A series of budget bills are a great example of the truism that Emanuel had detailed. In early April, for instance, Gov. Jerry Brown had announced in a statement the end to emergency water-use restrictions (in all but four counties) that had been implemented as a result of the five-year drought. That relaxation of state-mandated water-conservation rules was expected after a season of record rainfall and floods in much of the state.

But Brown also noted that climate change remains a major threat and that another drought could be right around the corner. Water officials concurred.

“The statewide emergency clearly is over, but it makes sense to continue to assist areas where emergency drinking water projects are still needed in hard-hit areas. We also understand the need for continued water waste prohibitions and reporting requirements as a ‘bridge’ to permanent measures under the long-term conservation framework issued in final form today,” according a statement from the Association of California Water Agencies.

Indeed, the governor’s conservation ideas are now included in a package of water-related trailer bills. Trailer bills implement the already passed state budget, and are supposed to be technical in nature. But governors often use these bills to quietly pass substantive measures – and to do so without full hearings and vetting. In this case, three bills, by Assembly member Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, make permanent a variety of wide-ranging conservation edicts.

For instance, Assembly Bill 1667 “applies the requirement to adopt an agricultural water management plan (AWMP) to all agricultural water suppliers,” according to the official bill analysis. It also “applies agricultural water supplier efficient water management practices … to all agricultural water suppliers (and) requires AWMPs to have a drought plan.”

AB1668 “creates a new drought response plan by making numerous changes to water supply planning and drought planning to incorporate climate change, enhance water supply analysis, and strengthen the enforceability of urban water management plans … and drought contingency planning.” AB1669 requires the State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Water Resources “to adopt long-term standards for urban water conservation and water use.”

Not all water officials are supportive of the approach. “Governor Brown’s water legislation is seeking to give unlimited power and control, minus any oversight or accountability, to an agency with the competency of Caltrans and the compassion of the Franchise Tax Board,” said Brett Barbre, vice president of the Municipal Water District of Orange County and a director of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The fear is the bills would give state agencies permanent drought-style emergency authority to demand water-use cutbacks on municipalities and businesses.

This certainly jibes with the governor’s stated goal of making conservation a “way of life.” And while Brown did remove those emergency water restrictions, he has not rescinded his May 2016 executive order, issued in the thick of the drought, that details a host of conservation measures.

One calls for a permanent framework of water restrictions that push urban water agencies to reduce water use by 20 percent by 2020 using strategies such as strengthened standards to reduce per-capita water use and restrictions on industrial water use. Another imposes permanent restrictions on hosing off sidewalks, watering lawns and washing cars. Yet another one calls for the completion of detailed management plans by agriculture water users.

These are restrictions the governor has long advocated. Most Californians understand the need for water conservation and have largely exceeded the tough standards the state government has imposed. They also realize that this year’s wet season could easily be followed next year by a dry one. But critics also question some of the government’s own water policies.

For instance, as I reported in 2015, federal and state officials were lowering water levels at the massive New Melones Reservoir and draining Lake Tulloch to help a dozen hatchery fish make their way to the Pacific. As Californians cut back on watering their lawns, their officials were draining water supplies for questionable purposes. Irrigation officials in the Sierra foothills were wondering why the state wasn’t prioritizing water needs at the apex of a drought, or at least able to temporary halt these fish-related water flows during a time of scarcity.

Furthermore, officials at the California Coastal Commission continue to delay approvals for a Huntington Beach desalination plant over concerns about the effect of the plant’s proposed ocean-intake pipes on microscopic plankton. 

But the big news for now is that the governor’s trailer bills are moving forward – and they attempt to turn the drought crisis into permanent water policy. 

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

Draft Trailer Bill 807 would expand the State Water Resources Control Board’s authority by allowing it to impose operating fees paid by public water systems. The state board would be required to adopt, by emergency regulation, “a fee schedule, to be paid annually by each public water system for the purpose of reimbursing the state board for specified activities.” The bill goes on to require the state board to also “set the total amount of revenue collected through the fee schedule to be equal to the amount appropriated by the Legislature.”

According to analysis from the Association of California Water Agencies, these changes “would repeal most of the existing fee program, including safeguards in existing law, and authorize adoption of a new fee schedule by emergency regulation.” Under existing law, fees for large water systems are determined by actual costs incurred in administering the program, such as a fee-for-service model.

ACWA notes the proposed trailer bill “would not require fees to be based on actual costs.” In fact, the new language “would remove the existing statutory cap on the base total for the fees and the existing cap on annual increases.” These additional fees charged to water agencies will likely be passed on as costs to ratepayers.

In a letter addressed to the members of the California state Senate and Assembly, ACWA and a number of other local water-regulating entities expressed their reservations about the language in TB807:

“The proposed trailer bill language, which would repeal most of the existing fee program, including safeguards in existing law, without sufficient financial context and authorize the adoption of a new fee schedule by emergency regulation is in stark contrast to the commitment of increased transparency and public participation as pledged to the water community when the Program was transferred last year to the SWRCB. …

 

“We have significant concerns related to the current language. Not only does the proposed emergency regulatory authority circumvent public process in raising fees on drinking water systems throughout the state, but many questions remain unanswered related to the Program’s financial structure that is being used as context for the proposal.”

