_{The report ---“More with Less”--- by the Oakland-based advocacy group Pacific Institute may have some beneficial aspects to it but it poses a serious threat to California’s family farmers.} 

Is that what's happening with water development plans and certain Sacramento "leaders?"  It seems as though some in the legislature would rather play games than work constructively to solve what has become a very serious situation.  Much of California faced water shortages this summer and the state's farms, homes and businesses are facing even worse conditions next year if winter rains are anything less than biblical.

We missed getting a water bond on the November ballot.  The next best hope is if the Governor calls a special election in March.  Without comprehensive reform, new storage and a better system of moving water from areas of abundance to areas where it is needed, California's economy will not improve.  The first to be hit will be the farms that produce food for a market that is increasingly in demand of locally-produced products.

Our elected leaders must certainly see the handwriting on the wall.  Will they work together toward a water solution or will they continue to fiddle?

Today’s release of the Public Policy Institute’s research brief, “Navigating the Delta: Comparing Futures, Choosing Options,” concludes once and for all that the Peripheral Canal is the best option that will provide both a reliable water supply and protection for the Delta’s ecosystem.

The report evaluates four scenarios: the existing system of through-delta exports, a dual facility that includes some of the current system with a small peripheral canal, an isolated system that moves export water around the Delta and a “no export” alternative.  Of the four, the Peripheral Canal is the most economically sensible alternative.  The “no export” alternative is best for fish but costs to the economy are as much as 10 times as high as the PC.  Through-delta pumping, as we use today, according to the report, is unsustainable. 

Prepare now for environmental backlash.  I expect strong disagreement from the marginal groups that oppose anything that helps stabilize California’s water supply.  The old stories about taking MORE water out of the system and harming fish will undoubtedly surface in the next day or so but the PPIC report clearly states, “…at this point some form of a peripheral canal is likely to aid in rehabilitating the Delta.” 

It will be important for any new Delta water management strategies to include protections for valuable agricultural land in the Delta region. 

California’s leadership must now focus on implementing the solution and not get caught up in the rhetoric of yesterday’s nattering naysayers.

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.