A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment
October 9, 2007
1. Top Items
If special session on water fails, California lawmakers vow to go to voters - Associated Press
Dueling, multibillion-dollar water bonds may hit ballot; Lawmakers falter in bid to strike deal -- one plan emphasizes dams; other doesn't - Sacramento
Water bonds may float to voters; Both proposals include billions to help the Delta - Stockton Record
Parties pessimistic about fate of special session water plans - Associated Press
Battle brews over plans for 3 reservoirs; Governor's pitch for new dams faces resistance in Legislature - San Diego Union Tribune
Governor in hot water over dam plans - San Francisco Chronicle
Editorial: Broad
Editorial: Water: To get right answer, ask right questions; In a complex system, dams can only be part of a complicated statewide solution - Sacramento
Column:
Guest Column: Legislature must achieve comprehensive water bond -
Column: Raw emotions block path to water solution - Redding Record Searchlight
Editorial: We could use more vision - Vacaville Daily Reporter
If special session on water fails,
Associated Press – 10/9/07
By Don Thompson, staff writer
Whether the state should build more reservoirs is the key point of contention.
The state Senate is scheduled to vote today on a $6.8 billion Democratic plan to repair deteriorating river levees, increase water storage and restore the troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, which funnels drinking and irrigation water to much of
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata said he did not think Republicans would provide the two votes needed to send his bill to the Assembly. He added $1 billion Monday to his borrowing plan, with the new money going to programs that would recycle storm water and sewage.
Republicans favor a $9 billion plan proposed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that includes money to build two dams and raise a third. Perata's plan does not call for specific new reservoirs but would allow communities to apply for state grants to build their own dams.
Perata, D-Oakland, said he will launch a ballot campaign to bypass the Legislature if his bill fails today, as he expects.
He said he did not expect a compromise bill to pass the Senate and the Assembly by Oct. 16, the deadline set by the secretary of state for placing a measure on the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot.
"I will not let all this work go to waste," he said during a news conference before his bill was advanced to the full Senate by a Democrat-controlled committee.
Lawmakers are debating the future of
The environmentally fragile delta funnels
Schwarzenegger called lawmakers into special session last month to consider ways to upgrade the state's decades-old water storage and delivery system, as well as another thorny issue - health care reform. Little consensus has emerged on either.
Sen. Dave Cogdill of
Mindy McIntyre, a water specialist with the non-profit Planning and Conservation League, said voters would be confused if the Legislature placing competing water bonds on a ballot next year.
"It risks that both will die and there won't be any money for water projects for the next several years," she said. #
http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_7124812
Dueling, multibillion-dollar water bonds may hit ballot; Lawmakers falter in bid to strike deal -- one plan emphasizes dams; other doesn't
Sacramento
By E.J. Schultz, staff writer
With lawmakers unable to reach a compromise on a water bond, voters might be faced with two separate measures in November 2008 -- a Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger-backed plan that emphasizes dams and a Democratic plan that does not.
Authors of the competing water legislation raised the possibility of dueling initiatives Monday, acknowledging that the prospects of a bipartisan deal are fading.
"We would hope we would continue to work over the next few days and find some middle ground here," said Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, author of the governor's proposal. But "it's hard to see (how) we'd be able to do that."
His bill -- which would have put a $9.1 billion bond measure on the Feb. 5 ballot -- was defeated Monday by the Democratic-controlled Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee. Instead, the committee passed a competing bill by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland.
Asked if he could get the needed two GOP votes to pass the full Senate, Perata said, "Honestly, I don't think so."
Even if it ekes past the Senate, the bill faces an even stiffer challenge in the Assembly, where Republicans have pledged to vote against it.
If the bill fails, Perata said he would pursue an outside ballot initiative because "I will not let all this work go to waste."
Supporters of Schwarzenegger's plan are also considering launching a signature-gathering drive to get their plan on the ballot.
