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.
On Friday, I was privileged to speak with former Assembly member John Laird and Senator Lois Wolk on the issues facing California's water future. Well, today, some sort of water plan was released as SBX7-1, and SacBee has a copy of the language in PDF. It's 163 pages, and to be quite honest, I've not yet had the chance to get fully through it.
The key of this is that the financing has not been worked out. There is supposed to be some sort of a Big 5 meeting to work on financing in the next few days, but Speaker Bass has already inticated that she is growing weary of the negotiating in the dark and would like a more open process.
But as John Laird said last week, the key to this deal is the financing. Without subsidies from the state's general fund, the big deals for the Westlands and Metropolitan Water Districts simply do not pencil out for their customers. The SoCal Water agencies are feeding off the Delta, setting the stage for a big political firestorm.
There were quite a few developments today beyond the simple release of the plan. Accompanying the release of the plan was the news that the San Francisco Public Utilies Commission, which is SF's water district, has decided to back the bill as it currently stands. This is a break from previous statements, including a letter they signed indicating opposition to what was only a slightly different package at the time. The support of the SFPUC, a very strong water district that also controls the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, gives Sen. Steinberg's bill a shot to win over some Northern California legislators. Whether it's enough to get the votes is up in the air.
Meanwhile, in a story for the Capitol Weekly, the two powerful SoCal water agencies that originally pushed for a Peripheral Canal, the Westlands and Metropolitan Districts, think that this bill moves us closer to such a concept. Some say that's not the case, but hopefully by the time something passes, we can at least get a definitive answer about whether this does further the concept of a peripheral canal.
(Check us out at 3:30! - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
UPDATE: We just wrapped up the show, which I think went very well. The archive is available in the player to the right, and will be available on itunes shortly.
There is much news going around the Capitol around water issues. One of the most noticeable issues is the growing opposition from Delta legislators that was highlighted in Capitol Weekly:
Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Sacramento, and Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Linden, don't agree on much. But both are against the water plan being negotiated between the Legislature and the governor - and both think they have the votes to kill it.
Their opposition stems from one thing they do have in common. Each represents a district within the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the water-rich region at the center of the water policy and bond package.
"Absolutely there is bipartisan opposition," Niello said. "Lois' concerns are not the same as mine, but she is nonetheless every bit as opposed as I am."
*** *** ***
[Wolk] added: "Southern California has to do away with its dependence on the Delta."
Meanwhile, the hard work of actually making it happen is getting some attention from the California Teachers Association and the High Broderist George Skelton. And the issue of funding is still a mysterious one. Nobody has really laid out a plan, in public, to pay for all of this new construction. Construction that doesn't even bring us any additional water.
So, tomorrow we'll talk with Senator Lois Wolk, the Legislature's leading water expert and former Assemblyman John Laird, in my opinion, the go-to guy for questions of funding and the budget. Please join me on the Calitics podcast, live at 3:30. You can also catch the podcast at the same address after the fact.
If you have a question, feel free to leave it here.
We can get a portion of the way to meeting our future water needs with a bit more storage. But, quite simply, we can't build our way out of the water crisis. No matter how much we build, we will not create additional rain or mitigate the effects that climate change will have upon the state.
So, conservation is where the rubber meets the road. Consider this:
New dams would produce up to 1 million acre-feet of water annually, compared with up to 3.1 million acre-feet freed up each year by new water efficiency programs, according to the delta task force, which cited state Department of Water Resources statistics. (Fresno Bee 10/21/09)
The question then is how we create some of the efficiencies to actually conserve the water. Some conservations are fairly straightforward. For example, many cities do not yet have water meters, installing them will rapidly reduce water usage as people get an idea of how much they are using and start paying for excessive use.
The bigger question is where these conservation gains will come from, and how do hold users accountable. There are a number of questions to look at, and this Fresno Bee article does a pretty good job taking a look at some of the bigger issues.
One issue that seems to always pop up is the question of coastal vs non-coastal. In the current negotiations, Republicans are arguing that coastal cities aren't required to do enough for conservation. Much of that is because many coastal cities have already put in some pretty effective conservation measures. Under the current proposal, the targets for each city are generally a 20% reduction, but cities that have already made reductions have to do less.
