Sep 02 2009
The next round of water problems
California is faced with serious water problems. As the state has grown, the water storage and conveyance systems have failed to keep up. Environmentalists, who hold a lot of sway with the Democrats, have balked at any plan for water storage - essentially damns - and conveyance - a peripherial canal. There simply is not enough water to go around. This is even more true in years where there is not enough snow and rainfall to help out - like this year.
There has been a two-house committee created to solve the problem in about 10 days. This is a problem that has been festering for years. No politician has been able to solve it - not even the state’s two most recent heavy weights (The Gov and Feinstein). So this committee - which is chaired by Sen. Steinberg - is supposed to solve it in about 10 days. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass has also seated herself on the committee. Asm. Jeffries is the lone person representing the end of the pipline (San Diego).
The highly ranked legislators on the committee only underscores the importance of the water problem in California, although it is doubtful that this committee is going to solve the problem. If the committee sticks to its schedule, they will being work at 9am on Wednesday. A full hearing on the fiscal impacts of this solution will take place on Friday.
The water solution needs are estimated to be in the range of $11 billion. That is half of the hole the Legislature created when it passed an un-balanced budget solution earlier this year. $11 billion is a lot of real money. If this money is passed through a general obligation bond (one that goes to the voters) then it will cost about $24 billion by the time the bond is paid back. Does the state have the fiscal ability to do this? Can the state even sell the bonds if it was passed by the voters? Probably not. Which means there has to be another way to fund this project.
The committee is considering making water users pay for the improvements. Now, the question is, what water users? Farms in the desert are the biggest users of water (no surprise). It is interesting that the desert is where Californians chose to farm. A desert has no water, that’s why it is a desert. Now, when the water coming from the Sacramento Delta is being shut down, those farmers are crying out for a new canal or other water conveyance to get them the water. Are those farmers going to have to pay a lot of the fees? Probably not. The fees will be put on all water users, even those who are not going to benefit from the new water storage and conveyance. Those users in the mountains for instance, who don’t have a water problem like those in the desert, are going to be paying the same fees. This is the only way fees are going to work.
Even then, there are going to have to be bonds. There is a large up-front cost to building water strorage and conveyance, and that needs to be covered in a large, lump sum payment to contractors. Bonds are the only way to get this amount of money, quickly.
Why quickly? Because even if a package is approved the regulations and red-tape on the projects mean it will be 5-10 years before they are completed and able to help the California water situation. Do we really have that long to wait? Why not make these “fast-track” projects?
Environmentalists are upset, and will block any sort of fast-track project. Especially if that project is a canal to take water around the Sacramento Delta. However, the package is going to include groundwater management, water recycling and other conservationist ideals. At least, that is the promise of Sen. Steinberg. “Twenty-three million Californians rely upon the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta for water,” he said. “And the science is indisputable. It shows the Delta is dying from pollution and neglect. Water’s being rationed. Jobs are being lost and fish are becoming extinct.” It is interesting that in the canal issue, Sen. Steinberg cites people and fish reasons as the need for a canal - or some solution.
Good luck finding one, and the financing for it, in 10 days.