"It's been planned for a while -- the wheels are turning," said Mario Santoyo, assistant general manager of the Friant Water Users Authority, which is pushing for a dam at Temperance Flat east of
The effort would likely be led by business groups, supporters said.
The Republican governor is still hoping for a last-minute compromise in the Legislature.
"We're still focused on getting a comprehensive solution done in the special session," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear.
To get a bond on the February ballot, lawmakers must strike a deal by Oct. 16. So far, lawmakers have been unable to bridge the deep philosophical divide over dam-building.
Schwarzenegger's plan earmarks $5.1 billion for two new dams -- including the one near
Perata's plan, which was recently increased to $6.8 billion, would allow local water agencies to bid on $2 billion of state money for water supply projects. Both plans include money to fix the deteriorating Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Environmentalists have long supported Perata's plan. He recently won the backing of the Metropolitan District of Southern California, which provides water to 18 million people in
Under Perata's plan, nothing precludes an agency from spending the money on a dam. But Republicans are skeptical that there's enough money in the pot.
The three dams targeted by Cogdill's bill would cost a combined $10.3 billion, according to estimates. The proposal calls for the state to pay as much as half the costs of the dams with local users paying for the rest. The state's final share would be determined by the "statewide benefit" of each project, including flood protection or new water supplies to aid fisheries.
Historically, the state has contributed far less for dams. But Schwarzenegger administration officials said the new investment was needed to boost the state's water supply "backbone" while dealing with the massive flooding and extended droughts that could result from global warming.
"Our water future is going to be less reliable and more risky than our water past," Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow said at Monday's hearing.
But Democrats criticized the plan for lacking details on how the public benefit portion would be calculated.
"We're asked to make a decision around a particular amount of money and we don't even know (the) percentage," said committee Chairman Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. #
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/421759.html
Water bonds may float to voters; Both proposals include billions to help the Delta
By Hank Shaw, Bureau Chief
Senate Leader Don Perata said Monday he will help fund a ballot initiative to float a $6.8 billion water-storage bond based on his legislation that passed a Senate committee Monday afternoon but looks likely to die on the Senate floor today.
"I will not let all this work go to waste," Perata said Monday. "If it goes down on the floor tomorrow, I am already in motion on what I want to do next.
"I think you could sell this to voters in a minute."
A competing proposal, sponsored by Republican Sen. Dave Cogdill of
The primary difference between the two proposals is that the Republican-backed bond includes $5 billion to help build two dams in the Central Valley and to expand another in
Plan B for Cogdill and his allies has always been to go to the ballot. But public and private polling on voters' views of taxpayer-financed new dams suggests that passing a water bond with a large dam might prove difficult.
Perata's proposal includes money that could be used for dams, but his intent is to help small-scale dams such as the Duck Creek project in eastern
A slew of groups spoke in support of Perata's proposal Monday, including
A spokeswoman for Sen. Michael Machado, D-Linden, said he would join Perata's ballot effort should it come to that.
Significantly, other supporters of Perata's proposal include the environmental lobby and the Metropolitan Water Agency of Los Angeles - arguably the state's most powerful water interest.
Both proposals include billions to help the Delta, which provides more than 25 million Californians with clean drinking water.
Today, the Senate is scheduled to vote on Perata's proposal, which requires two Republican votes to pass. Will that happen?
"Honestly," Perata said. "I don't think so."
Assembly Minority Leader Mike Villines of
Villines says he hopes all parties can meet for a last-ditch effort to craft a compromise before time runs out next week.
"I'm prepared to clear my schedule and do whatever it takes," Villines said. "This is it." #
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/A_NEWS/710090320/-1/A_NEWS
Parties pessimistic about fate of special session water plans
Associated Press – 10/8/07
By Don Thompson, staff writer
Democratic and Republican lawmakers on Monday said they are considering placing dueling, multibillion dollar water bonds on the November 2008 ballot if a special session on water policy fails this week.
