http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/carlsbad/article_e86f04f4-c8a0-5621-9cfb-09b492577e7c.html
Friday, September 4, 2009
[CWP_ENews] ~~ Drought Update ~ Fair exhibit ~ RAP ~ Prop. 84 ~Plenary ~~
This week's Water Plan eNews includes:
· Drought Update reports conditions around the state
· ‘Save Our Water’ is theme of State Fair exhibit
· RAP recommendations posted; workshops set
· Strategic Growth Council prepares to adopt criteria for Prop. 84 funds
· Mark your calendar! Water Plan’s Plenary meeting set for Oct. 14-15
The Water Privateers
Draining the San Joaquin
The Water Privateers
By KATHRYN GRAY
August 27, 2009
The next time you're driving on California's Highway 5, and you see a grove of dead trees sporting those "Congress Created Dustbowl" signs, hold off reaching for your hankie. If you're watching a Fox News feed of farmworkers who were paid a day's wages for "protesting" at a Democratic Congressman's office, wielding commercially produced signs, and chanting "Aqua now," sit back and do a reality check. And if you've read about the Pacific Legal Foundation's petition to call in the "God Squad" to dump the Endangered Species Act, and get those pumps on to save beleaguered Westside San Joaquin valley farms, stop and hum your bible school hymn "All creatures great and small... the good Lord made them all..."
The demonstration you're seeing on Fox was staged, one way or another. The Delta pumps Pacific Legal Foundation has been having a prolonged constitutional hissy fit about have been on for quite some time, and San Luis Reservoir is filling. Their petition is nothing but a sham attempt to get the Federal Government to consign yet more species, this time several fish which support the entire Pacific Coast Salmon fishery, to extinction. And those very dead trees? Chances are that deceased almond grove belongs to a farmer who's crying all the way to the bank.
Yesterday, the Hanford Sentinel broke the news that Sandridge Partners, a Westside "family farm", was planning on selling 14,000 acre-feet of Sacramento San Joaquin Delta water a year to the Mojave Water Agency, San Bernardino County, for a mind boggling 5,500 dollars an acre-foot.
Who wants to be a millionaire? This deal will yield 77 million dollars to, wait for it, multimillionaires. Sandridge Partners is owned by the Vidovich family of Silicon Valley, who already amassed a considerable fortune turning Silicon Valley orchards into housing tracts. More recently, according to the Environmental Working Group, as detailed in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Sandridge Partners were the biggest 2008 recipients in the entire nation for federal subsidies for thirsty cotton, wheat, and peanuts for their farms in three San Joaquin Valley counties. Think of them as Kern County's Welfare Kings.
Sandridge farms is now, according to the article in the Hanford Sentinel, planning on cutting down 2,500 acres of almond trees along Hwy 5 near Kettleman City, and selling the California Aqueduct water they've contracted for, for 77 million dollars, to enable more sprawl in California's Mojave Desert.
Should our eyes all be glazed over, as this is just another example of Pork du Jour, this time slightly Selenium laced? Absolutely not! Right now there are 5 bills on a rush job in Sacramento, which were ostensibly written to deal with Sacramento Delta water and environmental issues. In reality, these bills, which seek to enact Governor Schwarzenneger's Bay Delta Conservation Plan, are a giant red herring, not aimed at protecting the very frail Delta, or helping small family farms in the Delta and other parts of the state, but are instead directed at aggrandizing the rights of junior westside water rights holders, and developers in Southern California.
Sacramento San Joaquin Delta is "the next Katrina" according to Senator Joe Simitian, Palo Alto, an early and vociferous proponent of a revitalized Peripheral Canal. The somewhat endearing, but also alarmingly naif former NRDC attorney Jared Huffman, assemblyman for Marin County, seems to truly believe that his bill, which will allow Governor Schwarzenneger to stack a committee to okay the Peripheral Canal, will pull the Delta and the Pacific Coast Salmon fishery back from the brink of doom.
