Despite substantial labors on both sides of the aisle, legislators in the House and the Senate alike have failed to agree on a drought relief package for California, deepening a dispute over where water should flow that seems to have no end in sight.

Dueling bills

In Washington, D.C., Golden State lawmakers have struggled to push a bill through Congress. Last month, Rep. John Garamendi, “whose district abuts 200 miles of the Sacramento River,” had introduced legislation “that would specifically align with Proposition 1, the water bond recently passed by California voters,” the Woodland Daily Democrat reported. “This would allow federal, state and local agencies to coordinate on the implementation of the projects funded and authorized by the bill.” 

Previously, the paper noted, Sen. Dianne Feinstein had “proposed legislation to provide drought relief, but faced so much opposition that she pulled her support.” But Garamendi’s bill in the House, which was identical to Feinstein’s latest effort, drew immediate fire from within his own party; “eight Bay Area Democrats, along with members from Oregon and Washington, released a statement saying they have major concerns with the bills,” the Los Angeles Times reported. House Republicans had passed a bill written by GOP Rep. David Valadao, but, as Feinstein suggested, that piece of legislation would fare poorly in the Senate. Unfortunately for Feinstein, however, the Members attacking the Garamendi bill also announced their opposition to reconciling the House Valadao bill with Feinstein’s in the Senate: “any legislation that emerges from a conference would not be acceptable to many of the diverse stakeholders in our home states,” they concluded, according to the Times. 

Different approaches

The Valadao bill would not go down to defeat for lack of trying. Republicans “successfully put key pieces of Valadao’s bill into an energy bill, to get it into conference negotiations with the Senate — over the objections of nearly all of the state’s Democrats,” as The Hill observed. Valadao’s bill would set “minimum pumping volumes and new standards for when endangered species concerns can override pumping — something the Democrats say amounts to gutting the law.” By contrast, “Feinstein’s bill doesn’t dictate volumes, but gives federal officials more flexibility in how they make water and species decisions.”

Nevertheless, Feinstein did fill the legislation with big budget items. “It authorizes $1.3 billion for desalination, water recycling, storage and grants,” as McClatchy noted. “The money provided includes $600 million for projects that could include constructing Temperance Flat or Sites Reservoir, in the Sacramento Valley, and raising Shasta Dam.”

But the first hearing her bill encountered largely served only to spotlight the intractable differences between water’s opposing camps. “The Senate subcommittee hearing itself, while laying the procedural foundation for legislation to advance, did nothing to resolve any of the conflicts,” McClatchy went on. “No more than one or two senators on the 13-member committee were generally present during the hearing, and of some 18 questions asked of the witnesses, only two touched on California.”

Presidential posturing

While Donald Trump flatly declared “there is no drought” at a recent Fresno rally, the Democrats’ own presidential contenders have failed to do much better on the California campaign trail. “Bernie Sanders’ campaign did not respond to repeated requests for the candidate’s position on California water issues,” as the San Francisco Chronicle reported, while Hillary Clinton’s camp merely referred to a prior response she had “made to a Southern California television reporter asking whether she thinks more water should be sent from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to farms and cities in the south.”

Neither Democrat, however, has shied away from making broad promises. “Both Sanders and Clinton have proposed hundreds of billions of dollars in new infrastructure spending that could update the West’s water systems, as well as aggressive plans to battle climate change, which intensifies Western droughts,” the paper added. 

Fresh faces

Three have come from the private sector, with two making their political debut. Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Creek, will draw a challenge from trauma surgeon N. Eugene Cleek, although, according to Roll Call, Garamendi’s district has been marked safe, the Times added.

And in a race drawing some national attention, San Diego businesswoman Denise Gitsham, who boasts significant work experience in Washington, announced her candidacy two weeks ago against Rep. Scott Peters, D-San Diego. Last year, Peters edged out San Diego city councilman Carl DeMaio by just four points, raising hopes among Republicans of a pickup this time around.

DeMaio notably re-teamed last month with former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed on a new ballot initiative aimed at threading the needle of popular support for public pension reform. The effort would trim benefits “only for future employees, thereby leaving the promises made to current workers untouched,” as the Sacramento Bee reported in October. “The measures also appeal to Californians who, according to a recent survey by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, strongly support the idea of controlling pension benefits for new hires via the ballot box.” He has not opted to try again against Peters, whose district Roll Call has also marked safe.

An unusual profile

Campaign Photo: Denise Gitsham

Gitsham, however, has mustered a level of support of a different quality and quantity than Peters might have anticipated. “The daughter of a Chinese mother who immigrated through Taiwan, and a Canadian-born father who moved to New Jersey and spent 20 years in the Air Force,” Gitsham, as U-T San Diego noted, wound up in Texas, where she worked for Karl Rove to elect George W. Bush president. “She then gained a post in the White House and worked for Harriet Miers, the president’s counsel and one-time Supreme Court nominee,” the paper added. “Gitsham later graduated from law school at Georgetown University and practiced in Washington with a K Street firm.”