Whether the state should build more reservoirs is the key point of contention.
The state Senate is scheduled to vote Tuesday on a $6.8 billion Democratic plan to repair deteriorating river levees, increase water storage and restore the troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which funnels drinking and irrigation water to much of
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata said he did not think Republicans would provide the two votes needed to send his bill to the Assembly. He added $1 billion Monday to his borrowing plan, with the new money going to programs that would recycle storm water and sewage.
Republicans favor a competing $9 billion plan proposed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that includes money to build two dams and raise a third. Perata's plan does not call for specific new reservoirs but would allow communities to apply for state grants to build their own dams.
Perata, D-Oakland, said he will launch a ballot campaign to bypass the Legislature if his bill fails Tuesday, as he expects.
He said he did not expect a compromise bill to pass the Senate and the Assembly by Oct. 16, the deadline set by the secretary of state for placing a measure on the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot.
"I will not let all this work go to waste," he said during a news conference before his bill was advanced to the full Senate by a Democrat-controlled committee.
Lawmakers are debating the future of
The environmentally fragile delta funnels
Schwarzenegger called lawmakers into special session last month to consider ways to upgrade the state's decades-old water storage and delivery system, as well as another thorny issue — health care reform. Little consensus as emerged on either.
His water bill, introduced by Republican Sen. Dave Cogdill of
Cogdill said Republicans are likely to reject Perata's plan when it comes to a vote on the Senate floor. Instead, they are considering their own 2008 ballot measure, which would include money for dams.
Mindy McIntyre, a water specialist with the nonprofit Planning and Conservation League, said the Legislature placing competing water bonds on a ballot next year would confuse voters.
"It risks that both will die and there won't be any money for water projects for the next several years," she said. #
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/10/08/state/n172823D97.DTL
Battle brews over plans for 3 reservoirs; Governor's pitch for new dams faces resistance in Legislature
By Michael Gardner, Copley News Service
“We were told to put a brick in the toilet. We were told, 'Absolutely no car washing.' People started bathing with their children,” Lopez recalled. “It scared the hell out of me.”
Thirty years later, Lopez, now mayor of the tiny
Still a long shot in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, Schwarzenegger's proposal, wrapped in a broader, $9 billion bond measure, appears to be the first credible attempt to commit the state to new reservoirs in some time.
Schwarzenegger and dam supporters say times have changed. New reservoirs are not all about more water for farms and growth, but also can provide vital flood protection, water-quality and environmental benefits, and the flexibility to move supply to where and when it is needed most.
“I don't know of any reservoir that is a slam-dunk. I don't know of any that has a fatal flaw. If they had a fatal flaw, they wouldn't be on the list,” said Lester Snow, the governor's chief water adviser.
The Republican governor is pressing for $5.1 billion to build two reservoirs and enlarge a third. Water agencies would be required to chip in an addition $5 billion or so – money that would largely come from ratepayers.
Advocates of more storage are convinced the time to act is now, with the public's anxiety over a dry spell, climate change and court-ordered measures to protect a
That agenda is suspect, critics contend. No water agency has stepped forward with a check, the environmental risks outweigh any possible benefits and there are easier, cheaper and quicker ways to improve water supply, they say.
In the Legislature, Democrats have brushed aside recent GOP bids for reservoirs, providing little more than a few million dollars toward studies while spending billions on water conservation and environmental restoration.
This year, majority Democrats have countered with a $5.4 billion bond measure that does not dedicate money to large, statewide projects. It reflects their belief that the state's priorities should be water savings, underground storage and local reservoir projects, such as enlarging San Vicente in
Republicans are determined to make their stand this year.
“No surface storage, no deal,” said Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of
Democrats must win over some Republicans and Schwarzenegger because a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and the governor's signature are required to move a bond measure to the ballot.
