(Check us out at 3:30! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)
UPDATE: We just wrapped up the show, which I think went very well. The archive is available in the player to the right, and will be available on itunes shortly.
There is much news going around the Capitol around water issues. One of the most noticeable issues is the growing opposition from Delta legislators that was highlighted in Capitol Weekly:
Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Sacramento, and Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Linden, don’t agree on much. But both are against the water plan being negotiated between the Legislature and the governor – and both think they have the votes to kill it.
Their opposition stems from one thing they do have in common. Each represents a district within the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the water-rich region at the center of the water policy and bond package.
“Absolutely there is bipartisan opposition,” Niello said. “Lois’ concerns are not the same as mine, but she is nonetheless every bit as opposed as I am.”
*** *** ***
[Wolk] added: “Southern California has to do away with its dependence on the Delta.”
Meanwhile, the hard work of actually making it happen is getting some attention from the California Teachers Association and the High Broderist George Skelton. And the issue of funding is still a mysterious one. Nobody has really laid out a plan, in public, to pay for all of this new construction. Construction that doesn’t even bring us any additional water.
So, tomorrow we’ll talk with Senator Lois Wolk, the Legislature’s leading water expert and former Assemblyman John Laird, in my opinion, the go-to guy for questions of funding and the budget. Please join me on the Calitics podcast, live at 3:30. You can also catch the podcast at the same address after the fact.
If you have a question, feel free to leave it here.
John Laird was my assemblyman. But I would surely trust Lois Wolk to represent my view on water over those of Laird. While he even did his master’s thesis on the history of water regulation in California, and therefore can be presumed to have in-depth knowledge, his voting record was much more in line with whatever the water agencies wanted him to do.
Having been a citizen stakeholder in the development of long range water plans for the Santa Clara Vally Water District, I fully understand that the water agencies are not good stakeholders and have little interest in the public good. Rather, they accept that growth is good and that their role is to provide all water that growth needs. They have little interest in controlling the demand side of the equation.
I would like to ask Laird what he thinks might be wrong with a bio-regional approach to water management, one in which the stakeholders in the region, especially the agricultural interests in the delta or the fishing industry with dependency on a healthy delta ecology.
As he is probably aware, the state water board this week ordered a major reduction in pumping from the Carmel River, which has some folks on the Monterey Peninsula flipping out.
I’m not among them, but this does raise the issue of finding a sustainable water source. What does he think about the various plans to provide a regional water solution? The two main contenders are Cal Am’s big desal project at Moss Landing, and the apparently more responsible (note my bias) Water for Monterey County project.
Which does he support, and is there any possibility we can leverage this whole statewide water battle to get some funds for coastal projects like this?
Laird was more objective than I anticipated. Probably he no longer has to weigh his position with regard to potential votes. His comments about the unfairness of asking the general public to pay for resources that they will not use is the key that will sink the acceptance of whatever Bass and Steinberg deliver.
While you did not ask my question on participation from Delta stakeholders, Lois gave the right answer. As long as the organizations and citizens in the Delta are cut out of the final solution, the crisis will continue. They must be at the table. The signals are that the political leadership does not want that to happen. If so, things will get uglier before they get better.
And, I fully agree with the assessments regarding Westlands Water District. The have a bad business model (planting orchards in areas where the water supply is highly variable), the most junior of all water right and the most high powered PR firm along with Sean Hannity. I have no sympathy for Westlands but more people watch Hannity than heard John and Lois.
You may have a smaller megaphone, but you addressed some of the really important issues and got good answers from your guests. They, in turn, raised some of the critical questions without prompting. Senator Wolk already made the dramatic gesture of taking her name off of a bill she was carrying on this issue in the last session. I hope she is successful in raising these issues this time too.
One other rather shocking thing she said was that she still had not seen final language. I’ve read that folks in the know expect a vote right after the Monday hearing, or on Tuesday at the latest. As John Laird said, this is an incredibly complex issue involving legal water rights, conservation, jobs, the economy, the environment, and a host of other issues. How can legislators have a hearing on a bill they haven’t seen yet and vote on it within 24 hours? It’s just massively stupid!