California's clean air and water, pristine coastline, wild open spaces and public health protections don't happen by accident. They happen because champions for the environment run for office, and once they're elected, they work to pass laws that protect our natural resources and improve our quality of life.
Today the California League of Conservation Voters released our annual California Environmental Scorecard. The Scorecard is the behind-the-scenes look at the battle to protect the Golden State's natural legacy and public health, and reveals how the governor and members of the state legislature voted on critical environmental proposals in the 2010 legislative session. Take action and let your legislators know what you think about their 2010 scores: Visit http://www.ecovote.org/
The story of the 2010 Scorecard is as much about how the environmental community stopped multiple attacks on the environment as it is about how we passed strong laws that protect our quality of life. But the story doesn't end there, because we expect more attacks in 2011 that falsely claim we need to sacrifice the environment in order to improve the economy.
Emboldened by the tough economic climate, anti-environmental legislators introduced dozens of so-called "regulatory reform" bills in 2010 in an attempt to weaken environmental protections. The good news is that, with the help of environmental champions in the state Senate and Assembly, CLCV and our allies successfully defeated the bills that posed the most serious threats to the environment and public health. At the same time, environmental advocates were able to deliver several important proposed laws to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk, including bills dealing with energy storage, recycling, water conservation, pesticides, clean energy jobs, and oil spill prevention.
Schwarzenegger's 2010 score of 56% factored into an average lifetime score of 53 percent over his seven years as governor. The governor received national recognition for leadership on environmental issues. However, he leaves office with a mixed legacy, having championed some issues-notably, bold solutions to climate change-and having proven less reliable on others, including protecting public health and state parks.
How did your legislator perform on the environmental community's priority legislation to protect the environment and public health? Learn your legislators' scores and then let them know what you think! (More after the jump).
(We noted this pick last week; it is great to see it all official-like. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
As one of his first actions, Governor-elect Jerry Brown has appointed the Honorable John Laird as California Secretary for Natural Resources. This is a superb decision. A longtime environmental champion, John Laird served with distinction for six years as an Assemblyman representing the central coast counties of Santa Cruz and Monterey. During this period, John received a 100% score from both the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) and Sierra Club California for his votes on environmental issues.
CLCV enthusiastically endorsed John when he ran for state office. We're equally thrilled that he will continue to protect California's natural, historical and cultural resources in this new role.
Laird has an impressive record of environmental leadership during his twenty-three years in elected office. While serving in the California Assembly, John distinguished himself as a leader both in the environmental community and with his colleagues on budget and environmental issues. Laird demonstrated both political sophistication and compassion in his efforts to protect and invest in California's precious natural resources.
As noted in CLCV's 2008 Environmental Scorecard, Laird was "the highest-ranking voice for the environment in the inner circle of leadership, the trusted and respected chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, and a dedicated friend and mentor to environmental advocates." The 2008 Scorecard is available online: http://www.ecovote.org/scoreca...
As Budget Chair, Laird worked hard to reverse the persistent trend of the state's under-funding of natural resources and environmental protection. One of his most significant achievements included allocating $250 million to the state budget to begin funding the $1 billion backlog in state parks deferred maintenance, providing for $19 million to protect and manage California's ocean resources and augmenting the Department of Fish and Game's funding by over $70 million.
California's enormous budget deficit will create severe challenges for the managers of our natural resources. The Secretary will be required to make tough choices that balance the need to protect the environment with fewer dollars. We look forward to working with John Laird to face these challenges.
By Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes and Mark Schlosberg
For the past two years, water issues have dominated political debate in Sacramento and throughout the state, however there is one water bill on the Governor's desk that we should all be able to agree on - AB 301 (Fuentes).
AB 301 would give Californians the right to know how much of their communities' water is being bottled for sale and where that bottled water comes from. With water scarcity being a top concern, this modest bill is an important step towards better managing our water.
Currently in California, there are over 100 bottled water facilities, some operating in parched areas of the state including Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. About half of water that is bottled comes from municipal sources at the same time that companies then sell essentially the same product we get from our tap back to us for up to a thousand times the cost.
In other areas of California, bottlers seek water from springs that are critical to the health of the local environment including creeks and lakes. Overdrawing on these resources can impact the entire community and the environment. In either case, the community has the right to know how water is being used in order to properly manage community resources.
AB 301 passed the legislature and is supported by over 30 organizations throughout the state. The only opposition on record comes, ironically, from the state's Department of Public Health, the agency that would be responsible for facilitating the disclosure of this information. However, the Public Health Department opposition is unfounded.
First, the DPH claims that the program costs money, but what DPH seems to be ignoring is that not only would this bill carry an insignificant cost, but the entire cost would be covered out of existing fees in the Food Safety Fund. While the overall state budget is severely in the red, there is currently a multimillion-dollar surplus in that fund and the water fees portion has a $500,000 surplus, over 10 times the estimated cost of this modest bill.
Second, the DPH argues vetoing the bill is necessary to protect confidential business information of the bottlers. Putting aside the significant question of why the public health department is arguing against consumer's right to know how community water resources are used, not a single private bottler has gone on record opposing AB 301. If the bottled water industry does not object to this legislation, why is the DPH bending over backwards to stop it from becoming law? Shouldn't the DPH be working to protect public health and consumers instead?