A showdown could come as early as this week, when lawmakers are scheduled to interrupt fall recess to vote on bond proposals aiming for the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot. Deadlock would not mean a deal is dead, however. There is time to regroup;
Californians also go to the polls for the statewide June primary and the November 2008 general election.
The state has not built a large reservoir since 1974, when the 127,000-acre-foot
Enlarging Los Vaqueros is probably the most environmentally benign of the three projects in the governor's proposal. However,
More troublesome are the other two projects: Sites Reservoir northwest of
Critics point out that no agency has pledged to help pay for any of the three projects.
“The issue is not surface storage. The issue is who pays,” said Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz. Laird said many water districts recently have funded new reservoirs without state tax dollars.
Schwarzenegger proposes up to a 50-50 cost-sharing between taxpayers and water users. In contrast, the Legislative Analyst's Office reports that water contractors will pay 96 percent of all bond revenue sold to finance existing statewide water projects.
Water out of a new reservoir could be more costly than other alternatives. But that assumes water from other sources would be available – doubtful given the pumping restrictions and weather whims.
For example, water from Sites Reservoir would pencil out at $370 to $555 per acre-foot depending on the final construction bill, according to state estimates. Those figures do not include delivery or treatment costs.
In comparison, the San Diego County Water Authority is paying the Imperial Irrigation District $296 an acre-foot, not counting delivery and treatment costs.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California pays up to $20 for every acre-foot it draws from the state water project and just 25 cents per acre-foot for
Federal water contractors in the heart of
However, as
“If you think the price of water is expensive today,” Snow said, “just wait for the cost of inaction.” #
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071008-9999-1n8dams.html
Governor in hot water over dam plans
San Francisco Chronicle – 10/6/07
By Tom Chorneau, staff writer
(10-06) 04:00 PDT
The governor wants to build two new dams and expand the reservoir of a third as a key element in his plan to meet future water needs of the state's growing population. But environmentalists say two of the projects would be net energy users and that the three of them together would add energy consumption to a water-delivery system that is already the state's largest consumer of electricity.
"The governor has shown great leadership on recognizing climate change as a problem and our greenhouse gas emissions unsustainable," said Mindy McIntyre, water program manager for the Planning and Conservation League, a nonprofit group that lobbies the Legislature on environmental issues.
"But on water," she said, "he's going the opposite direction and looking to solutions that were proposed 50 years ago that will not address the problems of today."
There is an Oct. 16 deadline for putting the water bond package on the February ballot, and Schwarzenegger and Republican lawmakers have been adamant about using most of the money - $5.1 billion - to build new dams because they believe new storage is the best defense against the uncertainties resulting from climate changes.
Democrats, who control both houses of the Legislature, are skeptical that big, expensive reservoirs are the answer. They have proposed less money for dams and more for alternative strategies such as conservation programs, groundwater storage and recycling.
While the two sides remain at odds over how to spend the money, they agree that fixes need to be made. California's population is expected to increase 30 percent over the next 20 years, and annual water demand will outpace supply by 2 million acre-feet (a foot of water covering 2 million acres) by 2030.
Scientists say warming temperatures are likely to result in a smaller snowpack. Evidence also suggests that dry spells will be longer and that when rain falls it is likely to be more intense.
Schwarzenegger has been at the vanguard of efforts to curb greenhouse gases during the past two years. He signed and supported
Water storage, however, poses challenges to the green campaign.
Lester Snow, director of the state Department of Water Resources, said
He said the uncertainties of the changing climate means the state cannot ignore any one water supply strategy even if there are greenhouse gas implications.
"We need to fund all the options including groundwater and recycling," he said. "And the governor's plan does that. To pick out surface storage and say, this is one we don't want to do - we think doesn't make sense."
But Barry Nelson, a senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said dams may not make sense in the future. New research from the national environmental group suggests that big reservoirs will become less efficient as temperatures rise.
