Red Bluff lawsuit threatens livelihood of local farmers
Who knew farmers could be so polite?
The city of Red Bluff has thrown a dam-sized monkey wrench into a multimillion-dollar project that’s critical to Mid-Valley growers. If Southern California had done the same thing, we’d be circling the Capitol with tractors to protest.
Yet the strongest objection I’ve seen so far is from the Tehama County Farm Bureau, which sent a letter to Red Bluff’s mayor asking the city to “reconsider” the lawsuit it filed last month in U.S. District Court. What the bureau should have said, and what farmers in Colusa and Glenn counties need to say – loudly and repeatedly until it sinks in – is, “Take this suit and shove it. You’re biting the hand that feeds you.”
Here’s why:
• The Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority wants to build a $160 million pump station on the Sacramento River. The pump station would lessen reliance on the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, which feeds the Tehama-Colusa and Corning canals.
• As part of the massive Central Valley Project, the dam is in the crosshairs of a lawsuit filed by environmentalists, who claim CVP operations damage endangered fish populations. A federal judge in Fresno agreed in part but refused a request to lift the dam’s gates early this year. Next year, it’s a new ball game, and the fish are winning.
• Everyone and their dog favors the pump project except Red Bluff, which sits beside the Sacramento River. The “lake” formed when the dam’s gates are lowered, thus raising the water level for five miles or so upriver, has been the city’s most prominent feature for decades. It’s also an important source of sales tax revenue, primarily from the “Nitro Nationals” drag boat races held each summer.
• It’s not a real lake. That bears repeating: It’s not a real lake, not to mention the fact the city contributes nothing toward the cost of operating the dam. As for the dam itself, it does harm salmon migration, as studies have shown. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the dam and is named as a co-defendant in the city’s lawsuit, lowers the dam gates just four months a year because of such concerns, and the federal judge in Fresno could impose new limits regardless of what the city or anyone else says.
• As you might imagine, the Canal Authority is not pleased with Red Bluff officials. They’d been trying to work together, you see, and find some sort of “win-win” solution that could soften the blow of a shortened lake lifespan. Then they got sued anyway. So much for diplomacy.
After this lengthy but necessary introduction, let’s get to the heart of the matter. TCCA’s pump project has gone through several years of careful planning and regulatory review. It’s ready to rock ’n’ roll, in other words, and the feds are starting their budget process for the next fiscal year. The small-L lawsuit filed by the city could delay funding and construction one or more years, compounding the possible impact to farmers from the big-L Lawsuit that’s playing out in Fresno. Worst-case scenario: No dam, no pumps, no water for more than 140,000 acres of farmland in four counties.
Confused? Join the party, because the issues are daunting and complex. You can’t even get too mad at Red Bluff officials, because city residents would string them up if they didn’t try to save their beloved lake.
And therein lies the solution. This stupid lawsuit was born of politics, and politics can end it just as quickly. The Red Bluff City Council won’t “reconsider” squat unless Mid-Valley farmers speak up in unison. Harvest or no harvest, it’s past time for an intervention.
RED BLUFF CITY COUNCIL
530-527-2605
555 Washington St., Red Bluff, CA 96080
Mayor Forrest Flynn
Mayor Pro Tem Dan Irving
Council Member Wayne Brown
Council Member Jeffery Moyer
Council Member James Byrne
Michael S. Green is interim editor of Tri-County Newspapers. E-mail: mgreen@tcnpress.com.
