Feinstein has it right, this is a good water deal
In California, water has a way of washing away political labels and even old friendships. Nothing demonstrates that better than the rift between California’s two illustrious senators – Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.
At the end of her 24-year tenure, Boxer was proud of the Water Resources and Development Act she authored. The first significant water-related legislation from Congress in a generation, it is dedicated to rebuilding America’s infrastructure while recognizing the necessity to protect the enivronment. It is a capstone achievement. But now Boxer is working hard for its defeat.
That’s because fellow-Democrat Feinstein added a 90-page “rider” to the bill. It reflects a compromise between Feinstein and House Majority leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield that will have profound positive impacts on our valley while preventing an assault on environmental movement priorities.
If politics is about compromise, we believe this is a good one. Unfortunately, Boxer doesn’t.
Saying the rider weakens protections for endangered species, Boxer calls it a “poison pill” and would rather kill her own bill than see the rider pass. Several California Democrats – including Jerry McNerney, whose district touches the Stanislaus River – have joined her, signing a letter urging President Obama to veto the legislation.
Boxer, McNerney and the rest are wrong. But they aren’t the only ones sending letters. Thursday, a bipartisan collection of state legislators urged the president to sign the bill – including Republicans Anthony Cannella, Tom Berryhill, Heath Flora and Andy Vidak, and Democrats Adam Gray, Cathleen Galgiani and Joaquin Arambula.
The rider contains provisions we appreciate, such as funding for a pilot project to remove non-native predators (i.e., bass) from the Stanislaus River – which allow more juvenile salmon to survive. It would also order the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to store more water in New Melones Reservoir. Built to hold 2.4 million acre feet, it has never held more than 2.1 maf; storing more water creates a larger cold pool that can be used to help migrating species.
More than anything, we appreciate that human needs have been given weight in this rider. It’s an approach that is far too often lacking in our fish vs. farmers environmental struggles. Hopefully, the state of California will follow Feinstein’s lead as it considers how much water it will require on the Tuolumne, Merced and Stanislaus rivers.
Yes, the legislation will result in increased exports from the Delta. But we remain unconvinced exports alone are responsible for the decline of Delta fisheries or that increased flow is the only solution.
The House approved the legislation, S. 612, 360-61, an impressive accomplishment in an era of partisan polarization. Mostly, that’s because Boxer’s 728-page bill has funding for projects coast to coast. Residents of Flint, Mich., will get $170 million to clean their contaminated water. There is money to help Lake Tahoe, and to continue restoration of the so-called Los Angeles River. And there’s $558 million for more California water storage – which is utterly crucial. Desalination and urban conservation projects will also be funded.
California Republicans joined McCarthy in supporting it; among the Democrats in support are John Garamendi of Walnut Grove and Jim Costa of Fresno.
Perhaps the best argument for passing it now is that any such compromise will be unlikely under the incoming Trump administration.
California’s two illustrious senators have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in so many battles, it’s sad they are now at odds. Only water could cause such a rift.
This story was originally published December 9, 2016 at 1:58 PM with the headline "Feinstein has it right, this is a good water deal."