Looks like key stakeholders were left out of the process, never a good sign, and one hopes this hold-up will result in everyone being at the table when decisions are being made about their land, or livelihood.
This was a huge problem with the current Parkway Plan Update process; the key stakeholders in the Lower Reach, those individuals and organizations that had been advocating strongly for help to deal with the illegal camping, crime, and trashing of the Parkway in their neighborhoods were excluded from the process.
An excerpt.
WASHINGTON
San Joaquin River plan stalls in House Lawmakers balk -- some water users weren't part of talks
Kimberly Geiger, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Friday, September 22, 2006
Conservationists and federal water authorities have reached a compromise to end an 18-year dispute over the damming of the San Joaquin River, but House lawmakers who reviewed the agreement Thursday said they will pursue changes to the plan before passing legislation required to complete the deal.
The river, once home to the Chinook salmon species and a supplier of fresh water to San Francisco Bay, began drying up in the 1940s, when the federal government built the Friant Dam just north of Fresno and started diverting water for irrigation. In 1988, conservation groups led by the National Resources Defense Council sued the government, saying it had destroyed the salmon habitat.
Major Central Valley agricultural water users and environmental groups reached a settlement last week on an estimated $800 million restoration plan for the river and presented what Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, called "an historic opportunity to put an end to this long episode of California water wars."
The deal laid out a scheduled release of water from the dam to restore the river over the next 20 years -- and required lawmakers by year's end to pass a bill authorizing federal funding and oversight of the project.
Without a settlement, a federal judge could have required the release of water into the river without defining how much water supply farmers would lose, or the scheduled river rehabilitation program that the settlement provides.
But lawmakers at a House hearing Thursday said the settlement overlooks the effects on farmers and other water agencies that were not included in the negotiations.
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Alpaugh (Tulare County), called the settlement "borderline unconstitutional," saying the parties to the settlement were "playing government" by proposing legislation, then demanding approval from lawmakers.
Lynn Skinner, a farmer whose land runs alongside the river, said the proposed release of water into the empty basin could flood her crops and cause serious damage to her land. Witnesses for Central Valley irrigation districts said the introduction of Chinook salmon into the river could burden them with additional regulatory oversight under the Endangered Species Act.