In addition to a resume relatively distinctive in current state Republican politics, Gitsham has amassed some notable numbers in the early race to fundraise. (She will face a primary challenge from former Marine Jacquie Atkinson.) In a press release and on Facebook, Gitsham’s campaign trumpeted its haul of $100,000 in its first week. “It’s clear people want a fresh face in Congress and they are responding to my candidacy,” Gitsham said. “There’s a lot of work to do but I’m really encouraged by our start.”

Precarious positioning

Despite Peters’ safe rating, data collected by the NRCC has indicated that Gitsham’s campaign appears to be a good bet this election season. “Recent polling by the National Republican Congressional Committee shows that incumbent Scott Peters is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country,” as Gitsham’s release went on. “Only 34 percent of voters believe Peters deserves reelection, while 46 percent want someone new.”

One indication of Peters’ political position, according to analysts, was his willingness to side with Republicans and vote for the so-called SAFE Act, designed to tighten screening for Syrian and Iraqi refugees. “The administration has not made the case to me that today’s bill will shut down or unduly delay our existing process,” Peters said in a statement, according to KQED News. “It is not too burdensome for federal agencies to certify that admitted refugees will not endanger our communities.” San Diego has already become home for one of the state’s biggest communities of Syrian refugees, observed KQED.

Especially in the Delta region itself, public opinion has turned sharply against the scheme, which would cost over $15 billion dollars and reshape the area with massive infrastructure construction. “In recent weeks, opponents protested at the state Capitol and submitted volumes of critical comments to state and federal officials on the environmental impact of the plan,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “A wealthy Stockton-area farmer and food processor, Dean Cortopassi, qualified for the November 2016 ballot a measure that could complicate the project, if not stop it altogether.”

On the other hand, according to the Bee, the upheaval “didn’t appear to tilt controversy surrounding the project beyond its traditional bearings. Delta landowners, Northern Californians and many environmentalists have for years opposed a conveyance, while labor unions and building trades groups that stand to benefit from a project support it.”

But over the course of a public comment period on the proposal, Brown’s plan was subjected to withering criticism from a vocal minority of Californians. “By midday Friday, 2,340 unique letters had been submitted, along with 6,665 form letters and 19,047 letters that were the result of online petitions, a spokeswoman with the California Natural Resources Agency said. That’s in addition to about 2,000 unique letters and 10,000 form letters received last year in response to an earlier version of the tunnels plan,” Recordnet reported.

Big blowback

One such comment came from Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., who called the tunnel project a “multi-billion boondoggle,” according to the Appeal Democrat. “If we allow the Delta to be drained by a massive new plumbing system, it will put at risk many Delta jobs and forever change the Delta’s culture and quality of life,” he wrote.

Garamendi’s constituents have largely agreed. “The project to divert some Sacramento River water before it reaches the estuary is controversial, particularly in San Joaquin County and the rest of the Delta,” as Recordnet observed. “Opponents have relentlessly attacked the project from multiple fronts — questioning its economics, warning about its environmental impacts, and predicting hard times ahead for Delta farmers.”

But Brown has stuck to his guns, blasting the negative comments and vowing that the project would make a decisive and urgently needed difference in California’s distribution and consumption of water. “The delta pipeline is essential to […] protecting fish and water quality. Without this fix, San Joaquin farms, Silicon Valley and other vital centers of the California economy will suffer devastating losses in their water supply,” he said in a prepared statement. “Claims to the contrary are false, shameful and do a profound disservice to California’s future.”

Debating democracy

Instead of dissipating the tension, however, Brown’s words have only added to it, helping ensure that the issue will come to a head at the ballot box, when voters weigh in on Cortopassi’s initiative. He and his wife, the Bee noted, “have bankrolled the No Blank Checks Initiative ballot effort, pumping $4 million into the petition drive, consultants and other expenses since March.”

“Under his proposed ballot measure, any revenue bonds for public works involving the state would have to go to a public vote. That would complicate Brown’s planned strategy to pay for the twin tunnels, which rests on water users financing bonds to help fund the $15 billion project.”

As George Skelton suggested at the Los Angeles Times, some skepticism toward the initiative has centered around the potential problems inherent in turning over the fate of all similar large-scale projects to the whims of voters. “But the tunnel project was purposely set up to avoid the electorate. Politicians and their appointees are making all the decisions,” he noted.

