The cost to the local economic health may be more than the plan to restore the river, as great as the plan is, can bear, and that would be a tragedy we hope can be averted.
Report tallies costs of river plan
Some skeptical that the San Joaquin restoration would cut up to 3,000 jobs.
By Michael Doyle / Bee Washington Bureau
03/23/07 04:36:00
Restoring the San Joaquin River could put 3,000 people out of work, a newly released -- and already controversial -- study concludes.
Ground-water levels would fall. Pumping prices would rise. Hydroelectric power production would drop and local produce quality could suffer, the analysis contends. The consequences, moreover, would extend beyond farming.
"Changes in agricultural production have impacts on many businesses and industries throughout the larger region," noted study author Robert McKusick, a consultant with the Vancouver-based firm Northwest Economic Associates, which specializes in natural resource issues.
San Joaquin Valley agricultural production could fall by $159 million annually when farmers lose irrigation supplies, McKusick estimated. On the Valley's east side, 51,300 acres could go out of production as water once used for crops flows down the long-parched river channel.
McKusick's 189-page study and a 58-page supplement -- completed in September 2005 but only made public this week -- is apparently the first to estimate the concrete consequences of restoring the San Joaquin River.
The study came to light through the efforts of Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, who has been critical of the restoration plan's possible effect on farmers.
Nunes' staff began asking about six months ago for any studies that had been conducted on the water losses and economic effects. Following a House subcommittee hearing several weeks ago, Nunes obtained the study and supplement, although he said he was furious about the long delay.
Water districts representing Valley farmers had commissioned the study as part of trial preparations for a lawsuit filed by environmentalists, but it was unclear why the study was not released earlier.
