In a twist as sudden as it was unlikely, Republicans appear poised to make Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Though he could face opposition from the House’s conservative caucus, McCarthy’s reputation — and solid positioning in the party ranks — have worked in his favor. As Bloomberg reported, some members have already publicly stated that McCarthy, the second-ranking Republican in the House, was likely to prevail. Their ranks included Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., who has been critical of the sometimes calculating, sometimes conciliatory approach of outgoing Speaker John Boehner, R-Oh., who will leave Congress altogether by next month’s end. “The important question is, will things change? Will they change for the better or we simply replace Mr. Boehner with somebody else who do the same thing?” Mulvaney asked.

Courting conservatives

In an email to colleagues announcing his formal candidacy, McCarthy sought to signal his awareness of the skepticism that has grown up around many House conservatives. “We can’t ignore the differences that exist, but we can and must heal the divisions in our conference with work, time and trust,” he wrote, according to NBC News. “If elected Speaker, I promise you that we will have the courage to lead the fight for our conservative principles and make our case to the American people. But we will also have the wisdom to listen to our constituents and each other so that we always move forward together.”

McCarthy has the benefit of some political innocence. Well before Boehner’s announcement, conservatives had begun to discuss the prospect of voting him out of the Speakership — plans that McCarthy played no role in. That helped endear him to some dissatisfied with Boehner. As one member of the so-called Freedom Caucus told the Hill, “I don’t think he’s plotting. I don’t think he’s trying to aid and abet. I just think he is trying to figure out where everyone is. I volunteered to him that, under the right circumstances, I could vote for him for Speaker.”

A historic shakeup

McCarthy’s run for the spot has triggered a scramble for advantage as top jobs in the GOP chain of command opened up. In addition to a challenge to McCarthy fielded by Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla., the race for Majority Leader has “already turned into at least a three-way contest,” Yahoo News reported, “with the No. 3 and No. 4 House Republicans, Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, aggressively pursuing the job, along with the Budget Committee chairman, Tom Price of Georgia.” Although the House’s tea party members have not put forward a candidate of their own, they do not see McCarthy as a choice that will lead to much change in how the party’s legislative strategy moves forward, Yahoo added.

McCarthy, a relatively low-profile member of the party leadership hailing from a state with few other nationally-known Republicans, has been seen as experiencing something of a political windfall. But if he is elected Speaker, he will have his patience and diligence on the Hill to thank. “McCarthy has tended to this flock of House Republicans more than any GOP leader of the past five years,” the Washington Post observed. “He recruited many of the members to run in the 2010 elections that delivered the majority, he has been their adviser and confidant, he works out with them in the House gym and keeps tabs on family members.” Still, if elected, his rise will have been the fastest comparable since the 1800s. “A Speaker McCarthy would represent a sharp shift in the historical trends of the last 125 years. In that time,” the Post noted, “it took an average of almost 23 years in the House to be elevated to speaker, according to a Congressional Research Service report.”

But as a very useful article in the Sacramento Business Journal points out, this isn’t nearly the good news that Dan Richard and other bullet-train boondoggle bandwagoners will pretend:

“Lawmakers have reached a deal on funding the California High-Speed Rail Authority up to a projected $250 million beginning in fiscal 2015, far less than the agency expects it will need to cover construction costs at that time, which is roughly $4 billion a year.

“While the financing deal is not final, the plan to fund high-speed rail through 25 percent of future cap-and-trade proceeds was approved by a state budget panel Thursday in advance of a budget floor vote expected by Sunday night.”

Bad news for bullet train in Cantor wake

There’s also another development that bodes ill for the bullet train: the single biggest congressional critic of the project is Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield.

He’s going to be the new House majority leader soon as a result of the Eric Cantor defenestration. And he’s likely to be House speaker in a couple of years. John Boehner was the subject of retirement rumors even before his No. 2 was ousted in a Virginia primary, which is an implied rejection of Boehner as well.