These two unlikely Northern California legislators are the face of the new water buffaloes; instead of driving us to the desert in Cadillacs, so old school, it's all now a Prius Desert, where environmental greenwash is the order of the day. Their proposed legislation puts paid to the Public Trust Doctrine, which saved Mono Lake from being drained to the dregs by the Metropolitan Water District, a smooth suitor for yet more Sacramento San Joaquin Delta water, ably abetted by the even greedier Los Angeles Times.
To make matters worse, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, BDCP, aka Big Dumb Canal Plan, that they seek to enact had "environmental" groups sign on early. It's a sad litany, and even sadder considering a Five Delta Counties representative testified at an August 25th Legislative hearing that agreeing to the necessity of an "alternate conveyance"(aka Periperheral Canal) was a "litmus test" for being allowed to join BDCP.
The (dis)honor roll of BDCP participants includes: Bay Institute, Environmental Defense Fund, Defenders of Wildlife, and Nature Conservancy. In addition, it must be noted that Natural Resource Defense Council's Barry Nelson has been active in supporting the "Delta Fix" legislation, including testifying on behalf of Jared Huffman's bill.
But back to greenacres, and when we say green, we mean money. The very able PR Groups pushing new dams and a peripheral canal in California have perfected the "Dustbowl" meme. From Newsweek to BBC, they've all suddenly discovered the plight of farmworkers, and marvel at unemployment statistics that actually haven't budged in decades. They ignore the inconvenient truth, that, as many farmworkers are illegal aliens, they are reluctant or unable to join farmworker unions that could offer them protection from abuses, better access to clean drinking water, and better working conditions in the central valley. By the way, better working conditions encompasses not dropping dead from heat exhaustion, because your employer has made you work, or has not provided shade, in deadly 100+ degree temperatures.
Senator Joe Simitian, Assemblyman Jared Huffman, and all those who are maniacally attempting to push their "Delta Fix" bills through in the waning days of this California legislative session endlessly recite, regarding the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, that the "status quo is not acceptable." In reality, their legislation does nothing but support more of the same. Those who've got, like Sandridge Partners, get.
Water privatization moves forward, and the inequities of California water law, where water supposedly belongs to the people, are ignored to make sure big money interests, whether corporate farms, or developers, prosper. The real family farmers, whether in the San Joaquin Valley, or the rest of the state, are left staring at a world of hurt, where lipservice is paid to Agriculture, and water is sold to the highest bidder.
And the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta? Let's hope it's not "sic transit gloria mundi", but if the water privateers, abetted by Senator Simitian and Assemblyman Huffman, and their chorus of greenwashers have their way, the largest estuary on the West Coast will die to ensure California water is sold at the highest price, to the highest bidder, with the proceeds pocketed by "family farms" and developers.
Kathryn Gray was genuinely shocked to see how state and federal subsidized water continues to line the pockets of the very, very, very rich. To find out how you can speak out against this, and save the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, and, while you're at it, the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery, which has been closed for two years, please visit www.calsport.org <http://www.calsport.org>
FW: Today at Aguanomics
Exporting Water from the Dust Bowl to the Desert
Posted: 02 Sep 2009 03:22 AM PDT
Last week, a $77 million water sale (not lease) made headlines. The sale is notable for a few reasons:
1. That's a lot of money for 14,000 af of water rights. At a 5 percent discount rate, that works out to $275/af. (According to my sources, that water has an annual delivery fee -- for infrastructure debts, etc. -- of about $100/af.)
2. The water is going from an ag seller in "parched" Kings County to an urban buyer in fast-growing San Bernadino County.
3. Both the buyer and seller are contractors to the State Water Project, which means there are few -- if any -- regulatory barriers to completing the sale.
Here are a few observations:
§ It's clear that money talks as far as water is concerned. Although farmers are complaining of a "dust bowl" (and the media is STILL eating up Westlands agit/prop), what they are really complaining about is an increase in the cost of doing business. I guess that Westlands (et al.!) would rather lobby Feinstein and Vilsack than pay money for more water.*
§ I wonder about the details of the contract. Does the price change if less than 14,000 af/year are available? Seth -- the reporter on the original story -- says that the seller received an average of 50 percent of its contracted deliveries/rights in the past.