Evaporation is likely to increase in the future with longer dry spells and droughts, the group said, while refilling storage would become more problematic during wet periods. Instead of a slow release of water during the spring snow melt, as is the case now, a smaller snowpack and more intense storm runoff would mean a smaller window for capturing river flows, Nelson argues.
Critics of the governor's plan also say that two of the proposed dams could consume substantially more electricity than they would generate, depending on how they are built and operated.
The Sites Dam, to be built outside the town of
The other dam, Temperance Flat, would be built on the
Snow said both facilities could be designed and operated to limit their carbon imprint. Sites, for example, is planned to have a power generation system that would run during peak usage periods - running water out the spillway and back into the Sacramento River - to offset the cost of bringing the water to the reservoir.
The governor's bond would also pay for a doubling of the capacity of the Vaqueros Reservoir east of
Even if steps are taken to reduce the carbon impacts of the dams, critics including Nelson said the projects together would likely increase the energy dependence of the state's water systems.
A 2005 California Energy Commission study found that water-related energy use each year consumes 19 percent of the state's electricity, 30 percent of its natural gas and 88 billion gallons of diesel fuel.
"At a time when the state is looking for ways to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions," he said, "the governor is proposing water projects that would have huge energy penalties for the state."
Snow conceded that the proposed dams would require more pumping and more energy use but said that not building the dams and forfeiting the extra storage they would provide poses an even greater risk.
"All of the alternatives that the environmentalists want use energy, too - every one of them," he said. "We are trying to manage a resource for the uncertainties of the future with the smallest carbon imprint possible." #
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/06/MN4KSJAM5.DTL
Editorial: Broad
It's been three weeks since state lawmakers went into extra innings to craft a plan for ensuring
They've introduced no fewer than seven water bills, formed special working groups on water, and held many closed-door meetings and dueling press conferences. But there's still no agreement in sight as a deadline next Tuesday approaches.
Without an apparent middle ground, policymakers should check the urge to rush a multibillion-dollar bond proposal for major water projects onto the February ballot. Debate remains polarized on the issue of big new dams and reservoirs, with the governor and other Republicans insisting on building them and Democrats highly skeptical.
Instead, lawmakers should agree on a measure that focuses on the most pressing issues first, such as a rescue for the ailing Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and must-do projects, including levee and ecosystem repair in the Delta and improved flood control. It's better to be incremental but right than grandiose and wrong.
At the least, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should sign a bill on his desk sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, that would allocate to worthy projects more than $600 million from $10 billion in water bonds approved by voters last year. This money should not be held hostage.
All sides should keep working on a broad water package even if it has to wait until the June or November ballots. Sound water policy should come before the financing.
The governor's $9 billion bond proposal earmarks $5.1 billion for building two major reservoirs - one near
Schwarzenegger and Republican lawmakers insist that major new surface storage is needed to address a water crisis that will worsen as the state's population grows and global warming shrinks the Sierra snowpack. Democratic lawmakers, supported by environmentalists, insist that other strategies such as increased conservation, water recycling and better use of groundwater are typically more cost-effective and yield results more quickly.
If taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill, they need a clearer idea of how the benefits and costs of water projects will be shared among farmers, urban water users, and regions and water districts within the state.
Policymakers need to keep in mind that taxpayers' checkbooks are limited. Bigger and bolder isn't necessarily better. Perhaps smaller is saner. #
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_7124801?nclick_check=1
Editorial: Water: To get right answer, ask right questions; In a complex system, dams can only be part of a complicated statewide solution
Sacramento
If anyone should be concerned about
This agency, which provides water to 3 million people in the
Over the long run, both the
Given their predicament, you'd think
They are not.
"Storage without a way to get the water is useless," says Jim Bond, the mayor of Encinitas and a member of the San Diego Water Authority.
He's right. And that's one reason state leaders need to take a breath, stop the dueling press conferences and drill down on the real challenges
A special Assembly hearing on Thursday provided a helpful reality check. Experts showed how various regions of the state face unique water problems -- ones that cannot be addressed by two or three large infrastructure projects.
