And the biggest losers are the 5 million residents of the 5 Delta Counties.

  

By Mike Taugher Contra Costa Times

Posted: 11/08/2009 12:00:00 AM PST

Updated: 11/08/2009 05:17:43 AM PST

Follow California's water as it falls first as snow in the Sierra, melts and flows down rivers, through the Delta and out the Golden Gate, and you get a pretty good idea of where the "no" votes came from in one of the most important water policy shifts in decades.

 

Northern California lawmakers by and large voted against the main provisions of a water policy reform package last week while lawmakers from farther south mostly voted for it.

 

To many water managers in Northern California, the twin goals of the five-bill package — to stabilize water supplies in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California while also dedicating more water for environmental restoration — sounded like a threat.

 

"It's going to call for more exports," said Dennis Diemer, general manager of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. "It's going to call for more for the environment. Where is that water going to come from?"

The Oakland-based district, like other agencies that take water upstream of the Delta, wanted greater assurances that more water for the environment and other water users would not come at their expense.

 

They got some, but not all, of what they wanted. And while some Northern California agencies toned down their criticisms or went silent as changes were made, the East Bay district remained one of the plan's most persistent critics.

 

In the wee hours of Wednesday morning, lawmakers passed the five-bill package after months

of grueling negotiations and a marathon all-night session that ended near dawn. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two of the bills Friday and is expected to sign the other three within days.

Together, the bills set new standards for a proposed "peripheral canal," create new agencies to improve water and environmental management in the Delta, require more efficient use of water statewide and, for the first time, begin a statewide groundwater management plan.

 

They create a Delta conservancy, add 25 employees to the chronically understaffed agency that polices water rights and declare several new policies that set the state on course to increase environmental protection in the Delta.

 

They also included an $11.1 billion bond that voters will decide on next year to pay for new dams and other projects.

 

Who's in, who's out

Whether the plans will lead to a new era of more reliable water supplies and an increasingly healthy environment is yet to be seen, but some winners and losers are already apparent.

 

Among the winners: Delta "exporters" in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California that now have a clear path to building a new aqueduct to move Sacramento River water south, and land conservancies who would collect $1.8 billion if voters next year approve the bond.

 

Among the losers: Delta counties, taxpayers and the state's general fund, which eventually would have to pay $600 million or more to service debt from bonds if voters approve them next year.

 

In the Delta region itself, ground zero for the state's water conflicts, lawmakers and local officials were united against the plan and were largely left out of negotiations.

 

"We were completely rolled," said Mary Piepho, a Contra Costa County supervisor who worked with supervisors from the four other Delta counties.

 

The plan will require counties to give up some authority over land use to a new state agency, and, perhaps more importantly, could see a decline in tax rolls as land is converted from farmland and potential housing developments to make way, possibly, for a massive new aqueduct and to restore wetlands habitat.

 

Lawmakers did provide some protection for the Delta's economy and, if the bond passes, the region would be in line for funds. But Piepho and others say that is not enough.

 

The environment is supposed to be a winner in the deal — after all, the guiding principle was to increase protection for fisheries that have traditionally been overwhelmed by the demand for water and make the two goals equal.

 

Turning point?

But environmental groups are deeply split on the package. Big environmental groups that were involved in writing the package are confident its passage is an important turning point.

 

"There really aren't losers here,"said Cynthia Koehler, a senior consulting attorney to the Environmental Defense Fund. "This is moving water policy forward for everybody. Certainly the environment has been a huge winner."

 

Koehler said the policies will greatly improve the Delta by requiring regulators to determine how much water the Delta needs to protect fish and other "public trust" resources, something that has never been done, and by requiring that ongoing plans to build a canal around the Delta (or a tunnel beneath it) to move water meet a very high environmental standard.

 

Still, for every environmental group in favor of the plan there's another who is opposed. For some, the fact that the plan lays out a clear path that would enable big water agencies to build a canal to circumvent the Delta is anathema, no matter how high the environmental hurdles are that it must clear.

