If Talk Was Water We Would All Be Drowning
Only a pittance of funding would go for Central Valley farmers facing a scorching drought and high unemployment rates.
Jul 01, 2014
In Washinngton D.C. the House and Senate are negotiating a compromise on their respective drought bills, or so they say. We were told that we all needed to support both bills even though the Senate bill does nothing. Nevertheless, the bills would move to a conference committee where a compromise would be worked out. At this point in time there is no conference committee. Legislators and staff have met but say they've agreed to keep mum.
Democrat Congressman Jared Huffman asks what part of the House bill is worth including? "The overturning of state water law? The ending of a hundred year federal precedent of deference to the states? The undoing of prior federal legislation?" Translation: they don't want anything to do with re-doing the San Joaquin River Settlement or making changes to the Endangered Species Act with regard to the Delta Smelt. These are the only areas of compromise that have any meaning for farmers.
In Sacramento they are trying to change the 2010 Water Bond scheduled to be on the ballot this November. So far no go. The Governor wants his twin tunnels, but Northern California Democrats want nothing to do with it. The way we see it, if anything about the tunnels is in the bond, there will be so much opposition, it won't pass.
According to the Mercury News, "overall support for the water bond proposal before the state Senate drops from 61 percent to 41 percent if it is perceived as a part of a Northern California/Southern California water war -- which perfectly describes the water grab that is at the heart of Brown's massive tunnel proposal to send additional water south."
There is very little to nothing in the bond debate for Central Valley farmers. Cal Watchdog's Wayne Lusvardi in the article below says "the water bond would fund a large number of state environmental agencies, boards and nonprofit agencies and projects having nothing to do with drought or the title of the bond. Only a pittance of funding would go for Central Valley farmers facing a scorching drought and high unemployment rates."
Water bond drowns in Legislature
A $10.5 billion water bond apparently drowned in the California Senate this past week for the third time since 2010, even though the Central Valley faces a dire drought this summer. But the Legislature still might perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and waive the June 26 deadline for putting the bond on the November ballot. The official name is Senate Bill 848, The Safe Drinking Water Quality and Water Supply Act of 2014.
The Senate vote on the bond was 22 in favor and 9 opposed, mainly with Democrats favoring the bond and Republicans opposed. But several Democrats abstained from voting and a couple of Republicans voted for the bond.
The main issue raised was whether the $15 billion Twin Tunnels should have been included or not. The Twin Tunnels would send water under the Delta to Southern California.
State Sens. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Lois Wolk, D-Davis, opposed including the tunnels for fear it would trigger a North-South water war at the ballot box. Late in the water bond negotiations, Gov. Jerry Brown said he wanted a smaller $6 billion bond that was “tunnel neutral” (no tunnels).
Jann Taber, spokesman for state Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford, said Republicans were withholding approval of the bond unless it included some form of Delta water conveyance (tunnels, a Delta perimeter canal, or some other facility), new water storage dams and reservoirs and clean drinking water.
But SB848 contained almost nothing for Central Valley farmers with junior water rights who during droughts are asked to fallow their fields and plow under citrus trees so cities and fish can have enough water. The California water system now can only operate in a prolonged drought by having some farmers get wiped out, while cities remain untouched and other farmers have priority to water. This is because there has been no effective water storage added since the mid-1960s.
Brown, Steinberg and Wolk did not mention that a “tunnel neutral” water bond also meant “farmer neutral,” containing very little for Central Valley farmers hard hit by drought. As Republican Senate Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, put it, “The main issue was it was a conservancy, Delta-centric bond. When we look at our constituencies, most of them are flatly opposed to it.”
As written, the water bond would fund a large number of state environmental agencies, boards and nonprofit agencies and projects having nothing to do with drought or the title of the bond. Only a pittance of funding would go for Central Valley farmers facing a scorching drought and high unemployment rates.
Democratic legislators were perhaps only following their constituencies. Only 36 percent of respondents in a recent poll responded: “Water supply issues should be addressed even if it costs taxpayer dollars” (Question 43). And only 46 percent responded, “I would be willing to pay a higher water bill now to ensure a reliable, long-term water supply” (Question 44).
In addition, 82 percent said climate change was responsible for California’s water supply problems, including 85 percent of Latinos (Question 32).
The bond, as currently written, would allocate:
Get the 10 most recent items from our RSS feed.