Nationally, bottled water consumption has been declining over the past couple of years and for good reason. The bottled water industry uses excessive amounts of water in production and creates billions of petroleum-based plastic bottles, the vast majority of which are not recycled but discarded and end up on our landfills, lakes, rivers, and oceans. It also promotes a product that is a great consumer rip-off, costing up to a thousand times more than tap water for essentially the same product.
With all these impacts, Californian's should at least have the right to know how much water is being bottled and which communities are being impacted. Last session, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed similar legislation claiming he did not have time to review it in light of the budget impasse. This year he has a chance to lead.
While there is much debate over the future direction of California water policy, AB 301 will only encourage making California's water use as efficient and responsible as possible. We urge Governor Schwarzenegger to side with California's communities and sign AB 301.
Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes represents the 39th District in Los Angeles County and Mark Schlosberg is the national organizing director for the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch (www.foodandwaterwatch.org)
By Elanor Starmer, Food & Water Watch Western Region Director
On Monday night, the California legislature voted on a proposal to postpone Proposition 18, the $11 billion water bond, to the 2012 ballot. For bond opponents, there were moments of celebration, as when Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-Santa Rosa), a bond supporter last year, spoke in favor of pulling the bond from the ballot indefinitely. There were also moments of frustration, as when bond opponent Sandre Swanson (D- Alameda/Oakland) flipped his vote last minute and opted to keep the bond afloat for another two years.
In the end, the push to postpone the bond to 2012 passed by the smallest of margins. It's not what bond opponents wanted. Ideally, the legislature would have seen the light and scrapped it altogether, or let the voters pull the plug this November so we could get to work on better approaches.
But despite the passage of a bill that keeps the bond alive for another two years, bond opponents should claim victory.
The pro-bond lobby, which includes deep-pocketed construction, developer and agribusiness interests, wanted to see the bond passed this year. Passing it was a priority for the Schwarzenegger administration; the governor's PAC, Schwarzenegger's California Dream Team, funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pro-bond campaign. Our recent study found hundreds of thousands of additional dollars flowing to the campaign from the agribusiness industry and construction associations.
But faced by strong opposition from a voting public increasingly fed up with Sacramento's misguided priorities, bond supporters started backpedaling last month. Schwarzenegger called for the bond to be postponed to 2012, when he hoped it would have a better chance of passing. He and other supporters were quoted in the press as saying that the bond was untenable this year given the state's poor economic condition.
In effect, they admitted that we can't afford the bond -- now or ever. Because as much as we can all hope for a miraculous economic turnaround in the next two years, a $22 billion hit to the General Fund is still $22 billion less the state will have available to fund education, healthcare, public safety and other essential services, regardless of when the blow falls.
And why should we endure such a hit even in the best of economic times? Historically, major water infrastructure projects in California have been governed by a "beneficiary pays" principle -- the interests that will benefit from the investment should foot the bill. The passage of this bond would change that. Our study showed that the bond would shift the burden of paying for new dams, desalination plants, and other projects -- some of which can be owned and operated by private companies -- squarely to ordinary Californians, even though they are not the projects' main beneficiaries.
And given the growing trend of profit-loaded water sales from wealthy landowners to urban water users, consumers would risk paying again in the form of higher water rates if we passed a bond that funneled yet more water to the same powerful interests.
There were many factors behind the decision of the pro-bond lobby to push for postponement, including other ballot measures that were drawing resources away from their campaign. But many media sources also noted "organized opposition to the bond" as one rationale behind the Governor's decision to ask for postponement. For that reason, Prop 18 opponents have cause to celebrate.
The bond is still in play. Pro-bond interests have retreated to the huddle, dreaming up new ways to convince voters to hand over control over their water. They may come back to the fight with more money and political bravado, but Californians are smart and don't like being double-crossed. We're prepared for the long fight.
Consumer group outlines who's paying for pro-water bond campaign and the surprising winners-and losers-behind the massive $11 billion bond
SAN FRANCISCO - Developers, agribusiness and construction interests would benefit from the water bond on this fall's ballot, while public services-such as education and public health programs-could suffer, according to a new analysis from consumer organization Food & Water Watch.
As California's legislators return to Sacramento this week to decide the fate of Proposition 18, an $11 billion water bond that the governor hopes to postpone to the 2012 ballot, the group today released an independent analysis detailing the funders of the pro-bond campaign and the interests that stand to benefit from the most expensive water bond in the state's history. The fact sheet, Who's Behind the Bond?, can be downloaded here: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.o...
"Proposition 18 is being sold as a solution that will benefit all Californians, but over half of the contributions to the Alliance for Clean Water and New Jobs, the main political action committee behind the bond, come from agribusiness, construction and development interests," said Elanor Starmer, Western Region Director for Food & Water Watch. "The bond provides more money for these interests, which have mismanaged our water in the past."
The bond would cost the state's General Fund an estimated $800 million a year, enough to fund 13,000 teachers' salaries or a quarter of the University of California's state funding each year, according to the report. But while taxpayers would likely see cuts to these and other essential services if the bond passed, they would not be the main beneficiaries of bond-funded projects.