§ Other, smaller trades are also occurring: South San Joaquin Irrigation District leased 30,000 af for $6.8 million. Curiously, they sold 25,000 af of "emergency" water to the San Luis-Delta Mendota Water Agency for $250/af, but that same water only sold for $150/af to the City of Stockton and $20/af to the East Stockton Water District. Seems like these deals reflected a compromise between politics and market efficiency.
§ Here's a link to water trades that require SWRCB approval.
Bottom Line: When water is no longer abundant, its scarcity value rises. Some are willing to pay more to maintain their supply, while others prefer to take it thorough political means. (Katheryn Gray rips into the "fake emergency" driving the political debate in Sac.) The latter method, whether using other people's money or political force, is neither efficient nor equitable.
hattips to PB, ED, CM and DW
*Westlands is a CVP contractor, but CVP-SWP trades are now very easy.
Lawmakers want to grant extension for desalination plant
SD Union-Tribune
Lawmakers want to grant extension for desalination
September 1, 2009
Fearing further delay could scuttle the ocean-water desalination plant in Carlsbad, state lawmakers today will introduce legislation that would grant the developer an automatic one-year extension of its permit to build the plant.
The San Diego County delegation in Sacramento has unanimously endorsed the measure, saying Poseidon Resources would probably walk away if it is forced to invest millions in another round of applications.
If that happened, the region would lose a vital new water source, and the state's efforts to promote desalination could suffer a huge setback, legislators said.
“This is a project that's going to be looked to across the state. We have to make sure it happens,” said Assemblywoman Mary Salas, D-Chula Vista.
The project is expected to convert 50 million gallons of seawater into drinking water every day.
Peter MacLaggan, a Poseidon vice president, said the Coastal Commission's conditions for the permit will be met by mid-September, but state budget cuts might delay issuing the formal permit beyond the Nov. 14 expiration date.
Poseidon expects to begin construction by the end of the year.
MWD turns cash spigot for water saving rebate programs back on again - future funding uncertain
An organization who doesn't blink at paying for a $54 billion Delta fix gets queasy about paying
$6 million for water conservation rebate programs. What's wrong with this picture?
http://www.pe.com/localnews/environment/stories/PE_News_Local_S_rebates31.34a572a.html
The denominator problem: Misleading use of water numbers
San Francisco Chronicle
The denominator problem: Misleading use of water numbers
By Peter Gleich
8/27/09
I'm a believer in the power of facts and numbers to help make public policy. I believe that without good science and without good numbers, it is difficult to make good public policy. And it is impossible to make good public policy with bad numbers.
The good news is that most policy makers understand this. The bad news is that there are people and groups (on both the left and the right) who work to produce or disseminate bad numbers as a way of influencing policy decisions in their favor. I've addressed these broad questions of the misuse of science in testimony to the U.S. Senate <http://www.pacinst.org/publications/testimony/Gleick_Senate_Commerce_2-7-07.pdf> in 2007 and the Institute launched an Integrity of Science Initiative <http://www.integrityofscience.org/> in 2005 to explore case studies of the abuse and misuse of science. We've described a number of remarkable abuses over the years.
Often, the generation and use of bad numbers comes down to what I describe as the "denominator problem." Numbers are often represented as a percentage or fraction or ratio of something: for example, a new "high efficiency" toilet uses around 20% (or 1.2 gallons divided by 6 gallons) of the water used by an old, pre-1994 toilet. Or the average American uses around 1500 gallons of water each day (calculated by dividing the freshwater used for everything nationwide by the total number of Americans).
But the choice of the denominator has a huge influence over the end result, and there are a growing number of examples where the choice is made for political purposes, to come up with a result more favorable to a particular political position. Here are two examples:
Water Number: 0.019% or something much larger.
