More than three-quarters of California’s local governments have declined to authorize retail stores to sell cannabis, as permitted by state voters with their 2016 approval of Proposition 64. Opposition has been led by moderate Democrats and conservative Republicans unconvinced that making the drug readily available for recreational use is good for society.

But much of California’s House delegation is supportive of helping the marijuana industry achieve a key goal: access to the banking system. Even with cannabis now legal in some form in 33 states, the great majority of banks and credit unions in the Golden State and elsewhere have declined to do business with marijuana-related businesses because possession and sale of the drug remain illegal under federal law.

Last week, the House passed the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act 321 to 103. Every California Democrat backed the measure and so did four of the state’s seven Republican members: Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, Tom McClintock of Elk Grove, Devin Nunes of Tulare and Duncan Hunter of Alpine.

The passage of the bill after past efforts went nowhere was widely credited to a change in focus in lobbying. Leading the push this time was lobbyists for the financial services industry itself – not the cannabis industry. They argued that making a multibillion-dollar industry use cash only created headaches and safety risks for the many legitimate, longstanding businesses that dealt with cannabis companies.

Bankers say other businesses shouldn’t be inconvenienced

American Bankers Association President and CEO Rob Nichols told Politico, “The most compelling arguments have been centered around these secondary relationships. It’s the local plumber, it’s the local electrician, it’s the attorney, it’s the accountant who are doing business with a cannabis grower or dispensary who are then having challenges associated with getting banking products and services.”

The American Financial Services Association focused its lobbying on McCarthy and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, also emphasizing the need to stop inconveniencing so many established businesses.

The fate of the SAFE bill in the Senate is unclear. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, has said that he will schedule a hearing on the bill, but his aides said that should not be interpreted as support.

California’s Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, are expected to be supportive. After 35 years as a staunch supporter of the drug war, Feinstein reversed course in spring 2018.

“My state has legalized marijuana for personal use, and as California continues to implement this law, we need to ensure we have strong safety rules to prevent impaired driving and youth access, similar to other public health issues like alcohol,” she told a McClatchy reporter.

Harris has also changed her position. In 2010, while running for California attorney general, she opposed an initiative to legalize recreational marijuana use. 

“Spending two decades in courtrooms, Harris believes that drug selling harms communities,” her aide told Capitol Weekly. “Harris supports the legal use of medicinal marijuana but does not support anything beyond that.”

But her position softened over the years, and last year she signed on as a co-sponsor of a bill by Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, that would make cannabis legal under federal law.

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump’s promise to help Central Valley farmers get more water and to reduce environmentalists’ influence over the federal government got him a

As president, for a variety of reasons, Trump so far has only been able to provide part of the relief on water supplies that many in the Central Valley sought, even in the wake of a winter rain deluge. But Trump has signaled his intent to honor his promise to help the region by choosing David Bernhardt – a veteran of California’s water wars – for the No. 2 job in the Interior Department.

Bernhardt is a Colorado-based partner in Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a multi-state law firm which has on four occasions represented the Central Valley’s Westlands Water District, the largest U.S. irrigation district, in lawsuits targeting Interior Department policies. The law firm has been paid $1.3 million by the water agency since 2011.

Bernhardt’s Senate confirmation is expected this week or soon thereafter, but it may be close to a party-line vote. At a May 17 meeting of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Bernhardt was grilled by ranking Democrat Maria Cantwell of Washington and other Democrats over the conflicts of interest he would face because of his history representing Westlands and Cadiz, a Los Angeles land development firm that has fought with federal regulators over its audacious plan to access the water in a Mojave Desert aquifer.

Bernhardt: Effect on jobs should matter in regulatory decisions

At the hearing, Bernhardt repeatedly said he would avoid issues involving former clients unless given the blessing of Interior Department ethics lawyers. But Bernhardt’s remarks in answer to another question explain why he may be such a threat to the Central Valley’s water status quo.

When asked about his commitment to “scientific integrity” in enforcing Interior Department policies, Bernhardt said, “I will look at the science with all its significance and its warts. You look at that, you evaluate it and then you look at the legal decision you can make. In some instances the legal decision may allow you to consider other factors, such as jobs.”