Food & Water Watch examined campaign finance reports and other documents to determine who contributed to the pro-bond PAC directly and indirectly through other PACs, such as Schwarzenegger's California Dream Team.
The group then investigated several primary beneficiaries of the water bond based on the text of the bill and other documents. Some beneficiaries, such as powerful Central Valley corporate farms and The Westlands Water District, are well known. Other less obvious beneficiaries include Warren Buffet, large construction companies like Japan-based Obayashi Corp., and companies in the business of privatizing water resources like American Water Company and Poseidon Resources.
The analysis concludes that these interests, not the general public, are the main beneficiaries of the water bond, although the cost of the bond would be borne by all taxpayers.
With polls showing lagging support for the bond, Governor Schwarzenegger asked the legislature last month to delay the measure until the 2012 ballot. Any adjustment to Prop 18, including postponement, requires a two-thirds majority vote in the legislature. The legislature has until around Aug. 20, when ballots will be printed, to postpone or remove the measure from the ballot.
"Our report shows that the bond does not benefit the taxpayers who would foot the bill for these projects," said Food & Water Watch's Starmer. "In the interest of all Californians, legislators should take this opportunity to repeal the bond and start anew, not postpone it."
Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.
Governor Schwarzenegger isn't the only celebrity weighing in on California's water future. He may be promoting Proposition 18, a massive $11 billion water bond to help big agribusiness at the expense of essential services (see our Terminator video), but most of Californians know the water bond is all wet.
With Prop 18 sagging poll numbers, the Governor and legislative leaders are trying to move the measure until 2012. We asked a few of our friends in Hollywood what they thought of the water bond and the prospect postponing it for two years. They all had the same reaction - they spit in disgust - and we captured it all on video!
Coined by its backers as the Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act, the only thing the $11 billion water bond is guaranteed to do is increase the state's $19 billion deficit leading to deeper cuts in education, healthcare, public safety and
state park funding, build new dams, and lay the ground work for a peripheral
canal around the San Joaquin River Delta. In reality, it should be named the Expensive, Dubious and Deceptive Corporate Subsidy Act.
To highlight the need to scrap rather than delay the water bond, Food & Water Watch teamed up with creative geniuses Nancy Hower and John Lehr who put together this clever spot featuring well known television personalities. The ad features David DeLuise from Wizards of Waverly Place, Anna Belknap of CSI: NY, Kelli Williams from Lie
to Me and formerly on The Practice, and Justine Bateman, best known for Family
Ties.
"We love Food & Water Watch so much, we happily wiped our celebrities' spit off the plexi-glass protecting the camera," said Lehr. "We support keeping water publicly owned, pure, accessible and drinkable...straight from the tap. Proposition 18 is a massive waste of money and won't help California's future water needs."
"I love water," said David DeLuise. "Without it I would smell funny and be thirsty and I might die."
While the ad makes a serious point, it also had side benefits for some of the actors. Said Kelli Williams, "I have never in my life drunk that much water in one sitting. I was marvelously hydrated."
The spot is part of the No on 18 campaign to scrap the water bond rather than have it delayed until 2012. To take action and get involved, go to www.nowaterbond.com/spit. Help spread the word by sharing the video. Together we can work to stop this bond, and get back to work on real solutions to California's water future.
A Field poll released last week on California's November ballot measures turned up an interesting finding: Proposition 18, the $11 billion water bond, is backed by Democrats and self-identified liberals by a margin of greater than two to one.
Guess these voters hadn't checked the endorsement list. Backers of the bond include major agribusiness industry associations, Southern California developers, and Meg Whitman. In contrast, opponents of the bond include the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, Food & Water Watch, California Teachers Association and many others. State legislators Tom Ammiano, Mark Leno and Leland Yee also oppose it.
The passage of the water bond, which was part of a massive package of water bills debated by the legislature in November, is a top priority for Governor Schwarzenegger - to the point where he has suggested moving it to the 2012 ballot if its prospects look too meek this year.
But the bond's name - the "Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Act of 2010" - and the meager amounts of money included in it for projects that Bay Area progressives support have complicated things. Bond proponents like to emphasize that the bond will fund conservation, local water projects, and wildlife habitat restoration.
Never mind that funding for those laudable efforts is insufficient at best, may never materialize given the state's poor credit rating, and will only be available after billions of dollars are paid out for projects like the construction of more dams, a 19th Century approach to managing water that is anything but progressive.
The bulk of the bond's funding would continue the status quo of water policy in California, policy that has led to the overuse and abuse of our water resources.
Statewide, wells serving more than 2 million Californians have been shown to have elevated levels of nitrate, a contaminant from fertilizer and animal manure that can cause oxygen depletion in babies. One of the dams vying for funding from the bond would funnel three-quarters of its water to agribusinesses responsible for this kind of contamination - and would require no change in how these companies manage the water.
The bond would do nothing to reduce water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which effectively means that the decline of Pacific Coast salmon populations will continue unchecked. The next time a pro-bond spokesperson mentions how many jobs will be created if the bond is passed (to the joy of all those out-of-work dam builders?), consider the tradeoffs we will see in our fishing communities on the coast.
