A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment
October 5, 2007
1. Top Items
Lawmakers race deadline to strike deal over water bond - Associated Press
State water talks begin; Legislators' goal is to prepare bond issue for ballot - Ventura County Star
Water bond might wait; Assembly Democrats say June or November ballot may make more sense - Sacramento Bee
Water bond proposal progress at a trickle - Stockton Record
Legislators unite on water project studies; $2 billion proposal meant to make up for losses from restoration of San Joaquin -
Column: The great, unknown water giveaway; The state must untangle its system of water rights to balance the needs of farms with growing urban centers - Los Angeles Times
Editorial: Water politics get murkier - North
Lawmakers race deadline to strike deal over water bond
Associated Press – 10/4/07
By Don Thompson, staff writer
Racing an approaching deadline, state lawmakers on Thursday searched for compromise over plans to ask voters for billions of dollars in fixes to
Lawmakers and administration officials held dueling news conferences as a special legislative committee began hearings into potential solutions, including new dams, canals and underground water storage.
"Our water system is not as reliable as it used to be, and it is being strained at the seams to meet the needs of this state," Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow said during a news conference attended by
The push for a long-term solution to
The governor and some lawmakers are trying to put a water bond on the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot. They say the need to fix California's water supply and delivery system is urgent, with problems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta worsening and a low snowfall year in the Sierra leaving many reservoirs well below normal.
There are vast differences between the various proposals, however.
Schwarzenegger has proposed a $9 billion bond that includes money for reservoirs. Republicans say they want to build two new reservoirs and expand a third, and say they will not support a water bond that excludes dam-building.
Republican support is needed because passage requires a two-thirds majority in the Legislature.
Democrats and their environmental allies are less enthusiastic about new reservoirs and favor conservation and storing more water underground.
Looming over the proceedings is a crisis in the delta, the heart of the state's water-delivery system. Several groups, including water districts, want the state to build a canal to pipe fresh water around the delta so it can be sent directly to cities and farms.
"We're still hopeful of getting a deal and passing a bond proposal by early next week," said Andrew LaMar, spokesman for Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland. "We're going to do everything we can to make that happen."
Secretary of State Debra Bowen said lawmakers have until Oct. 16 to place a measure on the February ballot. Assembly Democrats are skeptical that a sweeping proposal can be negotiated in time.
What's needed is a thoughtful, comprehensive bond proposal even if it is delayed until the June or November 2008 elections, said Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, who heads a group of Assembly Democrats involved in the water negotiations.
He spoke before the Assembly Special Committee on Water met for the first time to hear about problems with the state's water distribution system. Perata's proposal — a $5.4 billion water bond — will be considered by a Senate committee on Monday.
The proposed dams would create the Sites Reservoir in a valley north of
"The real issue is ... who pays and how much," Laird said.
Schwarzenegger's proposal includes more than $5 billion to pay half the cost of building the three dams. Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman, R-Tustin, said the state should pay no more than 20 percent to 30 percent, while Democrats said the state has never contributed more than 3 percent.
"We still don't have a consensus, but I think we're moving toward it," Ackerman said. #
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/10/04/state/n182622D24.DTL&type=politics
State water talks begin; Legislators' goal is to prepare bond issue for ballot
By Timm Herdt, staff writer
Facing the common foes of drought, climate change and environmental degradation of the system's fragile centerpiece — the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta — the warriors all have a goal of sustaining the reliability of
The objective is to develop a multibillion-dollar bond measure to place before voters in one of three elections
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called lawmakers into special session to try to agree on a bond measure.
The first of several legislative hearings on that issue was held Thursday in the Assembly, and the core questions immediately emerged: Should the bond include funding for dams and reservoirs long opposed by environmentalists? If so, who should pay to build them? What's the best way to restore the health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta?
Schwarzenegger has proposed a $9 billion bond that includes construction of two dams and expansion of a third. Republican lawmakers, led by those from the
Delta is in crisis'
Earlier this week, Assembly Republicans said they were drawing "a line in the sand" by vowing to oppose any proposal that did not include surface-water storage.
"If we don't have surface storage, we don't have a deal," said Assembly GOP leader Mike Villines of
Democrats responded Thursday by saying there is "no magic bullet" that will fix statewide water problems.
"The delta is in crisis, and it is that crisis that has brought us to the special session," said Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, chairwoman of the special water committee. "It's not clear at all that a particular dam at a particular place anywhere in the state would resolve that problem."