This is music to the ears of many Californian Republicans, starting with Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare. He has long contended that the Central Valley has suffered from a “man-made drought” because of bureaucratic decisions that interpret laws in ways that place the interests of  endangered fish such as the delta smelt over the needs of humans – despite no compelling legal obligation to do so.

The Obama administration rejected the contention, saying that its actions to use fresh water supplies to help sustain the delta smelt instead of helping Central Valley farmers followed laws requiring the federal government to protect endangered species and the ecosystem of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Administration representatives said the decisions Nunes slammed as arbitrary were anything but.

Yet the highest-profile fight between Bernhardt’s law firm and Obama’s Interior Department wasn’t about the delta smelt or allegedly dubious bureaucratic maneuvering. It was over toxic substances in the irrigation water coming from Westlands’ 940 square-mile district. Despite criticism from environmentalists, the Obama administration agreed to a settlement on how the problem would be ameliorated that the Fresno Bee estimated could save the water agency more than $375 million. Greens who didn’t like the ruling couldn’t overcome the case that Bernhardt built that federal courts had consistently held that the federal government bore the burden for building drainage systems to limit the impact of the toxins.

Feds control 100 million acres of land in California

But Bernhardt’s confirmation would also insert him in other California water issues.

As a Sacramento Bee editorial noted, the deputy interior secretary historically has been “directly involved in virtually every aspect of California water, from the Colorado River agreement in the south to the Klamath River in the north, and, especially, the operations of the Central Valley Project.”

Given that the federal government owns or effectively controls 100 million acres of land in California – second only to Alaska in federal land holdings in the 50 states – this focus by the agency’s number two official is unsurprising.

President Obama has decided to side with Sen. Barbara Boxer and California environmentalists in their battle with Sen. Dianne Feinstein and House Republicans over Golden State water policy.

On Monday, Feinstein announced that she had reached agreement with legislative leaders to place a provision providing $588 million for California water storage, desalination and recycling projects into the massive omnibus infrastructure bill that’s expected to pass Congress by year’s end. The deal also included a change in water allocation rules that would take some supplies away from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and give it to Central Valley farmers temporarily for five years.

The announcement prompted relief among Central Valley politicians, who had been fighting for just such changes for years only to be turned back by Senate Democrats.

Reflecting this history, Boxer — in her final month as a California senator — was the sharpest critic of Feinstein’s compromise. She said the deal threatened the health of the delta and could harm the salmon fishing industry and kill off the endangered Delta smelt.

But hopes that the logjam might have been broken blew up Tuesday when the Obama administration revealed it shared Boxer’s objections to the California provision.

“Based on what we know so far, we don’t support the kinds of proposals that have been put forward to address some of the water resources issues in California right now,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said, according to McClatchy News. “So, we don’t support that measure that’s being put forward, but we’ll take a look at the bill in its totality.”

Prospects for water changes strong under Trump

This could doom the proposal in the short term. But given how popular the omnibus infrastructure has been in recent weeks among lawmakers eager for a big legislative triumph, it may pass over an Obama veto.

Whatever happens in the next six weeks, on Jan. 20, when Donald Trump takes over as president, the Central Valley is likely to have the most sympathetic president it’s had in the 50 years since the environmental movement began racking up victory after victory in Congress and the courts.

Trump made appearances in the Central Valley in May and August, the first time for a rally in Fresno and the second for a fundraiser in Tulare. At the rally, he expressed contempt for policies that he said favored fish over human needs. He also appears to have a good relationship with Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare, who has been among the loudest critics of state and federal water policies’ effects on the Central Valley.

Nunes was reportedly under consideration for secretary of agriculture in the days after Trump’s surprise Nov. 8 election, but his name hasn’t been heard as much in recent days.

The favorite for the job may now be former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, who recently met with Trump about the position. Perdue, like Nunes, is often skeptical of heavy environmental regulation and comes from a state that has often balked at global warming activism.