There is little in the bond that could be considered a public benefit. Only about 2% of bond funding is guaranteed for conservation efforts, and only 1% is slated for disadvantaged communities that shoulder some of the state's worst water problems. The beneficiaries of the bond will overwhelmingly be agribusinesses and Southern California developers that support the Governor, to whom the bulk of our state's water will continue to flow.
But unlike past bonds that require the beneficiaries of the projects to pay for them, this bond sends the bill to Main Street. Prop 18 is what's called a general obligation bond, meaning that debt repayment comes from the state's General Fund. This is the same fund that pays for essential public services like higher education, healthcare and home care, police and fire services, and state parks.
Those of us who have not been living under a rock are aware that these services can hardly afford more cuts. Debt repayment on the water bond will cost the state $800 million a year for 30 years - enough to insure 900,000 children under the Healthy Families program for four years, or employ 12,000 teachers.
In the past, the Bay Area has supported water bonds for a good reason: They have provided, on average, a much greater share of funding for projects like drinking water quality improvement, assistance for disadvantaged communities, and local water projects.
But not all bonds are created equal. Supporting Prop 18 will require us to pay out billions for projects that will not benefit us before we see any money for projects that could. And the budgetary impact will gut important programs that improve our social safety net and quality of life.
Bay Area legislators overwhelmingly opposed the bond when it came before them for a vote last November. Now, with the Governor's announcement that he will seek to postpone the bond to the 2012 ballot, our legislators have an important opportunity. If and when the bond is reconsidered, they should vote to repeal it completely, not simply delay the pain for another two years. (Check out this video for some amusing fodder on why the bond should be scrapped, not postponed.)
The silver lining in last week's Field Poll was the finding that most respondents had not heard of the bond before they were asked about it. Let's hope that progressive voters across the state take the time to find out the truth about the bond before they see it on their ballots. More information is available at nowaterbond.com.
Elanor Starmer is the Western Region Director of Food & Water Watch (www.foodandwaterwatch.org), a consumer advocacy group in San Francisco, and part of the statewide coalition to oppose Proposition 18.
If nothing else, Governor Schwarzenegger has given us the gift of the endless parody. Even before he was the Governator, we enjoyed snickering at his larger than life caricature. His performance as Governor, however, has been far from funny. Ratcheting up a $19 Billion deficit while pushing public safety professionals out of their jobs, laying off teachers, slashing health and social services, and kicking family farmers where it hurts most has been a real tear-jerker.
To curb the tears with laughter, Food & Water Watch has compiled a simultaneously funny and sad montage of Arnold's most memorable film moments to accentuate the devastating consequences that the $11 Billion Water Bond would have on California.
Unsurprisingly, the bond is unpopular with voters across the state. Seeing the writing on the wall, Schwarzenegger and his cronies -- who represent the interest of corporate backers -- have asked the legislature to move Prop 18 to the 2012 ballot. Why? So they can spend more money trying to hoodwink the public into believing constructing more dams, putting a down payment on a peripheral canal, and giving corporate interests more control of our water supply is in everyone's best interest. Is this Arnold's way of taunting us with his infamous phrase, "I'll be back" long after he rolls his Hummer out of Sacramento? NOOOOO!
This is our chance to play Terminator and say "hasta la vista, baby" to the water bond. Watch the video. Share it with your friends. Send a strong message to your legislators that the water bond should be sent to the scrapyard to be replaced by solid, equitable water policies that benefit all Californians.
Dianne Feinstein has always been quite cozy with the politically powerful agribusiness of the Westlands Water District. That's very popular with Sean Hannity's Gang, but amongst fisherman and others living in and around the Delta, not so much. Four members of the house, Reps. Garamendi, Lofgren, Miller and Woolsey, wrote a letter questioning her position.
The lawmakers' letter urges Feinstein to cancel her plan to introduce legislation to speed more water withdrawals out of the Sacramento River and San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem.
"Salmon may not have high paid lobbyists like the corporate agricultural interests in the Central Valley, but they are critical to our coastal economy," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, who was among the letter's signatories. "The Feinstein plan will put thousands of families out of work from the fishing industry and local economies of the Pacific Coast."
The farmers are trying to argue that the question of water in the Delta is all about jobs there. And to an extent, that is true. But, at the same time, the agribusinesses there have failed to do anything substantial to change the way they grow in the Westlands. They're growing crops that frankly do not belong there, and then getting righteously indignant about the whole affair.
And on the other side there are the fish. Hannity wants to paint the fish as just the Delta smelt, and that is a serious matter. We really shouldn't be quite so cavalier about wiping another species off the globe. However, there are jobs on the other side of this issue. THis is a question of jobs vs. jobs. Fisherman, while not quite as politically connected as the agribusinesses, are hurting. They are fighting to maintain their way of life, and frankly, as the salmon runs putter out, crabbing season tightens up, further cuts from the Delta would further ravage the coastal economy.