The biggest question is enforcement. Republicans want to give the least possible teeth to this measure by assuring that their could not be any legal ramifications of failing to meet the requirements, which Democrats already say isn't in the bill. However, it isn't at all clear that without the possibility of legal challenges there will be enough teeth to actually enforce with only some grants as a carrot for compliance. In other words, the bill is all carrot, and no stick. If you meet the targets, you get some extra grants, if you miss them, you don't. But the water still gets pumped either way.
If this water package is going to last for more than 5 or 10 years, it is going to need to be able to require very strict water efficiency. However, the key is getting beyond short-term political gain to do what's best for the state. Whether that happens appears to be up to the Legislative Republicans...again.
The Republicans are quite conflicted over whether they want to court the Latino vote, in California and beyond. Do they want to bang on the immigration drum to rally the (occasionally racist) base, or do they want to try to pick up votes in some districts that are fast becoming unwinnable without Latino votes?
But, while offering up fake solutions to very real problems won't do it in the long-term, it might carry some very real short-term electoral benefit.
GOP leaders have put water atop their agenda for next year's statewide campaigns. They are expanding voter-registration efforts in the drought-stricken Central Valley, where unemployment is high and food banks are busy, and encouraging candidates to reach out to Latino voters hit hard by the recession.
The strategy was distilled on a 5-foot-high banner at the Republican voter registration table in front of a Walmart store in Dinuba (Tulare County) in August: "Stop the radical environmentalists. Save your water. Save your jobs. Vote Republican."
"When I saw the (registration) numbers from that weekend, I fell off my chair," said Johnny Amaral, chief of staff for Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Alpaugh (Tulare County). "I've never seen something work like this."(SF Chronicle 10/19/2009)
Water has now become a pocketbook issue to many Californians, and it shouldn't surprise anybody to find that pocketbooks take precedence over environmental issues. As the Clinton 1992 campaign often stated, it's the economy, stupid. And right now, water is at the heart of the questions surrounding the Central Valley's economy.
Now, to the cynicism. The proposed water "solutions" being offered up by the Republicans in the state bring neither water nor solutions. They don't bring additional water to the table. Not one more drop of rain will fall simply because we have additional storage capacity and a brand new shiny dam. These "solutions" are temporary and ignore the realities of the effects of climate change. So, if by solutions, you are only looking at electoral prospects, then maybe. if you are actually concerned about the future of the Central Valley, these are as far from solutions as San Francisco is from Bakersfield.
Yet for some reason, we continue to push for expensive construction while ignoring many far more cost effective options. We continue to grow crops that don't belong in the region and take far too much water to grow here. For example, it takes roughly twice the amount of water to grow cotton as compared to say soybeans, according to the cotton industry's own numbers. Instead of actually trying to build solutions to make Central Valley farming sustainable, the Republicans are simply exploiting the region by pandering, rather than challenging them to build towards the future.
In many ways, the issue now presents one similar to that presented by gun control twenty years ago. Then, we lost control of an issue, ceeded the constitutional high ground and let the right-wing jurisprudence and activism carry the day. It still carries the day. The difference is that we cannot simply give up on environmentalism nor the Central Valley.
But the Republicans will continue to astroturf and play on the fears of the Central Valley. Whether this is enough to overcome all the race-baiting going on in the right-wing is still an open question.
A rather impressive group of cities, counties, and water agencies has teamed up to write a letter asking the Legislature to slow down the water package to ensure that their are no negative impacts upon the Delta. The list includes the City of Sacramento, the counties of Contra Costa, Sacramento, Solano, and San Joaquin, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the Central Delta Water Agency. The letter itself (h/t EJ Schultz of the Fresno Bee) is pretty short and to the point:
We are writing to inform you that while we support the objective of fixing the Delta and increasing the reliability of water supplies for all of California, the current Delta package needs further work to ensure all regions of California are treated fairly. Put simply, in its current form, this legislation would harm Northern California.
We ask that the Legislature withhold and oppose any vote on a water package until, in addition to addressing the need for a reliable water supply for the entire state, it assures that there are no redirected impacts to the Delta and Northern California and sufficient protections are in place to protect Northern California's and the Delta's water supplies.
The Delta water package must fairly address the needs of Northern California, the economic viability and health of the Delta while assuring a reliable water supply for the entire State.
See, when it comes to water, there are so many dynamics as to make this an absolute mess. There's obviously North Vs. South, as it rains in the North, but doesn't in the South of the state. There's different parts of the Central Valley fighting over the various scraps of water. And those who live on or near the Delta versus, well, those who don't.