California lawmakers have emerged as pivotal players in the state’s struggle over cyberlaw — and the country’s. In Sacramento and Washington, D.C., elected officials have placed themselves at the forefront of disputes over the intersection of technology and national security, potentially determining the course of America’s approach to civil liberties for decades to come.

Inside the Beltway, federal oversight of U.S. security agencies has been dominated by Californians. “The current chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is now investigating the alleged manipulation of war assessments by the U.S. Central Command,” as McClatchy recently noted. Faced with bombshell allegations from New York Times sources that military officials had spun intel to overstate U.S. progress against the Islamic State, Nunes told the news service that “a special multi-committee task force was needed to investigate the allegations because officials were ‘trying to hide’ from oversight through bureaucratic sleight-of-hand.”

As Nunes’ colleague to his left, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has rounded out the top two seats on the committee, observers have watched for signs that Schiff might opt to run to replace Sen. Dianne Feinstein in two years, having previously chosen not to jump into the race to succeed retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer.

Backdoor access

It is Feinstein who has put the biggest California imprint on national security policy. After a bruising tiff with the CIA over its interrogation program, Feinstein made fresh headlines co-authoring a piece of legislation that would recast the relationship between surveillance and technology inside the U.S. A draft of a Senate bill being finalized by Feinstein and Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “would effectively prohibit unbreakable encryption and require companies to help the government access data on a computer or mobile device with a warrant,” the New York Times reported.

The bill has instantly ratcheted up the stakes in the already heated controversy surrounding the ongoing efforts of federal officials to force Apple to provide the means to unlock its iPhones. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., told the Times that Feinstein and Burr’s bill would require all American companies marketing handheld devices “to build a backdoor” into them. “They would be required by federal law per this statute to decide how to weaken their products to make Americans less safe,” he told the paper, vowing to do “everything in my power” to block the effort.

A similarly sweeping bill has been crafted within California itself. Assemblyman Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, “introduced new state legislation that would require any new smartphone from 2017 onwards to be,” in the bill’s words, “capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider,” according to ZDNet. “That would impose a near-blanket ban on nearly all iPhones and many Android devices being sold across the state as they stand today, more often than not with unbreakable encryption that even the companies can’t unlock,” the site observed.

A widening threat

Although state and federal legislation has been prompted by terrorist threats and attacks, cybercrime has become sophisticated and prevalent enough to spur other concerns — especially in California, where recent strikes have raised fears that infrastructure and essential services could be crippled more out of greed than an appetite for destruction. So-called ransomware deployed by hackers paralyzed three Southern California hospitals several weeks ago.

“The security breaches — which temporarily disable digital networks but usually don’t steal the data — not only have endangered public safety, but revealed a worrying new weakness as public and private institutions struggle to adapt to the digital era,” as the Los Angeles Times noted. “Government officials are particularly concerned that hackers could lock up digital networks that run electrical grids, and oil and natural gas lines, according to Andy Ozment, assistant secretary of cybersecurity and communications at the Department of Homeland Security.”

Better and wetter luck next year, California.

On Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., put the kibosh on passing a federal water bill dealing with California’s drought during the lame-duck session. She wrote in a statement:

“Over the past several weeks I have been working closely with members of the California delegation who expressed interest in reaching a bipartisan agreement on legislation to address California’s drought crisis without violating the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act or biological opinions. 

“Although we have made progress, it has become clear that we will be unable to present an agreed-upon proposal before Congress adjourns this year.” 

That evaporated any chance in the U.S. Congress of a much-needed water bill for California for now. Any reforms will have to wait until the new session begins in January, when Republicans take over control of the Senate from Democrats, while keeping control of the House.

Any bill from Republicans still would have to gain a 60-vote Senate majority to avoid a filibuster. Depending on the fate of the Dec. 6 election between Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and GOP challenger Bill Cassidy, Republicans will have 54 or 55 senators, with Democrats 45 or 46. So five or six Democrat still will be needed to pass any bill.

But being in the majority puts Republicans in the catbird’s seat on crafting a California water bill in the Senate. And given that the state’s two Democratic senators, Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, now shift from powerful majority positions to the minority, Republicans from other states will be calling the shots in the Senate.