I spend a lot of time up in Bodega Bay these days. It's a fishing town, the largest fishing fleet between San Francisco and the Oregon border to be more specific. And neither Sean Hannity nor Dianne Feinstein could ever convince me of the fact that these fisherman aren't hurting. Salmon is their cash crop, and the water diversions threaten to eliminate these runs completely.
Pretending there are jobs, and people, on only one side of this issue is misleading and dishonest. Perhaps Feinstein, and the Governor, should take a trip to talk to some of these fisherman, and see if they're all hunky dory with the proposed water changes.
In this situation, I can't really blame Jim Costa, he's under immense pressure from his constituents to get more water to the Valley. Yet, that doesn't make this any less morally or scientifically wrong:
Once the meeting began, Rep. Jim Costa of Fresno got the first opportunity to speak as a witness before the panel. Costa, a conservative Democrat, told the panel the fish protections have harmed his constituents and are based on "flawed science."
"The social and economic devastation has been real, and awful," Costa said.(SacBee)
The economic devestation predates the current drought by well over twenty years. The Central Valley has been economically devestated for years. The fact is that what was built in the Central Valley was always unsustainable. We can only pump so much groundwater, build so much storage, and divert so much water from the Delta before we have to look at what we are doing there. For most of recent geologic history, the Central Valley was a near desert, becoming arable in big rain years only. Yet, we built
This is not to say that the land cannot be used productively. It's just that we need to thoroughly examine what is being grown where and attempt to create a land management system that allows farmers and labor in the Central Valley to thrive without destroying the environment at the same time. This is possible, and in theory, it is part of the task of the Delta environmental review that kicked off yesterday.
Now, given how the water legislation came about, wildlife advocates and other environmentalists have a reason to be skeptical. But, the review will be worth keeping an eye on as it proceeds further.
Sen. Steinberg's office released the new committee assignments for this year's regular legislative session. In general, senators have fewer assignments. In many cases, that was welcome. However, that's not likely to be the case for Sen. Lois Wolk. (As a side note, I did some work for Sen. Wolk's 2008 campaign.)
When Steinberg released a list of slimmed-down committee memberships last week, Wolk retained the chairmanship of the Revenue and Taxation Committee and a spot on the Natural Resources and Water committee and picked up one assignment -- a seat on the Food and Agriculture Committee.
But she was stripped of seats on Appropriations, Budget and Fiscal Review, Health, Transportation and Housing and Local Government. (SacBee)
As the Bee points out, it could be coincidence that Sen. Wolk spoke out against the water bill and her new, perhaps lesser committee assingments.
That being said, Sen. Wolk is, if anything, too much of a straight shooter. She opposed the water bill, for very legitimate reasons for a legislator of the Delta region, and said so. Of course, standing in front of a steamrolling tank doesn't always get you in a place in the history books, sometimes it gets you a far lesser prize.
On Sept. 4, Resnick wrote to Feinstein, complaining that the latest federal plan to rescue the delta's endangered salmon and shad fisheries was "exacerbating the state's severe drought" because it cut back on water available to irrigate crops. "Sloppy science" by federal wildlife agencies had led to "regulatory-induced water shortages," he claimed.
"I really appreciate your involvement in this issue," he wrote to Feinstein.
One week later, Feinstein forwarded Resnick's letter to two U.S. Cabinet secretaries. In her own letter, she urged the administration to spend $750,000 for a sweeping re-examination of the science behind the entire delta environmental protection plan.
The Obama administration quickly agreed, authorizing another review of whether restrictions on pumping irrigation water were necessary to save the delta's fish. The results could delay or change the course of the protection effort.
To environmentalists concerned with protecting the delta, it was a dispiriting display of the political clout wielded by Resnick, who is among California's biggest growers and among its biggest political donors.
Water storage and all that fun stuff is nice, but if we are taking away more water than we receive in precipitation, then we are going to have to come up with some other solutions. And, according to some new data, the Central Valley may be on its way to becoming a desert.
New space observations reveal that since October 2003, the aquifers for California's primary agricultural region -- the Central Valley -- and its major mountain water source -- the Sierra Nevada -- have lost nearly enough water combined to fill Lake Mead, America's largest reservoir. The findings, based on satellite data, reflect California's extended drought and increased pumping of groundwater for human uses such as irrigation. (Science Daily)
To be more precise, the research team estimates that the Central Valley has lost more than 30 cubic kilometers of water, with a cubic kilometers roughly equivalent to the volume of 400,000 Olympic swimming pools. In other words, a very large amount of water.
Most of that water loss, over 3.5 cubic km/year, is from the Southern Central Valley. The region gets far less rainfall, and sees far more pumping for crops than the northern region of the Valley.
So, while additional storage might be necessary, we are going to have to come up with some way of reducing usage. Whether that is allowing more fields to lie fallow, or to change crops to less thirsty plants, the current usage pattern is not sustainable.
The folks in Fresno are concerned about the water bond. Very concerned. They need to get it passed so that they can reap the massive windfall they'll get in undervalued water. So, today the Fresno Bee news blog is working on pegging down the candidates for governor.
Of course, this being the Fresno Bee, they are looking first to the two moneyed Republican competitors. First, they got Whitman on record on Thursday supporting the bond. Today, they question Poizner's fealty to the farmers. He might be a closet fan of the evil fisherman!
Gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner said more water storage is critical for California's long-term economic future. But as he campaigned today in Fresno, Poizner remained noncommittal about an $11 billion water bond measure on the ballot for next November. (Fresno Bee)
Of course, the article divides support of new dams into questions of whether you want to "help farmers" or not. When, for Republicans anyway, the real question is do you believe the taxpayers should be paying for this water project. As it is currently outlined, the water plan will vastly increase the percentage of costs paid from the general fund, from around 3-5% to 20-40%.
If we are going to ignore other infrastructure, and slash education funding, I think whether farmers should be getting subsidized water is an important question for the state. As it stands right now, this water bond puts the Westlands farmers, and their Sean Hannity temper tantrums above higher education and in-home support services.
Reaction to the water deal that was approved over the last few days, first by the Senate and then by the Assembly, has been trickling in. If you care to listen to an hour-long program, I recommend the KQED Forum program embedded here.
There was some question as to what the federal response to the measure would be. And, well, apparently Sec. of the Interior Ken Salazar is on board:
Thanks to the California legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger, Californians now have the opportunity to choose a more secure and sustainable water future. This landmark package is a critical step toward bringing California's water infrastructure into the 21st century while restoring California's Bay Delta, on which millions of Californians depend for clean drinking water and their livelihoods. I applaud the leadership, courage, and vision of everyone who helped bring this desperately-needed legislation across the finish line. We will continue to need all hands on deck - at the federal, state, and local levels - in the coming months as we face the possibility of a fourth year of drought and sobering water realities.
And as for DiFi, who has long been close to the Westlands Water District, well, her reaction wasn't such a mystery.
It should be clear to all of us that the current water infrastructure is inadequate to support California's growing population and businesses that depend on clean water. This includes people in our cities, the high-tech sector, fisheries, tourism, and of course, our State's multibillion-dollar agricultural sector. So, this package is really critical to all Californians.
I urge all Californians to support the bond issue. It must be said once more that California has a water infrastructure built for a population of 16 million people. Today, our population is rapidly approaching the 40 million mark. So, the modernization and improvement of our State's water infrastructure is long overdue.
Meanwhile, on the other side of this, you have a growing crowd of organized labor, including the United Farmworkers Union, the California Teachers Association, and the SEIU State Council. They all have slightly different concerns, but at the heart of it is the financing. They are concerned that the debt service will start devouring the budget, and at an estimated 10% of the budget, that is a reasonable concern.
While most of us were focused on election returns, the legislature approved the big water deal that includes a bond of $11 billion. That's up $1 billion from the previous version, as Los Angeles demanded and won more funding for conservation.
Republicans won a major concession as Democrats agreed to sever an enforcement bill from the water package that cracked down on illegal diversions of water, boosted fines and increased the power of the state water boards -- provisions long demanded by environmentalists....
Assembly Republican Leader Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo opposed the water-rights bill, in part because of the tough enforcement provisions that sharply increased the authority of state water boards, according to Capitol sources in both parties familiar with the negotiations. Blakeslee was not immediately available to comment.
The bill also included fines of $5,000 or more per day for illegal diversions and allowed the water boards to initiate their own investigations rather than act on complaints. One provision allowed fines pegged to the "market value" of water, which environmentalists said could result indaily penalties far exceeding $5,000.
Republicans had also pitched a fit about funding for a Sacramento tolerance center Sen. Darrell Steinberg had included in the bills. At $10 million, the cost was negligible compared to the overall package, but Republicans couldn't resist the chance to make Democrats look like pork barrel spenders - especially since doing so helped hide the far larger "pork" spending in the form of $3 billion for unnecessary dams that Republicans won in the water bond.
Assemblywoman Alyson Huber's efforts to pass an amendment requiring legislative approval to build a Peripheral Canal failed, meaning that under the current deal, a new Delta Stewardship Council, with a majority of members appointed by the governor, would have the power to approve a canal. Both Westlands Water District and LA's Metropolitan Water District said the deal "paves the way" for that canal.
Since the water policy bills have been de-linked from the bond itself, it seems even more likely that the bond will go down in flames next year when voters are asked to approve it. A combination of progressive opposition to new dams and concern over the impact of the debt service on other general fund programs will likely combine with moderate and conservative unease about $11 billion in spending to sink the bond.
The only way this could pass is if there's a consistent effort across the state to convince people that the bond is essential to their future, that the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of the bond. So far, that case hasn't been made, and it's difficult to see how it will be, given that this whole deal is motivated by little more than the desire of Westlands to cut in line and for MWD to have everyone else in the state subsidize their sprawl.
If you want to know more about what we should really be doing regarding water in California, you need to read Mato Ska here, here, here<>/a>, or here. I want to talk about the politics. That is beginning to splinter over more than North / South, Valley / Coast or even the widening gap between Democrats and Republicans.
With Democratic leadership eager to get a water deal done, the legislature appears set to vote tonight on two water bills, with Speaker Bass saying members will "make history today" by approving a package. The "policy" bills, focusing on Delta restoration and conservation, have been technically split from the big water bond, but there remain fundamental political linkages. And as the day wears on, more and more opposition to these bills, and ultimately to the entire process, emerges.