And balancing all those interests, along with environmental concerns isn't easy. Yet, it is clear that there is an extraordinary level of pressure to just get this done as quickly as possible. A deal for a deal's sake is simply not worth it.
For a while, the numbers bandied about in the water debate have been in the range of $10-20 billion. Those are simply the general fund bond numbers. But the real numbers are much, much higher. How high?
According to a recent study by the Strategic Economic Applications Company, the numbers are between $52 and $78 Billion dollars for the entire Delta legislation package. (See Table 1 to the right for a portion of those numbers.) You can grab a full report on the package below the fold (or here).
I said earlier this week that the water construction costs should be paid by customers, and much of that money is going to be paid by customers in the form of revenue bonds. BUt in the past, about 3-5% of the bill has come from the general fund. We are now looking at anywhere between 20-45% being paid off of general fund.
But the biggest problem with all of this construction, is that despite all of the environmental havoc that we would create with these new dams and storage, we will have no new water. A dam won't make the rain come nor the snows accumulate. We are fighting over a ever-shrinking pie, yet still avoiding discussing how we can use our resources better. We allow water to be wasted in the suburbs, and grow water-heavy crops in land that just isn't suited for it.
We need to focus on both conservation and land management if we are to really solve the water crisis. We simply cannot build our way out of climate change.
John Laird gives a truly excellent overview that explains that the only other dam built by state government, the Oroville Dam which is a key part of the State Water Project, had 97% of its cost paid for by the actual users of the system, with the other 3% coming from taxpayers in the form of financial support (low-interest loans, for example). Yet the current demand is that taxpayers pay as much as 50% of the cost of a new dam, despite the fact that many Californians will never see any benefit from that dam, a dam which likely won't be built for a decade or more and which will, because it is likely to be built at low elevation, will not catch much water and will essentially be useless.
This point cannot be overstated. For decades, the Western Central Valley has gotten subsidized water. It's built the Westlands Water District area into the fruit and vegetable capitol of the country. It produces all this produce (haha!) in a region that needs irrigated water. Because while the topsoil is fertile, the under-layer of clay sucks up water. And during all of this, while the cities along the coast pay top dollar for their water, the Westlands gets a cut rate for agreeing to be the first to be cut off.
But that doesn't stop them from bitching when they do get cut off.
The contradictions involved in all of this are striking. For those who claim to support Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market, it makes for a remarkable statement. They are arguing that water should be subsidized in order to interfere with the market. So, the money is transferred from the pockets of Californians and into the pockets of agribusiness and out of state consumers.
Any water deal must retain the balance of payment that we've seen in the past. At most 5-10% of the payments should come from bonds or other general fund payments, the rest should come from revenue bonds. Those who use the water should pay for it. Yes, this will make produce more expensive, which is a regrettable consequence. But it is the only equitable way to share the costs.
All of that said, even with all of this construction, there is no additional water. We are just playing shell games with what we have. At some point we have to look at sustainability giving the coming risk of climate change.
So remember the last legislative year? Well, if Arnold follows through on his latest threat, you might as well forget it. He's threatening to veto every bill on his desk if he doesn't get a water deal by, um, tomorrow.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today affirmed a looming threat to veto a large bulk of the bills that have been sent to his desk unless lawmakers can strike a deal on a package of water bills.
"I made it very clear to the legislators and to the leaders that if this does not get done then I will veto a lot of their legislation, a lot of their bills, so that should inspire them to go and get the job done," he said at the end of remarks to the Association of Community College Trustees' Leadership Congress, which is meeting in San Francisco today. (CapAlert 10/08/2009)
We've mentioned the water issue for a long time, but there is no way to overemphasize one critical point: No matter how many projects you build, you do not get any additional water. The rush about getting water for the West Central Valley is toxic to the state government and to the environment.
The West Central Valley is a relatively dry area. The soil is fairly fertile, but right underneath it lies a layer of clay that sucks water away from the topsoil. That means lots of tilling and lots of water. But in order for these farmers, most of which are big corporate operations, to make any real money, water has to be very, very cheap. Unnaturally cheap.
This, of course, is why there wasn't much agriculture done in the area by the native peoples. It was too inefficient to bring water there. But once we built a slew of pumps, it could be done. The problem is that pumps are expensive, and the farmers of the Western Central Valley don't want to pay for it.