Kevin McCarthy

Retaining power from California is Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the second-ranking member in the House. So California still will have clout on water – just from a Republican perspective.

Also, any bill still would have to gain a signature from President Obama, who since the Nov. 4 election has shown himself combative, such as his immigration executive order he announced Thursday. That gives the Democratic minority in both houses leverage over the bills.

The meetings and phone conferences between both parties to reach a compromise bill have been shrouded in secrecy.  On Nov. 19 the Los Angeles Times even ran an editorial asking, “Why are U.S. lawmakers making Cal water deals in secret?”

The same day, a Sacramento Bee editorial sounded a similar alarm, “Sen. Dianne Feinstein and House Republicans have been secretly negotiating drought relief legislation that could severely alter California water policy.”

While most Senate hearing and committee proceedings are open to the public, the Senate reserves the right to close a meeting or hearing.  What has scared environmentalists is a statement by Feinstein on May 19, that environmentalists “have never been helpful to me in producing good water policy.”

But there haven’t been any real hearings or committee meetings going on about the water bill. Instead, what have been going on are normal discussions by email and phone conferences and meetings between senators’ staffs.

Executive Director of Restore the Delta, Barrigan-Parilla responded to Feinstein, according to the IndyMedia Network on Nov. 20:

“Sen. Feinstein is rushing through legislation to aid these growers at the expense of the rest of California. Right now, the head of Westlands Water District is helping write legislation for a massive water grab sponsored by Sen. Feinstein. Californians should be on red alert.” 

Agriculture

In her Nov. 20 statement, Feinstein responded to the allegation that secrecy dominated the water bill:

“Claims that this has been some kind of secret process are false. In order to come up with a bill that is ready for public comment, back-and-forth negotiations and consultations are often necessary, including extensive technical assistance from federal and state agencies. That process is ongoing and we have no agreed-upon bill at this time.”

Feinstein also said the bill “wasn’t about corporate agriculture.”

The starting point in January will be the bill the Republican House already passed. As McClatchy reported on Nov. 20 from Washington:

“Responding to the state’s devastating drought, the GOP-controlled House passed a far-reaching bill in February on a largely party line 229-191 vote.

“Introduced by freshman Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif., and drawing largely on a bill previously introduced by Nunes, the House bill rolls back a landmark 1992 law that directed more water to protect the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The bill removes wild-and-scenic protections from a half mile of the Merced River, and it authorizes new water-storage projects on locations that include the Upper San Joaquin River, among other provisions.” 

The author of the original bill was Rep. David Nunes, R-Calif., a key Central Valley congressman. According to McClatchy, he said of Feinstein and other Democrats in Congress come January, “We’ll continue to try to work together.”

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.

Crises 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:

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.

]]> https://calwatchdog.com/2014/03/12/sen-feinstein-moves-toward-compromise-on-drought-legislation/feed/ 3 60557 https://calwatchdog.com/2014/02/26/feinsteinboxer-drought-relief-proposal-already-carried-out/ https://calwatchdog.com/2014/02/26/feinsteinboxer-drought-relief-proposal-already-carried-out/#comments Thu, 27 Feb 2014 04:43:44 +0000 http://calwatchdog.com/?p=59890

On Feb. 11, 25 days after Gov. Jerry Brown declared an official drought, California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer introduced a drought-relief bill. Senate Bill 216, ” The California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014,” was introduced concurrently with President Barack Obama’s visit to the Central Valley to survey the devastation from a foreseeable — but unplanned for — severe drought.

Four members of California’s congressional delegation — Rep. George Martinez, D-Martinez; Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena; Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto; and Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Stockton — called Feinstein’s and Boxer’s bill a “huge improvement from the disingenuous” GOP bill released three weeks earlier by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare. Nunes’ bill is House Resolution 3964, “The Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act.”