As things stand now, there will be a $10 billion bond to construct "dams, regional water projects, and ecosystem restoration", $3 billion of which goes to build dams at Temperance Flat and Sites, and to expand Los Vaqueros Dam near Livermore. Unlike every other water project in state history, these would be funded by taxpayers, and not solely by the users of these projects. They would also not be subject to separate legislative approval.
The policy bill includes the creation of a Delta Stewardship Council to help oversee the use of the Delta. A majority of its members would be appointed by the governor, and it would have the authority to approve the construction of a Peripheral Canal, subject to certain environmental thresholds that are currently unclear. As the Contra Costa Times explains, Westlands Water District - which has been driving this process by demanding to be allowed to cut in line ahead of other water users and to be subsidized to do so - is satisfied with the proposed language:
At the heart of the new policy is a framework for a canal to route water around the Delta, a prospect that Delta interests detest because it could curtail housing development, make it more difficult to farm and could harm water quality and fish by diverting a portion of the Sacramento River out of its natural watercourse.
The path to building a peripheral canal would be clearer and more certain, but it would also be more difficult. The bills would strictly require the canal's vehicle, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, to ensure its operation actually restores the Delta.
The provision has the support of the state's largest irrigation district but has split environmental groups.
The Westlands Water District supports the legislation because, despite its strict language, it provides "a clear path" to a new way to move water around the Delta.
"We're not certain we can meet (the requirements). We hope we can," said Ed Manning, a lobbyist for the Westlands Water District in the San Joaquin Valley, in testimony last week.
The policy bill also includes some statewide groundwater measuring standards, and mandates 20% conservation of water, statewide, by 2020.
Key environmental groups, labor unions, and other Californians are already taking sides. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) are embracing the deal, with CLCV doesn't think the deal is perfect but thinks it's good enough to support at this time. On the other side, the Sierra Club opposes the deal, and Carl Pope denounced the process in a HuffPo op-ed.
Water agencies are similarly split. NorCal water agencies now oppose the deal, though most SoCal agencies, led by the mammoth Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles, playing key roles in getting the deal done.
Of political significance, Artesia Democrat Tony Mendoza reports CTA is opposed to the water bond, likely to be joined by several other major labor unions who are rightly concerned about crowding out public services spending by adding to general fund debt service levels, with Treasurer Bill Lockyer warning 10% of the general fund could be going to service debt if the water bond is approved.
Not being in Sacramento, you should take my prognostications with a grain of salt (preferably salt from the western San Joaquin Valley, which has too much of it). But I would be surprised if this deal goes through. Unlike the budget, there's no looming threat of statewide fiscal meltdown. Failing to approve a water deal won't cause government to shut down, it won't cut off payments to schools and workers.
There is considerable political pressure to do a deal, but there is growing pressure to not do a deal. CTA's opposition is significant, and may give Democrats who might be inclined to back the deal some pause, especially those looking to move up to other elected offices in 2010.
Finally, there is the question of the electorate. Any water bond has to go before voters in 2010, likely at the November election. I have a very difficult time seeing voters approving a $10 billion water bond, especially considering that the state's finances aren't likely to be in much better shape.
More importantly, the water bond will come with significant environmental and policy costs that other similar bonds haven't had. For example, I was a strong supporter of the Prop 1A bond last year that authorized $10 billion for high speed rail. But that essentially came with no costs and no downsides. HSR creates thousands of jobs, generating new tax revenue and saving people money on their travel costs without negative environmental impacts. In fact, high speed trains powered by renewable energy help provide cleaner air and mitigate against global warming.
That doesn't eliminate the financial questions, but it made HSR a far easier sell than a water bond that could produce major environmental damage. After all, the bonds to build a Peripheral Canal were rejected by voters at the 1982 election, for many of the same reasons as a 2010 bond might go down in flames as well.
Whether a deal gets done tonight or not, the torturous process, once again largely hidden from public view, that produced the deal is yet another sign of how broken our state government has become.
UPDATE by Robert: The Delta governing bill, SBX7 1, passes by a 29-5 vote. No roll call just yet. Sen. Steinberg's press secretary, Alicia Trost, counters claims on Twitter that this is a deal done in the dark:
Water pkg has had 9 months of public debate, 10 full public hearings. Cogdill bond bill has been around for 3 yrs.
Note the "X7" in the bill title. This is the seventh special session in the current legislature. Not exactly an argument for a part-time legislature, is it?!
...the Cogdill bond bill, SBX7 2, is currently under debate. Cogdill says we need this for when we have 50 million people in the state. Lois Wolk speaks against this, arguing we can't add the debt load to the general fund. Ironic to see Republicans calling for profligate spending - IOKIYAR! Or, It's OK If You Hired Sean Hannity To Whine On Your Behalf (IOKIYHSHTWOYB).
...Wolk says SEIU now opposes bond along with CTA, complains that Delta will have to pay into the mitigation fund - "like asking a crime victim to pay half the restitution. shame on you all."