By John Hrabe

National Journal’s The Hotline released its first list of the most competitive U.S. House of Representatives races for the 2012 cycle. These are the 75 seats that National Journal considers “most likely to change hands in November.”

Interesting observations about the rankings:

* California, the state with the largest congressional delegation, had 10 districts make the list, the most of any state.

* New York’s nine races to make the list received a more competitive score. If the states are ranked on a scale of the races, from one to 75, New York races averaged 40.44, compared to 52.2 for the Golden State.

* Three California races are listed in the Top 30: the re-election campaigns of Republican Congressmen Dan Lungren and Brian Bilbray as well as current Republican State Sen. Tony Strickland’s campaign against Democratic Assemblywoman Julia Brownley for the open Ventura County seat in the U.S. House.

The Hotline’s rankings differ slightly from The Nooner’s “12 Most Interesting Congressional Races,” published by Scott Lay at AroundtheCapitol.com. The Nooner’s list included intra-party feuds, whereas National Journal ranked seats most likely to change party hands.

Rankings don’t really mean much to voters. However, they can influence the party congressional committees and PACs, especially as they decide where to allocate national resources. Based on both rankings, expect Bilbray, Strickland and Lungren to be first in line for major national funding.

The races that made Hotline but not the Nooner are: the 3rd race between Democratic incumbent John Garamendi and Republican Colusa County Supervisor Kim Vann; the 36th race between Republican incumbent Mary Bono Mack and Democrat Raul Ruiz; and the open 47th race between Republican Gary DeLong and Democratic State Senator Alan Lowenthal.

Here’s how National Journal summarized these races.

* CD-3 is a Democratic district held by Democratic Rep. John Garamendi. Almost three-fourths of the district is new to him, but Garamendi’s 52 percent showing in the June all-party primary was a good sign. In previous years with that system, Democrats almost always improved on their primary percentages in November.

* CD-36 is a Republican district held by Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack. Her diverse inland seat has long captured Democratic imaginations, and she only got 52 percent of the vote in 2010. This year, she’ll have to battle presidential-year Hispanic turnout marshaled by Democrat Raul Ruiz, but the seat got slightly more Republican.

* CD-47 is a new Democratic district. Republicans like Gary DeLong, but presidential year turnout in Long Beach makes victory a tricky proposition, though he has a better opportunity than if the seat were filled by an incumbent Democrat.

Other races

The races on the Nooner’s list that didn’t make National Journal’s radar:

* CD21: a Republican leaning Kings County seat, featuring Democrat John Hernandez vs. Republican David Valadao.

And California’s four intra-party feuds. Because of the new Top Two system, the November runoff features two rivals from the same party:

* CD-8  is a Republican seat in San Bernardino County, pitting two Republicans against one another: Paul Cook vs. Gregg Imus.
* CD-35 is a Democratic seat in Ontario, setting two Democrats against one another: Joe Baca vs. Gloria Negrete McLeod.
* CD-31 is a Republican seat in San Bernardino County featuring two Republicans, Bob Dutton vs. Gary Miller.
* CD-30 is a Democratic seat in San Fernando Valley with the Democratic rivals being Howard Berman vs. Brad Sherman.

While the intra-party feuds won’t affect which party controls the House in January, they could affect the partisan makeup of California’s state legislature.  CalWatchDog.com first reported on how the outcome of the 35th congressional race could determine whether Democrats gain two-thirds control of the state Senate. As an even-numbered state senator, Negrete-McLeod would need to resign her senate seat in order to be sworn in as a member of Congress, thereby leaving her senate seat vacant until filled by a special election.

State Sen. Juan Vargas, another even-numbered Democratic congressional candidate, is almost guaranteed to win this November. His victory would create at least one state Senate vacancy.

In the state Legislature, tax increases are subject to a two-thirds vote requirement, a threshold unaffected by vacancies.

By WAYNE LUSVARDI

The waters are being roiled again in the Delta.

The roiling concerns H.R. 1837, the Republican-backed San Joaquin River Reliability Act currently pending before the U.S. House of Representatives.

Northern California Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, says the bill “destroys a state consensus” on the San Joaquin River and the Sacramento Delta.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

California’s Democratic U.S. senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, have joined Garamendi’s chorus and called “for consensus-based solutions that respect the interests of all stakeholders.”

There never was a consensus except perhaps between the plunderers of the spoils from California’s perpetual water wars.

The Shame of the River Consensus Sham

Garamendi says H.R. 1837 would undo 150 years of water law, remove all environmental protections for the Delta and Central Valley farmers and allow destructive water exports from the Delta.