The Westlands Water District has been getting cheap water for a long time, but they are the bottom rung on the water priority list. They are trying to use the crisis in Sacramento and the drought to get around the contracts that they signed last year putting them at a lower priority in exchange for a lower price.
And Arnold is trying to help them to do just that by threatening, intimidating, and generally being a jerk. And of course, Susan Kennedy, his "Democratic" Chief of Staff, is right there with him. Putting a gun to the head of not only the legislature, but some very important measures.
It's ugly. But it's an available political tool that the governor would be derelict not to use when an issue as critical as water is at stake.
This isn't about some narrow scheme important only to a narrow interest. Nor is it merely about a governor's pet project -- other than his legacy-building, which should be encouraged as long as it helps the state. It's about finally resolving an acute, decades-old problem that is worsening and affects practically all Californians.
Here's another old white man with health insurance who could give a crap if women get maternity care in their health insurance plans, to just pick one bill at random. Or who could care less if people who have insurance get dropped from it when they want to use it, to pick another. George Skelton would actively make the lives of Californians worse because he thinks it's sporting to see the Governor "use his power." That the power is illegal is of no consequence.
Then there's this whopper:
These and other arguments -- such as details of a new governing system for the delta -- have raged for years. Schwarzenegger apparently doesn't much care what the Legislature decides. He just wants it to compromise and send him a bill.
Yeah, he doesn't care at all. He actually invented the Latino Water Coalition, the fake-grassroots group pushing all the Republican solutions in water negotiations, but he's really just an innocent bystander. An innocent bystander who would destroy women's health and allow insurance companies to kill people for profit and a host of other things, all with an asshole like George Skelton cheering him on.
One reason why I didn't particularly care for the Guardian's Failifornia article was that it was really a human interest piece masquerading as a serious argument. It's not because its data was flawed or its tone insincere - though there's some of that; the long section on Mendota neglects to mention that the city hinges entirely on agriculture and features 30% unemployment or more ANYTIME there's a drought, unconnected to the larger structural problems in the state - but because it didn't even try to assess the root causes of the crisis or the steps for resolution.
For example, it would be beneficial to take a look at the culture of blackmail we have here in state government (as an aside, did the writer even visit Sacramento?). Politicians have learned over 30-plus years of dealing with onerous budget requirements that threatening blackmail is really the best way to get anything done. Witness Arnold Schwarzenegger, threatening to veto nearly 700 bills that have passed both houses of the Legislature unless he gets his way on a water bill.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, apparently standing by a threat to veto hundreds of bills on his desk unless a deal can be reached on the state's water problems, has suggested to Senate leader Darrell Steinberg that all legislation before the governor should be withdrawn to avoid a veto. About 700 bills are awaiting action.
Schwarzenegger did not formally request that the bills be yanked, but that was the implicit suggestion in his proposal, Capitol sources said.
The communications between Steinberg and the governor were referenced in an e-mail sent from Steinberg to Senate Democrats this week. In the internal e-mail, which was reviewed by Capitol Weekly, Steinberg said Schwarzenegger "even mentioned coming back this week to withdraw bills from his desk and hold them until after water is done."
Arnold is absolutely ballsy enough to do this. He has only signed 3 bills in the past four weeks since the Legislature adjourned September 11, and with six days to go and the Legislature not scheduled to return until after the deadline on October 11, I'm convinced of his sincerity to basically flush the entire legislative session down the toilet.
You just don't see headlines like this in other states. And that's because the process here rewards blackmail. Arnold knows that there are no repercussions for vetoing 700 bills. There's no media willing to call him out, there's no possibility of a veto override because of some unwritten rule whereby that function doesn't exist anymore, and there's a high possibility of legislative Democrats simply capitulating to whatever shrieking Republican demands in order to appear "reasonable" or just move along the machinery of government. Arnold's just using good tactical sense because the system is set up to reward the most outlandish actions. So he'll probably get what amounts to a bailout of wealthy agribusiness interests at the expense of the environment and the working class.
This is truly the portrait of failure in California. Right-wing interests have learned how to hijack so well you'd think they attended one of those Al Qaeda training camps where they practice on the monkey bars. And the entire political class walks around as if this is perfectly normal. It's actually appalling.
If you want to drill down to why California is in crisis, it's because we routinely see political leaders walk into the capital strapped with dynamite across their chests, only to be given the key to the city and a milkshake as a reward for such behavior.