If the dominoes keep falling and McCarthy becomes speaker, nothing would make him look weaker than Congress renewing federal funding for the fiasco that threatens to tear up his district.

Escaping the snow-stormy Northeast, also on Wednesday U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, held a drought rally with fellow Republicans in Kern County. ABC News in Fresno reported:

“From Washington D.C. to the fallow cotton field in Bakersfield, House Speaker John Boehner stood up next to Central Valley Congressmen Devin Nunes, David Valadao, and Kevin McCarthy who all support the proposed legislation to stop river restoration in favor of drought relief.

“‘How you can favor a fish over people is something the people in my part of the world would not understand,’ said Boehner.”

Here’s what’s behind the headlines. The specifics aren’t clear, but what’s known so far is that a new bill by Nunes, so far without a number, would revive his H.R. 1837, the San Joaquin River Valley Water Reliability Act of 2012.

H.R. 1837 did not pass. But it tried to repeal H.R. 146, San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act of 2009, by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Her bill emphasized the environment over local water allocation. (H.R. 146 originated as battle landmarks legislation, but was modified; hence the “H.R.,” House Resolution, designation, instead of “S.” for Senate Resolution.)

The correlation of political forces changed in the past three years, with the drought striking California and with Democrats worried about losing California House seats in November. (No California U.S. Senate seat is open this year.)

Additionally, Nunes’ bill would create a joint House-Senate committee on California’s drought problems that would take control of federal water transfers to the State Water Project by usurping Brown’s new Drought Task Force.

Republicans usually push “federalism” and local control, but are using the drought for federal power to trump state power.

Rally

Will the GOP rally actually bring more water to Californians? A sharp response was given by Bakersfield Californian reporter Lois Henry in a video interview given at the rally. She is widely regarded as a frank and independent voice on California’s water situation. She said:

“No!  So far what they have described has already been pushed in the House by Devin Nunes numerous times and died at the Senate every time…. This is mainly something to put pressure on Dianne Feinstein.  This is her home state.  This is affecting her constituents as well…. They are serious about pushing this bill, but this is really something to push Dianne Feinstein…. The devil is in the details of the new bill proposed by Nunes and thus far there are no details.”

Henry was skeptical that another new bill proposed by Nunes would work. Even if it passed, she warned, it would invite endless lawsuits. “We will see snow in the Sierras before we will see that bill passed,” she quipped.

And Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, branded the proposed GOP bill “misguided” and “dangerous.”

Court settlement

Feinstein’s bill, H.R. 146, was intended to comply with a court-ordered settlement 18 years ago to restore salmon runs along the San Joaquin River by diverting water from farmers. H.R. 146 requires farmers to pay for up to $800 million of river restoration costs from higher farm water rates; $180 million will be collected from farmers by 2014.

California was to pay $200 million of this cost from two water bonds voters passed in 2006: Proposition 84, $5.4 billion; and Proposition 1E, $4 billion.  However, the propositions did not provide for drought relief for farmers.

The court settlement requires 247,000 acre-feet of water to be diverted from farmers in dry years and about 356,000 acre-feet of water in wet years.  That would be roughly enough water to irrigate from 82,333 to 118,667 acres of farmland each year.

A provision in H.R. 146 to allocate $102 million of funds collected from farmers’ higher water rates to replenish lost farm water has never been implemented.

As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, Tom Nassif, president of Western Growers, charged federal regulators worsened the situation last year “by failing to pump and store 800,000 acre-feet of water runoff” by letting it run to the sea.

And in a statement released at the drought rally, he urged, “It’s time for Congress to act.”

What is particularly aggravating to Central Valley farmers is that their allocation of water this year has been cut back by 95 percent after they have paid $180 million for more fresh water for fish, even though the water ended up flowing to the Pacific Ocean.  Farmers have ended up paying for their own demise.

Explosive crisis

State Sen. Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield, said in an interview that it was only a matter of time before the farm economy is dead; that it won’t be long before many Northern California communities that normally don’t suffer from droughts are going to be parched right behind the farmers; and that there is no contingency plan for providing for a drought of this kind.

