559-286-7795
facebook twitter you tube
 

Newsletter

 

Doing Nothing Is Still Too Much!

The Times concludes that the Feinstein Do-Nothing Bill does too much and therefore negotiating between bad (Feinstein's Bill) and worse (House Bill) is not acceptable.

Jun 10, 2014

The Los Angeles Times is joining the chorus of people saying the House Drought Bill asks for too much, and they even think the Dianne Feinstein Senate version gives away too much even though they admit it does nothing new.

What's wrong with the Feinstein bill? According to the editorial below: "M
ost of what the Senate bill offers — flexibility to reduce river flows to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta during emergencies in order to direct more water to Central Valley farmers — already exists."


This is what we've been saying all along, that the bill offers nothing new, just the same old flexibility that already exists. The difference between us and the L.A. Times is that the Times Editorial Board thinks doing nothing is doing too much. We, of course, think we need to get some water to our farms. Doing nothing does nothing to fix the problem. But it's too much, apparently, for the Times.

The Times concludes that the Feinstein Do-Nothing Bill does too much and therefore negotiating between bad (Feinstein's Bill) and worse (House Bill) is not acceptable. As they put it: "a compromise between the two bills would be bad for California."

There you have it. Doing nothing does too much. And, of course, if we do nothing we get no water. Doing nothing is exactly what the environmentalists like. Time is on their side.

Editorial: Drought and doubt over Congress' dusty solutions

Los Angeles Times

Masquerading as a response to California's drought, a bill to waive environmental protections and divert more water to Central Valley agriculture passed the Republican-controlled House in February and is now going to conference to be reconciled with a competing bill by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that the Senate adopted last month.

Californians overwhelmingly reject loosening environmental regulations to increase water deliveries to farms and cities, as demonstrated by the results of a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll released Friday. So you might think that Feinstein's alternative bill would propose a more palatable way to deal with the state's water crisis. But there's a catch — three of them, actually.

 
The first is that most of what the Senate bill offers — flexibility to reduce river flows to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta during emergencies in order to direct more water to Central Valley farmers — already exists. Water managers have authorized the maximum amount of river diversions consistent with laws in place to protect crippled salmon fisheries and prevent the collapse of not just the delta but the state's entire water delivery infrastructure. So Feinstein's bill either undermines those protections (the senator insists it does not) or merely engrafts into law what has already been accomplished administratively.

 

  • Water diversions have been far below the amount allowable under the Endangered Species Act. Senator Feinstein’s bill requires federal fishery managers to operate the system at the upper end of the allowable range rather than the lower end, as they have been doing. Sadly, California’s water...
    California Farm Water Coalition
    at 10:45 PM June 09, 2014

 

That takes us to the second catch. Any progress California hopes to make in attaining sustainable solutions to its long-term water crisis requires a great deal of trust on the part of all factions that science and expertise, and not politics, will govern day-to-day decisions about how much water is needed to protect a salmon run, for example, and how much can be diverted to farms. Changing rules that by all appearances are working sends a signal that Congress rather than water experts may at any moment take charge of the state's competing water needs. Such a precedent bodes ill for even more complicated programs, such as the twin tunnels proposed to divert water around the delta, because environmentalists and Northern California farmers won't sign on if they have no faith that science will guide decisions about when and how much to pump.
 
The third catch is that the Senate bill is a poor starting point for conference discussions with House Republicans, whose bill is geared more toward permanently weakening the Endangered Species Act than any drought relief or sustainable water solution. A compromise between the two bills would be bad for California.

The state does need federal water legislation — laws that incentivize agricultural and urban efficiency and assist in groundwater cleanup and recharging. Those are the areas in which Congress should be focusing its attention.

 

 

Valid RSS FeedGet the 10 most recent items from our RSS feed.

helpdonate
helpdonate