...The Merced Sun-Star editorialized on this today, bashing the Governor for his inflexibility and willingness to toss out important bills on mortgage reform and health care for his own personal vanity, but also saying, "Lawmakers rarely reach closure on state budgets and complex, controversial policies unless they have a gun pointed at their heads." Yes, and that's the PROBLEM, not a one-off sentence to be seen as an inexorable truism.
The water issues in this state are complex and often mind-boggling. And of course, there are some people with gripes, some more legitimate than others. It would be really nice if everybody could just sit at a table and talk honestly and openly about this, but I'm guessing that Westlands Water District doesn't really want to sit at a table and say that they need the rest of the state to pay for the unsustainable agriculture in the western region of the Central Valley. And I really doubt that some of the construction (and even some labor) really want to say that they simply want the contracts to build a bunch of unnecessary projects.
So, barring that, you get astroturf, which really doesn't need water. It can grow with just a bit of cash. And, as Steve Maviglio has been pointing out, the Latino Water Coalition is just such a group. Capitol Weekly has some juicy details of the "outraged water consumers":
The Coalition was registered on Dec. 29 of last year by Soares. His firm, Kahn, Soares, & Conway LLP, billed lobbying clients more than $580,000 during the first six months of this year, over 80 percent of it to agricultural clients. The mailing address listed on the Coalition's Web sites is identical to that of Soares' firm, located on L Street across from the Capitol. (Capitol Weekly 10/1/09)
The "Coaltion" as they frequently misspell their own name on forms has hired comedian Paul Rodriguez to go around making speeches to crowds of angry people. Angry people usually bussed in, sometimes from out of state, sometimes from different regions. But boy are they angry. Angry at the Delta smelt, angry at the salmon, and angry at the fisherman for wanting their livelihoods to continue. As for the politicians they are angry at, well that's mostly reserved for Democrats and the mean meanies who won't send the delta smelt to its extinction.
It works for the Republicans. The anger works, and directing the anger at the fish, and those who protect the fish, well that works too. As Jon Stewart shows, this is really a part of a bigger scheme to simultaneously attack the environmental movement at the same time as they are attacking the president and the Central Valley Democrats. And while I'm kind of uncomfortable standing up for a Blue Dog like Reps. Costa and Cardoza, the fact is that their records are being distorted on these issues.
But, why get real supporters, when you can simply pay some angry comic, like Paul Rodriguez, to rile up a crowd and then throw in Sean Hannity for some extra fun too?
I hope they enjoy the in-bus movie as they head back home from all the fun Latino Water Coalition rallies. I hear Baseketball is a thriller, and they use REAL astroturf on their field.
Assemblymember Mary Salas (37th AD) is running for Senator Denise Ducheny's seat in the 40th. Salas already has the endorsement of Denise Ducheny and Manuel Perez (CA80AD), but she faces a GOP-funded primary opponent in Juan Vargas. This is a safe Democratic seat if we pay attention to the primary. More on Vargas over the flip.
Our club loved her, Mary is businesslike but warm, and very attractive, there is no way this lady can be 61.
Salas emphasized her work on healthcare and veterans' issues. When asked about the Governor's race: she said she's looking for a Governor who will have the guts enough to make the hard decisions for California. Tired of political self-interest in that office. She has seven bills on Arnold's desk being held hostage to his blanket veto threat.
You often hear right-wingers claim that government intervention in the economy is flawed because, in part, "government picks winners and losers." Supposedly, the market ought to do that alone, though I've never known any example in history of a market that existed without a government to manage and police it.
So it's no small irony that when Sean Hannity took his show to the Central Valley to try and paint the outright Depression there as the cause of liberal environmentalists stealing water from poor farmers, Hannity himself got hit by an advocate of the fishermen who have been hammered by wasteful government water policies. David Neiwert at Crooks and Liars offers the video:
Still, Hannity was more interested in demagoguing than in producing an accurate portrait of the situation, let alone helping find a resolution. He blamed the high unemployment rate in the San Joaquin Valley on the lack of water for farmers, and blamed that solely on the delta smelt lawsuits.
Near the end of the show, he had on his usual Intended Liberal Victim, for whom he could reserve such deep journalistic questions as "And I just want to know: How did you get your priorities so screwed up in life? What happened to you?"
But the Intended Victim, a fellow named Zeke Grader of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, actually bit back, pointing out how callous and indifferent Hannity was toward the plight of the people on the coast who have traditionally made their livings by fishing salmon, both commercially and recreationally.