She said it’s embarrassing that President Obama has not even responded to the letters from Republican state legislators calling for immediate action. And she said that, even if Brown suspended California’s environmental laws to aid in drought relief actions, that federal environmental laws also would have to be suspended.

She warned, “It is only a very short time before this crisis explodes.”

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner crosses the California “Rubicon” today on a visit to Kern County with a platoon of California congressmen to set forth a Republican strategy to alleviate the official state drought called by Gov. Jerry Brown — and maybe pick up some more House seats for the GOP.

The contest of this drought war is between Brown and Boehner over who controls the releases of water from the federal Central Valley Project to lessen drought impacts to either fish or farmers.

On Jan. 17, Brown issued a call to create an Interagency Drought Task Force, whereby his team would control the releases of federal water to California. Some California environmentalists see Brown as a foe of the California Environmental Quality Act, while caving in to farmers’ water demands. Others hold out the prospect that Brown will pander to the powerful environmental lobby in California, especially U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Democrats like Brown.

Boehner’s entry into California signifies the Republican-controlled House wants to manage any water releases to assure they will go to farmers. Backing Boehner are Republican Reps. Devin Nunes of Tulare, David Valadao of Hanford and Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield.

Nunes has proposed floating a new bill in the House that would:

• Allow the pumps run by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River to remain running as long as water is available.
• Re-establish salmon runs, put a stop to the San Joaquin River Restoration Program that would allow river water to flow to the ocean instead of farms. River restoration plans have run into difficulty, not necessarily because of farms having taken water from the fish, but because engineers need to find ways for water to run uphill along former riverbeds.
• Create a joint House-Senate committee to find long-range solutions to California’s drought problems.

CEQA suspended by Brown

Brown has not let Boehner take all the action in the water wars. Under Paragraph 9 of Brown’s Emergency Drought Declaration issued Jan. 17, the provisions of CEQA have been suspended.

That means any measures taken by the governor to alleviate drought do not have to comply with water quality plans, prepare scientific documentation of environmental impacts or hold public hearings and solicit official comments on any environmental impacts as a result of those measures.

The governor’s action to suspend CEQA has created quite a reaction among California environmentalists. Charged Nick di Croce, facilitator of the California Environmental Water Caucus, “The need for more conservation and greater efficiencies in water management should not result in abrogation of equally needed environmental safeguards benefitting both humans and other species, including fish.”

Federal-state water transfers now possible due to Mendota Intertie

Returning to the federal level of Boehner’s field of play, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has a new potential mechanism to alleviate drought that heretofore has not been available in California history.  The USBR recently completed the Mendota Canal Intertie to the California Aqueduct. The intertie is comprised of two nine-foot diameter subsurface pipes that invisibly connect the federal and state water systems.  Prior to the construction of the intertie, the two systems existed for 45 years about 500 feet apart near the City of Tracy without any way to cross-transfer water.

The bigger question is whether there will be any water available within the federal Central Valley Project to transfer to the State Water Project.  That is because of the severity of the predictable drought and no new water capture reservoirs being built in the state since the 1960s.

Latino Water Coalition lobbies governor

Mario Santoyo of the Latino Water Coalition has lobbied the governor for relief for the population dense and lush Eastside farmers in the Central Valley, not just the parched, unplanted acres of the thinly populated Westside.  The present drought is believed to be so severe that it can’t be isolated to Westside farmers, as in past dry spells.

The political struggle is over environmental water.  If water were released from Millerton Lake to restore salmon runs on the San Joaquin River, the result would be turning off the spigot to Eastside farmers all the way from Fresno to Kern County.  Millerton Lake is an artificial lake near Fresno run by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as part of the Central Valley Project.

