Politics pollutes ‘water rights’ bill

Aug. 30, 2012

By Katy Grimes

SACRAMENTO — An interesting debate took place Wednesday in the Assembly over a bill granting California residents the “right” to clean drinking water.

Is clean drinking water a right? Can the state grant rights to its citizens?

California Democrats believe the state can grant rights, and are pushing the bill that declares “it is the established policy of the state that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes.”

“More than 11.5 million Californians rely on water suppliers that faced at least one violation of State Drinking Water Standards,” according to Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Alhambra, the author of AB 685. “As many as 8.5 million Californians rely on supplies that experienced more than five incidences of excessive levels of contaminants in the drinking water in a single year.”

The bill analysis states that, “in communities where the sole water supply is contaminated, families that are unable to afford treatment are often left entirely without safe water. The Central Valley and Central Coast regions, where more than 90 percent of the communities rely solely on groundwater, are particularly at risk. More than 250,000 people in the Central Valley alone lack access to a consistent source of safe, affordable water.”

Eng said that, because California does not have a universal statewide lifeline water
rate or allocation, when costs become excessive, families that cannot pay their bills risk losing water service entirely.

Is water a ‘right?’

“If the state can grant rights, it can also remove them,” Assemblywoman Linda Halderman, R-Fresno, said during floor debate on AB 685. “I’d rather think that my rights have origin endowed by my creator.”

However, Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said that local water boards have the regional responsibility for clean, accessible water. “We have very capable water boards-the issue needs to be addressed by these water boards.”

Even the Association of California Water Agencies opposed AB 685: “ACWA believes the bill, though seemingly well intended, is unnecessary and duplicative. California Water Code Section 106, established in 1913, is already a fundamental cornerstone of the water rights system in this state. It declares that the use of water for domestic purposes is the highest use of water, and it would appear unnecessary to make any modification to further amplify this existing domestic preference policy.”

Harkey warned that creating a new “right to water” in California law will invite litigation. The ACWA also fears litigation, and: ACWA and others believe the bill could lead to extensive litigation to define what a ‘human right to water’ entails.”

“What about farmers, growers and ranchers?” asked Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield. “They provide the groceries for us to eat everyday. What about their water rights?”

An inconvenient truth

“Think about it as state policy,” said Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael. “It’s an inconvenient truth that the state participates in infrastructure.”

Huffman lambasted the “entrenched special interests” he said were in opposition to the bill.

But Huffman also said that drinking water is a right, and not just state policy: “It is the right of everybody in California to have clean, affordable water.”

Democrats debating AB 685 showed real enthusiasm for offering this new right, but bristled when Republicans spoke of fundamental rights.

Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley said that, despite the rights the creator instilled, “clean water is an essential right.”

No water storage

“If you are voting for the bill, I hope you will be supportive of new storage facilities in the state,” said Assemblyman Bill Berryhill, R-Stockton.

Eng said that the United Nations sent a team out to California’s Central Valley to test the water. The UN team said that the Central Valley drinking water ranks with water in Third World countries. “California water is a disgrace,” Eng said.

Water bond

In 2014, voters will be faced with an $11 billion water bond. The bond was originally passed by the Legislature for placement on the 2010 ballot. It was removed for placement on the 2012 ballot. But with Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax increase initiative on the November ballot, Democrats decided to remove the water bond once again, and place it on the 2014 ballot, hoping voters will approve it:

The official summary of the bond states:

“To protect water quality and ensure safe, clean drinking water; meet the water supply needs of California residents, farms, businesses; expand water conservation and recycling; restore fish and wildlife habitat; reduce polluted runoff that contaminates rivers, streams, beaches, and bays; and protect the safety of water supplies threatened by earthquakes and other natural disasters; the State of California shall issue bonds totalling eleven billion one hundred forty million dollars ($11,140,000,000) paid from existing state funds subject to independent, annual audits, and citizen oversight.”

However, an appeals court ruled in 2011 that Attorney General Kamala Harris will need to rewrite the summary because it is so one-sided and misleading. The ruling prohibits lawmakers from “hijacking the ballot label, title and summary and turning them into another argument instead of an impartial voter guide,” said attorney Timothy Bittle of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which sued challenging the title of Proposition 1A, the water bond’s original number, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Who grants rights?

“The state doesn’t have the right to grant rights,” Assmeblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, said. “We need to tread very carefully when we are about to codify into law a new right. I don’t see the authority–where does this elected body have the right to grant new rights?”

Donnelly asked how that “new right” would conflict with property rights. “Can officials come onto my property and take my clean water?”

The bill was passed on a party line vote, 44-28.


Write a comment
  1. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 30 August, 2012, 09:54

    I gotta print and frame this. A perfect example of everything that is wrong with California’s Democratic Party in 2012.

    A seemingly innocuous piece of legislation that looks good on current campaign mailers but will eventually have ginormous unintended consequences.

    Reply this comment
  2. Hondo
    Hondo 30 August, 2012, 10:09

    This law was written by the lawyers. This is endless litigation, a transfer of public money to the lawyers.
    America has some of the cleanest water on earth. If you can’t find clean water in Kalifornia that means you’re drinking out of the toilet with the dog.

    Reply this comment
  3. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 30 August, 2012, 10:24

    While some Central Valley water is pretty skanky (admittedly not a very scientific term), this farcical piece of feel-good legislation is surely not how you fix it.

    Agreed on the “lawyers” bit. Surely that is what doofus Huffman meant when addressing “entrenched interests”?

    Reply this comment
  4. Edward Steele, Chief Investigator
    Edward Steele, Chief Investigator 30 August, 2012, 11:03

    I think the Poodle does drink from the toilet Hondo– good point.

    Reply this comment
  5. Wayne Lusvardi
    Wayne Lusvardi 30 August, 2012, 11:40

    Thanks for the update Ms. Grimes

    For more background on the “public goods water charge” see “California Water Cold Water Heats Up” May 10, 2011


    Reply this comment
  6. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 30 August, 2012, 15:26

    I thought I saw Poodle at the camp urinal in Yosemite!

    He had a day tripper tag on his collar!

    Reply this comment
  7. Chris Brooks
    Chris Brooks 31 August, 2012, 13:36

    Wholehearted agreement from me. While this legislation may earn points with certain favored constituencies it could perversely end up limiting people’s access to clean, affordable water by limiting the ability of utilities to recover the costs of implementing solutions to water problems.

    Reply this comment
  8. Shane Atwell
    Shane Atwell 4 September, 2012, 11:10

    Donelly came closest to touching on the fundamental moral issue: if its a right, then who is going to be forced to provide it? And why does owning or producing something (e.g. clean water), mean that others can steal it from you, while not having it gives you carte blanche to plunder? There can be no right to a thing or service, only to freedom of action to produce or trade for that thing.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Obama heads Stanford Summit on cybersecurity

On Friday, President Obama travels to Stanford University to give the keynote address on a topic much in the news:

The Polite Sacramento Tea Party

The tax day Tea Party held at the state capitol in Sacramento was a bustling event, attended by colorful, patriotic

Morro Bay Power Plant shutdown saves fish, kills birds

Power plants keep closing in California. Earlier this year, Southern California Edison announced it permanently would shut down its San