Neiwert also goes on to add that Bush-era water policy, from the decisions early in the administration by Bush and Cheney to restrict water releases in the Klamath basin to help southern Oregon farmers (and resulting in one of the largest salmon kills in West Coast history) to agreeing to export more water from the Delta at the expense of fisheries.
As I've written about here at Calitics, the water problems in the Delta and the Valley are caused by contracts written during wet years to ensure greater delivery of supplies to unsustainable land use policies in the southern San Joaquin Valley and in Southern California. The water crisis we face is not just analogous to, but fundamentally related to, the housing bubble and its collapse. Water managers wrote checks mother nature could not cash - just as the housing bubble collapsed when borrowers were unable to service the debts, the water bubble collapsed when Mother Nature was unable to provide the water to "pay" the contracts written under the Bush administration.
The Valley is experiencing the effects of both the housing crisis and the water crisis. But the solution should not be, as Hannity demands, cramming down Monterey fishermen to refloat a Modesto or a Moreno Valley bubble.
Hannity wants to use government policy to not only pick winners and losers, but to do so in the most reckless method possible. His preferred solution would ensure the death of the salmon fishery and further ecosystem collapse. And it would simply create another bubble in the Valley where jobs would be based on an unsustainably high use of water, something that is particularly reckless in the face of global warming and the declining rate of precipitation.
Farmworkers and fishermen have more in common than conservatives would have them believe. They both need sustainable water policy to survive. And that is in turn in the best interests of all Californians.
Let's hope more fishermen and farmworkers stand up to Hannity's cheap demagoguery. He doesn't have the Valley's best interests in mind.
Notes from yet another long session in the Legislature:
The Senate could wait no longer for the Assembly to get their act together, so they passed a reduced prison package along the Assembly's lines, one that falls $200 million short of projections and does not have a sentencing commission. The Governor has announced he'll sign the bill. It's marginally worthwhile for the parole reforms, but really nowhere near what's needed. And so the federal judges will in all likelihood order a mass release, and because little is being done to address root causes, the cost of prisons and the population as a whole are both still likely to increase. The cowards in the Assembly who think they have designs on higher office after this travesty should know that this vote will have importance, but not in the way they think.
The bill to waive CEQA requirements (California Environmental Quality Act) to put a football stadium in Southern California - without an NFL team, mind you - did not get by Darrell Steinberg, despite lots of energy and effort from special interests. He's giving the various parties more time to negotiate a settlement. Sports stadiums are among the biggest corporate welfare projects we have in America.
The much-ballyhooed water deal has been scuttled, as Karen Bass announced she did not have the votes to move it. The Speaker may ask for a special session on water, and the Governor would probably move that as well. The middle-of-the-night rush obviously didn't work, so some transparency would be preferable.
Still waiting on the renewable energy standard bill, which would put California in the vanguard of the nation in terms of its portfolio (33% by 2020).
• CapAlert reports that Karen Bass will try again to get some of the more spineless members of her caucus to support a prison reform bill better than the scaled-back effort it already passed. Bass talked about adding the "alternative custody" provisions into the bill, which would get it to the proper level of cuts, but not the sentencing commission, which still looks dead, sadly.
• One bill we know to be dead is SB88, which would have forced localities to get permission from the state before going into bankruptcy. This was a union-backed bill to protect their local contracts, but city governments balked. Sen. Mark DeSaulnier says he'll try to broker a compromise for next year. Those bankruptcies are probably right down the pike, so he'd better hurry.
• The bill that the Governor arrogantly vetoed earlier in the week, in a hissy fit because he wasn't getting his way on water or prisons, was a bill to initiate a Vietnam Veteran's memorial day. It was authored by Republican Assemblyman Paul Cook, and he's whipping support to undergo the first legislative veto override in Sacramento in about 30 years, which is truly a sad legacy. Only in California could securing an override on an uncontroversial bill be something that could end a political career, as Cook acknowledged today. An override would be at least a sign of life in the Legislature.
UPDATE: And that's going to fizzle, because the Yacht Party in the Senate won't go along with an override. What point is there having the law on the books? Paul Cook is going to us a gut-and-amend to put the same bill up tonight, anyway.
• A lot of rumbling about the water bill, which is being written completely in secrecy, and without the input of politicians who represent the Sacramento Delta. Bass hinted at a bond issue to finance whatever comes out of conference, which would cost $600 $800 million in debt service annually without any consequent gains in revenue to pay for it.