He says H.R. 1837 should be called the “State Water Rights Repeal Act.” He’s right — but for the wrong reasons. What H.R. 1837 does is undo what Feinstein did with the San Joaquin River Restoration Act of 2009 – H.R. 146.  That bill was enacted three years ago, not 150 years ago.

Contra Garamendi, H.R. 146 was a prior water grab from farmers.  It limited how much water farmers can take for crop irrigation and imposed tiered water rates and environmental impact reports for renewal of all existing water contracts. In short, Feinstein’s H.R. 146 redistributed the water taken from farmers to fishing, recreational and real estate interests.

There was no bipartisan consensus when Feinstein’s bill was passed.  In fact, it had to be bundled with a bunch of bills under the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 for it to pass even through a Democratic-controlled Congress and get signed by Democratic President Barack Obama.  There was no “consensus” except of Democrats.  Consensus implies that those having to give up water rights and have to pay higher water rates somehow concurred with Feinstein’s bill.  This was not the case.

H.R. 1837 Would Restore Genuine Consensus

What Republican Rep. Devin Nunes’ HR 1837 bill would do is repeal Feinstein’s HR 146 and replace it with the Bay-Delta Accord drafted in 1994.  The Bay-Delta Accord was “consented” to by both then-President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, and then-California Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican.  This is what genuine “consent of the governed” entails.

Rep. Nunes’s HR 1837 would depoliticize water contracts.  H.R. 1837 provides for water contracts to be renewed automatically, instead of being thrown to political piranhas for the picking under a contrived retroactive environmental impact report.

Sure, by undoing H.R. 146 and replacing it with H.R. 1837 commercial salmon fishermen, sport fishing and recreational-real estate interests would be denied new water rights.  But they never had any water rights in the first place. Nor were there any environmental impacts on them because they had no rights or ecosystem to impact.  All that an environmental impact report would conclude under California’s sham California Environmental Quality Act is that salmon fishing rights were not granted 150 years ago and should be now.

But farmers had to buy their land to get their riparian (river) water rights 150 years ago.  A riparian right is a right to use the natural flow of water on land that touches a river, lake, stream or creek.

Appropriative water rights are those obtained by permit, court actions or legislative action.  Such rights are always subject to who is in political power and whom they may want to redistribute the rights to.

Garamendi also claims that H.R. 1837 is “imbalanced” and does not “satisfy the needs of everyone in California.”   HR 1837 is no more imbalanced than is Feinstein’s H.R. 146, which harms Central Valley farmers.

Neither would H.R. 1837 “take away California’s ability to control our own water destiny,” as Garamendi claims, any more than Feinstein’s H.R. 146 did.  Both H.R. 146 and H.R. 1837 are federal legislation.

As for the charge that “water storage and water recycling are important components of water policy, and they’re lacking in HR 1837” — the same could be said of H.R. 146.

H.R. 1837 also does not, as the Democrats claim, “threaten thousands of jobs for salmon fishermen and Delta farmers.”  Those thousands of jobs for San Joaquin River salmon fishermen and farmers would just be taken away from Central Valley farmers and from city water ratepayers and consumers of agricultural produce.

Politics is Dis-sensus

Any determination of an environmental impact under H.R. 146 isn’t environmental, but cultural and political.  Why, under Feinstein’s HR 146, in a drought should commercial salmon fisheries, sport fishermen and recreational/real estate interests have first dibs on water over?  Why should fishing and recreational interests be granted water rights without buying them?

And what about the “stranded assets” of farmland that no longer will have irrigation water?   Shouldn’t government re-pay farmers for those “sunk costs,” instead of hiding behind the sham that a “regulatory taking” is non-compensable?  Where is the “public purpose” behind the sham wealth redistribution of H.R. 146?  How is H.R. 146 any different than taking private property rights and giving them to developers under California’s defunct Redevelopment Law?

Water Rights by Force and Fraud — or Consent of the Governed?

A mix of force, fraud and consent of the governed have held California’s historic water contract together.  The elements of that contract have been Northern California giving up water to Central Valley farmers and Southern California cities in exchange for Delta flood protection, cheap hydropower and some water for themselves.

Feinstein’s H.R. 146 and the state-level Delta Reform Act together change the existing water social contract in California so that Central Valley farmers and Southern California cities get less water and in return Northern California gets Delta flood protection, cheap hydropower, a greater share of the water to redistribute to special interests and a new Delta regional sewage system to be paid for mainly by farmers and cities in the Southern half of the state.

Feinstein’s H.R. 146 confiscated water rights by the force of law and the fraudulent ideology of environmentalism and redistributed it to non-farming constituents under a wealth distribution scheme. Nunes’ H.R. 1837 merely returns those water rights to the pre-2009 genuine political “consensus.”

A sham consensus is no substitute for consent of the governed in California’s political water wars.