The delta, a massive web of waterways that stretches from the confluence of the
Strained at the seams'
A federal judge ruled this summer that pumping from the delta must be reduced by about a third because excessive pumping has threatened the survival of the delta smelt. Pumping was completely halted for several days earlier this summer as a protective measure.
"Our water system is not as reliable as it used to be, and it's being strained at the seams," said Lester Snow, director of the State Water Resources Department. "We don't need any further evidence that the Bay-Delta system is broken."
Former Assemblyman Phil Isenberg, who chairs a task force appointed by Schwarzenegger to study the delta, testified that the estuary's problems have united the historic north-south factions of the state's water wars.
He noted that while the delta had been widely seen as a resource that principally benefits farmers in the Central Valley and cities in
Democrats in the Legislature have not ruled out including new surface storage in a bond measure but say a comprehensive solution requires a broad range of projects.
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, has proposed a $5.4 billion bond measure that would make money available to local water districts to finance regional projects, including dams.
Only one chance'
Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, said lawmakers must take care to craft a measure that can be sold to voters.
"We have a chance — and we probably have only one chance — to put something on the ballot and have it pass," he said.
Laird suggested voters in other parts of the state might not look kindly on the idea of financing dams in Glenn, Contra Costa and
He said the state's maximum contribution to construction of past dams has been 3 percent, with the rest of the costs borne by local water users and the federal government. Schwarzenegger's proposal calls for 50 percent state financing.
"It's a question of equity," Laird said. #
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/oct/05/state-water-talks-begin/
Water bond might wait; Assembly Democrats say June or November ballot may make more sense
By E.J. Schultz, Bee Capitol Bureau
With time running out to get a water bond on the February ballot, Assembly Democrats said Thursday that it might make more sense to wait until the June or November elections.
"We probably only have one chance to put something on the ballot and have it pass," said Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz. "We shouldn't feel pressure to do something by a deadline."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- who called a special session to address the state's massive water needs -- is still pushing to get a bond before voters on Feb. 5. But to do so, lawmakers must beat an Oct. 16 deadline.
Laird, a leader in water negotiations, said lawmakers are not giving up on the goal. But more than two weeks into the session, it's not clear how much progress, if any, has been made.
Republicans are backing Schwarzenegger's $9 billion proposal, which puts a major emphasis on new dams, including one east of
Party leaders have been talking for weeks, but the first legislative hearing on the issue was not held until Thursday.
Even so, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, has tentative plans to hold a floor vote on a bond package as soon as Tuesday. His $5 billion proposal would free local water agencies to spend money how they see fit. It's not clear if the plan would garner the necessary two Republican votes to pass the Senate.
"We're working hard to have something for February," said Perata spokeswoman Lynda Gledhill. Leaders are "hopeful and optimistic."
The state's vexing water issues were laid before lawmakers at Thursday's hearing. Jay Lund, a water expert and professor at UC Davis, presented a list of 11 major water problems in the state. The list touched most every region, from the deteriorating Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta -- the state's water hub -- to the
"We have a lot of water problems,"
But the search for solutions has eluded lawmakers for years and seems to always come down to a debate over dams.
At the hearing, Democrats seized on testimony showing that new conservation efforts could save as much as 3.1 million acre-feet of water a year, triple the amount provided by building new dams. They also were pleased by data showing the immense potential for groundwater storage systems.
But Republicans countered that dams are needed to capture the large amounts of water needed to refresh groundwater banks.
"A recharge system is a reservoir," said Assemblyman Doug La Malfa, R-Oroville.
The governor's proposal would authorize the state to pay for as much as half the cost of two new dams and one expanded dam, for a total of $5.1 billion. Historically, the state has contributed far less. Debt from the State Water Project -- the largest state-built water system in the
Laird said debt payments on the governor's proposal -- which he estimated at $650 million a year -- would suck general fund money that could be used for social programs.
But Assemblyman Juan Arambula, a Fresno Democrat who bucks his party to support dams, said the cost of not building reservoirs would have its own social costs -- especially in the
Fresno Mayor Alan Autry, an outspoken supporter of the proposed Temperance Flat dam near
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/415932.html
Water bond proposal progress at a trickle
SACRAMENTO — Several weeks of closed-door talks, several days of news conferences and several hours of legislative testimony Thursday appear to have done little to bring the political factions fighting over whether to spend taxpayer money on new dams any closer to where they’ve been all year.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his allies in
But in interviews with staffers, lawmakers and lobbyists involved in the talks, the overriding sense is that the political will to seal a deal is shaky at best. And partisanship is only a piece of the puzzle:
» Southern Californians are wondering why more than half of the $9 billion would go for dams that would not help their water problems — especially since they would pay more than half the cost.