UPDATE: The Fresno Bee has more. The bond issue seems to be the sticking point.
Could be another long night...
UPDATE: Here's some actual good news. SB13, the bill to fund $16.3 million for domestic violence shelters by shifting some budget accounts, passed the Assembly on a bipartisan vote of 63-1. I wrote yesterday about how the loss of this funding was simply devastating and indeed, a death warrant, to domestic violence victims across the state. It moves to the Senate for concurrence.
Just caught this press release by State Senator Lois Wolk, and my jaw dropped:
SACRAMENTO-Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) has withdrawn her authorship of Senate Bill 458 that would establish a Delta Conservancy. The action came in response to being notified by Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) that her legislation would be amended in a Conference Committee with provisions Senator Wolk and the five Delta counties opposed. Wolk has been replaced with Senators Steinberg and Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) as the authors of SB 458.
"When I learned that the Conference Committee intended to alter key provisions of the bill, as well as other pieces of the water package, it was clear I could no longer carry this legislation," said Senator Wolk. "What began as a sincere effort to create a state and local partnership to restore the Delta and sustain the Delta communities and economy is becoming, day by day, amendment by amendment, a tool to assist water exporters who are primarily responsible for the Delta's decline. It is regrettable. Without the Delta communities as working partners in this effort it is unlikely to succeed."
With about 24 hours left in the Legislature's current session, deals on the two main issues for which Arnold is demanding resolutions, water and prisons, do not seem likely. On the water issues:
The water conference committee signed off last night on a five-bill package to address Delta conservation and water supply issues.
The conference report got the eight signatures needed to pass out of the committee in time for a floor vote, but none of the Republicans on the panel were on board with the plan.
Sen. Dave Cogdill, the lead Republican in the negotiations, called the conference report "an unbalanced package of bills that ignores the need for a reliable water supply and only caters to the interests of extreme environmentalists." (CapAltert 9/10/09)
And that doesn't even bring in the issue of how to pay for this stuff. Pretty much everybody is shying away from general obligation bonds, as our credit rating these days pretty much sucks and it is really expensive to borrow money. May folks have been pushing the idea of revenue bonds, but it isn't clear that we can really raise enough money to pay for everything that is on the table right now.
The prison reform issue isn't really doing any better as the Assembly plan doesn't have enough cost savings (or enough spine) and the Senate seems reluctant to pull the trigger on a half measure. There may be something sort of development on prisons, but it would have to be very, very soon.
So, as Ernie Banks said, "It's a beautiful day for a ballgame... Let's play two!"
There's lots of significant news in the Legislature's last week regarding various bills, and it's extremely difficult to keep up with it all, probably by design. I should point out that, while the legislative calendar has an end date, there's no actual reason for some of the forced bottlenecks that result in hundreds of bills being passed at the last minute. It creates a shroud of secrecy in which special interests rule, and saps the public trust. A Democratic leadership actually interested in positioning government as somewhat decent would remove these forced bottlenecks from the internal legislative rules and allow bills to be approved on a rolling basis. That said, this is the system we have now, and here's a bunch of news about various bills:
• A new bill would exempt non-General Fund workers from furloughs. This would reverse one of the dumbest provisions in the budget bill, the practice of forcing furloughs on workers not paid by state government, saving almost no money and depriving people of needed services. Of course, the Governor will probably veto this one, because he hates admitting how wrong he is.
• Democrats on that vaunted water committee have decided against floating a bond to pay for any restoration or overhaul of the Delta. This means Republicans won't vote for it, and very little will come of this very important committee thrown together at the last minute. Some conference committee reports are here, but a deal looks remote, as it would need votes from some of the empty chairs in the Yacht Party.
• One bill that has cleared both chambers would set up "Education Finance Districts", "in which three or more contiguous school districts can band together to try to increase local taxes." This is a small step to make it easier for districts to pass parcel taxes to fund schools, but at this point every little bit helps. The 2/3 rule for approving such taxes would remain.
• With all the talk of health care reform, it's notable that an anti-rescission bill has once again passed the legislature. The bill would also simplify insurance forms. Last session, Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. There's something you don't hear much about from the Democratic leadership - Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have banned insurance companies from dropping patients after they get sick. He sided with the forces of insurer-assisted suicide. This is your modern Yacht Party on this issue:
"Any of those who have read the various exposés in the Los Angeles Times and others . . . is aware that health insurers have admitted and acknowledged they engaged in a form of post-claims underwriting," said Sen. Mark Wyland (R-Escondido). "It is unethical and, considering what some of these people have endured, it really borders on the immoral."