What is the fraction of groundwater used for bottled water? A substantial amount of the bottled water sold in the United States -- around 60% -- comes from groundwater. This water is typically labeled "spring" water according to regulations set by the FDA. In recent years, there has been growing public opposition to the construction of large spring water bottling plants in small rural communities in Maine, Michigan, California, Colorado, and elsewhere because of fear, and some direct physical evidence, that such large plants adversely affect local groundwater levels, flowing springs, and local wetlands. In response, the bottled water industry, led by the International Bottled Water Association, launched a campaign (including testimony to state and federal legislators) arguing that there was no problem because "ground water withdrawals for bottled water production represent only 0.019% of the total fresh ground water withdrawals in the U.S." Ah, here rears the ugly head of the denominator problem. This number is probably very close to true. It is also completely irrelevant and misleading. The proper denominator should not be total U.S. groundwater withdrawals, it should be some measure of local groundwater availability, or use, or yield -- a much smaller denominator. In this case, a bottled water withdrawal may be a very significant fraction of local groundwater. But by choosing a big denominator, the industry was attempting to disguise a problem.
Water Number: 80 or 41%?
Which number best describes the extent of Californian agricultural water use? A second example of a denominator problem is the number used to represent the use of water by the agricultural sector in California. There are two competing camps. The most common number, and the number I typically use, is that the agricultural sector uses around 80 percent of all of the water withdrawn for human use in California (34.2 million acre-feet per year agricultural use divided by a total human use of 43.1 maf). This is the typical approach used by water use analysts, internationally, nationally, and locally. Indeed, the California number is the same as the global estimate of agricultural water use: 80% of the water humans use goes to agriculture. This number, to be polite, drives some in the agricultural community crazy because they think it makes them look bad. They insist on the use of a different denominator: instead of the total amount of water used by humans, they prefer the larger estimate of the total amount of water available in California. Using this number, agriculture only uses around 41% of the state's water -- still a large amount, but much less dramatic than 80%. In this case (unlike the groundwater example above) both numbers are "right" -- they just represent different things, including a different way of thinking about water. The agricultural industry prefers, of course, the larger denominator because it makes their use of water look smaller (40% instead of 80%).
But it also reflects a deeper philosophy held by some that humans ought to be able to put every drop of water to a human use. In the minds of some, any water that flows to the sea (or delta or wetland) in a river is wasted. Most recently, this has been expressed by the "fish versus farms" arguments of the agricultural lobbyists. By making the argument as an "either/or," they are clearly saying if "fish" (read "the environment") have to die in order to water another field, so be it. My approach focuses on how much water different human sectors use, with an implicit belief that ecosystems deserve water too. In other words, we need to figure out how to have both fish and farms.
Denominator problems abound in our daily lives. We are regularly presented with percentages, ratios, and numerical comparisons of all kinds. Beware of misleading numbers and be aware of the philosophies underlying the numbers we see.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick/detail??blogid=104&entry_id=46314#ixzz0PXkLzIOz <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick/detail??blogid=104&entry_id=46314>
Mayor Sanders: San Diego on the Right Track with Water Conservation
On June 1, the city of San Diego implemented the most comprehensive water-conservation requirements ever established for our city. These requirements gave every city water department customer specific directions on how to cut back on their water usage to help the city avoid serious shortages.
Like many San Diegans, I have at times found it tough to adjust to the new restrictions. They forced me to change the way I use water around my house and yard – which meant breaking some pretty ingrained habits. But I could see what the larger picture was, and I hoped that others were getting the message that small changes to water-use habits can add up to big savings.
Now, we have the first full picture of how San Diego is doing. New conservation statistics – measuring changes in water consumption in July of this year against July of 2008 – show San Diegans have stepped up, and are meeting the challenge.
Citywide, San Diegans used 13.9 percent less water this July than they did in July of last year. That conservation success extends to each of the major categories of water users supplied by the city. Residential use is down 15.4 percent. Commercial and industrial use is down 6.5 percent. And irrigation consumption is also down by 24.4 percent.
People are obviously getting the message about the Level 2 restrictions and our city’s ongoing water emergency. While we may be able to attribute some of this conservation to fairly mild weather we’ve had this summer, it’s clear San Diegans are taking extra steps.
The good work includes city workers too. I am happy to report that the city of San Diego continues to lead by example by reducing its own water consumption in July by 19 percent when measured against last July’s figures.
All of this is great news and a testament to the effectiveness of our advertising and marketing effort and to the conservation ethic of all San Diegans.
