Water legislation charade

Special Session 7 of the State Legislature was supposed to deal with California's Water problems.  All during the session, the media, both print and TV, kept telling us what the politicians were saying or they were showing us farms that were drying up... but not showing us the farms in the East side of the San Joaquin Valley that got 100% of their water allocation.  The media coverage on this issue would not win even a Columbia Scholastic Press Association award... normally given to High School newspapers.

As we learn more and more, it is not from the media.  Rather, we have to build up our own network of trusted sources who just might get it right. This is what an inquisitive citizen found.

We know that the water legislation was basically written by large water users... Metropolitan Water District and Westlands Irrigation District.  Knowing that, it is easy to see why they did not allow any input from those who live and work in the Delta nor from the legislators that represent them.  All of this was kind of covered by some of the media.  There are even follow up stories on the political ramifications for State Sen. Lois Wolk or the next actions by Assembly member Alyson Huber (though she had to write it herself.)

But, this highly touted legislation is really not worth much.  Consider the requirement to determine the "flow criteria" for maintenance of the Delta.  The initial hearings on this have begun, but it is only a show for the public.  Brian Poulsen of the law firm Somach, Simmons & Dunn provides more news than the media.

In late 2009, the California Legislature passed legislation requiring the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to develop new flow criteria for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) ecosystem to protect public trust resources.  As an initial step towards complying with this mandate, on January 7, 2010, the State Water Board held a pre-proceeding conference to prepare for and discuss procedural aspects of its upcoming informational proceeding to develop flow criteria for the Delta ecosystem.

OK, so they met on this big project and what did it mean?  Not much.  Poulsen (but not the media) reports what happened.

It is unclear at this time what impact the Proceeding will have on water users since the Proceeding may not ultimately result in numeric flow criteria for the Delta.  Further, and as explained by several Board members, whatever criteria are developed will not be binding in future proceedings.

I don't care how much Assemblyman Jared Huffman puffs about this bill, in the long run, it is a waste of taxpayer money holding hearings on something that is not binding, may or may not be used but boy did we every have a great show. Too bad that Huffman is seen as the progressive leader of the 6tj District.  With Progressives like Huffman, we will soon be back in the 20th Century.  It is too bad that none of the Green office holders in the 6th AD chose to run against him.

An Inside Job part II. The Water Wheel.

In every political campaign that I have observed since going to a neighbor's house to watch the 1956 re-nomination of Adlai Stevenson on a grainy black and white television, I have noted the manner in which every candidate exploits their experience as the major criteria for selection. We all recently recently listened to Hillary Clinton and John McCain as they tried to use the experience argument against Barack Obama in 2008.

I can think of no local example where the value of experience is more clearly used, and abused, than with the battles to control California's water. In my own community, where the water wholesaler is the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), there is continual movement of personnel from working for the water district to serving as a member of the board. There is even a case where the board hired one of their own members to be a senior manager for the SCVWD. It is alike a water wheel, continuously turning, but only moving members from one role to another.

Sometimes, being so much on the inside helps as one gains knowledge. More often the confidence that an elected official has in their own knowledge and the hard work of their long time associates leads to an arrogance, or maybe just a misplaced sense of trust, and when oversight is involved, blindness to what is really going on.

Such blindness, or laziness, is surely behind the fact that the SCVWD board approved a budget that allowed the water district to double dip into tax payer's pocket books. They levied a groundwater fee against well owners and also collected a charge against property taxes.

Such blindness surely affected Marin Assemblyman Jared Huffman as he guided the package of water legislation through the Assembly during the recent Special Session.. Special Session 7, since the legislature can't seem to get things done any other way.

Huffman surely has some experience with the issues involved as a quick read of his web autobiographical statement tell you. He served on the Board of Director of the Marin Water District for 12 years before running for the Assembly. Of course, one wonders whether that was a time when he practiced sound oversight, or like his counterparts in SCVWD, just learned to go along. One interesting speculation would be to know if

This is another case where I think that we have to examine whether his close relationship with a water supplier might have blinded him to the needs of water users, a sort of insider arrogance that help pass California's term limits legislation.

In a previous post, I wondered how Barry Nelson and the NRDC was able to gain an insider position in the development of this water legislation. It all became clear when I read Huffman's bio. He was a Senior Attorney for the NRDC. Bingo. Connection made.
It isn't citizen involved regional planning, but personal connections that count. Is there such a thing as corporate nepotism?

The fact that Huffman backed out on his promise to NOT support the bond measure, a promise given to many of the organizations who sponsored the reasonable, alternative plan for water management. It would seem that he is still too close to the water suppliers that were his support for far to long. He betrayed his friends, he sponsored legislation that betrayed the residents of the Delta and voted for a bond measure the seems to betray the tax paying people of California.

I wonder what Huffman will do next. Speculation on that belongs in another post. We might find someone else pulling an inside job.

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.

Finally some Engineererd sense from Sacramento

Apologies to the citizens of Sacramento. I was using the name of your city to refer to those visitors who show up and try to come to some agreement about the governance of this fine state. It is that latter body that so often fails to apply some sense.

That rather holds true for California Greens. Given that Greens are found where the population is found, most are in the major urban areas of the state... San Diego, Los Angeles, Bay Area. So we don't pay enough attention to what is happening in the rural areas and the legislation that passes through the Agriculture Committees of our state legislature rarely raises a ripple.

There is one bill that we should all be supporting. AB 541, introduced by Marin County's Jared Huffman, has as it's primary function to establish that the manufacturers of genetically engineered (GE) crops are liable for damages if the GE material contaminates crops on other lands and causes financial loss. This is the first state-wide legislation related to GE crops that has passed out of the Agriculture Committee. It is a hopeful sign that the first bill is one that is designed to protect farmers who choose not to use GE seed.

According to a press release from the Genetic Engineering Policy Project:

Specifically, the newly amended bill would provide for:

1. Protection from patent infringement lawsuits for farmers unknowingly contaminated by GE crops. Currently, farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of such lawsuits without clear recourse or defense.
2. The establishment of a mandatory crop sampling protocol to be used by patent holders when investigating farmers they believe may have violated patents or seed contracts. This protocol would require the farmer’s written permission for sampling, and provide for a state agriculture official to accompany the patent holder during the sampling and collect duplicate samples for independent verification if requested by either party.

The vote in the Committee on Agriculture was 5 - 0 with three members either absent or abstaining. Those three were Doug LaMalfa (R - AD 2), Jean Fuller (R - AD 32) and Cathleen Gagliani (D - AD 17). Gagliani's non-action is interesting in that she has just moved into the 12th State Senate District served by Jeff Denham, long a major fixture in agricultural legislation in this state but facing a Don Perata backed recall drive.

Most of the time, the Assembly Committee on Agriculture goes about it business out of the sight of our major media. The LA Times, SF Chronicle, San Jose Mercury New, San Diego Union Tribune are all urban papers and the don't pay much attention to agriculture unless that is a story on food contamination with which they can scare everyone.

Even the Committee on Agriculture likes it's relative anonymity. That have not seen fit to post their hearing schedules [click "Committee Hearings" in left side menu] since April 2005.

Among all of the other things we have to worry about, the changes we want to see, this bill is one for which I believe the Green Party should be active in it's support. We can not sit back in our comfortable (sub)urban homes and expect any legislature to do the right thing. There is a long way to go on this one and we have to keep pushing. You know that Monsanto will be doing heavy lobbying.