However, Wyland said he would not vote for the bill because the Department of Insurance has proposed new rules to solve the problem, and he wants to see how they work.
Hey, give 'em a chance to see if the immorality stops! If not, we can think it over.
• The Legislature may extend a homebuyer's tax credit passed in a previous budget agreement that was nothing but a bailout for developers. It only credited new construction, and was structured only to benefit high-income households who could afford new construction. By the way, sales of new units have fell since this was enacted, so it's not even meeting its intended purpose. But it's a giveaway to a special interest, so off the money may go, even though we cannot afford it at this time.
• A bill to ban bisphenol A (BPA) from children's products was delayed after the Assembly couldn't muster 41 votes. The debate in the Assembly last night was pretty fierce.
• Cities and counties reacted angrily to a proposed bill to slow local government bankruptcies until vetted by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission. On the merits this looks to be a bill that would install more control on locals from Sacramento, although there are arguments on both sides. But mainly it's about the fate of union contracts in local bankruptcies, I don't think either side would deny that.
• A roundup of other bills passed yesterday can be found here.
Yeah, I know the plural is crises, but crisii just sounded better. Anyway, looking back over the last few months, it is hard to see anything other than the fits and starts in response to one crisis or another. And the media seems to pick up these issues and drop them just as quickly. It's not hard to see why we simply drift from one issue to another without the regular legislative process that is really quite valuable.
We had the budget crisis, and then another budget crisis, and then all eyes were moved on over to the prison crisis. And now it seems that the prison crisis is over, because all I'm seeing is the urgency to pass water legislation.
"We do have a 5 p.m. deadline for signing a conference report. We have until Friday midnight (the deadline for the legislative recess) to potentially complete the whole package," Steinberg said at a Labor Day hearing in the Capitol.
Some Republicans on the committee were concerned that majority Democrats intended to ram through a water package by crafting it piecemeal, rather than as a comprehensive policy-finance plan requiring bipartisan support.
"We are mindful of the logistics," Steinberg told Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Fresno, the ranking GOP water expert in the Senate, who wondered whether a final water package would be truly bipartisan. (Capitol Weekly 9/8/09)
First, the parallels to the national health care fight are frankly rather annoying. Why do we need a bipartisan bill? Democrats have large majorities in both houses, and frankly, the California electorate has given them a mandate. If we are going to be forced to bring along the Republicans, why not the "Utopian Manifesto" party (PDF)). Yes, I understand that the Republicans actually have some votes in the Legislature, but we can't impose these supermajority requirements where we don't have them. It's a pain enough when we are forced to deal with them, why add additional ones?
If the Republicans don't like it, well, they should try to win enough elections to be the majority in one house or another so they can get a real say. Otherwise, I suppose they'll just go back to the refuge of scoundrels in the California Constitution: the super majority requirements.
But beyond that, why is this all being done in the last week? Is this really the best way to produce quality legislation? At some point are we going to actually engage the public in these discussions rather than rushing to get something, anything, to the Governor's desk by the deadline?
I understand the need for this legislation, but this is a really big deal. This will impact how many people can live in the state, whether there will be viable agriculture in the state, and how we deal with climate change. Big decisions are best handled through a regular process not some herky jerky hurry up and wait mess. It just breeds some other crisis somewhere down the line when it turns out we overlooked some significant policy detail.
Let's try solving some problems the old-fashioned way some time, think how retro that would be.
By now, it's hard to ignore the science: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is in crisis. Study after study shows that the delta is dying from pollution and neglect. This PPIC report is particularly useful for framing just how bad it is.
So why should Californians care? Well, 23 million of us rely on the delta for water. Yet the delta ecosystem is collapsing, threatening California's environmental and economic quality of life. The fact is California can't remain prosperous without a reliable water supply. There is no choice but to act.
This morning the Senate-Assembly conference committee on water met for the first time. The goal - as outlined below by Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (disclosure: my boss) - is to finalize legislation before the end of session to "share, store and save water more effectively."
The Senate and Assembly leaders are pushing for a comprehensive solution that: Ensures more efficient water management for our cities, the environment, farmers and fisherman; greater protection for unique ecosystem of the Delta; reliable water supply for economic growth.