The next few months will offer a tough test of that ethic. Despite the brief sprinkles last weekend, San Diego has gone without any substantial rain for most of the year – and September and October are our hottest and driest months.
San Diegans have shown we’re able to sustain the kind of responsible, efficient use of water that helped us achieve very good numbers. We’re on the right track, and we need to keep the momentum through the fall.
Mayor Jerry Sanders
Otay water board OKs 19.9 percent rate increase
San Diego Union-Tribune
Otay water board OKs 19.9 percent rate increase
8/25/09
SPRING VALLEY: The Otay Water District board approved a rate increase of almost 20 percent yesterday, with possible additional rate increases for the next five years.
District officials say the price increase is necessary because the Metropolitan Water District, which supplies water to San Diego County through the County Water Authority, is raising its price by 19.7 percent next month. Other increases are projected for 2011 and beyond.
Otay's proposed 19.9 percent increase would raise a typical customer's bill from $52.54 to $62.27 per month.
Otay officials are predicting a 19.9 percent rate increase each year for the next two years, plus a 7 percent increase each year for the following four years. That doesn't include any projected cost increases to Otay from the County Water Authority, which the district will be passing on to its customers.
The Otay Water District serves more than 191,000 residents in southern El Cajon, La Mesa, Rancho San Diego, Jamul, Spring Valley, Bonita, eastern Chula Vista, Eastlake and Otay Mesa.—A.K.
Chamber Advocates For Water Reliability
Water reliability is key to meeting the needs of businesses in our region. A package of five major pieces of legislation to fix the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta were recently introduced, which call for Delta protection, new water infrastructure, conservation and the creation of a Delta Stewardship Council. To ensure that Southern California’s interests are looked after, the Chamber has partnered with the Regional Economic Association Leaders (R.E.A.L) Coalition, to urge that the Legislature take action on one critical component of such comprehensive reform: the development of a governance structure capable of making significant progress toward the co-equal goals of water supply reliability and environmental quality in a way that is timely, efficient and effective.
Our Water Supply, Down the Drain
Our Water Supply, Down the Drain
By Robert Glennon
Sunday, August 23, 2009
TUCSON
In the United States, we constantly fret about running out of oil. But we should be paying more attention to another limited natural resource: water. A water crisis is threatening many parts of the country -- not just the arid West.
In 2008, metro Atlanta (home to nearly 5 million people) came within 90 days of seeing its principal water supply, Lake Lanier, dry up. Rainstorms eased the drought, but last month a federal judge ruled that Georgia may no longer use the lake as a municipal supply. The state is now scrambling to overturn that ruling; but Alabama and Florida will oppose Georgia's efforts.
In Florida, excessive groundwater pumping has dried up scores of lakes. In South Carolina, a paper company recently furloughed hundreds of workers because low river flows prevented the company from discharging its wastewater. That state's battle with North Carolina over the Catawba River has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Water has become so contentious nationwide that more than 30 states are fighting with their neighbors over water.
Lake Superior, the largest of the Great Lakes, is too shallow to float fully loaded freighters, dramatically increasing shipping costs. North of Boston, the Ipswich River has gone dry in five of the past eight years. In 2007, the hamlet of Orme, Tenn., ran out of water entirely, forcing it to truck in supplies from Alabama.
Droughts make matters worse, but the real problem isn't shrinking water levels. It's population growth. Since California's last major drought ended in 1992, the state's population has surged by a staggering 7 million people. Some 100,000 people move to the Atlanta area every year. Over the next four decades, the country will add 120 million people, the equivalent of one person every 11 seconds.
More people will put a huge strain on our water resources, but another problem comes in something that sounds relatively benign: renewable energy, at least in some forms, such as biofuels. Refining one gallon of ethanol requires four gallons of water. This turns out to be a drop in the bucket compared with how much water it takes to grow enough corn to refine one gallon of ethanol: as much as 2,500 gallons.
In the United States, we've traditionally engineered our way out of water shortages by diverting more from rivers, building dams or drilling groundwater wells. But many rivers, including the Colorado and the Rio Grande, already dry up each year. The dam-building era from the 1930s to the 1960s tamed so many rivers that only 60 in the country remain free-flowing. Meanwhile, we're pumping so much water from wells that the levels in aquifers are plummeting. We're running out of technological fixes.