» Valley farmers worried over recent court decisions want more water, but their critics note that they already pay the lowest cost for irrigated water in the nation and point to state estimates that agricultural water needs will decline drastically over the next 20 years as the industry shifts to drought-tolerant crops and more efficient irrigation.
» Many Valley cities do not conserve water the way those in Southern California do, although
» Fiscal hawks are leery of the idea of borrowing another $9 billion, when $10 billion in previously approved water bond money has not yet been spent. Adding $9 billion to the state's credit card will add about $600 million in annual payments.
» Delta farmers fear that any new bond could pave the way to build a peripheral canal that bypasses water from the Sacramento River around the estuary into the giant pumps near Tracy. They say this could turn the Delta into a backwater.
Most Democrats -
Indeed, state Department of Water Resources data show that new reservoirs could provide only a tiny fraction of California's future water needs compared to recycling municipal water, storing water underground and conservation.
Schwarzenegger and the dam supporters say that climate change will mean less snowpack and more rainfall, which must be captured in reservoirs because it won't be left on the Sierra peaks as a sort of time-released water supply.
"The idea that we let millions of acre-feet of water every year run to the ocean, totally wasted, is insanity," said Assembly Minority Leader Mike Villines of
Fresno-area officials say they're willing to pay their share of a new dam on the
Lawmakers must strike a deal by Oct. 16 to get a bond on the February ballot. The Assembly held an information hearing on the matter Thursday, and the Senate is planning another on Monday, with a possible vote as early as next week.
Staffers close to the talks suggest that vote could be the end of the special session. They say that whatever deal emerges will either eke past the Legislature or collapse and the ballot initiative process will begin.
Cogdill has said all year that should the Legislature fail to agree on a water bond, he and his allies at the California Chamber of Commerce and the Association of California Water Agencies would try to put an independent bond on the November ballot.
The association is already running radio and television ads that say
Should dam supporters go to the ballot, it is likely that their opponents would respond with a competing ballot measure.
Historically, most "dueling initiatives" fail. #
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071005/A_NEWS/710050321
Legislators unite on water project studies; $2 billion proposal meant to make up for losses from restoration of
By Michael Doyle, staff writer
The bill, introduced by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, is meant to offset water losses caused by restoring the
It authorizes studies of 28 projects, which include building new canals and improving existing facilities.
"It is irresponsible to push forward with a plan to settle the
In a controversial move, the Nunes bill declares that any project deemed feasible is also approved for construction. Normally, Congress requires separate authorization for projects once their feasibility has been studied.
Similar so-called preauthorization language has been opposed in past water fights by lawmakers such as Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of
Nunes was able to rally support from both sides of the aisle after modifying his bill.
This happened quickly. He wrote the original bill on his own, and planned to introduce it as early as Wednesday. He did not talk about it beforehand with Rep. George Radanovich, the Mariposa Republican who is chief author of a
Radanovich's $500 million restoration bill would fund the work necessary to restore more water flows and eventually salmon to the
By Thursday, though, Radanovich approached Nunes and indicated his interest in the bill. Radanovich joined Reps. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, Jim Costa, D-Fresno, and Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, in co-sponsoring the legislation that Nunes had been planning to introduce as a solo effort.
"I am highly concerned about moving forward with legislation to restore the river without dealing with the consequences of transferring ... water away from small communities and local farmers," Nunes said in a prepared statement. "I believe there is a growing recognition of these concerns in Congress."
The river restoration plan would cut Friant-area irrigation deliveries by an estimated 19 percent. Supporters of the river restoration effort are now trying to find the money to offset some of the cost of the work. #
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/85266.html
Column: The great, unknown water giveaway; The state must untangle its system of water rights to balance the needs of farms with growing urban centers
By Bill Stahl, columnist
Few people would dispute that the state faces a water crisis: in the short term because of drought and court-ordered cutbacks in pumping from the California Delta; and in the long term because population growth is outstripping the supply and potential disruptions caused by global warming. So why are federal officials giving more than a moment's attention to a proposal to practically give away enough water to meet the annual household needs of 2 million families to a few hundred big farmers in the San Joaquin Valley for 60 years or more?
