AB 500 (Huber) just misses...

[Tracy Chimenti]

I attended the reading of the bill this AM at the capitol. I was the one with the Carharts, tennis shoes, 3-day beard.

Mrs. Huber did a great job and put up a super-legit argument that was echoed and built upon by several on the Water, Parks and Wildlife Comittee. Huffman, the comittee chair summarized the need to have some kind of "look-back" before an [export community-driven project] that will cost $$billions is put to work. Near the end, several staff walked out during the 5- to 5-tie, one of them voting from his office, the other returning with a "no" after reviewing lanquage within the bill. "We tried", mused a still upbeat Huber as the chamber emptied with a 7- to 5-vote defeat.

The complaints from Westlands and (I believe) Metropoliotan water seemed to convey that this is a done deal and these things were decided after riggorous review two-years ago and don't deserve the added cost of legislative examination. They said "it" (whatever it is) passed easily two years ago. During counter-testimony from Huber and others, it was revealed that the bill passed by one (1) vote at 5:00AM and that it's pretty hard to think straight at that time of the day.

One of the lady's on the comittee lamented that she does not want to see "food lines" in one of the major farming regions, and that there is currently 40% unemployment there, 80% of which is Hispanic.

And you should have seen the line of suits "against"-- at least 15, including Westlands, labor union, farm agencies, water agencies, counties, etc. And this was a third of the parties listed that were against the bill. It reminded me of the movie "AIR PLANE" when everyone lined up to smack a panicy passenger. They just kept'a coming!

A writer friend with inside knowledge confided to me that they pretty much knew they were going to lose this round, so look for another run on this later. But it was close. One of the comitte members choked on on small provision that Huber was willing to remove. Once that was done, something else made him flinch-- "language".

It is indeed... David, fighting Goliath.

[OceanSunfish]

Tracy,

Thanks for attending the reading of the bill by Ms. Huber and providing a report. I very much wanted to attend this AM and see the "lines of suits" for myself. Can you tell me if these kinds of hearings are able to be recorded by the public and if so, did anybody do so?

On a positive note, I think this put a 'face' to the opposition (goliath) and we should take note and adjust accordingly.

Thanks.

[Tracy Chimenti]

I really believe you can record it. I botched the start time, was in a hurry, and did not grab my compact recorder. Forgot a pen too. And paper!

The writer I know said you can get a transcript. I would think that since this is an open meeting, they would have one available.

[Tracy Chimenti]

GO TO THE CA ASSEMBLY WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE PAGE AND YOU CAN GET A COPY OF THE SCRIPT, OR LISTEN TO IT IN IT'S ENTIRETY.

You may have to download an adobe reader program. I did.

Tracy

[Kurt A]

Hi all-
You can see the whole hearing online.
Check out http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewVideo/3228
It take awhile to load...Fast forward past the first 5 minutes.

[OceanSunfish]

Thanks again. I just watched hearing.

Disregard basic oversight, cost analysis, accountability, etc. out of fear of "foodlines" ?! I understand she was representing her immediate constituents, but seriously?

The "line of suits" was pretty typical..... I've seen the "line of suits" at other hearings.

[Bob Loblaw]

The merits of AB 550 aside, we cannot study an alternative conveyance system to death, because that earthquake is coming sooner or later and when it does there will be no delta ecosystem and there will be no water for half of California.

We need to protect the delta ecosystem but we cannot allow footdragging by the "no alternative conveyance ever" lobby. The delta's days are numbered, those dirt levees will either collapse on their own or an earthquake or other natural disaster will take them out. The question we need to be asking ourselves is when that happens will it cripple California for a generation or will it be a localized environmental tragedy that we will overcome?


We've been having this conversation for 40 years with zero progress....except that we are 40 years closer to a big quake. So far the foot draggers have been winning.

The delta solution does not have to be perfect, but it has to be soon.

[Darian]

Bob,.... I recognize the there's a lot of emotion involved in discussion of our water concerns from either side. Also, that each side engages in scare tactics to emphasize their agendas. IMO, the terms you've used to describe our current situation borders on those tactics.

I'm on the side of things that says we should be very careful in approving any alternative conveyance system that is sponsored, in the main, by agri-business or their political minions. Witness the revelation that Senator Feinstein inserted language in a recent federal bill enabling easier sales of water between water districts, users and willing buyers at massive profits. Water is now a cash crop.

It's known that 85% of all water diverted from the delta goes to agri-business in the San Joaquin valley. That leaves 15% for (drinking water, lawn irrigation and pools, etc.) the "half of California" you refer to. Also, many southern California cities have other sources of water than the Delta, are either recycling water they already receive or exploring how to do it. Several are exploring desalinization.

CA agri-business pumps more groundwater than any other state in the US. Certainly, CA agri-business gets their water at a subsidized rate and either irrigates with it (which results in pollution) and then drains it and teh ground water back into the Delta through the San joaquin river system. I'm wondering why they can't treat their waste water or consider using treated, re-cycled water for irrigation The answer relates to the cost to benefit ratio. It has nothing to do with doing the right thing (since that might increase operating costs).