Some dreamers gaze upon distant sources of water and imagine that the problem is solved. Plans to divert water from rivers in British Columbia or tow icebergs from Alaska periodically arise. An entrepreneur in Colorado, Aaron Million, recently proposed a $4 billion, 400-mile pipeline to transport water from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir, located on the Green River in Wyoming and Utah, to Denver and Colorado Springs. But the dreamers tend not to address the immense costs, significant environmental objections or regulatory nightmares associated with such grandiose proposals.
More viable solutions include desalination of ocean water, reuse of municipal waste and aggressive conservation strategies. But none of these is a cure-all. Desalination is expensive, burns energy and generates a thorny waste problem. Nor is reclaiming water -- that is, reusing water from the sewage system -- a silver-bullet answer to the crisis. Aside from the major "yuck" factor associated with the idea of potable toilet water, it's also quite expensive, requiring a set of pipes that is completely separate from the drinking-water system.
Conservation does work. In places such as San Antonio, Albuquerque, Tucson and Long Beach, Calif., aggressive conservation programs have reduced consumption dramatically. But it's not enough.
We need a new water policy in the United States. Americans do not pay the real cost of the water that we use. In fact, we don't pay for water at all. The check that citizens write to their municipal water department or private water company covers only the cost of service, plus a small profit for the private company. There is no charge for the water itself.
Last summer, as the price of gas inched up over $4 a gallon, Toyota dealers couldn't keep fuel-efficient Priuses in stock. We should apply that pricing lesson if we want to conserve water, using increasing block rates to discourage profligate water use. Tucson does that and adds a surcharge for excessive use in the summer, when water mostly goes to fill swimming pools and irrigate landscaping.
The idea of charging for water offends many people who think that would be like charging for air. Is it immoral to extract fees for an essential resource? Precisely because water is a public -- and exhaustible -- resource, the government has an obligation to manage it wisely.
Think of our water supply as a giant milkshake, and think of each demand for water as a straw in the glass. Most states permit a limitless number of straws -- and that has to change.
The West, one of the thirstiest parts of the country, is developing a system that should lead the way: the use of market forces to reallocate water. In eastern Oregon, along the Middle Fork of the John Day River, the Oregon Water Trust persuaded third-generation ranchers Pat and Hedy Voigt to turn off their irrigation system each year from July 20 until the end of the growing season. The 6.5 million gallons per day that would have been diverted to grow alfalfa now augment river flows and improve the habitat of endangered salmon and steelhead trout. The $700,000 paid to the Voigts allowed them to make substantial on-farm improvements.
Taking their straw out of the glass is one step toward keeping us from getting parched.
Robert Glennon is a professor of law at the University of Arizona and the author of "Unquenchable: America's Water Crisis and What to Do About It."
© 2009 The Washington Post Company
Water theater in Sacramento
San Francisco Chronicle
Governor's role in political water theater not Oscar material
8/20/09
California water politics have moved to center stage. Delta farmers demonstrated on the Capitol steps this week against a Peripheral Canal and for a fortified delta. Central Valley farmers bussed supporters to Congressman George Miller's office last week protesting the protection of Delta fisheries at the expense of water to them. State legislators yesterday sparred in public over five bills to address water policy.
And what's political theater without an actor Governor weighing in? When the Governor did make a proposal yesterday, it did not predict success. The Governor said he would not sign a water deal without expensive, controversial dams to be paid for primarily by all California taxpayers.
His move is designed to resonate with San Joaquin Valley residents, where he was attacked on water issues at a town hall meeting earlier this year. When challenged, the Governor protested that he had been a strong advocate for the central valley on water issues. But he ignored the fact that it's one thing to advocate, it's another to deliver the goods.
His proposal yesterday would change the legislative vote requirement for a water deal from a simple majority to two-thirds - empowering the same kind of gridlock that characterized recent budget battles. Yet state budgets have to be adopted eventually, and there is no such requirement for water policy, meaning he may have empowered the gridlock that keeps a water deal from happening.