A key provision in the Feinstein-Boxer drought relief bill is that it “provides operational flexibility to increase water supplies and primes federal agencies to make the best use of any additional rain,” said Feinstein. By flexibility, Feinstein was referring to a provision in her bill requiring federal water agencies to keep open the Delta Cross Channel Gates to prevent saltwater intrusion into the Sacramento Delta. The Cross Channel was built in 1951 near the city of Walnut Grove to allow the transfer of fresh water into the Delta. If enough fresh water was not released into the Delta during the drought, then California’s drinking water supplies would be reduced even further by failure to repel salt water.

Channel ‘flexibility’ already led to its opening

State Water Resources Director Mark Cowin explained in a video on Jan. 31 that the gates on the Delta Cross Channel are normally closed at this time of year to keep salmon from entering the Delta. So one of the reasons that California’s Central Valley hasn’t been getting enough water routed through the Delta is closing upstream gates to protect salmon. But this year salmon have to be compromised to protect drinking water supplies.

The pending Delta Cross Channel gate opening will comprise a release of 300,000 acre-feet of water. That is about as much water as Castaic Lake north of Los Angeles holds.

However, Cowin announced the opening of the Delta Cross Channel back on Jan. 31 in a videotaped announcement. In other words, the key “operational flexibility” promised in Feinstein and Boxer’s drought relief bill was already underway without the bill having to be approved by Congress and the president. Feinstein and Boxer should be given credit for not dallying to open the Delta Cross Channel gates, given the severity of the drought. But it is “disingenuous” to claim their bill would need to be passed to authorize such flexibility.

One of the key differences in the Feinstein-Boxer drought bill and Nunes’ is that Nunes’ bill provides for two new water storage reservoirs to be built. Conversely, the Feinstein-Boxer bill doesn’t promise any new water but mere “flexibility” in managing water. The Nunes’ bill provides for new water while the Feinstein-Boxer bill does not. According to Cowin, what California needs is storage in advance of a drought more than flexibility after its onset.

Learning from history in preparing for drought

In his Jan. 31 video announcement, Cowin explained that California learned the hard way not to delay in taking aggressive action as early as possible to lessen the long-term negative effects of a drought. Cowin said that in the second year of the 1976-1977 severe drought California set aside 1 million acre feet of water (enough for 6 million to 12 million people) that reduced the impacts of the drought. But in 1976, the drought impacts were severe because no additional water was set-aside for a major drought ahead of time.

Stated differently, California failed to store enough water going into the second year of this drought (2013) to prepare for a third consecutive dry year. In 2012, about 800,000 acre-feet of water were allowed to flow to the ocean through the San Joaquin River to protect fish flows. And in 2013, 453,000 acre-feet of water were released from Trinity Lake, north of the Delta, to protect fish flows for Indian Tribes and sports fishermen.

There is no “flexibility” of storing environmental water for the next year to plan for a drought. Court rulings and agency mandates require annual release of water for wildlife refuges. Since 1990, 58 percent of Central Valley agricultural water has been diverted to wildlife refuges. In other words, environmental diversions of water made it impossible to put aside enough water to plan for a drought in advance, as Cowin said is required.

Water storage facilities never built

Another contributing factor to the current drought is the failure to build out replacement water storage facilities for farmers after their water was diverted to wildlife refuges. The San Joaquin River Restoration Act of 2009 collected $102 million from farmers in higher water rates for replacement water storage facilities that were never built. Congress allocated $88 million for planning activities to restore fish flows in the river. The “planning” funds were not spent on pre-drought planning but on studies and transporting fish by tanker trucks across a 60-mile dry gap in the San Joaquin River. Now there isn’t enough water for farmers or fish.

]]> https://calwatchdog.com/2014/02/26/feinsteinboxer-drought-relief-proposal-already-carried-out/feed/ 3 59890 https://calwatchdog.com/2014/02/19/obama-drought-relief-package-aids-his-constituency/ https://calwatchdog.com/2014/02/19/obama-drought-relief-package-aids-his-constituency/#comments Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:50:56 +0000 http://calwatchdog.com/?p=59478 On Friday Feb. 14,  President Barack Obama choppered into California’s drought zone in Democratic-leaning Fresno. As shown in the adjacent photo from the White House, he traveled with U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and Rep. Jim Costa, all California Democrats.

