The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee on Tuesday asked Assembly Member John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) to consider significant amendments to AB 2175, a bill mandating agricultural and urban water conservation activities.

 During committee discussion following testimony, Committee Chairman Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Sen. Mike Machado (D-Linden) raised questions about the “top down” approach undertaken by the bill as well as secondary impacts generated by mandatory agricultural water conservation measures.

 Steinberg asked Laird initially to strike references in the bill to a proposed target of 500,000 acre-feet of agricultural water conservation and then later retracted his request and instead asked that the number be left in as a “placeholder,” citing potential similarities with urban industrial uses that could not be addressed during a short time period at the committee meeting.  Steinberg also asked whether a “water management plan” approach to water conservation activities is a better solution than mandated activities and thought it needed to “cook” longer before being approved.

 In his comments on the bill, Machado expressed serious concern for the changes in crop mix that would likely result from the mandated approach.  Citing the loss of 14 of the 16 tomato processors once based in Stockton, Machado blamed regulations and the inability of the City of Stockton to handle the processors’ wastewater as a reason for the closure of the plants.  As a result, he said, jobs were lost and the farming community was forced to change because of the loss of infrastructure.

 Committee Vice-chair Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Temecula) also raised questions about the secondary impacts the bill would have on the Quantification Settlement Agreement between Imperial Irrigation District and San Diego.  Increased water conservation pressure on IID to conserve water could lead to more fallowing, jeopardizing the long term QSA.

On a motion that required the bill to return to the committee for review before proceeding to the Senate Fiscal Committee and Senate floor, the bill received four aye votes and was on-call pending an additional vote to move it out of committee.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced at a press conference this morning that California is officially in a drought.  An extremely dry spring coupled with restrictions on Delta exports have led to water rationing in parts of the San Joaquin Valleys' west side.  The Governor, followed by Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow, made it clear that measures must be taken to get water to farmers during the summer growing season.  "Farmers don't need water in September," said Snow, "They need it in June."

 I agree completely with the Governor and support his call for the legislature to get with the program and push through comprehensive water supply legislation this year.  We're in another drought but this time the tools we used previously are broken and there is no relief on the horizon.

Farmers in the Westlands Water District heard yesterday how little water they will be receiving under a rationing plan that will run until the end of August.  Because of diminished storage at San Luis Reservoir, those farmers will receive only .47 acre-feet of water per acre until around August 31.  That’s less than half an acre foot which is hardly enough water for most crops to make it through the summer.  The result is that hundreds of thousands of acres will go unplanted, such as fall vegetable crops like broccoli and lettuce, or existing crops will be abandoned so that the scant water supply will be used on much less acreage. 

 A combination of factors led to the water short year.  Those factors include last year’s drier than normal conditions, court-ordered pumping restrictions in the Delta, and essentially zero precipitation this year in March, April and May.

We can’t do anything about the rain.  It’s the environmental regulations that are so maddening.  Between the State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project, a total of 670,000 acre-feet of water that could have been pumped and put to use this year was lost to the ocean.  The timing was such that it had little or no environmental benefit in the Delta either.  All that was accomplished by that huge release of drinking water was to move a small school of Delta Smelt a few miles further away from the pumps that science has shown to have an insignificant effect on the smelt's population levels.

 Why then are we going through this exercise?  Because the Endangered Species Act is inflexible and it is being applied in a manner that harms an economy that’s under strain already it’s putting people out of work, plain and simple.

Is that what the ESA’s authors intended?  

Everyone agrees that the Delta is broken.  It doesn’t work for water users or environmental needs and it’s at risk of permanent damage if the earthquake that scientists predict hits anytime soon. 

The proposed fix titled “Key Elements of a Strategic Plan to Implement the Delta Vision," prepared by a number of environmental organizations for the Governor’s Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, recommends dedicating huge amounts of additional water for the Delta’s ecosystem while leaving water users holding the bag with a LESS reliable water supply and HIGHER costs.

Proposals include new or higher fees for water users that exercise their water rights, a reduction in the amount of water that can be reliably exported from the Delta to serve millions of acres of farmland and 25 million Californians and a salinity plan that would essentially empty upstream reservoirs in the spring leaving little or no water in the summer for irrigation or other uses.  This is in spite of the fact that cold water releases from upstream reservoirs in the summer are extremely important to maintaining the Delta’s ecosystem health.  What in the world are they thinking?

Let’s hope the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force is more interested in a balanced solution that benefits ALL Californians and not one designed by a few special interest groups.