"There's a need for a much bigger view ... a systematic view," said Jay Lund, an engineering professor from the
The hearing also revealed how water diversions -- facilitated by state and federal projects -- have greatly reduced the amount of fresh water flowing through the Delta, particularly in dry years.
This provided an essential counterpoint to Assembly Minority Leader Mike Villines, who says that
Are there answers to
In other words, state leaders must start with this question: "What problems are we trying to fix?" instead of, "What groups are we trying to satisfy?" The sooner they get their priorities straight, the sooner
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/417556.html
Column:
By George Skelton, Times columnist
At times like this, one is reminded of that old line: "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session."
Mark Twain or Will Rogers usually is credited with that observation, but it was actually popularized by a
It's timely now because the Legislature is in a snail-paced special session trying to negotiate an epic plan to provide more water storage and repair the leaky, creaky Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
Nobody's life or liberty is threatened, but plenty of property and assets are -- including taxes that would be collected to pay off the added state debt.
The biggest danger, however, is to the rare opportunity to patch and expand
State Senate Leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are determined to place a multibillion-dollar water bond issue on the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot. But they're up against an Oct. 16 secretary of state's deadline for working out a legislative deal.
It's not clear what their rush is. There also will be two other statewide elections next year, in June and November.
"We don't do our best work when we're rushed," says Assemblywoman Lois Wolk (D-Davis), who heads the Assembly water committee. "If we're going to ask the people of
"I'm very skeptical we can do this in the next week. Perhaps we could do it in a couple of months."
However, water is such a contentious issue -- fought over by fiercely competing, righteous interests and regulated by turf-protecting government entities -- that maybe Capitol politicians should be encouraged to agree on whatever they can, even if it means taking only an incremental step toward fixing the fragile state water system.
Sen. Michael Machado (D-Linden), a lifelong
"When you get a dozen agencies arguing over what should be done in the delta," he says, "often the best action we can get is inaction. What action they have taken in the past has been contrary to what's in the delta's best interest."
The delta estuary is
Most urgent, it needs to become fish-friendly again. The delta has evolved into a deathtrap for many species, from the tiny smelt to popular salmon.
In August, a federal judge ordered protections for the disappearing smelt -- "the canary in the coal mine" -- that will turn off fish-chomping pumps in spring and possibly cost
It's one reason
Schwarzenegger and Perata have sharply different views about what should be done.
And, in a rarity, the Republican governor and Republican legislators are on the same side.
Schwarzenegger is pushing a $9.1-billion bond that would emphasize dam construction. There'd be $5.1 billion to build two dams in
Delta fix-ups would be allocated $1.9 billion. But none of it could be used for a new, more reliable water-transfer system, such as a delta bypass -- a "peripheral canal" -- that voters rejected 25 years ago. Any legislative decision on water re-channeling must be delayed until next year when a blue-ribbon commission appointed by Schwarzenegger makes its recommendations.
Democrats oppose state dam building, although they're willing to provide grants for local construction. The governor proposes that the state pay for 50% of the dam costs. Democrats argue that, historically, the state has paid for only 4%, with water users footing the rest.
"The issue's not dams, it's who pays," says Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), one of the negotiators.
"The governor's proposal is DOA," Machado asserts.
Perata is sponsoring a $6.8-billion bond -- increased by $1 billion on Friday -- that would provide $2 billion for local water supply grants, including for dams. There'd also be $2.4 billion for the delta -- but nothing for a canal -- and $2.4 billion for water cleanup and reclamation.
Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of
But despite the tough rhetoric, that seems to leave wiggle room for a compromise using Perata's local grant idea.
"I'm willing to negotiate," says Sen. Dave Cogdill of
If the governor and lawmakers can agree on reservoirs and reclamation, that could be worthwhile. But they should forget the delta for now. Wait for the governor's blue-ribbon report. Then offer the voters a complete remodeling plan, not some vague sketch.
Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger should immediately sign a Perata bill that has been sitting dormant on his desk. It would appropriate $611 million in already-authorized bond money for various water projects, including a few delta repairs.
During the current battle, we should be rooting for something between gridlock and grandiose. #
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap8oct08,1,2094809.column?page=2&coll=la-util-politics-cal
Guest Column: Legislature must achieve comprehensive water bond
By Nicole Parra, D-Hanford, represents the 30th Assembly District
Those of us who live and work in the Valley understand the impact water has on our lives, jobs and economy. We are also well aware of the state's water crisis and how desperately we need a statewide solution to ensure reliable, safe, clean water supplies for the entire state.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called a special session of the Legislature for October to address water issues and to place a water bond on the February 2008 ballot, which includes funding to address the severe problems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, develop new above- and below-ground water storage facilities, protect the environment and ensure adequate water supplies for our state well into the future. Conservation should be a key part of the state's water strategy, but that alone will not solve our problems. We need a more comprehensive solution.
It is not hyperbole to say there is a water crisis in
* Oct. 3, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to declare a state of emergency because of concerns about water supply shortages.
* Drinking water supplies for residents in Hanford, Coalinga, Kingsburg, Fresno, Bakersfield and Alpaugh (to name a few) are threatened because inadequate supplies have forced underground pumping, which depletes groundwater stored in the San Joaquin Valley's underground aquifers.
* Farmers have been fallowing land due to lack of rainfall and water shortages. In 2001-2003, the last period for which data is available, 750 farmworker jobs were cut. The ripple effect, fewer purchases of seed, fertilizer, supplies and support services meant an annual loss of about $23.2 million to the local economies. That was four years ago. It's gotten worse since then.
* Water shortages crippling the ag industry will cripple the entire state. Ag generates $100 billion in economic activity, millions of jobs and billions of tax dollars goes to the state general fund to pay for education, health care, transportation and other critical state needs.
* The health of the delta is vital to the entire state. It supplies drinking water for 25 million Californians, plus water for hundreds of thousands of businesses and 750,000 acres of farmland. In late August, a federal judge ordered a shutdown of two of the biggest pumps to protect the endangered delta smelt and said there would be more shutdowns in 2008.
We can no longer afford to limp along on a system built decades ago to serve a much smaller state population and state economy. A comprehensive state water bond with funding to provide reliable water delivery, restore the environment and meet future water needs must be put before voters in February. The deadline for the Legislature to place this bond on the ballot is Oct. 16.
A comprehensive water bond would include funding for:
* Restoring the delta and developing a reliable water delivery system to move water throughout the state. The delta is the axis of
* Additional reservoirs to store water in wet years so the state has enough for dry years. To allow millions of acre feet of water to simply flow into the ocean, wasted, does neither the people nor the environment any good. We need to invest in new water reservoirs and underground storage aquifers to capture excess water and ensure an available supply of safe, clean, reliable water in dry years to meet state demands. Additional storage will assist in flood management, fighting fires and providing clean electrical power.
* Improved water quality for people and the environment. A clean, safe, reliable source of drinking water is a necessity of life. Planning now to build the facilities necessary to responsibly move and store water will ensure people, the economy and the environment win.
I plan to do all that is humanly possible to work with my colleagues in the Legislature to place a comprehensive water bond on the February ballot. Failing to proactively address
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/wo/story/158644.html
Column: Raw emotions block path to water solution
Redding Record Searchlight – 10/9/07
By Thomas Elias, columnist
"
Both Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein recognize that emotions still run high across Northern California against any solution to the many problems afflicting the delta of the
They simply may not understand how strongly felt those emotions remain, even 25 years after a near-unanimous vote against the proposed
That's why Schwarzenegger and Feinstein, this state's two leading vote-getting politicians, could stand blithely before a battery of TV cameras in late summer as Schwarzenegger intoned that "I think if everyone works together here, including the farmers, the agriculture people, everyone works together, we can do it."