He surveyed the damage from two simultaneous droughts. One drought was caused by nature from a third consecutive year of dry weather.

The second drought was caused by a 58 percent cutback in farm water since 1990 in the Central Valley to restore salmon runs to the San Joaquin River. It’s shown in the following chart from the Nov. 2013 District Workshop of the Bay Area Delta Conservation Plan of the Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance Program. It clearly shows the sharp drop in water allocation the past 24 years.

Reported estimates of the toll of this second man-made drought on the farm economy are a staggering 500,000 acres of Central Valley farmland fallowed. Water to irrigate that much farmland in a year would entirely drain the San Luis Reservoir in Merced when it is at full capacity. It is currently only at 32 percent of capacity.

Because of the drought, it is reported that the farm town of Mendota is expected to suffer a 50 percent unemployment rate. Also, seventeen Central Valley water districts are at risk of running out of drinking water in two to four more months.

The politics surrounding drought have also hit a pitch. Republican cherry farmer Andy Vidak, R-Hanford, captured a state Senate seat last year from Democrats in a 60 percent Hispanic district running on the drought issue. Republican Kevin Faulconer just won the mayor’s office in the City of San Diego, in the state’s driest urban county. Of course, other issues were at stake in these races but the drought is thought to have inclined some voters toward the GOP.

Back door mandate of Obama drought aid reduces farm water

Obama’s response to California’s double drought was to treat it only as a natural disaster by offering a Hurricane Katrina-like package of $100 million in livestock-disaster aid, $60 million in food bank funding, and $13 million dedicated to helping rural towns that could soon run out of drinking water.

But some farmers weren’t too receptive to disaster relief without any regulatory relief.  Sarah Woolf of Clark Brothers farming in Fresno said, “Throwing money at it (the drought) is not going to solve the long-term problem.”  Mark Borba of Borba Farms echoed Woolf: “We don’t want money. We don’t want a handout.”  The reason that farmers don’t want some of the drought relief is that they would have to give up more farm water in return for subsidized crop insurance.

Obama’s relief package of food-bank funding and help for farm labor towns is targeted at Democratic constituencies.  The funding for food banks is part of the recently passed 2013 Farm Bill.  Likewise, livestock disaster aid was already included in the recently passed Farm Bill.  California alone could get $100 million for livestock losses.  Obama’s drought relief package did not include anything that wasn’t already included in the Farm Bill.

Insurance model

Responding to critics of crop subsidies for farmers, the new Farm Bill has shifted to an insurance model when crop losses fall too far.  But crop insurance is tied to protection of the environment. This will mean diverting more farm water to wetlands and rivers and worsening the availability of water for farming.  This is why farmers are saying they don’t want handouts with strings attached that take away more water.

Farmers can choose unsubsidized crop insurance as a way to escape the green strings attached to the crop insurance provision of the Farm Bill.  Mike Wade of the California Farm Water Coalition reports that San Joaquin Valley farmers invested $2 billion in upgraded irrigation systems on more than 1.8 million acres since 2003.

As shown in the table below, the environment is allocated 22.4 million acre-feet of developed water in a dry year in California, but 62.1 million acre-feet of water in a wet year, while agricultural and urban uses remain within a narrow range in absolute numbers.  The environment already gets a disproportionate share of the excess water from wet years.

Where Water Goes in California	Wet Year (1998)	Average Year (2000)	Dry Year (2001)
Urban Uses	7.7 MAF (8%)	8.8 MAF (11%)	8.6 MAF (13%)
Agricultural Uses	27.7 MAF (28%)	34.3 MAF (42%)	34.1 MAF (52%)
Environmental Water	62.1 MAF (64%)	39.4 MAF (47%)	22.4 MAF (35%)
Source: California Dept. of Water Resources (MAF = million acre feet) (acre foot = 2 urban households per year or 0.33-acre irrigated crop land per year). Developed water: Water that is produced or brought into a water system through the efforts of people, where it would not have entered the water system on its own accord. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/04717.html

Drought bill likely to continue regulatory status quo

Specific drought relief is being targeted in two dueling bills pending in Congress: H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act, sponsored by California Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare; and S. 2016, the California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, sponsored by Feinstein.

