Bill,
Regarding your April 6 column endorsing a dam at Temperance Flat on the San Joaquin River, urging that "everyone concerned about the Valley's future must set aside their differences and speak with one voice." You missed the boat.

Your opinions were heartfelt, no doubt, but long on emotion and short on facts.

Here are the facts: The favored site at Temperance Flat will cost a MINIMUM of $1 billion and more likely closer to $1.5 billion when you factor in the as yet uncalculated costs for environmental mitigation, acquisition of homes and ranches in the river canyon which will be flooded out by a new reservoir, and paying off PG&E and Southern California Edison annually for the loss of their inundated power production capacity. Remember, Temperance Flat will actually cause a net loss of electricity generation.

You also failed to mention WHO should pay for this project. Remember, this Billion dollar plus dam will only generate 165,000 acre-feet of NEW water annually.
For comparison purposes, the Kern County water banking facilities, which were developed almost two decades ago, hold three million acre-feet of water. The proposed Madera County Water bank, which will cost about $50-60 million for land acquisition and facilities, will store 250,000 acre-feet of water.

It you carefully review the studies to date by the Bureau and its consultants on a Temperance Flat project you will note that they deliberately avoid any estimate of the cost per acre-foot of producing new water storage at Temperance Flat. The estimates I've heard are in the range of $200 to $300 an acre-foot (or higher) over the next 50 years. The Friant growers are screaming now about having to pay $70 an acre-foot. Have you heard any Friant Unit official publicly announce they will pay for construction of the new dam or pay $200-300 an acre-foot? No, you haven't. Nor have you heard what percentage of that new water Ag wants and how much will go to the cities or the environment.

What was also left unsaid in your column was who will pay for this project and who will get the new water. Don't readers deserve to know that?

Let's remember that farmers in the Central Valley Project, which stretches from Shasta Dam to Bakersfield were supposed to pay back the construction costs of building the CVP's 20 dams, power generation facilities, canals, etc. After 60 years, they've only paid back 15 percent. And they never paid a dime of interest on that loan from the taxpayers.

Secondly, the water they buy from the Bureau for $70 an acre-foot has a real world market value in other parts of the state of $400 to $600 an acre-foot. Which is why some Friant irrigation districts are getting into the water marketing business and cutting deals with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California or developers at Millerton Lake. Water is the new cash crop, Bill.

The Friant Unit claims 15,000 growers with no offer of proof of who those growers are. Sadly, the news media in this Valley has never challenged them on that figure, which is undoubtedly inflated. But even asssuming that their claimis true, 15,000 growers would represent only 4/100ths of one percent of the 37 million people in California, who actually own the San Joaquin River according to state law. Are the cash-strapped people of California (or overburdened American taxpayers) going to spend well over one billion dollars for 4/100ths of one percent of the state's population?

It's okay to cheer lead for Valley agribusiness, Bill, even though an Ag-based economy has left the Valley polluted and poorer than Appalachia, but at least give all your readers the pertinent facts.

I recommend interested readers visit the Pacific Research Institute website for a report on how the state could reduce its water usage by 20 percent over the coming decade simply by implementing water conservation measures, recycling and halting wasteful practices.
Let's remember that most of the Valley is still flood-irrigated, like they did in Mesopotamia several thousand years ago and Fresno residents refuse meters, even though Fresno folks use almost twice as much water, per capital, as people in Los Angeles.

Tell readers that 2.4 million acres of land in California now grow subsidized crops with subsidized water, moved around the state with subsidized electricity. Just shutting down the red ink cotton industry in this state, which is a welfare system for a couple thousand growers, would save enough water for 10 million new domestic users.

If the dam at Temperance Flat was a good economic investment, private interests or the growers themselves woul have funded it long ago. The cost-benefit ratio is simply not there with Enron accounting methods. The costs severely outweigh the benefits.

What the Friant growers want is for the American people (or California citizens)to pony up the $1 to $1.5 billion for Temperance Flat and they get to buy the water at below cost. that's a sweet deal.

As far as your contention that a reservoir at Temperance Flat will provide recreational opportunities, Kerckhoff and Redinger reservoirs are already in the same general location in the Canyon and get little recreational use. It's hotter than hell in that canyon in the summer and there are very few shoreline spots. It's cold in the winter. So unless you have a boat, you are out of luck. It's dangerous for children with small families as the water is very cold. ToutingTemperance Flat for the recreational opportunies is laughable.

Friant growers in Kern and Tulare counties now get 75 percent of the river and they've been getting it at bargain basement prices for over half a century. Why should we give them another big taxpayer handout?

Next time you visit this issue in a column throw in a few pertinent facts for the taxpayers.

Lloyd Carter
Director, Revive the San Joaquin