Families Protecting the Valley, a Madera-based association of farmers, reacted favorably to the governor declaring a drought emergency. But they are taking a wait-and-see posture if he will override the state’s powerful environmental lobby to provide water for farmers.  Democrats lost the seat for State Senate District 16 in the midterm election of 2013 to Republican Andy Vidak mainly for choosing fish over farmers.

Boehner also is eager to exploit such problems for Democrats to try to pad his Republican majority in the House with a couple of more California representatives.

Environmentalists so far have been losing due to Brown’s suspension of CEQA and now Boehner’s entry into California to capture the San Joaquin River pump houses away from Brown.

To many farmers, winning the drought war means economic survival.  To the victor go the perks of California’s drought war.

Then conservative groups attacked the bipartisan budget agreement between Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., which the full Congress just passed. It cuts benefits for veterans and raises fees related to air travel. And Boehner lost his patience with the more conservative wing.

Boehner lashed out at the groups over the course of two days. Boehner said he thought outside conservative groups “have lost all credibility” and that he does not care what they do.

He later explained his outburst against the groups, saying, “Yesterday, when the criticism was coming, frankly I thought it was my job and my obligation to stand up for conservatives here in the Congress who want more deficit reduction, to stand up for the work that Chairman Ryan did.”

Boehner’s outburst wasn’t impotent. Despite opposition from outside conservative groups, the two-year budget deal passed the House 332 to 94. A majority of the Republican conference voted yes. It was a significant test of Boehner’s resolve against the more ideologically pure elements of his party. But the bet paid off.

Control

No political win, however, exists in a vacuum.  Liberal activists — and even conservative moderates — immediately begin to suggest that Boehner’s move against the conservative elements of his party was the preface to Boehner reasserting establishment control over the legislative agenda.  Many have predicted that Boehner’s move was a signal that he was now willing to move immigration reform.

A California-based immigration reform activist, who spoke to CalWatchdog.com on the condition of anonymity to be more candid, said that Boehner’s recent behavior was “heart-warming” and seemed “honest.”

The activist, who has been involved in lobbying California Congressmen to push for reform, added, “It makes you think, ‘OK, maybe [Boehner will] play ball.’”

But he cautioned that, while activists are optimistic, they’re not blindly so. He expects that major immigration reform won’t be able to pass until 2015, at the earliest. It’s difficult to pass major legislation in an election year, he explained, and it makes more strategic sense (from the Republican point of view) to wait.

Republicans, who are at a politically advantageous position because of the trouble associated with the rollout of Obamacare, reasonably expect to pick up seats in the midterms. They could feasibly control the Senate — though that will be no easy task — by January 2015. So why would they pass immigration reform when they’re almost certain to pick up seats and enter a stronger bargaining position? The answer is simple: They wouldn’t.

So, yes, Speaker Boehner has changed his tune. But that doesn’t mean he’ll change his strategy just yet.

Efforts to reform the system began in the U.S. Senate. Republican Sens. Jeff Flake, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham worked with four Democratic Senators to draft immigration legislation. Ultimately, the 844 page bill could be summarized thusly:

The Gang of Eight bill would essentially revamp every corner of U.S. immigration law, establishing a 13-year pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants, with several security benchmarks that have to be met before they can obtain a green card. The measure would not only increases security along the border, but requires a mandatory workplace verification system for employers, trying to ensure no jobs are given to immigrants who are not authorized to work in the United States.

It also includes a new visa program for lesser-skilled workers – the product of negotiations between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor unions. And it shifts the country’s immigration policies away from a family-based system to one that is focused on more on work skills.

It passed the Senate in June 68-32, with 14 Republicans going every Democrat in supporting the bill. The compromise was such an accomplishment that the New Yorker even wrote a long piece describing how it came about. Then all eyes turned to the Republican-controlled House.

Most, if not all, Democrats have supported immigration reform that includes pathway to citizenship provisions. House Republicans also showed a relatively strong amount of support for reform. Last month, CalWatchdog wrote about some California Republicans moving to the left on immigration reform, despite the small likelihood of any legislative action actually occurring:

Although Issa, Valadao and Denham all would like to see some form of immigration reform happen soon, it’s unlikely to occur this year. House leadership has indicated that their focus will be on passing fiscal reforms over immigration, and the recent government shutdown left many Republicans unenthusiastic about compromising with their Democratic colleagues.

