On Sunday, Robert took a look at Arnold’s water demands:
John Laird gives a truly excellent overview that explains that the only other dam built by state government, the Oroville Dam which is a key part of the State Water Project, had 97% of its cost paid for by the actual users of the system, with the other 3% coming from taxpayers in the form of financial support (low-interest loans, for example). Yet the current demand is that taxpayers pay as much as 50% of the cost of a new dam, despite the fact that many Californians will never see any benefit from that dam, a dam which likely won’t be built for a decade or more and which will, because it is likely to be built at low elevation, will not catch much water and will essentially be useless.
This point cannot be overstated. For decades, the Western Central Valley has gotten subsidized water. It’s built the Westlands Water District area into the fruit and vegetable capitol of the country. It produces all this produce (haha!) in a region that needs irrigated water. Because while the topsoil is fertile, the under-layer of clay sucks up water. And during all of this, while the cities along the coast pay top dollar for their water, the Westlands gets a cut rate for agreeing to be the first to be cut off.
But that doesn’t stop them from bitching when they do get cut off.
The contradictions involved in all of this are striking. For those who claim to support Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the market, it makes for a remarkable statement. They are arguing that water should be subsidized in order to interfere with the market. So, the money is transferred from the pockets of Californians and into the pockets of agribusiness and out of state consumers.
Any water deal must retain the balance of payment that we’ve seen in the past. At most 5-10% of the payments should come from bonds or other general fund payments, the rest should come from revenue bonds. Those who use the water should pay for it. Yes, this will make produce more expensive, which is a regrettable consequence. But it is the only equitable way to share the costs.
All of that said, even with all of this construction, there is no additional water. We are just playing shell games with what we have. At some point we have to look at sustainability giving the coming risk of climate change.
You are right–and I have frequently noted myself how “free market” advocates want to get special rights when they’re in their favor.
But there are so many other issues here too. For starters, what it would mean to other state services if we add bond debt service to the state budget with no new revenues. With everything cut to the bone now, it would only get worse with big new bonds to finance.
Next, the proposal overturns centuries of water rights in California as those with “junior” rights attempt to grab first rights to the state’s already scarce water resources–in front of those with older, or more “senior” rights to it. The only good news on this is that it would likely hold the whole thing up in court for the rest of my lifetime.
Unfortunately, that could also mean that Delta restoration, conservation measures, levee repair, and other things the state really does need, could also be held up since–for some reason–Senator Steinberg decided to lump all those proposals together at the 11th hour during the last regular legislative session.
The latest proposals seem to do more harm than good. And the only thing I can see to do at this point is to drown them and start again. Hopefully without Arnold and his fake grassroots movement.