Sep 03 2009
Minutes of the water panel meeting
There was a meeting of the 2-house water panel yesterday. The meeting happened - which is a shock in and of itself. There is another meeting scheduled today, and the committee is scheduled to meet throughout the Labor Day weekend. The Joint Committee meets upon the call of the chair in room 4203. Sometimes these meeting are broadcast on the Internet, live.
The technical name of the Joint Committee is: The Conference Committee on AB 39, AB 49, SB 12, SB 229 and SB 458. You can find the text of the bills on www.leginfo.ca.gov. Interestingly, those bills all have to do with the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, or with water conservation. There is nothing in those bills to indicate they are dealing with water storage.
There were opening remarks at the Joint Committee session yesterday, and a lot of posturing. Sen. Aanestad (R-Penn Valley [Northern CA]) stated, in his remarks, that his concerns and the concerns of his constituents are significantly different than those of a Southern California lawmaker. The differences boil down to this: The northern part of California doesn’t have a water problem. In fact, the northern part of California supplies much of their water to the south. The southern part of California has a water problem. They are facing a three year drought, they need more water for farming, and they need more water for residential use. The two sides have a lot of tension. The north does not want to have to give up their water to the south, and the south needs the water from the north and wants it without paying for it.
These are not the only tensions in the room. The construction industry wants water storage and water conveyance to pass, badly. The jobs will bring some work back to the industry. The farm workers and environmentalists are clashing over ecosystem protections. There is a division in the Latino community over whether or not to support the water plan the Joint Committee will develop. The Republicans and Democrats are divided on whether to use a large bond to pay for the water solution or to put a “use fee” (call it a tax, because it is) on water users to pay for the solution.
These are only some of the issues that are arising in the first day of negotiations.
The biggest conflict from above is going to be the conflict between the North and the South (it almost sounds like the Civil War again). The North has water. The South wants water. The Legislature is going to try and put a fee on water users across the state to pay for the construction - which benefits the South. The North is not gonig to want to pay the fee because they are not benefiting.
The state’s water hub is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Recent federal rules have prohibited water from the Delta so that fish can be protected. At least, there is not enough water being pumped to let the farmers irrigate all their fields. The residents of Southern California are also shorted on water because of the pumping restrictions.
This water situation has no easy solution. Part of the problem is that ground water aquifers are polluted from years of chemical run-off from farms and industry. When the ground water cannot be used, the only solution is surface storage and use. There simply isn’t enough storage to keep the water California gets for use.
The farmers do not want stronger environmental regulations and monitoring; they fear larger fees. What the farmers want is more water without having to pay a price for it. The environmentalists want stronger reporting and monitoring regulations on farmers and industry. The truth is, everyone is going to have to compromise to get any sort of solution.
In another interesting twist, the farm worker’s union (UFW) gave $1 million to fight against a water bond. Many suspect this was a ploy to intimidate the Gov into signing the card-check bill - which he vetoes. If the union doesn’t support the water bond, there is a large chance it will not pass. Unions have, once again, proven that they are opposed to solving the problems the state faces.
