Fiji Water is bad news, but did you know that its owner (Stewart Resnick) is a major campaign donor to CA politicians like Dianne Feinstein? And they don’t just own Fiji – they also have Paramount Farms, which owns 118,000 acres of heavily irrigated California orchards. Here’s how DiFi thanked him for his campaign contributions:

On Sept. 4, Resnick wrote to Feinstein, complaining that the latest federal plan to rescue the delta’s endangered salmon and shad fisheries was “exacerbating the state’s severe drought” because it cut back on water available to irrigate crops. “Sloppy science” by federal wildlife agencies had led to “regulatory-induced water shortages,” he claimed.

“I really appreciate your involvement in this issue,” he wrote to Feinstein.

One week later, Feinstein forwarded Resnick’s letter to two U.S. Cabinet secretaries. In her own letter, she urged the administration to spend $750,000 for a sweeping re-examination of the science behind the entire delta environmental protection plan.

The Obama administration quickly agreed, authorizing another review of whether restrictions on pumping irrigation water were necessary to save the delta’s fish. The results could delay or change the course of the protection effort.

To environmentalists concerned with protecting the delta, it was a dispiriting display of the political clout wielded by Resnick, who is among California’s biggest growers and among its biggest political donors.

Hat tip to blogger Rossi on http://www.lavidalocavore.org for this story.

Water storage and all that fun stuff is nice, but if we are taking away more water than we receive in precipitation, then we are going to have to come up with some other solutions.  And, according to some new data, the Central Valley may be on its way to becoming a desert.

New space observations reveal that since October 2003, the aquifers for California’s primary agricultural region — the Central Valley — and its major mountain water source — the Sierra Nevada — have lost nearly enough water combined to fill Lake Mead, America’s largest reservoir. The findings, based on satellite data, reflect California’s extended drought and increased pumping of groundwater for human uses such as irrigation. (Science Daily)

To be more precise, the research team estimates that the Central Valley has lost more than 30 cubic kilometers of water, with a cubic kilometers roughly equivalent to the volume of 400,000 Olympic swimming pools. In other words, a very large amount of water.

Most of that water loss, over 3.5 cubic km/year, is from the Southern Central Valley. The region gets far less rainfall, and sees far more pumping for crops than the northern region of the Valley.

So, while additional storage might be necessary, we are going to have to come up with some way of reducing usage. Whether that is allowing more fields to lie fallow, or to change crops to less thirsty plants, the current usage pattern is not sustainable.

Reaction to the water deal that was approved over the last few days, first by the Senate and then by the Assembly, has been trickling in. If you care to listen to an hour-long program, I recommend the KQED Forum program embedded here.

There was some question as to what the federal response to the measure would be. And, well, apparently Sec. of the Interior Ken Salazar is on board:

Thanks to the California legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger, Californians now have the opportunity to choose a more secure and sustainable water future.  This landmark package is a critical step toward bringing California’s water infrastructure into the 21st century while restoring California’s Bay Delta, on which millions of Californians depend for clean drinking water and their livelihoods.  I applaud the leadership, courage, and vision of everyone who helped bring this desperately-needed legislation across the finish line.  We will continue to need all hands on deck – at the federal, state, and local levels – in the coming months as we face the possibility of a fourth year of drought and sobering water realities.

And as for DiFi, who has long been close to the Westlands Water District, well, her reaction wasn’t such a mystery.

It should be clear to all of us that the current water infrastructure is inadequate to support California’s growing population and businesses that depend on clean water. This includes people in our cities, the high-tech sector, fisheries, tourism, and of course, our State’s multibillion-dollar agricultural sector. So, this package is really critical to all Californians.

I urge all Californians to support the bond issue. It must be said once more that California has a water infrastructure built for a population of 16 million people. Today, our population is rapidly approaching the 40 million mark. So, the modernization and improvement of our State’s water infrastructure is long overdue.

Meanwhile, on the other side of this, you have a growing crowd of organized labor, including the United Farmworkers Union, the California Teachers Association, and the SEIU State Council. They all have slightly different concerns, but at the heart of it is the financing. They are concerned that the debt service will start devouring the budget, and at an estimated 10% of the budget, that is a reasonable concern.

As others have noted, this package opens the door wide open for a peripheral canal.  Whether you think that is a good thing appears to depend on your perspective, with the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) pounding on this issue.

