Wilson to Cooperate With U.S. Water Plan : Resources: Governor says proposed bay-delta protections will cost jobs. But he orders state officials to collaborate.

SACRAMENTO — Sending mixed signals, Gov. Pete Wilson on Wednesday criticized the Clinton Administration for proposing protections for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta that would cost jobs, but directed state officials to collaborate with federal authorities on a final regulatory plan.

Wilson’s reaction, while strong in some of its language, was taken as a clear indication that the Republican governor intended to work with the Democratic President toward solving one of California’s knottiest environmental problems.

Federal officials said that without the state’s cooperation, they could not ever implement a comprehensive regulatory plan for restoring the delta and San Francisco Bay.

“We’re disappointed in the governor’s initial impression of our effort, but we are pleased to see that he asked (state officials) to work with us on protecting the bay-delta,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials said in a statement. “We are committed to working with them to achieve a workable solution to the bay-delta problems that have vexed water policy makers for years.”

The governor’s reaction came after four federal environmental agencies jointly announced a comprehensive proposal Wednesday for restoring the environmentally threatened bay-delta estuary, a huge maze of islands and channels that is the key link in California’s water system as well as a nursery for hundreds of fish and wildlife species.

The federal plan, which represented a change from piecemeal regulatory actions to a coordinated approach, calls for stringent new water quality standards for the delta and the listing of the Sacramento splittail--a fish in the minnow family--as threatened. The plan also declares that the winter-run chinook salmon on the Sacramento River have declined from threatened status to endangered.

Solving the worsening environmental problems, the federal proposal says, would require that less water be taken from the delta during certain times of year so that more water would be available to hold back saltwater intrusion from San Francisco Bay and provide the necessary habitat for sensitive species.

“We are trying to end the gridlock on water policy as opposed to constantly firing missiles at each other,” said Felicia Marcus, regional administrator for the EPA.

Federal officials estimated that the proposals would reduce the amount of delta water available for farms and cities by an average of 9% a year. The extra amount of water allowed to flow naturally through the delta into the bay would total about 500,000 acre-feet in normal years and 1.1 million acre-feet in drought years.

But Wilson and many of the state’s water districts disputed the federal figures, saying that the impact would be much more severe.

“The federal agencies continue to misrepresent the water costs of their actions,” Wilson said Wednesday.

He said a more likely scenario was a reduction in exports of 2.5 million acre-feet in average years and 3 million acre-feet--or about half of typical water exports--in drought years.

“The draft water quality standards for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta released by the Clinton Administration will thoughtlessly cost jobs and fail to balance the compelling needs of urban, industrial and agricultural water users,” he said.

Federal officials emphasized repeatedly that the proposals were only a draft and that they would be open to major modifications that might be proposed by either state government or local water agencies.

Announcement of the federal plan prompted mostly favorable reactions from environmentalists and urban water interests, while farmers registered concerns that the economic costs of the new environmental protections could be severe.

“The urban communities are probably the most satisfied with this,” said Timothy Quinn, an official with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. “We have been trying to find a middle ground and in a large measure the federal government has seen some merit to our proposals.”

Quinn said the impact would be severe only if the Clinton Administration reneges on Wednesday’s promises to remain flexible in how the standards are implemented, or if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decides to get tough with enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, which he called the wild card.

The Fish and Wildlife Service must still outline what it thinks must be done to save the threatened or endangered species.

Calling the water quality proposals “milestone for environmental protection for the estuary,” David Behar of the Bay Institute of San Francisco said he was encouraged that for the first time the state and federal governments were beginning to address “long-term water planning issues that have been gridlocked for so long.”

His only disappointment, he said, was a federal decision not to list the longfin smelt as a threatened species. He said a recommendation by California biologists that the species be listed was overruled in Washington within the last few days.

U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, welcomed Wednesday’s decision, calling it “a critical turning point in the future of California water policy.” He said it was the first time that standards that guide the amount of water that can be removed from the delta are based not on political concerns, but on what scientists say is needed to protect the troubled ecosystem.

But California farmers, who say the battle over the delta is one of their most pressing concerns, said they fear that the Clinton Administration plan will jeopardize their major source of water. The impact could be especially severe on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley, where farmers are heavily dependent on the U.S. Central Valley Project--which takes water from the delta--and are already facing economic troubles and water cutbacks.

“If you don’t have a solid, good water situation, it is very difficult for a farmer to receive financing to plant the next crop or keep his trees going from year to year,” said Dave Kranz, a spokesman for the 75,000-member California Farm Bureau.

A key debate that Wilson faces is whether the water losses will be spread only among the Central Valley Project farmers and the Southern California customers of the State Water Project, or whether the pain will be spread among all sources that drain the delta, including the city of San Francisco, the East Bay area and other agricultural irrigation districts.

The governor’s Water Resources Control Board will make the politically difficult decision of how to spread the cutbacks.