Our View: Feinstein-Boxer water bill offers some hope
It’s a little frightening when politicians start trying to divvy up anything, especially water. It’s not that we don’t trust their motives, but sometimes we don’t trust their friends’ motives – especially when we don’t know who their friends are.
That was our main concern last year when Sen. Dianne Feinstein tried to negotiate a drought-relief bill in secret. That hasn’t happened this year. Instead, Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer have come up with a plan that could provide real benefits for California – assuming their plan survives negotiations with the House of Representatives, where Reps. Devin Nunes of Tulare and David Valadao of Hanford have introduced their own drought-relief plan.
Of the two, we much prefer the Senate’s plan – at least as a starting point.
First, the Feinstein-Boxer bill could provide up to $1.3 billion for California’s water system. Added to the $7.5 billion water bond passed last year, and the matching money the bond requires from local jurisdictions, and we’re beginning to talk about real numbers.
Second, it will encourage desalination plants like the one soon to open near San Diego that will produce up to 50 million gallons (150 acre-feet) per day. That’s more than a drop in the bucket. If replicated elsewhere, it could relieve some of the pressure on Sierra reservoirs. The bill recognizes there are 26 desal projects and 105 recycling projects being considered and provides reasons to proceed.
Third, it encourages the state to fast-track consideration of new reservoirs, including Sites Reservoir northwest of Sacramento and Temperance Flat, northeast of Fresno. It’s about time; we’ve been waiting. The legislation would also ask for a closer look at expanding Los Vaqueros in Contra Costa County and perhaps raising Shasta Dam’s height to accommodate more storage.
Fourth, it would alter the way water transfers are conducted at least for the next two years (or until the drought ends). Currently, transfers leave up to half the water involved in the Delta. Under the Senate’s rules, a district would get all the water it buys.
Fifth, it would require federal agencies to make certain the endangered Delta smelt is actually in harm’s way before shutting off the pumps to protect it. This makes sense, too. We know all too well that well-meaning bureaucrats can become wedded to rules, and if the rules say no pumping during certain times because the smelt might be nearby, then no pumping occurs. The Feinstein-Boxer bill would require continuous monitoring, and if no protected species are threatened, pumping could continue. Similarly, migrating salmon would only be “protected” when actually present.
There are a host of other provisions in this bill, and more in the House version. The Senate side would provide more money for fisheries and habitat; the House bill would move more water to south Valley farmers. There must be a balance, and we believe the Senate version finds it. Still, we worry that as more water is sucked from the Delta, more will be required from our reservoirs to replace it – or the Delta will suffer from saltwater incursion.
One thing unlikely to happen is the transfer of New Melones Reservoir to Oakdale and South San Joaquin irrigation districts, as proposed in the House version. But what might happen is the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation could be ordered to operate the reservoir to allow more storage. As is, the reservoir never is allowed to approach its full capacity – which seems like a waste of assets. This bill is far removed from the one Feinstein negotiated in secret last year. It’s a bill we can live with – assuming the provisions and protections survive negotiations. As he looks out for our interests, we hope Rep. Jeff Denham can help make that happen.
This story was originally published August 12, 2015 at 11:48 AM with the headline "Our View: Feinstein-Boxer water bill offers some hope."