U.S. to Pay $16 Million in Water Rights Case
The Bush administration announced Tuesday that it has agreed to pay $16.7 million to a group of Central Valley farmers and irrigation districts whose water deliveries were cut to protect endangered fish.
State officials had strongly urged the administration not to settle the farmers' claims, arguing that such a precedent could make it prohibitively expensive to protect endangered species.
But the payment was immediately hailed as a significant victory by property rights advocates and critics of the Endangered Species Act.
"This is a very strong precedent," said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for the House Resources Committee, which is headed by one of the act's most vocal detractors, Richard W. Pombo (R-Tracy). "This should really fire a shot across the bow of federal regulators, reminding them that their actions have consequences and their actions cost money."
The U.S. Department of Justice settled the case despite widespread warnings that it would lead to a flood of similar claims. The California attorney general's office, the Schwarzenegger administration and attorneys for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration all wrote the Justice Department in the last year, asking the Bush administration to appeal a U.S. Court of Claims ruling in favor of the farmers.
Justice officials had little comment on their decision not to heed those recommendations. "This settlement is the result of careful and deliberate negotiations between the parties," said department spokesman Blain Rethmeier.
The Claims Court ruling came in a lawsuit filed by Roger Marzulla, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is pursuing similar claims in three other cases. Although the settlement contains language stating that it establishes no legal precedent, Marzulla said the case "establishes the fundamental principal that the government is free to protect the fish; it simply has to pay for the water it takes to do so.
"The federal government," he added, "has recognized it can't come on like a bull in a china shop and seize all the water it wishes without paying for it."
Calling the ruling "ill-conceived and poorly reasoned," state Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Richard Frank said the Bush administration's decision to settle the case was disappointing. "I'm not going to say it will produce a sea change in federal law and policy, but it will generate additional claims and controversy."