A second proposal, draft Trailer Bill 825, would also broaden SWRCB’s authority, allowing the state board to mandate consolidation of public water systems, in the event that “a public water system fails to reliably provide an adequate supply of safe potable water.”

ACWA says this proposal “would authorize the State Water Board to require a public water system that fails to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water to consolidate with another public water system.” Concern was expressed in a May 29 letter to the Joint Budget Conference Committee that the trailer bill skips the regular policy and fiscal committee process and “does not provide adequate time for stakeholder comment or public input.”

Aside from the lack of transparency, the proposal to give the state board authority to force consolidations is not an immediate fix to the current drought emergency, says ACWA. SWRCB would have the authority to consolidate “under a broad scope of circumstances,” despite the fact that “consolidations of water purveyors are complex and take time.”

California Special Districts Association also wrote a letter of opposition, stating TB825 would “grant the [state board] unprecedented unilateral power to take ownership and operation of a water system from one entity and force it upon another.” Water rights would be placed in jeopardy, the CSDA alleges, and the proposal “could upend these rights and create legal gridlock.” Ratepayers would also be exposed to unlimited liabilities by “taking on failing systems” in the costs of “environmental cleanup, regulatory penalties, vendor and employee claims and other legal and financial risks.”

Neither of these bills have been formally introduced in the Legislature but are listed on the Department of Finance website as part of budget trailer bill language.

The state posted its best numbers in December, with statewide water conservation increasing 22 percent, according to the State Water Resources Control Board. By comparison, state water officials said conservation by roughly 400 water agencies was up only 10 percent in November.

The good water conservation numbers were largely due to an early December downpour, which brought an average of 2.5 inches of rain to the parched landscape. In the first three weeks of December, Sacramento enjoyed 13 rainy days, according to News 10.

“This was a wet December in most of the state, and people got the message not to water on top of the rain – that is good news,” State Water Board Chair Felicia Marcus said in a press release. “Our challenge will be to keep outdoor irrigation to a minimum as we move into the warmer spring months.”

Gov. Jerry Brown: No drought sound-byte

At a Friday press conference, Gov. Jerry Brown declined to back mandatory water restriction and urged Californians to continue voluntary efforts to conserve water.

“Even though it’s starting to rain, unfortunately, there’s not a sound-byte or a glib sentence that can put all this together,” Brown told reporters. “California is facing a very severe drought.”

Last summer, the state began tracking water savings by large retail suppliers. Since then, California has conserved more than 134 billion gallons of water compared with the previous year. Water officials say that is enough to supply 1.8 million California residents with water for a full year.

The good news from December, however, was matched by equally disappointing news in January, when California experienced one of the driest months on record. The state remains on track for a fourth consecutive dry year.

In February, the pendulum appears to be swinging back to more rain. This past weekend, the “Pineapple Express” drenched the Pacific Northwest. Reported NBC News, the storm drenched “Northern and Central California with up to 3 inches of rain through Monday morning, and accompanying winds could produce small tornadoes in the region.”

According to the National Weather Service, the atmospheric river of rain called the “Pineapple Express” occurs “from a ribbon of moist air moving across the Pacific Ocean.”

ACWA analyzing water use data

The state’s fluctuating rainfall is creating work for the Association of California Water Agencies, a coalition of 430 public agencies responsible for 90 percent of the water delivered to cities, farms and businesses in California. The association is working with state water officials to review the state’s water data and emergency drought regulations, which are scheduled to expire in April. Officials will meet next month to consider extending those regulations.

“We were pleased about December, but obviously, January was pretty worrisome,” Dave Bolland, a special projects manager with the Association of California Water Agencies, told the San Jose Mercury News. “It’s obvious at this point that the drought emergency is still with us.”

In December, the Central Coast reported the greatest water conservation in the state, decreasing its water use by 29 percent compared to the previous year. According to the newly released data, the San Francisco Bay Area’s water use decreased by 21.6 percent in December, while Sacramento’s water use declined by 21.4 percent.

“CA is doing its part to #SaveOurWater, but the drought is far from over,” Brown tweeted this week. “Careful stewardship & conservation must be our way of life.”

Congressional delegation more active on water policy

California’s ongoing drought has encouraged the state’s congressional delegation to take a more active role in crafting water policy. This week, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives hosted a joint hearing on how state and local governments would cope with a proposal to amend the federal Clean Water Act.

“We must do all we can to protect these water resources, because this is all we have,” Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-El Monte, said in a statement about the proposed regulatory changes. “When the water dries up, our way of life and our local economies will dry up with it.”