Environmental critics also contend many of the new policies lack funding or teeth to ensure they are effective. For example, the flows that the Delta needs must be determined, but they don't necessarily have to be met.

 

"This entire package fails to deal with the significant overallocation of California's water resources," said Jonas Minton, a water policy adviser to the Planning and Conservation League, which opposed the bills. "It perpetuates business as usual."

 

The $11.1 billion bond measure, which required two-thirds approval in the Legislature, passed by a single vote hours after $100 million for regional drought relief projects was earmarked for a dam expansion in San Diego County. (After the floor vote, another "yes" vote was added to the final tally.)

 

Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego, voted for the bond to the surprise of environmentalists who thought after earlier meetings with her that she was against it.

 

Jim Metropolis, a Sierra Club lobbyist, said Saldana told him and other environmentalists during a meeting weeks ago that, "I'm voting no on the bond and I'm voting no on the policy. ... She was very adamantly against."

 

Reached Friday and asked about the late earmark and her vote, Saldana said she did not tell anyone how she was going to vote.

 

She acknowledged that during a meeting with other lawmakers before the vote — she thought it was Tuesday afternoon — that she asked that the San Diego County Water Authority be allowed to compete for money to enlarge San Vicente Dam.

 

"I never requested the $100 million," Saldana said. "I did not request a carve-out."

 

The bond measure is scheduled to come to voters next November.

Schwarzenegger Begins Signing Canal/Dams Water Package

by Dan Bacher

After an all night session, the California Legislature on November 4 passed a water package including an $11.1 billion bond that provides a clear path to the construction of the peripheral canal and more dams.  Two days later, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two of the bills, SBX76 and SBX7 8 by Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), that the Governor describes as “parts of an historic legislative package to reform and rebuild California's water system.”

 

While Schwarzenegger and Darrell Steinberg lauded the package for being an “historic compromise,” Delta legislators, fishermen, family farmers, environmentalists and Indian Tribes slammed the legislation for leading to the destruction of the Delta, its farms and its fish and indebting Californians for decades to come.

 

"Water is the lifeblood of everything we do in California," said Schwarzenegger. "Without clean, reliable water, we cannot build, we cannot farm, we cannot grow and we cannot prosper. That is why I am so proud that the legislature, Democrats and Republicans, came together and tackled one of the most complicated issues in our state's history. This comprehensive water package is an historic achievement."  

Schwarzenegger praised the efforts of his Democratic collaborator, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, to push the water policy and bond package through the legislature. "He has been a tireless leader, a relentless advocate for the environment and a true statesman,” said Steinberg.

 

Steinberg said the legislation enacts “landmark improvements to the environment and investments in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta – the heart of California’s water supply system – to ensure the restoration of the Delta’s fragile ecosystem while enhancing water reliability for all Californians.”

 

“Over the last several decades, numerous efforts to comprehensively address the state’s water problems have consistently failed,” Steinberg gushed. “But the Senate this week rose to the occasion, overcoming enormous regional, philosophical, and political obstacles to forge an historic, bipartisan compromise.”    

 

On October 11, Schwarzenegger issued a proclamation calling for the legislature to meet in an extraordinary session to address California's water crisis, in effect strong arming the legislature to pass the water package that he wanted.

 

While the Legislature approved the water policy and bond measures, they killed a bill by Assemblywoman Alsyon Huber that would prohibit the construction of a peripheral canal around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta without a full fiscal analysis and a vote of the state legislature.  

 

“I offered up a simple bill, a common sense approach,” Huber stated. “Unfortunately, my bill was killed without a hearing.” She  vowed that she will resubmit this bill so it will have a full debate.

 

 “I opposed the water package because it creates a new layer of bureaucrats who will make decisions on water that will impact the communities I represent, without allowing us to have a voice, “ she emphasized. “I opposed the bond, especially because of the billions in pork for LA. This dead of night pork giveaway is exactly why voters give us low marks.”