So far, there has been no adequate answer to that question, or even a rational discussion of this proposal. The deal is indicative, however, of the hydra-headed water system in
The proposal comes from the Westlands Water District, a collection of about 600 farms covering 600,000 acres of land in western
The San Luis unit, begun in 1962, was a major goal of the late Rep. B.F. Sisk, a tire salesman who went on to become a powerful force in Congress. But it probably should never have been built.
The problem is that about 200,000 acres in the Westlands district are laden with selenium and other salts that build up naturally in the soil below the surface of the farmland. To counter this, the federal government began building a drainage canal as part of the San Luis unit to draw the contaminated water off the land and transport it north to the delta, where it was supposed to go out to sea. That idea would be unthinkable today. But the canal was not completed because of costs, and the Kesterson Reservoir became the terminus. The current problem arose when all the wastewater was dumped there.
Kesterson, which is part of a wildlife refuge, became a death trap for migrating waterfowl that ingested toxic levels of selenium.
Westlands sued the federal government to come up with a better drainage solution, saying officials knew of the problem all along. Today, the Central Valley Projectis under court order to fix the problem.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation chose a costly plan in March that, among other things, would have taken about 150,000 acres out of crop production. Westlands then proposed to take on the disposition of the polluted water if the Central Valley Project gave it, well, the world: forgiveness of nearly $500 million in construction costs and a 60-year water contract (one critic of the plan assumed the price would be $100 an acre-foot or less; urban water now runs $400 to $500 an acre-foot). What's at stake is about 1 million acre-feet -- one acre-foot would serve the annual household needs of two families. Imagine the value of that water 40 or 50 years from now.
Incredibly, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that "it seems to be a sound proposal" because it relieves the federal government of an "enormous financial burden" in fixing the drainage problem. But there is no assurance that Westlands' cure will work.
The "solutions" being debated are stopgap measures that would take years to implement. One idea that would work in the short term would be for the feds to buy up the 200,000 acres, retire the land from farming and sell the water to urban areas at a reasonable price.
The greater problem is that the state's system of water rights makes it difficult or impossible for the governor and Legislature to provide a real, long-range solution to
It is, after all, the people's water. #
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stall5oct05,0,6301834.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Editorial: Water politics get murkier
Our view: Special session on water unlikely to help slake
If you were expecting the politicians in
It's been about three weeks since the governor ordered legislators to convene after their regular session ended to address two outstanding problems: water and health care. Thus far, of the two issues, water has gotten the most attention. Unfortunately, that's no indication that our elected leaders are actually getting much accomplished.
The governor has proposed a $9 billion bond. Nearly $5 billion would be used to expand or build reservoirs in Glenn, Contra Costa and
The Democrats have offered a much more modest proposal, more than $5 billion, that splits the money between local water districts (which can use it for their own water storage projects) and state efforts to restore and protect the delta.
Already, it's starting to look doubtful if a bond measure will make it to voters next year without some money for reservoirs. Assembly Republicans said Wednesday that they were "drawing a line in the sand" on that point.
That's more than just an idle threat. As with tax increases and the budget, bond measures need a two-thirds vote from legislators before they can be placed on the ballot. Just a few Republicans in either the Assembly or the Senate could kill any water bond.
Although funding for water storage projects is dealt with by both parties, one matter that neither plan brings up is funding for the so-called peripheral canal. Such a channel would allow water from the Sierra Nevadas to bypass the troubled delta region altogether and begin its long trek to water-deprived
After pumps that send water from the delta south were temporarily shut down this spring, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger revived the canal idea, which had been dead since 1982 when voters rejected a state referendum authorizing the project . There was talk that the passage of time, and the tipping of the state's political power base in favor of
Officials at the San Diego County Water Authority argue that without a peripheral canal, or something like it, the ideas being proposed by our elected officials don't do much to help
They also contend that because the reservoirs included in the governor's water bond package are in
Perhaps the bond proposals' greatest deficiency is that they both support a status quo approach to water distribution and use that is proving to be increasingly unsustainable. There is little talk of conservation. There's even less discussion about possible market-based alternatives that would provide the most effective incentives for responsible water use.
For instance, a program that increased the cost of water once a household hit a monthly or yearly limit would do more to curb water waste than any public relations campaign. Households that had water left over could sell it back to the water district for use by someone else or for storage.
Instead of providing clarity, the special session to deal with our state's very real water crisis is making the subject murkier than ever. It's likely that the state will do what it does best: kick the problem down the road just a little farther. We can't wait to see what they do with health care. #
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/10/05/opinion/editorials/19_33_5510_4_07.txt
#####
No comments:
Post a Comment