There’s a long time between now and November 2010, but we will be hearing a lot about this bond by the time we go to the polls.

While most of us were focused on election returns, the legislature approved the big water deal that includes a bond of $11 billion. That’s up $1 billion from the previous version, as Los Angeles demanded and won more funding for conservation.

As usual, Republicans held up approval of the package in order to win more concessions and score more political points. One of the concessions they won includes weakened penalties for illegal water diversion:

Republicans won a major concession as Democrats agreed to sever an enforcement bill from the water package that cracked down on illegal diversions of water, boosted fines and increased the power of the state water boards — provisions long demanded by environmentalists….

Assembly Republican Leader Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo opposed the water-rights bill, in part because of the tough enforcement provisions that sharply increased the authority of state water boards, according to Capitol sources in both parties familiar with the negotiations. Blakeslee was not immediately available to comment.

The bill also included fines of $5,000 or more per day for illegal diversions and allowed the water boards to initiate their own investigations rather than act on complaints. One provision allowed fines pegged to the “market value” of water, which environmentalists said could result indaily penalties far exceeding $5,000.

Republicans had also pitched a fit about funding for a Sacramento tolerance center Sen. Darrell Steinberg had included in the bills. At $10 million, the cost was negligible compared to the overall package, but Republicans couldn’t resist the chance to make Democrats look like pork barrel spenders – especially since doing so helped hide the far larger “pork” spending in the form of $3 billion for unnecessary dams that Republicans won in the water bond.

Assemblywoman Alyson Huber’s efforts to pass an amendment requiring legislative approval to build a Peripheral Canal failed, meaning that under the current deal, a new Delta Stewardship Council, with a majority of members appointed by the governor, would have the power to approve a canal. Both Westlands Water District and LA’s Metropolitan Water District said the deal “paves the way” for that canal.

Since the water policy bills have been de-linked from the bond itself, it seems even more likely that the bond will go down in flames next year when voters are asked to approve it. A combination of progressive opposition to new dams and concern over the impact of the debt service on other general fund programs will likely combine with moderate and conservative unease about $11 billion in spending to sink the bond.

The only way this could pass is if there’s a consistent effort across the state to convince people that the bond is essential to their future, that the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of the bond. So far, that case hasn’t been made, and it’s difficult to see how it will be, given that this whole deal is motivated by little more than the desire of Westlands to cut in line and for MWD to have everyone else in the state subsidize their sprawl.

With Democratic leadership eager to get a water deal done, the legislature appears set to vote tonight on two water bills, with Speaker Bass saying members will “make history today” by approving a package. The “policy” bills, focusing on Delta restoration and conservation, have been technically split from the big water bond, but there remain fundamental political linkages. And as the day wears on, more and more opposition to these bills, and ultimately to the entire process, emerges.

As things stand now, there will be a $10 billion bond to construct “dams, regional water projects, and ecosystem restoration”, $3 billion of which goes to build dams at Temperance Flat and Sites, and to expand Los Vaqueros Dam near Livermore. Unlike every other water project in state history, these would be funded by taxpayers, and not solely by the users of these projects. They would also not be subject to separate legislative approval.

The policy bill includes the creation of a Delta Stewardship Council to help oversee the use of the Delta. A majority of its members would be appointed by the governor, and it would have the authority to approve the construction of a Peripheral Canal, subject to certain environmental thresholds that are currently unclear. As the Contra Costa Times explains, Westlands Water District – which has been driving this process by demanding to be allowed to cut in line ahead of other water users and to be subsidized to do so – is satisfied with the proposed language:

At the heart of the new policy is a framework for a canal to route water around the Delta, a prospect that Delta interests detest because it could curtail housing development, make it more difficult to farm and could harm water quality and fish by diverting a portion of the Sacramento River out of its natural watercourse.

The path to building a peripheral canal would be clearer and more certain, but it would also be more difficult. The bills would strictly require the canal’s vehicle, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, to ensure its operation actually restores the Delta.

The provision has the support of the state’s largest irrigation district but has split environmental groups.

The Westlands Water District supports the legislation because, despite its strict language, it provides “a clear path” to a new way to move water around the Delta.

“We’re not certain we can meet (the requirements). We hope we can,” said Ed Manning, a lobbyist for the Westlands Water District in the San Joaquin Valley, in testimony last week.

The policy bill also includes some statewide groundwater measuring standards, and mandates 20% conservation of water, statewide, by 2020.