Both politicos agree the state faces a water crisis. Levees in the delta area, where many homes sit in the shadow of river water flowing at heights above their rooflines, are startlingly vulnerable even to a moderate earthquake. Water quality has steadily declined in the delta while salinity creeps in from the bay. And the 25 million persons who live south and east of the delta will do nothing but multiply and need more water, while needs of farms in the Central Valley can only increase if global warming worsens.
So more dams and reservoirs are needed. But they will stand empty unless the state or the federal government builds some kind of concrete-lined ditch to carry that water around the delta in times of flood and high runoff from the
Now Feinstein and Schwarzenegger say they will somehow overcome the raw emotions of
Ironically, Feinstein vividly recalls that she was the first to sign petitions leading to the 1982 vote against the canal. "The situation is very different today than it was 25 years ago," she said. "The difference is we know much more. I had no idea then of the condition of the levees. The earthquake problems have changed in the last 25 years. The ecosystem itself has changed.
We have a very volatile region."
So Feinstein has changed her mind since, as mayor of
After one newspaper reader e-mailed that Southern California is a totally selfish region, a respondent reminded her that during a five-year drought in the late 1980s and early 90s, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California piped thousands of acre-feet of water across the
"Doesn't matter," came the reply. "It's our water, and it's staying here."
Feinstein recognizes that this emotion exists: "People in the north feel very strongly about protecting what they consider their basic riparian right, which is the water. And so it has to be very sensitively handled. It has to be bipartisan. We have to take into consideration the concerns of the north."
That's exactly what the rejected 1981
Yes, Feinstein has changed her mind, possibly because she now has 25 million constituents in
The bottom line is that emotions against anything like the canal appear to run about as high in
Which means that California -- including whole counties in the Bay Area that depend on water from the delta -- had best brace for a water shortage of epic proportions if and when any sizeable earthquake strikes anywhere near the delta. #
http://www.redding.com/news/2007/oct/09/raw-emotions-block-path-to-water-solution/
Editorial: We could use more vision
By Robin Miller, city editor of The Reporter
I am often struck by the irony in the news. Consider the latest stories on
How ironic that, as the state Legislature begins the process of addressing the future water needs of the state, Solano prepares to mark the anniversary of a local water project that, were it proposed today, would probably never get past the "greenies" in the state Legislature, let alone federal review.
It was 50 years ago that Monticello Dam was constructed at the mouth of the
Looking back on it now, local water officials refer to those who campaigned for and built the dam as "visionaries" who created a water system the shaped our county and still serves it well.
"Visionary" hasn't been the word used to describe those who propose building dams today.
Instead, our "leaders" in
Democrats and Republicans held dueling press conferences last week to tout their efforts to race a ballot measure to the voters even before the first meeting on the subject was held.
On one side were Democrats, vowing to protect the environment while seeking an approach that will bring clean, safe water to everyone.
On the other were Republicans, who pointed out that little new water storage has been built in this state for 40-plus years, while the population has continued to burgeon. They vowed to vote against any water plan that didn't adequately provide funds for new dams.
What gets me is that both sides use the same language to tout their perspectives on what needs to be done.
Lois Wolk, D-Solano, who is heading up an Assembly committee on the issue, explained that Democrats "want to develop a comprehensive solution to deal with the immediate crisis in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta while still addressing the long-term water needs of the entire state," according to a press release.
"Passage of a comprehensive water plan that provides for a reliable water supply both now and in the future, while protecting our state's natural resources, is necessary to ensure the economic vitality of our entire state," said Jean Fuller, R-Kern County.
Maybe it's just me, but that sounds like they both have the same goal.
Maybe what they need are a few visionaries to help them get there. #
http://www.thereporter.com//ci_7126421?IADID=Search-www.thereporter.com-www.thereporter.com
####
No comments:
Post a Comment