly affected, the vote was 11-6 against AB 1983. This included no votes from Democrats Parra and Reyes from the San Joaquin Valley. Thus illustrating that the representatives of those in harm’s way have recognized the damage likely to result should this legislation pass. Presently, the bill is on its way to a vote in front of the State Senate.

The California State Reclamation Board is the only state agency that has as its exclusive priority, the protection of life and property from damage due to floodwaters. Numerous state agencies are assigned the role of preserving wildlife. The Reclamation Board should not be engaged in weighing public safety against the environment, just as the Department of Fish and Game should not be given the role of assessing flood risks.

Your assistance is needed to help combat this legislation, thereby assuring that needed flood control maintenance and projects are not stymied by environmental restoration plans. Please send a letter, fax, or e-mail, to your State Representatives informing them of the urgency with which they must oppose this imprudent policy. Also, let Assemblywoman Wolk know that you oppose this bill because it threatens your safety and welfare, and request that she withdraw it from consideration. Her contact information is as follows: Assemblymember Wolk, State Capital, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0008; Fax No.: (916) 319-2108; E-mail: Assemblymember.Wolk@assembly.ca.gov.

• Return to the Losing the Family Farm index

Home | Top