...Maldonado speaks in favor, says we've been talking about this for 30 years, we need bipartisan solutions, we have to do this even if some people think it's unpopular, blah blah blah. Will Arnold pick him for Lt. Gov already and get him out of our hair? I can't stand having this guy represent us. Why exactly should your Central Coast constituents, Abel, have to pay to subsidize Westlands or let SoCal sprawl?
...Maldonado isn't talking about water, he's running for Controller and gunning for Central Valley votes. He's already decided that his Central Coast constituents can be tossed overboard for his own ambitions. And not for the first time.
...love watching GOP Sen. Benoit (Riverside County) almost trip over his contradictory wingnut talking points, justifying the now $9.9 billion water bond because of global warming "even though, uh, some of us, uh, might question that" (referring to global warming).
...Cogdill closes on the finances: "hope and pray" that in 5 years there is economic recovery and the money won't be an issue. I see that hope and prayer are what pass for Republican financial planning these days.
...$9.9 billion water bond squeaks by 28-8 (needs 2/3rds). Some Dem noes include Mark Leno, Mark DeSaulnier, Lois Wolk, Pat Wiggins. Didn't catch the full list.
...SBX7 7 up now, the water conservation bill, with some last-minute amendments. It would be great if this bill information was being updated in real-time for us out in the public. As far as I can tell, without having seen the recent amendments, this is a good bill.
...20% conservation by 2020 is totally doable, especially for urban users. No excuse for not doing so, no matter the specific problems with this water deal. Time for CA to stop wasting water. Too bad this is linked to a ridiculous water-wasting and Delta-killing deal.
...water conservation bill passes 25-13. On to the Assembly next. And I'm headed to sleep.
The Southern California water agencies are generally big cheerleaders for the water plan. They see it as a step towards getting water diversion around the delta, and around the fish pulverizing pumps.
But there are some tiny cracks in the unified front, namely over water conservation.
Ron Sullivan, board chairman of the Eastern Municipal Water District, one of Metropolitan's member agencies, said there are worries about how the conservation rules would apply in the hot, arid Inland area.
Yet it seems unlikely the dispute would derail the legislation, which marks the most concerted attempt in decades to address the state's contentious water politics. A likelier pitfall is opposition by some liberals and conservatives to the idea of additional borrowing by the state. (P-E 10/30/09)
In the grand scheme of things, this is a relatively minor issue. There are plenty of ways to fix this, but it does highlight one of the many rifts in the state over water, this one being the ol' inland vs. coastal. These water agencies are mostly serving urban users, so there aren't the big differences for growing produce.
However, just between urban users there are some substantial water use differences between cool and hot climates. Humans will need a bit of extra water just to get by in the hotter temperatures, but where this really comes into play is landscaping. It takes a lot more water to grow those lush green lawns when it's 103 degrees.
Given that blue fescue doesn't really grow wild in California, ecologically the best solution would be to regulate landscaping water separately. But upgrading our infrastructure to get to that point seems like more of a 30 year plan.
Or another solution would be to encourage the use of greywater to alleviate much of the use of fresh water for landscaping. Far too much water that could be used to water grass goes down the drain behind washing machines and the like.
Meanwhile, in terms of getting the water deal done, well, toss Sen. Steinberg another snack he'd rather not have on his plate.
I wake up this morning and see some sort of shock from the LA Times that the stars didn't align themselves to create the perfect water package. It turns out, that this stuff is hard. Who knew? Well, those who listened to the Calitics podcast, that's who!
"It's fear of losing water, fear of having to pay for stuff," said Ellen Hanak of the Public Policy Institute. "It's the same old interests," she added, that have for decades impeded any kind of overhaul of California's complicated and increasingly troubled water system.
The Democrats' proposal is broad-ranging, but far from revolutionary. It takes what many water experts have characterized as modest steps in regard to groundwater, urban water conservation and state enforcement of water rights.
(LA Times 10/28/09)
The package is quite modest, a good start, but it doesn't really solve our water issues. But to tell you the truth, nobody expected our water issues to be really resolved this year. There are too many moving parts, too many interest groups for this to all be resolved at once.
Meanwhile the Republican "plan" is an even more modest change that, while provides for more storage, doesn't address conservation in a suitably strict manner.
And the elephant in the room that everybody feels no compulsion to discuss? None of the plans call for any water conservation by agricultural users. Look, I'm for a healthy agriculture sector as much as the next guy, but we have to be realistic here. While urban users have dramatically cut usage, especially areas like Monterey and Sonoma Counties that have radically reduced their water usage over the past twenty years, agricultural users have barely scratched the surface. There have been a few stories here and there of farmers using forms of hi-tech water monitoring and drip irrigation to reduce water usage, but these stories are notable because they are the exception. For the most part, farms are planting the same crops and watering the same ways.
The problem is that we have come to expect that water is an infinite resource whose price is at or near zero. It is a model that works fine for online storage and email, but it's just not a sustainable course in California's water future. Until all users start treating water as the precious resource that it is, we can't really get to a "solution." And as much respect as I have for Steinberg and Bass, that just isn't going to happen this year.
This year we'll get some modest reforms and maybe some interesting storage products. But we'll only get a real solution when water is properly valued.