 

Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta, agreed with Huber’s assessment. “The package lost any semblance of rational debate and turned into a pork festival with the water bond ballooning to over $11 billion dollars. With our state already facing a massive debt and more red ink on the horizon, how can we afford this?”  

 

The “pork festival” bond measure includes $455 million for drought relief, $1.4 billion for regional water supply, $2.25 billion for Delta “sustainability, $3 billion for water storage , $1.7 billion for watershed conservation, $1 billion for groundwater and $1.25 billion for water recycling and water conservation. The $1.7 allocated for watershed conseration includes $250 million for California's portion of funding to remove four dams on the Klamath, directly linking Klamath Dam removal to building the peripheral canal and Temperance Flat and Sites reservoirs.

 

Representatives of fishing groups were outraged by the Bill’s passage. "Today is a sad day for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary," said Roger Mammon, board member of Restore the Delta and the West Delta Chapter of the California Striped Bass Association. “The implications are unbelievable and could possibly lead to the worst ecological disaster to ever hit the United States."   

The passage of the water package could not have taken place without the back room negotiations that large national environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and the Nature Conservancy, made with Westlands Water District, Metropolitan Water District, Steinberg and Schwarzenegger to craft the package.

 

Laura Harnish and Spreck Rosecrans of Environmental Defense, strong supporters of the water policy reform package, said, “It is important to realize that the legislation does not authorize a peripheral canal.”

 

However, the legislation sets up a Delta Stewardship Council of seven members, 4 of whom are appointed by the Governor. The Governor reaffirmed that he wants to build a peripheral canal at a press conference in Stockton the same day the package was passed, so it is clear  that he will make the canal’s construction a priority for the council members he appoints. In addition, the water bond sets up the infrastructure that will be used in tandem with the canal.

 

The vast majority of environmental organizations lobbied against the water package. The water package was opposed by the Sierra Club California, Planning and Conservation League, Friends of the River, Butte Environmental Council, Restore the Delta, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), California Striped Bass Association, Clean Water Action, the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Center for Biological Diversity, Organic Sacramento, Save the Delta, Northern California River Watch, the Public Trust Alliance and the Environmental Protection Information Center.   

 

Major unions including the California Teachers Association and SEIU, the five Delta counties and regional governments throughout the Sacramento region opposed the legislation also.

 

During the water package's development, the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) had insisted that any solution focus on reducing reliance on an already over-allocated Delta and require dedicated in-stream flows through the Delta and the San Francisco Bay for endangered and threatened fish populations.

 

“The package missed the mark on both fronts,” said Charlotte Hodde, water policy coordinator for PCL. “Instead of guaranteeing the flows that species in the Delta need to recover, the package provides no regulatory assurance that the water will be there. Even the legislators' own staff analyzed this portion of the bill as unenforceable.  This will only worsen the fishery collapse and may lead to even more restrictions on water supply exports from the Delta.”

 

The plans by Schwarzenegger and Steinberg to build the canal in order to export more water from the Delta to agribusiness and southern California will be met by years of lawsuits, protests, direct action and other resistance by the communities impacted. When the water bond goes to a vote by the taxpayers, I predict that it will be voted down just like the peripheral canal initiative was defeated in 1982.  

“There is no way that when the state is cutting budgets for schools, fire departments, health care for children and other services that the voters are going to approve an $11 billion bond that will create a total ecological nightmare,” said Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. “The children of our tribe have suffered for seven generations and now our children for seven generations ahead will be paying for this if this measure is approved.”

 

 “We will continue to use every means possible to oppose this package which sets in motion the canal and allows an unelected body to make key decisions that will impact our Delta Communities, while we are left on the sidelines,” Barrigan-Parilla concluded. “It’s no wonder Californians have such a low opinion of their elected representatives.”  

 

For more information about the battle against the peripheral canal, go to www.restorethedelta.org.

Save Our Delta's Future

P.O. Box 1279

Walnut Grove, CA 95690

www.saveourdeltasfuture.org

email: info@saveourdeltasfuture.org