The major difference between these two bills is that Nunes’ bill would provide regulatory relief and add more water storage for farming and the environment from new-built reservoirs.  Feinstein’s bill would continue the regulatory status quo, but would encourage more flexibility in pumping federal water that might aid farmers.

If the drought persists for years, as occurred from 1987 to 1992, there will likely have to be greater reforms and deregulation than what is being offered in the Feinstein-proposed water bill.  However, Feinstein’s bill is likely to prevail because Obama has vowed to kill any Republican-backed water bill.

]]> https://calwatchdog.com/2014/02/19/obama-drought-relief-package-aids-his-constituency/feed/ 2 59478 https://calwatchdog.com/2013/10/18/will-immigration-reform-move-forward/ https://calwatchdog.com/2013/10/18/will-immigration-reform-move-forward/#comments Fri, 18 Oct 2013 23:41:08 +0000 http://calwatchdog.com/?p=51530 President Obama, during his press conference Thursday, identified three policy areas where he believed Congress — at its most dysfunctional point in recent memory — could actually produce legislation. He suggested that the legislative branch pursue a farm bill, a long-term budget solution and immigration reform.

cheap software

A budget conference committee has already been formed to iron out the two parties’ differences before the next shutdown — which will occur on January 15 should the House and Senate not strike a deal to keep the government open. Many observers have already thrown cold water on the idea of permanent legislation coming from the talks. And a farm bill, usually passed with an easy bipartisan vote, remains elusive, as well.

As for immigration reform, though, the picture remains murky.

President Obama said during his press conference that there was a “broad coalition” of Americans behind immigration reform, “from business leaders to faith leaders to law enforcement.” He noted that the Senate had already passed a bill earlier this year and went on:

The majority of Americans think this is the right thing to do. And it's sitting there waiting for the House to pass it. Now, if the House has ideas on how to improve the Senate bill, let's hear them. Let's start the negotiations. But let's not leave this problem to keep festering for another year or two years or three years. This can and should get done by the end of this year.

Of course, the House is in no mood to capitulate to President Obama and Senate Democrats again, particularly after the way that the government shutdown ended. Speaker Boehner hasn’t publicly announced any plans for the House to take up immigration reform anytime soon.

It appears as though nothing has changed since the House failed to take up the Senate’s legislation earlier this year. This is bad news for California Reps. Jeff Denham, David Valado and Devin Nunes, all of whom represent heavily-Latino districts.

From SCPR:

 The group America's Voice hired Republican pollsters Magellan Strategies to ask likely voters in the heavily-Latino Central Valley districts of GOP Congressmen Jeff Denham, David Valadao and Devin Nunes whether they support immigration reform. More than 70 percent of voters – and nearly the same number of Republicans – said they back comprehensive immigration legislation that includes a path to citizenship.

Vulnerable

But there may be some good news for the vulnerable California congressmen. Byron York of the Washington Examiner, a critic of the Senate legislation who has closely followed immigration reform throughout the last year, wrote Thursday that although the “prospect alone makes some observers laugh,” immigration reform advocates have the money and political will to continue their fight indefinitely.

York cautioned opponents of reform:

An initiative with that much money and that much clout behind it can never be dismissed. Which means that even if comprehensive immigration reform appears to be dead, its opponents can never, ever assume the game is over.

A California-based immigration reform activist, speaking on the condition of anonymity to be more candid, told CalWatchdog that activists would continue a focused approach in California, pressuring House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, and other vulnerable lawmakers to push their caucus forward on immigration reform.

“We’re focusing on McCarthy because we see him as reachable,” said the activist, cautioning, however, that much of the momentum immigration reform had earlier in the year was lost once it reached the House.

It would be disingenuous to say with certainty or not immigration reform will pass this year, or next. But it’s obvious that proponents of reform haven’t given up. CalWatchdog will be closing monitoring developments in the following months.

zp8497586rq

]]> https://calwatchdog.com/2013/10/18/will-immigration-reform-move-forward/feed/ 5 51530