More Water Stuff....

[Darian]

Of course,.... Behavioral modification is what is required to resolve many of societal issues (including this one) an increasing the cost of a scarce commodity is supposed to bring that about. The problem is that in practice, the change may not occur.

Established habits are more difficult to change than we think. For example, the increase in gasoline prices hasn't had a major impact on the sales of gasoline. We do value our mobility and will continue to pay ever higher prices....

Another example is that of the cattle ranchers in the valley/foothills. All of them say they need to be able to graze cattle on public lands (causing negative impacts) and use water at low cost in order to survive. These ranchers uniformly say that if they are unable to do these things, they will be forced to sell their cattle and their land to developers.... The threat being enough to allow BuRec, Forest service and others to sell their scarce resources at below market prices. Will any of this change??? Not in my lifetime.

In the proposed Delta redesign, it is more likely that the proposal will be adopted and construction begun than any chnages in attitude about water consumption by enough people/governments/agri-business, etc., to make a difference. I don't know if this proposal is open to public comment/influence but am going to find out.

[Digger]

Have to disagree, fuel costs have NOT risen to any point that would cause most people to alter driving behavior. $3/gal is nothing, it's just keeping with inflation, get it to $5, $6, or more and I'll guarantee changes will happen.

Quadruple a consummers water bill and conservation will take place. The free market place will establish an equilibrium with scarce resources, always has.

[Darian]

Hmmmm,.... Thanks Digger. This has been a very good exchange.

I guess I'm seeing things thru cynical eyes. Can't disagree with the principals of a free market. Given an opportunity, those principals will work. I'm just thinking that we're not in a free market with all of the subsidy's, etc.... Unfortunately, change doesn't appear to be in the cards.

[Mike McKenzie]

The problem is (with respect to agriculture) that there is no "free market" in place, as far as Corporate Ag. is concerned. They get the water at considerably below actual cost, they pump the water with below market priced power and they raise crops whose prices are propped up with price supports.. All this courtesy of us American sheep that allow our own fleecing.

How can the family farmers compete with corporate ag.? They can't! Farm families have been leaving their farms for the last 60 years. If entities like Westlands Irrigation District were put out of business, there would be enough water for people, industry AND our fisheries.

It's too bad that the idiots that report the "news" do not have enough common sense or brain power to report the situation in the delta accurately. If the public was more informed they might make better decisions about who they elect to office.

I guess the bottom line is that people vs. fish makes better fodder than people vs. Corporate Ag. in the media mindset.

Mike

[Darian]

Both print and TV media are owned by corporate interests. Either direct or indirect. Mny of those corporate owners are, also, associated with agri-business. For example, the Times-Mirror Company (once and still[ ] owner of the LA Times) was one of ther largest growers of lettuce in the Imperial Valley of CA. Most of the media owners are conglomerates, havig interests in many fields/products.

Not difficult to understand how this sort of thing occurs with mergers and outright acquisitions.... There're definite conflicts of interest involved but, let's face it, they're not doing anything illegal. Just doesn't seem right, tho.

[Digger]

Hmmmm,.... Thanks Digger. This has been a very good exchange.

I guess I'm seeing things thru cynical eyes. Can't disagree with the principals of a free market. Given an opportunity, those principals will work. I'm just thinking that we're not in a free market with all of the subsidy's, etc.... Unfortunately, change doesn't appear to be in the cards.

with all the protectionism in place, free market (theory) cannot function as intended, so you're cynicism is well placed and you're absolutely right. I was thinking more theoretical.

[Darian]

Well,.... As if to prove points made in other posts, the SacBee reported, today, that the Governor made his proposal for fixing the water problems of this state by making a proposal that is a "....decidedly different approach...." than that of his own, appointed blue ribbon water panel.

Before the Governor made his approach public, the estimated cost of the proposed projects was reported as $5.4 to $5.9 Billion. The estimated cost of the Governors proposal is $10 BILLION. It was, also, reported that the Governor proposes to fund his project thru a bond issue to be voted on by the public if he can qualify the initiative for the ballot by February 25, 2008. The SacBee reported that under the Governors proposal, local governments will be required to contribute to payment of costs.

Aside from the need to make changes in the way the Delta is managed and all of the environmental issues involved in these proposals, actual costs are going to be substantial and the impact will be felt at all levels of government in this state. Realistically, the estimated cost will not approach what actual costs will be in the end (if past experience in government contracting is any indication. Can you say cost overruns). That, the expansion of what is included in the governors project and the publics perceived distrust of the peripheral canal concept, may spell doom for the proposal.

But, let's assume that the proposed project is adopted.... Some problems for local governmental entities might be:

Locals rely heavily on property and local sales taxes for funding. Those sources of revenue may not be increased without consent (by vote of the public). How about a local bond issue or special assessment district??? Not likely to be approved. Water user fees, then. Not as difficult to sell but since they would apply to everyone, user fees could be seen as a tax requiring a vote for approval. Without approval of an increase in tax revenues or user fees, bonds would be one of the only aternatives remaining. Increasing bonded indebtedness. Elections cost money, too. Impacts on local budgets are not readily quantifiable but obviously, they would be significant.

The same circumstance would be true for the state. However, here we can quantify one impact in general terms. Currently, this state spends close to 50% of it's annual revenues on servicing bonded indebtedness, each year. Distribution of remaining revenues is governed by mandates (initiatives: prop. 98 for educational funding) that require priority payment. After all that, it's estimated that approximately 10% of annual revenues are available for discretionary funding. With that in mind, regardless of the amount of money raised by issuance of bonds, a portion would be required to be given to these mandated programs (e.g. education). If the cost of the Governors proposal is actually $10 BILLION, imagine how many bonds will have to be sold to reach that amount and honor other mandates. Deficit spending is no longer the exclusive arena for democrats/liberals. It is becoming very apparent that bond issuances are no longer the silver bullet to funding of projects.

Of course, everything that I've written here is a two edge sword. However, I'm still of the belief that government should act responsibly
and be held accountable when it doesn't. Redesign of the Delta should not be taken lightly and is certainly going to cost a large amount of dollars. However, grandiose proposals based on political agendas are not an answer for me....