Funding, the perennial problem, seeks a solution.
Dispute blocks San Joaquin river restoration
Congress must offset half of the $500 million cost, but how to do so has lawmakers stumped.
By Michael Doyle - mdoyle@mcclatchydc.com
Published 12:00 am PST Sunday, December 16, 2007
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.