Key environmental groups, labor unions, and other Californians are already taking sides. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) are embracing the deal, with CLCV doesn’t think the deal is perfect but thinks it’s good enough to support at this time. On the other side, the Sierra Club opposes the deal, and Carl Pope denounced the process in a HuffPo op-ed.

Water agencies are similarly split. NorCal water agencies now oppose the deal, though most SoCal agencies, led by the mammoth Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles, playing key roles in getting the deal done.

Of political significance, Artesia Democrat Tony Mendoza reports CTA is opposed to the water bond, likely to be joined by several other major labor unions who are rightly concerned about crowding out public services spending by adding to general fund debt service levels, with Treasurer Bill Lockyer warning 10% of the general fund could be going to service debt if the water bond is approved.

Not being in Sacramento, you should take my prognostications with a grain of salt (preferably salt from the western San Joaquin Valley, which has too much of it). But I would be surprised if this deal goes through. Unlike the budget, there’s no looming threat of statewide fiscal meltdown. Failing to approve a water deal won’t cause government to shut down, it won’t cut off payments to schools and workers.

There is considerable political pressure to do a deal, but there is growing pressure to not do a deal. CTA’s opposition is significant, and may give Democrats who might be inclined to back the deal some pause, especially those looking to move up to other elected offices in 2010.

Finally, there is the question of the electorate. Any water bond has to go before voters in 2010, likely at the November election. I have a very difficult time seeing voters approving a $10 billion water bond, especially considering that the state’s finances aren’t likely to be in much better shape.

More importantly, the water bond will come with significant environmental and policy costs that other similar bonds haven’t had. For example, I was a strong supporter of the Prop 1A bond last year that authorized $10 billion for high speed rail. But that essentially came with no costs and  no downsides. HSR creates thousands of jobs, generating new tax revenue and saving people money on their travel costs without negative environmental impacts. In fact, high speed trains powered by renewable energy help provide cleaner air and mitigate against global warming.

That doesn’t eliminate the financial questions, but it made HSR a far easier sell than a water bond that could produce major environmental damage. After all, the bonds to build a Peripheral Canal were rejected by voters at the 1982 election, for many of the same reasons as a 2010 bond might go down in flames as well.

Whether a deal gets done tonight or not, the torturous process, once again largely hidden from public view, that produced the deal is yet another sign of how broken our state government has become.

UPDATE by Robert: The Delta governing bill, SBX7 1, passes by a 29-5 vote. No roll call just yet. Sen. Steinberg’s press secretary, Alicia Trost, counters claims on Twitter that this is a deal done in the dark:

Water pkg has had 9 months of public debate, 10 full public hearings.  Cogdill bond bill has been around for 3 yrs.

Note the “X7” in the bill title. This is the seventh special session in the current legislature. Not exactly an argument for a part-time legislature, is it?!

…the Cogdill bond bill, SBX7 2, is currently under debate. Cogdill says we need this for when we have 50 million people in the state. Lois Wolk speaks against this, arguing we can’t add the debt load to the general fund. Ironic to see Republicans calling for profligate spending – IOKIYAR! Or, It’s OK If You Hired Sean Hannity To Whine On Your Behalf (IOKIYHSHTWOYB).

…Wolk says SEIU now opposes bond along with CTA, complains that Delta will have to pay into the mitigation fund – “like asking a crime victim to pay half the restitution. shame on you all.”

…Maldonado speaks in favor, says we’ve been talking about this for 30 years, we need bipartisan solutions, we have to do this even if some people think it’s unpopular, blah blah blah. Will Arnold pick him for Lt. Gov already and get him out of our hair? I can’t stand having this guy represent us. Why exactly should your Central Coast constituents, Abel, have to pay to subsidize Westlands or let SoCal sprawl?

…Maldonado isn’t talking about water, he’s running for Controller and gunning for Central Valley votes. He’s already decided that his Central Coast constituents can be tossed overboard for his own ambitions. And not for the first time.

…love watching GOP Sen. Benoit (Riverside County) almost trip over his contradictory wingnut talking points, justifying the now $9.9 billion water bond because of global warming “even though, uh, some of us, uh, might question that” (referring to global warming).

…Cogdill closes on the finances: “hope and pray” that in 5 years there is economic recovery and the money won’t be an issue. I see that hope and prayer are what pass for Republican financial planning these days.

