Sen. Feinstein moves toward compromise on drought legislation

Sen. Feinstein moves toward compromise on drought legislation

 

Nunes image, H.R. 3964Crises commonly produce compromise. That seems to be happening in the U.S. Congress with solutions to California’s drought. In particular, Sen. Dianne Feinstein appears to be moving away from her San Joaquin River Restoration Act of 2009, which was a response to a 2006 court decision and gave priority to salmon runs over water for farming.

A March 10 editorial in the Fresno Bee paraphrased her comments to the paper’s editorial board:

“It is time, in light of climate change, Feinstein said, to ‘reassess’ the $2 billion plan that would revive salmon runs on the San Joaquin by rebuilding the 153-mile stretch between Friant Dam and where the Merced River empties into the San Joaquin.

“This is significant because Feinstein has been a strong river restoration advocate. She, along with former Rep. George Radanovich, was a key figure in pushing negotiators forward in the 2006 settlement of a long and bitter federal lawsuit filed by environmentalists over river diversions to farmers.”

And with Fresno in the heart of California’s farming country, the Bee’s editorial board also has been persuaded to change its stance. An Oct. 28 editorial in the paper didn’t foresee any problems with water releases from Friant Dam for fish. But its new editorial on March 10 wrote:

“The Editorial Board has championed the river’s restoration. However, we concur with Feinstein.

“The project has ballooned in costs. Deadlines have been repeatedly missed on this massive, unprecedented and unpredictable project. Indeed, the schedule for fully restoring the salmon runs was pushed back three years in mid-2012.”

Farm community

A typical response from the farm community came from the activist group Families Protecting the Valley:

“Is it possible that Senator Dianne Feinstein is starting to see the San Joaquin River Restoration project as the unrealistic dream that it really is?… There is no money, no promise of funding.  Yet, water has needlessly been sent down the river instead of to farms. Thousands of acre-feet [of water] could have been saved just in the past few months, but the restoration was ‘off the table’ for re-negotiation according to Senator Feinstein.”  

Feinstein’s new stance contrasts with her reaction to the drought legislation proposed in January by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare, H.R. 3964, The Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act of 2014. The bill effectively would repeal her San Joaquin River Restoration Act of 2009.

In a Jan. 29 statement, she wrote of H.R. 3964:

“Today’s bill is another irresponsible proposal that puts politics ahead of the needs of California, and candidly, it’s very disappointing. … This bill is disingenuous, it is irresponsible and it is dangerous. I truly hope Valley farmers speak out against this ugly example of politics as usual and demand that Valley Republicans quit the games and fulfill their responsibilities as legislators.”

Pretty tough words. But since then, the drought only has worsened. President Obama toured the drought area. And the November election, with Democrats worried about losing House seats from California, approaches ever nearer. Indeed, just yesterday Democrats’ plight became more critical as Republicans won an election for an open House seat in Florida.

So it’s not surprising that Feinstein and other Democrats want to advance compromise solutions to the drought that put them in good light with farm voters.

Compromises

Where might compromises be hashed out?

Compromise 1. The San Joaquin River has a 60-mile stretch where the river runs dry during droughts because the riverbed is at a higher elevation. This hump in the river keeps salmon from running to the ocean. The present solution is wasteful: flushing the river with huge amounts of water to get the fish over the hump.

Feinstein’s 2009 San Joaquin River Restoration Act required lowering the riverbed to create a sort of Panama Canal for fish at a prohibitive cost of $1 billion to $2 billion. It has not been built. The project is a literal example of the old saying, “In California water runs uphill toward money.”

A compromise could be to create an upstream fishery. An alternative compromise could be to build a cheaper parallel fish canal, but only after new replacement water storage facilities were built first for farmers to prevent repeat water shortages during drought.

Compromise 2. Water savings could be advanced through the quantification and greater efficiency of environmental water, not agricultural or municipal and industrial water.

Check out this Water Balance Table from the Department of Water Resources:

California Water Balance Summary chart

The environment is allocated 22.4 million acre-feet in a dry year, but nearly triple that, 62.1 million acre-feet, in a wet year.

By contrast, notice the narrow range for urban uses: 7.7 million acre-feet in a wet year, to just 8.6 million acre-feet in a dry year.

And agriculture goes from 27.7 million acre-feet in a wet year to 34.1 million acre-feet in a dry year. That’s just a 23 percent increase during the dry times farmers most need more water.

If a bit more environmental water were reallocated to agriculture in dry years, the crisis could be alleviated.

Compromise 3. Discussions could be started on the $102 million collected from farmers under the San Joaquin River Restoration Act of 2009 to build infrastructure to replenish their lost farm water allocations, but which never was implemented.

Compromise 4. A “fail safe” drought planning principle could be adopted that puts pre-mitigation of lost farm water before water diversions for fish. Otherwise, when droughts hit, farmers are decimated.

3 comments

Write a comment
  1. Leza Fremont
    Leza Fremont 14 March, 2014, 08:09

    Just for one day I would love to read news that doesn’t quote a politician invoking “climate chnage.”

    Reply this comment
  2. John Moriarty
    John Moriarty 17 March, 2014, 16:57

    Is anyone ever going to discuss desalination?
    We (meaning California) could lead the planet in renewable energy/renewable energy powered desalination plants. There is not one tidal generator or off shore wind farm in existence in a State that needs them desperately and boasts the coastline to support and innovate this technology. Next space race for 500 please? There has never been an environmental tragedy from a wind farm spill! Why are other countries (Canada, UK, Germany) implementing and advancing this technology? Are the politicians ever going to look out for our best interest? It’s 2014, why are we still talking about this? California still has coal fired electric plants! Climate change is here to stay, start taking advantage of renewable energy and solve the drought and this State’s thirst for water with renewable energy powered desalination plants.
    It might even help the rising

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Will High Speed Rail Ever Get on Track?

AUG. 19, 2010 Last month I had the privilege of riding the best train in California. Indeed, it’s perhaps the

Congressman Darrell Issa faces tough political fight for re-election

Is Congressman Darrell Issa really in reelection trouble? Not that long ago, the Vista Republican was on top of the

State senate committee approves minimum wage hike

California’s minimum wage workers will receive a 62.5 percent raise over three years if Senate Bill 3 is approved by