More action from the federal government is unlikely to be welcomed by farmers in the Central Valley, who routinely point to state and federal regulations for making the state’s water problems worse.

“The most severe restrictions are often triggered when water is abundant,” lamented the Families Protecting the Valley, a coalition of farmers, agriculture providers and community leaders in the San Joaquin Valley. “When storms came through in mid-December, water agencies worked closely with fish and wildlife agencies to comply with endangered species regulations while trying to capture some water for people, businesses and farms. Despite these efforts, we still lost nearly 200,000 acre-feet of water.”

By WAYNE LUSVARDI

California’s water wars are back. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sent a letter to the Association of California Water Agencies late Tuesday March 27 again pitting North against South.

The letter stated Feinstein was no longer entertaining compromise legislation on House Resolution H.R. 1837, the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act, sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Clovis.  HR 1837 would have repealed Feinstein’s three-year-old H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (formerly called the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act of 2009).

Politicians have a way of using titles to their legislation that covers up what it is really all about.

Feinstein’s H.R. 146:

* Took water in 2009 from Central Valley farmers to redistribute to tourist commercial, fishing, recreational and real estate interests in the San Joaquin River under the guise of environmental restoration and mitigation;
* Raised water rates for Central Valley farmers to subsidize fishing and recreational “restoration”; and
* Required that renewal of agricultural water contracts had to go through an environmental review for distribution of “mitigations” to special interests.

Simply stated, the Republican-backed H.R. 1837 would have undone all this.

For a brief period, Feinstein was apparently willing to listen to a Republican proposal for a compromise bill brokered by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock. In a water war, as in all wars over water, it is difficult for opponents to meet face to face to make peace. HR 1837 was authored by Nunes and spearheaded by Rep. Tom McClintock R-Elk Grove, head of the U.S. House’s Subcommittee on Water and Power. Apparently, Feinstein has ended listening to any compromise proposals by Republicans.

DiFi’s Reelection Bid

Feinstein is also running for reelection in November and doesn’t want any appearance of capitulation to HR 1837 in the eyes of her environmentalist political base.

The Legislative Affairs Committee of the Association of California Water Agencies is holding a meeting on Thursday March 29 to issue a position statement on H.R. 1837.  Feinstein’s letter was to make her position clear that she will work to defeat H.R. 1837 if  it’s brought before the U.S. Senate.

Instead of pursuing compromise, Feinstein’s letter states she wants to pursue the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, the proposed state water bond, and water transfers, banking and recycling.  All of these are wholly Democratic Party-backed measures that stick agriculture, wholesale water agencies and cities with the tab for all of the above projects and policies.

In the case of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, the hidden agenda is for Northern California to stick farmers, cities and water agencies with the bill for creating a huge regional “sewer district” that would clean up Delta pollution mainly caused by Northern California waste water discharges and urban runoff. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is a cost-shifting scheme. But to pull this off, Northern California interests must disguise their actions as “environmentalism.”  And to do so they must demonize water agencies, cities, and farmers.

‘Consent of the Governed’

Thus, Feinstein’s letter represents an abandonment of an attempt to reach the “consent of the governed” and continued pursuit of her goals by force and fraud.  “Consent of the governed” is not the same as “compromise” or “consensus.” It implies that voluntary assent should be attained of those who must pay taxes, give up water, pay higher water rates or pay out mitigations.

What is at stake with attaining “consent of the governed” over Central California water is no less than democracy itself.  Otherwise any “consensus” would be a sham water grab by a kleptocratic state.

In California water war history, Feinstein’s water policies would be a sophisticated return to the water grabs of the Mulholland era of the Los Angeles Department of Water and power in Mono Lake in the early 20th century.  But even DWP paid market prices for land and water rights involving voluntary transactions.

Such “consent of the governed” was reached in 1994 with the Bay-Delta Accord.  Both Democrats such as President Bill Clinton and California Republican Gov. Pete Wilson agreed to the accord.

One-Sided Policy

H.R. 1837 would have “restored” the Bay-Delta Accord as the compromise policy document for the Delta, the San Joaquin River and the Central Valley.  But Feinstein and her Party of Government do not want to return to that former treaty in the North-South water war.

Instead, Feinstein has signaled she wants to pursue the one-sided water redistribution policies of her political party. And the only way to do that without “consent of the governed” is by force and fraud.

Hence, it is back to the water wars using the force of laws and the fraud of environmentalism as a cover for redistributionist policies. But public opinion polls are indicating a thin 51 percent approval for the proposed $11 billion state water bond on the November ballot. California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, R-Sacramento, indicated March 27 that the state water bond may be pulled from the ballot due to weak public support.

Radio and television commentator John Gibson was once quoted: “We’d love to be able to work out compromises to these problems, as long as they don’t compromise access to our land and water.”  This pretty much sums up the tug of war with the North-South water war in California over Central Valley water.

Water wars are obviously about water. But they are also often about real estate and wealth transfers.  This is why Mark Twain famously wrote: “Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting.”