Under fire, Feinstein’s water bill collapses

Under fire, Feinstein’s water bill collapses

Dianne_Feinstein,_official_Senate_photo_2It has been an uncharacteristically bad week for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. First, her quiet effort to engineer a substantial drought relief bill for California washed out to sea.

After working all year with Republicans for a compromise, this week Feinstein encountered surprise opposition from her own political base. In fact, her very willingness to work with Senate Republicans prompted cries from liberals and environmentalists that her bill would benefit corporations more than drought-stricken Californians.

As the left-leaning Mother Jones magazine reported, Feinstein’s bill concerned “management of the Central Valley Project, a federally owned irrigation system that moves water from California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range to farmland in the state’s main growing region, the Central Valley.” There, water flows controlled by the federal government — not Sacramento — have become essential interests to California’s large almond and pistachio growers.

As California’s drought has persisted, the size of their crop has attracted the attention of observers around the country and the world: 82 percent of earth’s almonds are grown in the Golden State, along with 98 percent of America’s pistachios. With foreign demand for California nuts rising, any substantial reduction in output would not only cause economic problems in the U.S.; it would reverberate overseas as well.

A secret saga

As Mother Jones further reported, political jockeying over federally controlled California water has been playing out all year in Washington, D.C. California Republicans in Congress sought to roll back relatively tight federal requirements on usage, drawing fire from Gov. Jerry Brown and a vow from president Barack Obama of a veto.

Feinstein shook up the predictable partisan battle lines, however, when she entered into careful and quiet negotiations with Central Valley Republicans in the House of Representatives. She recognized their constituents — the growers single-handedly propping up large sectors of the global nut market — were key to any federal reorganization of California water use. She then sidestepped largely Democratic representatives in San Joaquin Delta districts.

The outcry from those House members was summed up by Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, who said Feinstein’s approach was “wrong” and “not the way to do this.”

Quickly, Feinstein’s controlled negotiations became a political problem. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported, “confidential drafts” of her legislation “leaked out last week,” prompting alarm among her Senate colleagues, according to unnamed Democratic lawmakers. Making matters worse, “Bay Area members, along with fishing and environmental groups, began putting pressure on” her Democratic colleague from California, Sen. Barbara Boxer, to intervene. “They feared that Feinstein was trying to rush through legislation they had not seen and which had not been subjected to committee scrutiny.”

An anonymous Republican source told the Chronicle that Feinstein’s response — yanking the bill — spread shock through GOP negotiators. “We were 99 percent there,” the source said. “Out of the blue, members started receiving calls” from Feinstein explaining the deal was dead and negotiations were over.

According to the Chronicle, Feinstein will present a new bill in January — “under ‘regular order,’ which involves an open committee process and public debate.” By then, Feinstein will be in the minority party as Republicans take over control of the Senate after their Nov. 4 electoral victories.

Richard Bloom

As if the water wars weren’t enough, Feinstein was confronted with indirect criticism from some fellow Democrats over her husband, Richard Bloom, a businessman and regent for the University of California.

In the fracas over a tuition hike supported by UC President Janet Napolitano, Newsweek reported, Bloom took the side of fellow regents who believed that “paying faculty and executives higher salaries is essential to competing with elite private universities for talent.”

That provoked the fury of Brown, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. “I want to point out that you run an investment banking industry and this is a public university,” Brown told Bloom. “This is not Wall Street. This is the University of California. The public university has as its mission public service.”

Nonetheless, the tuition hikes went through on a 14-7 vote of the regents. But as CalWatchdog.com reported, Brown is resourceful and the intramural Democratic tuition battle is far from over.

Losing Democratic majority status in the Senate; having her water bill fall through; a Brown-Bloom rift over tuition. The next year looks to be nothing but headaches for California’s long-serving senior senator.

4 comments

Write a comment
  1. Queeg
    Queeg 25 November, 2014, 13:11

    Gordian knots at every turn. A civilized society paralyzed by the uber high tech rich and sprout eating No. Calif. hippies.

    Check the supermarket.

    Two bucks for a decent size apple or a few Roma tomatoes.

    A juicy green bell pepper a buck.

    And you wonder why approximately 24% of Californians are in poverty.

    Reply this comment
  2. Bill - San Jose
    Bill - San Jose 25 November, 2014, 14:57

    Well, I agree on the point you are making but after all, we have Mexican and Chinese veggies to eat, right?

    “her quiet effort to engineer a substantial drought relief bill”

    Quiet means she was willing to sell out for federal funds just like she sold out to the Chinese (check her husband). She knows no depth. =D

    Reply this comment
  3. Ebolan
    Ebolan 25 November, 2014, 18:57

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif

    No James, it’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Bloom.

    HTH.

    Reply this comment
  4. Bill Gore
    Bill Gore 26 November, 2014, 08:55

    Good for Gov. Brown. He is absolutely correct. DiFi is now in her EIGHTIES for crying out loud. Time to back off from the relentless profiteering on behalf of her husband and give some thought to her legacy, before it all explodes in her face. Do these people ever get rich enough? And what the hell is her husband doing on the UC Board of Regents? A VERY bad example for young people…

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Stalking Law Hurts Small Claims Courts

MARCH 22, 2011 By STAN BRIN California’s Small Claims Courts are in trouble. Every year, fewer people take their cases

Vacancies, dysfunction cause legislator-pay commission to cancel meeting

Last month, CalWatchdog reported that the commission on state lawmaker pay was plagued by vacancies. This month, the California Citizens Compensation

City muddles tax cut verbiage

JULY 26, 2010 By KATY GRIMES Ballot language for a Sacramento city utilities initiative that would rollback rates — proposed