…$9.9 billion water bond squeaks by 28-8 (needs 2/3rds). Some Dem noes include Mark Leno, Mark DeSaulnier, Lois Wolk, Pat Wiggins. Didn’t catch the full list.

…SBX7 7 up now, the water conservation bill, with some last-minute amendments. It would be great if this bill information was being updated in real-time for us out in the public. As far as I can tell, without having seen the recent amendments, this is a good bill.

…20% conservation by 2020 is totally doable, especially for urban users. No excuse for not doing so, no matter the specific problems with this water deal. Time for CA to stop wasting water. Too bad this is linked to a ridiculous water-wasting and Delta-killing deal.

…water conservation bill passes 25-13. On to the Assembly next. And I’m headed to sleep.

The Southern California water agencies are generally big cheerleaders for the water plan. They see it as a step towards getting water diversion around the delta, and around the fish pulverizing pumps.

But there are some tiny cracks in the unified front, namely over water conservation.

Ron Sullivan, board chairman of the Eastern Municipal Water District, one of Metropolitan’s member agencies, said there are worries about how the conservation rules would apply in the hot, arid Inland area.

Yet it seems unlikely the dispute would derail the legislation, which marks the most concerted attempt in decades to address the state’s contentious water politics. A likelier pitfall is opposition by some liberals and conservatives to the idea of additional borrowing by the state. (P-E 10/30/09)

In the grand scheme of things, this is a relatively minor issue. There are plenty of ways to fix this, but it does highlight one of the many rifts in the state over water, this one being the ol’ inland vs. coastal.  These water agencies are mostly serving urban users, so there aren’t the big differences for growing produce.

However, just between urban users there are some substantial water use differences between cool and hot climates. Humans will need a bit of extra water just to get by in the hotter temperatures, but where this really comes into play is landscaping.  It takes a lot more water to grow those lush green lawns when it’s 103 degrees.

Given that blue fescue doesn’t really grow wild in California, ecologically the best solution would be to regulate landscaping water separately. But upgrading our infrastructure to get to that point seems like more of a 30 year plan.

Or another solution would be to encourage the use of greywater to alleviate much of the use of fresh water for landscaping. Far too much water that could be used to water grass goes down the drain behind washing machines and the like.

Meanwhile, in terms of getting the water deal done, well, toss Sen. Steinberg another snack he’d rather not have on his plate.

I wake up this morning and see some sort of shock from the LA Times that the stars didn’t align themselves to create the perfect water package.  It turns out, that this stuff is hard. Who knew? Well, those who listened to the Calitics podcast, that’s who!

“It’s fear of losing water, fear of having to pay for stuff,” said Ellen Hanak of the Public Policy Institute. “It’s the same old interests,” she added, that have for decades impeded any kind of overhaul of California’s complicated and increasingly troubled water system.

The Democrats’ proposal is broad-ranging, but far from revolutionary. It takes what many water experts have characterized as modest steps in regard to groundwater, urban water conservation and state enforcement of water rights.

(LA Times 10/28/09)

The package is quite modest, a good start, but it doesn’t really solve our water issues. But to tell you the truth, nobody expected our water issues to be really resolved this year. There are too many moving parts, too many interest groups for this to all be resolved at once.  

Meanwhile the Republican “plan” is an even more modest change that, while provides for more storage, doesn’t address conservation in a suitably strict manner.

And the elephant in the room that everybody feels no compulsion to discuss? None of the plans call for any water conservation by agricultural users. Look, I’m for a healthy agriculture sector as much as the next guy, but we have to be realistic here. While urban users have dramatically cut usage, especially areas like Monterey and Sonoma Counties that have radically reduced their water usage over the past twenty years, agricultural users have barely scratched the surface.  There have been a few stories here and there of farmers using forms of hi-tech water monitoring and drip irrigation to reduce water usage, but these stories are notable because they are the exception. For the most part, farms are planting the same crops and watering the same ways.

The problem is that we have come to expect that water is an infinite resource whose price is at or near zero.  It is a model that works fine for online storage and email, but it’s just not a sustainable course in California’s water future. Until all users start treating water as the precious resource that it is, we can’t really get to a “solution.” And as much respect as I have for Steinberg and Bass, that just isn’t going to happen this year.

This year we’ll get some modest reforms and maybe some interesting storage products. But we’ll only get a real solution when water is properly valued.