Now it appears as though reform is all but certain to fail this year:

House Speaker John Boehner signaled Wednesday that comprehensive US immigration reform was dead this year, saying the existing Senate measure offering a pathway to citizenship would not get a vote.

And although it’s dead for 2013, advocates say that they will continue to pester Republican lawmakers in the House until they take up some form of immigration reform legislation. But those hoping for reform next year shouldn’t hold their breath.

Consider the Republican Party’s bargaining position. If problems with Obamacare continue, then it will almost certainly result in losses for Democrats in the House and Senate. Vulnerable red-state Democrats in the Senate—swept into office during Obama’s wave election of 2008—are particularly vulnerable because of their previous support for the law. Why would Republicans take up immigration reform—a politically fraught issue to begin with—when they can simple move on the legislation in 2015, when they have more politically sound ground to negotiate from.

Immigration reform in 2013? Not happening. In 2014? Doubtful. In 2015? It might just go down. Keep your eyes on the midterm results.

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.

The fight to use the debt ceiling and continuing resolution as leverage against President Obama’s agenda, first conceived by Senate Republican Mike Lee of Utah months ago, began with the House passing a full repeal of President Obama’s signature health care legislation tied to a continuing resolution last month. After several weeks of receding demands, Republicans ultimately ended the fight with nothing to show but record low approval ratings.

The final package, however, is not permanent. Congress will have another showdown over increasing the debt ceiling sometime in March, and the federal government will only remain funded for about three months, until January 15.

It was a long, unhappy road for the Republican Party. On the right flank, conservatives had mixed feelings. Some were happy to see Speaker John Boehner embrace more conservative tactics, though they ultimately criticized the end result.

Influential conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said of the Republican Party Wednesday, “I have never seen a major political party simply occupy placeholders, as the Republican Party is doing. There hasn't been any opposition, not any serious opposition.”

Moderates

Meanwhile, moderate elements within the Party decried the entire shutdown as a spectacle. California Rep. Devin Nunes, a vocal opponent of the GOP’s strategy, compared the strategy to a suicide mission. From the Washington Post:

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) had choice words for fellow House Republicans who are willing to see the government shut down over their opposition to Obamacare: “Lemmings with suicide vests,” he called them.

“They have to be more than just a lemming. Because jumping to your death is not enough,” he said.

“You have this group saying somehow if you’re not with them, you’re with Obamcare. If you’re not with their plan — exactly what they want to do, you’re with Obamcare. It’s getting a little old,” he said.

Recently, CalWatchdog.com pointed out that several California Republican legislators were vulnerable in their reelection bids, a position worsened by the ongoing shutdown. (Rep. Nunes was not considered one of the vulnerable legislators, though he is a notable moderate.)

Here’s how California legislators ended up voting on last night’s legislation, per the Associated Press:

Democrats — Bass, Y; Becerra, Y; Bera, Y; Brownley, Y; Capps, Y; Cardenas, Y; Chu, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Garamendi, Y; Hahn, Y; Honda, Y; Huffman, Y; Lee, Y; Lofgren, Y; Lowenthal, Y; Matsui, Y; McNerney, Y; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, Y; Negrete McLeod, Y; Pelosi, Y; Peters, Y; Roybal-Allard, Y; Ruiz, Y; Sanchez, Linda T., Y; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, Y; Swalwell, Y; Takano, Y; Thompson, Y; Vargas, Y; Waters, Y; Waxman, Y.

Republicans — Calvert, Y; Campbell, N; Cook, Y; Denham, N; Hunter, N; Issa, Y; LaMalfa, N; McCarthy, Y; McClintock, N; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, Y; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N; Valadao, Y

Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer both voted for the legislation, as well.