Stop the Water Bills

The LA Greens and LA County GP locals have both signed on to the sustainability principles of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN). Now, C-WIN is asking us to all work together to stop the water bills that are currently in the State Legislature. This is one thing that all Greens should get behind.

If you click Read more! I will provide additional information and tell you how to get started. Key grassroots organizations are taking very firm stands. We need to demonstrate the Greens will buck the flood and stand up for doing what is right, not just what may appear to be politically expedient.



First, you should read the letter that C-WIN sent to State Senator Fran Pavley and Assembly Member Jared Huffman. They head the key committees dealing with Water.

The California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) urges you to recommend that your committees reject SB 1 (Simitian) and AB 1 (Huffman). These bills will only coddle certain agricultural water districts to perpetuate their movement to eliminate California’s system of water rights and make water supplies for the future of California’s major urban economic engines, southern California and the South Bay Area less reliable than they now are. Moreover, these bills represent the legislature’s efforts to enact the Governor’s drive on behalf of his conservative agricultural friends in the San Joaquin Valley for new dams and a peripheral canal, neither of which the California Water Impact Network supports.

These bills will add another layer of governance to an already bloated and ineffective bureaucracy in Sacramento. Things are so bad that the Little Hoover Commission has established a committee to study and make recommendations on water governance in California. It would be idiocy for the Democrats, along with Gov. Schwarzenegger, to try and cram through this legislation before the commission has completed it's work. They are a long way from that and are still soliciting applicable testimony.

At the same time, Restore the Delta has commissioned a public opinion poll regarding attitudes toward a new "water conveyance" (euphemism for a peripheral canal). That poll indicated that there is very little support for such an undertaking, given that the budget is in shambles and the cost is high (lowest estimate is $23 Billion).

This is how they suggest using that data.

Dear Legislator:

Attached you will find a copy of a statewide voter survey on water issues conducted on behalf of Restore the Delta by EMC Research of Oakland, CA. EMC Research conducted 800 telephone interviews among registered voters statewide in California from August 23-27, 2009.

The poll indicates that while voters are concerned about water and ensuring a long-term reliable water supply is a "very high priority," all segments of voters are strongly opposed to a Peripheral Canal and very close to half oppose a bond for new dams, reservoirs or other water infrastructure projects.

It is clear there is very little support among the electorate for many of the elements included in the 2009 legislative water package.

I have a copy of that data, but only in image format. I would like to get it as a pdf and will post that when I do. However, here is the key point.

When first asked about the proposed solution, the distribution between those in support of, in opposition to, or undecided respectively was: 28%, 34%, 39%. However, after further being presented some additional background information, those numbers changed to 26%, 70%, 5%. Finally when given the opportunity to review position statements on the proposed legislation, the numbers again changed to 21%, 76%, 3%. In other words, there was some erosion of the supporters and a significant change of the undecided to the opposition position.

Restore the Delta is also calling for a stop to the idiocy being foisted on the people of California by Pavley, Huffman and State Senate Pro tem, Darrell Steinberg. It would seem that they are pushing this now just to head off any organized opposition. Then, I think it is incumbent on us to give them some opposition. I am working to get a Green's position in front of the Little Hoover Commission and, unless we drop the ball on this, it will happen.

So, what should you do? The easiest is to follow the process set up by C-WIN. You can find that here. They provide sample letters, but do not mention the Little Hoover Commission. If you use that, please indicate that it is irresponsible for the Legislature to craft this before the Little Hoover Commission report comes out.

Peak Water?

This is just a short update regarding two significant water events… sort of a follow on to my previous post regarding Green Water Policy and an underscore of it's importance.

Today at 3:00 PM EST, Dr. Peter Gleick, founder of the Pacific Institute and a foremost authority on water will be webcast from the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, D.C. One of the topics will be this question.

Have we passed a peak in the availability of freshwater for human use?

The webcast is supposed to be archived.

The second event is a California State Senate hearing on Improving Water Conservation and Management in Southern California: Successes and Opportunities This is the first big deal event in the tenure of Fran Pavley as Chair of the California State Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water. I imagine that she will try to engineer the same type of solution for water that she did for the control of green house gasses in the well known AB 32. If she does, we are all in trouble as AB 32 will not come close to meeting expectations.

I urge all So Cal Greens to attend this if possible and to be attentive to the results if you can not be there. The hearing will be held on Friday, February 6th, from 1 pm - 3 pm, at Santa Monica City College, Business Building 111, 1900 Pico Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 90405

Do you like fresh air and cool weather?

California has passed and Governor Schwarzenegger has signed a bill knows as AB-32. That was in 2006. Since then, it has become the shining star of climate related legislation even though nothing has yet to be implemented. However, it did help move Fran Pavley from the Assembly, where she was the author of the bill, to the State Senate where she has been named to Chair the Committee on Resources.

So, where are we in the implementation cycle, or what has California accomplished in 2 years? Click Read more! to find out.


To begin with, AB 32 mandated that the Air Resources Board start by putting together a Scoping Plan. This was to be an attempt to tell us all just how things would work and what it would finally cost. That plan is in the final review process. The 2nd and last public hearing on AB 32 will be held on Dec. 11 in Sacramento.

I have two serious concerns. The first is the simple fact that carbon trading schemes will not work, no matter how good the intentions or the goals might be. Schwarzenegger's pick to implement the cap and trade program, Mary Nichols, did similar work when an Assistant Administrator in the Clinton Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Not only did that fail, she neglected compliance issues at the same time as all attention was focused on the pollution credit scheme.

This post at Climate Progress make the point very effectively.

Q: What is the difference between carbon offsets and mortgage-backed securites?

A: Lipstick.

Carbon offsets and mortgage-backed securities are quite similar in that is impossible for the vast majority of people, even experts, to know what value they have, if any.

Similarly, Cap and Trade mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol have not worked. It is too easy for major multi-international corporations to circumvent them and at least one organization that is supposed to police compliance has been booted from the job.

Then, in her effort to sell the plan, Nichols has done what they all do; exaggerate the benefits and ignore the rest. Before anyone takes this all seriously, they should read the peer review comments on the economic modeling that the Air Resources Board did to back up their pet project. Even those who are sympathetic to the goals of AB 32 has a hard time believing the case being presented. UCLA Economist Matthew Kahn is one.

In this review, I will highlight why I believe the current modeling exercise underestimates the cost of meeting
AB32’s goals. I will present a research methodology for cheaply collecting the necessary data to test whether the optimistic numbers reported in Table I-2 of
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/economic_appendix1.pdf could be accurate
estimates of the expected net costs of this regulation.

The first public meeting on the AB 32 scoping plan turned in to a bit of a circus. I would hope that this is a repeat, and that they repeat until someone gets it right. I doubt that Nichols is the one to do it.