Providing a peripheral canal will most likely give rise to increased demands from all buyers/users for additional upstream storage facilities; some off line as in the sites reservoir proposal. We'll get a chance to vote on the $11 billion dollar bond issue in November. Bonded indebtedness results in interest costs and service from the general fund. If I recall correctly, debt service currently amounts to somewhere between 45% - 50% of incoming revenues and not all existing, authorized bonds have been sold yet. Does it sound like a good idea to take on additional debt at this time

Personally, I don't view the earthquake as much more than a scare tactic. As I recall, the Loma Prieta quake didn't result in any levee damage even tho it caused heavy damage to cities around the bay area. Of course, a massive quake could occur tomorrow or anytime in the next 200 years. Nor would providing an alternative conveyance system prevent damage to Delta levee systems from an earthquake. Given, if it did occur their could be interruptions in water service/quality for users in the bay area. But, providing an alternative conveyance would appear to do nothing to solve that problem as many bay area cities/counties receive their water from either from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, the Mokelumne or the Sacramento Rivers through EBMUD.

Recognize that you're trying to make a case to "do the right thing", water wise.... However, I'm not willing to accept that the Delta is toast.

Doing the right thing doesn't appear to be the motivation behind the current drive towards building alternative conveyance/storage systems on the part of most advocates. It all appears to boil down to potential profits from the sales of water and that old bromide, cost to benefit ratio. IMO, Hubers bill was a step in the right direction but didn't go far enough.

[OceanSunfish]

The merits of AB 550 aside, we cannot study an alternative conveyance system to death, because that earthquake is coming sooner or later and when it does there will be no delta ecosystem and there will be no water for half of California.

We need to protect the delta ecosystem but we cannot allow footdragging by the "no alternative conveyance ever" lobby. The delta's days are numbered, those dirt levees will either collapse on their own or an earthquake or other natural disaster will take them out. The question we need to be asking ourselves is when that happens will it cripple California for a generation or will it be a localized environmental tragedy that we will overcome?


We've been having this conversation for 40 years with zero progress....except that we are 40 years closer to a big quake. So far the foot draggers have been winning.

The delta solution does not have to be perfect, but it has to be soon.

My take is that the bill is not about building or not building the P Canal. It's more about getting things out into the open and out from behind closed doors, plus exposing the rigged process that it is..... I take it that you're in favor of progress at any expense, including accountability and integrity. Well, I'm not. Unfortunately, there's been a lot of this "progress" happening the past couple of decades and it stinks of greed, laziness for a quick buck, etc.

Get rid of all the current "middlemen" and corporations in the water business and replace them with a true public trust system devoid of politics and corruption, then perhaps I'll consider new version of the BDCP, built on the real public's trust, a valid solution.

[Bob Loblaw]

Just to be clear, I don't have a "side" in this fight...unless you count the people who want water to come out of their faucet when they turn it on to be a "side"...if so I'm with them and thats my agenda.

I dont think preparing our most critical infrastructure for a natural disaster that we know is coming is fear mongering or scare tactics, its prudent. Loma Prieta didnt liquify the delta levees because Loma Prieta is down in Santa Cruz. If we have a similar quake on the Hayward, Rogers Creek or Concord fault all of which run through or very close to the delta and all of which are overdue a large release, its safe to assume that the outcome won't be the same.

For the sake of argument lets assume the levees are safe from earthquakes, what then about sea level rise? BCDC is predicting a rise of somewhere between a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 55 inches in sea level rise in the next 50 years. We already have over topping of many levees during winter storms, add sea level rise and you get levee failure. One way or another nature will have its way with the man made islands on the Delta.

We are having two different conversations. Of course the abuses by agri businesses must be addressed, but if we are to bundle those abuses with a deal for drinking water we are signing our own death warrants. Two thirds of the state's drinking water flows through the delta...as you know the delta is not a series of islands, its a series of saucers, land far below sea level surrounded by 100 year old earth levees built by farmers with zero engineering experience. Its a miracle they have lasted this long.

If and when those levess go, and they will, and it will cause a chain reaction, salt water will flood into the delta and into the aqueduct intakes polluting water for agriculture and drinking alike. A peripheral conveyance is an absolute necessity. The only debate we should be having is the size of the pipe and who gets first dibs on the water that it carries.

As for paying for it...of course its expensive but a drop in the ocean (pun fully intended) compared to the alternative. A quake in the delta that pushes salt water into the Clifton forebay would render most of California uninhabitable. Most people would get salt water when they turned on their faucet. It would make Katrina look like a minor inconvenience.

Like New Orleans, most people in CA live in a place that people shouldn't or couldn't live unless we put the infrastructure there to support life...water conveyance being the most important. New Orleans (rather the Army Corps) did not adequately address the threats to their infrastructure and look what happened. If we want to continue living here, and I think most of us do, we need to ensure that conveyance system is safe and reliable, and today it is not, it is incredibly vulnerable.

Of course we should all recycle water...but you need water in the first instance in order to recycle it. San Francisco for example can't pump anymore ground water. Lake Merced is the canary that shos us that. Desal is infant technology and requires huge amounts of coal fired energy to make feasible so there are trade offs there. Bay Area users use on average 57 gallons per capita per day, in the Sacramento area its 277 gallons per capita per day (DWR stats) we should start right there because no matter where you stick your straw in, you are sucking water from the same huge system...its all connected and related.

Some more things we ought to do immediately is ban the growing of cotton in California and rice while we are at it. We should mandate drip irrigation and ban all flood irrigation...the farmers say they do this already...bullpuckey. We all know what a flooded almond orchard looks like and we all see them regularly.

We can and should better regulate our water use, both ag users, industrial users and domestic consumers, but what we cannot afford to do is let a squabble about who gets how much make us take our eye off the ball and away from the threat that will make this little tiff incredibly irrelevant when the big one hits. Its like the residents of a burning house fighting over what color their new carpet ought to be.

This unfortunately is not an option.