And his proposal would require voter-approval of a bond that would cost the state's already-stressed general fund more than $600 million a year for the next twenty years, more than the amount of his recent budget vetoes that he said he was forced to make because "the state must live within its means" - and likely send the bond to the same fate with the voters that he saw with his May budget propositions.
If he is not flexible on this demand, it probably kills the ability to get to an agreement before the legislature adjourns in just over three weeks. It is the Governor's conundrum. The more he moves to play to interest groups in public, the less ability he will have to get every interest group to move a little out of their comfort zone - a necessity for success. Until the Governor realizes that and acts accordingly, he will only add water to the list of issues on which he has failed.
This subject cries out for action. Urban water users can conserve more, but they must know there is a reliable, good quality water source in return. Many poor, rural areas have challenges to their water quality, but can't fix them by themselves. The overall system must protect fish, but someone has to pay for it. The Delta water system hub must be upgraded and protected before it crashes, but probably not at the expense of meeting every single need. A complex series of measures must be taken to increase supply over time. But with the cost of supply and other system improvements, the people who benefit must pay the bulk of costs, not taxpayers as a whole - to make a deal affordable.
This complexity is the reason that no deal has yet been reached, and requires skilled negotiation and a give and take by everyone. The window for a successful water deal is generally during the second term of a Governor with an eye to his legacy, who might be willing to take difficult steps knowing that he will not face voters again.
There is an agreement to be had here. The Delta ecosystem must be upgraded and restored. The amount of water that leaves the Delta must be constitutionally limited. Conservation and recycling by all California water interests must be at the core. Any bond must be at a reasonable level, have water supply money for every region of the state, and let each region decide what it wants and how much of its local taxpayers will add on for projects. There is a state interest in managing and improving the existing distribution system.
There is a role for the federal government. Federal judges approved the restoration of the San Joaquin River and the limiting of the Delta water exports. And the resulting reduction to water supply in the San Joaquin system came from a federal water project. It is not fair to expect state taxpayers to pick up the slack by themselves. The federal government needs to step up with money, which is the only way past big water projects such as the central valley levee system have been built in the last century.
But each of these items requires a willingness to give a little. Central Valley farmers will only get dams if they pay a significant share of the cost, and get some federal support. The Delta needs attention, but probably not at the level that protects every existing Delta island farmer in perpetuity. Urban water users will have to be more efficient over time, but they can't do it alone, agriculture has to join in this move. Taxpayers will probably have to pay for the fish protection and some Delta measures, but water customers will have to step up for most of the rest. There could be a Delta conveyance system, but only if paid for by users, done in conjunction with Delta restoration, and with a constitutional limit to Delta exports.
Sound easy? It isn't. That's why it hasn't been done, and that's why the Governor's role thus far is so disappointing. He is at a unique point in his term, and there's some hope that he has learned something from his past inability to get a water deal. He will have to shift gears in the next few days to make this happen by the end of the legislative session.
If he doesn't, he can continue to tell people in Fresno that he is for them on water issues. But he won't be able to tell them that he really stood with them by doing what it takes to deliver a successful outcome. It's up to him whether there's success here. And a successful role would be an Oscar-worthy performance.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/jlaird/detail?entry_id=45804#ixzz0OmPbx5U6 <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/jlaird/detail?entry_id=45804>
FW: VICTORY: AB 1570 Defeated!
Dear Environmental Leaders,
We did it! AB 1570 will NOT be moving forward! Thanks to your tremendous and immediate response in opposition to AB 1570, the legislature has abandoned the hijacked bill. Coastal Commission staff and Poseidon reached a compromise regarding extension of the permit , the details of which have not been released. What we do know is the Coastal Commission will retain its authority. The massive response from the environmental community has sent a clear message to the legislature and the public: attempts to undermine the Commission’s authority will be met with fierce opposition.
Today’s victory would not have been possible without all of your calls, emails, faxes, and letters of opposition. Thank you for ensuring the Coastal Commission’s continued protection of our precious coastal resources.
Sincerely,
Livia Borak
Clinic Associate
San Diego Coastkeeper
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
