House Votes to Halt Water Subsidies for Westlands District

WASHINGTON — The House voted Thursday to prevent the Reagan Administration from completing a legal settlement that would guarantee California’s Westlands Water District millions of dollars of federally subsidized irrigation water.

But the amendment’s fate is uncertain in the Senate and some of its opponents believe that it may have come too late to block the settlement.

On a voice vote, the House approved an amendment by California Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) to prohibit Interior Secretary Donald P. Hodel from using department funds to enter into the controversial agreement, designed to settle nearly two decades of disputes over water for Central Valley growers.

The amendment was attached to the Interior Department’s 1987 appropriations bill, which the House later approved.

Settlement Condemned

In a speech on the House floor, Miller condemned the settlement as a “capitulation” by the Interior Department to a few wealthy Central Valley farmers who are longtime political supporters of President Reagan.

Miller said the vote signaled that Congress opposes Hodel’s decision to “fork over millions of dollars to a handful of California farmers” when farm programs elsewhere in the country have been sharply cut.

However, opponents of Miller’s amendment said it came too late to stop the settlement. Under a provision of law authored by Miller last year, the settlement will go to federal District Court in Sacramento for its approval 30 days after the Interior Department announced it, which was last week.

Coelho’s Prediction

California Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Merced), an opponent of the amendment, predicted that the Senate would not act that fast. And even if it did, he said, it would probably endorse the settlement.

“The 30-day clock is running,” said Coelho, who declined to speak against the amendment on the House floor but talked with reporters later. “You’ve got to know when to pick your fights.”

Miller said he would work for Senate approval of the amendment and expressed hope that Hodel would not act until the Senate does.

Mitch Snow, an Interior Department spokesman, said that Hodel probably would consult department attorneys before deciding whether to forward it to the court if the Senate fails to act on Miller’s amendment within 30 days. “We continue to believe the settlement is a good one,” Snow said.

Prices Set in 1963

The settlement guarantees that the Fresno-based district will continue to receive most of its water from a federal reclamation project at prices set in a 1963 contract. In addition, it ensures that previously disputed water will be delivered to the district and recognizes an additional 156,000 acres beyond the 500,000-acre service area originally authorized by Congress.

Miller and other critics say that the district would receive additional benefits--more water for more land--and therefore that its original 1963 contract must be renegotiated to reflect today’s higher water rates. The district gets 900,000 acre-feet of water at a price of about $8 an acre-foot--less than half what it costs the federal government to deliver.

But Interior officials say they got the best deal they could from Westlands and maintain that further negotiations or a trial would not produce more money for the government. The settlement stems from a lawsuit filed by Westlands to prevent the federal government from carrying out threats to cut back on water deliveries to the valley.

California Rep. Charles Pashayan Jr. (R-Fresno) was the only congressman to speak against the Miller proposal on the floor. He said that the settlement resolves a “long-standing and bitter legal dispute” in which both the water district and the federal government had legitimate claims.

“I think this is very poor policy,” Pashayan said of Miller’s move.

Don Upton, a spokesman for Westlands, called the House action “totally inappropriate.” “This is primarily a judicial matter, and we do have such a thing as separation of powers,” Upton said. “Beyond that, we very strongly resent Mr. Miller’s continuing misrepresentation of the settlement. . . . We think it’s good for everybody.”