Why is GOP rebuffing Sen. Feinstein’s drought bill?

Why is GOP rebuffing Sen. Feinstein’s drought bill?

Dianne_Feinstein,_official_Senate_photo_2U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is renewing her call to Republican senators to vote for her revised compromise drought bill, S. 2016, the California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014.  Feinstein claims her bill is five votes short of the 60 needed for  passage.

If passed, the Senate would forward her bill to the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives for possible reconciliation with a dissimilar drought bill pending there, H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act of 2014, by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif.

But why aren’t the Republican senatorial fish biting at the Democrat bait?

The mainstay of Feinstein’s bill is not based on repealing environmental laws, but on the greater “flexibility” of water allocations among fish, farmers and cities. Feinstein’s call to relax environmental regulations during the drought has incensed environmental organizations such as the Bay Institute in San Francisco.

By contrast, the GOP bill in the House does repeal environmental laws.

Except for Oregon, there is nothing in a California drought bill for most senators from states outside of California.

So back on Feb. 14, 2014, Feinstein, joined by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., smartly broadened the base of possible support for S. 2016 by getting support from both Democratic U.S. Senators from Oregon, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley.  Merkley is facing re-election in November against Republican challenger Monica Wehby, who is running on a platform of water deregulation.

Feinstein’s drought bill makes Merkley look like he is the candidate who wants to reduce inflexible regulations that prevent farmers from getting water in a drought.

Money

Feinstein claims the money allocated to drought relief in her bill would go to alleviating some of the impacts of drought along the Klamath River Basin in Oregon.  However, the $300 million in drought relief in the Feinstein bill is the same funding touted by President Barack Obama when he visited California in February.

The Farm Bill of 2013, approved by both houses of Congress, already allocated that funding.  So there is no new drought funding in the Feinstein bill that makes voting for it necessary.

Moreover, Section 13.2 of the Water Rights Decision 1641, adopted in 1999 by the California Water Resources Control Board, already provided the flexibility Feinstein says is needed to provide drought relief (see here and here).

Decision 1641 also provided that any subsequent decisions could override provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the U.S. Endangered Species Act in the “greater public interest” (Section 14.4).  That means water could be provided to farmers over fish in a drought.

Mike Wade of the California Farm Water Coalition issued a statement recognizing Feinstein’s redundant gesture to relax environmental regulations during a drought:

“Elected officials are charged with representing the needs and interests of their constituents, a difficult challenge for Senators in a state as diverse as California. Elected officials, unlike agency staff, are accountable to the constituents they represent, and as such are the appropriate ones to engage in policy-making. When a law or other policy isn’t working, they have the responsibility to evaluate it and make the necessary changes.”

Wade also brought up the Bay Institute’s opposition to any purported relaxation of environmental regulations that might allocate more water to farmers:

“Environmental interest groups like the Bay Institute seem to want flexibility by everyone but themselves. There is little care for the people who are standing in food lines because no water is being delivered to support their jobs. In extreme years like this you would hope that even the most ardent environmental activists would show a little humanity.”

Elections

So why the mostly symbolic outrage by environmental organizations over the relaxation of environmental regulations that were already approved and met all requirements of CEQA and the Federal Endangered Species Act? Because elections are coming up.

Although neither U.S. Senate seat from California is part of this year’s election, Democrats are in danger of losing their majority. If Republicans take over the Senate, Feinstein would lose her chairmanship of the Senate Intelligence Committee and other posts; and Boxer would lose her position as chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and other posts.

So, as noted above, Democrats need Merkley to retain his Senate seat from Oregon.

Democrats in the House also are worried about losing more seats to the majority Republicans. The district of Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, is in the drought epicenter.  Costa is a member of the Subcommittee on Water and Power in the House. 

Costa has lifted his own drought bill in the House, H.R. 4039, the California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014. It is co-sponsored by Rep. Tony Cardenas, D-Los Angeles, and Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel. Farr is an environmental advocate who is up for re-election in a congressional district where the Lompico Water District is likely to run out of water this summer.

The plan is for a rising tide of empty water bills to lifts all Democratic Party political ships in California for 2014.

5 comments

Write a comment
  1. Steve Mehlman
    Steve Mehlman 16 April, 2014, 10:56

    But why aren’t the Republican senatorial fish biting at the Democrat bait?

    Simple: They’re Republicans and she’s a Democrat. That means that they won’t support her proposal, no matter how reasonable it is. That’s the way today’s Republicans roll, and our country is worse because of it.

    Reply this comment
  2. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 16 April, 2014, 16:46

    Doomers don’t like old school Democrats….not her fault she has whipped the stuffings out of doomer challengers for generations…she must be doing something right!

    Reply this comment
  3. Bill Gore
    Bill Gore 20 April, 2014, 18:45

    I agree with loving Difi: the central valley doesn’t need any water. It should all flow out to sea for the sake of a dozen inch long delta smelt. Non-republican californians deserve their fate. Let them eat silicon!

    Reply this comment
  4. Tim
    Tim 22 April, 2014, 11:44

    Farmers as a group have drained our lakes, rivers, groundwater and have contaminated most of whats left so that they can make their outrageous, mostly untaxed, profits. They are are the single largest reason for illegal immigration and all of the cost to society that go along with it. They already take more than 80% of all water leaving less than 20% for both recreation and domestic use. Ground subsidence and contaminated water supplies are other gifts that they give to the citizens of California. Permanent crops especially almonds, pistachios and pomegranites need to be reduced by 20% or more yet there are plans being made to expand these new farming ventures as we try to deal with drought like conditions. The only positive thing associated with farming is their continued ability to buy and manipulate the media and politicians.

    Reply this comment
  5. Chris Gulick
    Chris Gulick 23 April, 2014, 10:36

    Tim, farmers don’t use 80 % of ALL water.
    Farmers use 80 % of all “developed” water.
    Developed water being any water diverted from anywhere for human use.
    This is an important distinction that will help us all avoid the likes of Mike Wade twisting and skewing data to make his wealthy benefactors actions somehow seem justifiable.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Stockton bankruptcy looms over 2015

  The New Year is going to bring increasing difficulties for some California cities because of the 2014 settlement of

Medi-Cal woes leave CA hurting

A victim of its own success, California’s popular Medi-Cal program has rapidly swelled to a large enough size to malfunction.

Feinstein’s ‘Bandit River’ project brings back redevelopment

Oct. 15, 2012 By Wayne Lusvardi The San Joaquin River wasn’t named after Joaquin Murrieta, the infamous bandit of the