Posted on 09/27/2001 10:48:08 PM PDT by farmfriend
Water Big Question in California's Future; Multilevel Government Action Pending
California must develop new water supplies to meet the demands of a growing population of not only humans but also endangered species. More than a million acre-feet of water has been diverted to environmental purposes in the last few years. Combine that with the fact that California must reduce, by almost another million acre-feet, its reliance on the Colorado River, and the need to develop more water supplies becomes critical.
At the moment, there is little state legislative activity to enhance water supply. At the federal level, a regulation affecting how California determines water quality is being re-examined, while legislation is pending to supply the federal share of funding for the ongoing state-federal program to develop a long-term solution to California's water woes.
State Legislation
The one water-related bill moving in the Legislature offers no solution to the fundamental water issue facing California - the need to increase water supplies for a growing population.
SB 221 (Kuehl) would make local governments and planning agencies responsible for determining that there is enough water available to support any planned development. Further, it would not allow a water agency to use groundwater resources when determining what is a "sufficient water supply" if the use of groundwater will result in an overdraft or a water shortage.
SB 221 does not help develop new water supplies. Critics of the legislation claim that it will create even further housing shortages, which in turn is detrimental to developing businesses which would lead to less employment opportunities.
Federal Regulation
Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed delaying the implementation of a regulation to the Clean Water Act (CWA) that would require states to identify water that is not meeting state water quality standards.
Proponents say the delay will provide a welcome opportunity for business and other interested parties to seek further review of the science behind the rule, which had been a concern for many groups.
The regulation, originally passed in July 2000, establishes pollutant budgets, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), to restore the quality of those waters. TMDL programs require the regulator to calculate the total amount of a particular pollutant that an individual water body can receive on a daily basis without violating applicable water quality standards.
The July 2000 rule also lays out specific time frames under which EPA will assure that lists of waters not meeting water quality standards and TMDLs are completed as scheduled, and necessary permits are issued to implement TMDLs.
The rule generated considerable controversy and Congress responded by prohibiting the EPA from implementing the final rule through a spending prohibition attached to the 2000 and 2001 fiscal years. The spending prohibition was scheduled to expire on September 30, 2001, with the rule going into effect 30 days later on October 30, 2001, if no further action was taken by either Congress or the EPA.
The EPA believes it is important at this time to reconsider some of the choices made in the July 2000 rule based on concerns expressed by many interested organizations and in light of a report from the National Research Council (NRC) recommending changes to the TMDL program.
In addition, the EPA believes its decision to reconsider the rule could result in a revision that would resolve some of the issues raised and speed the process of putting in place a more workable program that builds a foundation of trust among stakeholders in the basic process for restoring impaired waters.
In response to the NRC report, the EPA proposes revising the date on which states are required to submit the next list of impaired waters from April 1, 2002 to October 1, 2002. This delay would provide time for the EPA to issue guidance that would incorporate some of the NRC's recommendations on the best method for developing the list and the content of the list.
Based on a draft cost study released by the EPA, the estimated cost to implement the TMDL program could range between $900 million and $4.3 billion annually. The study complements a report issued by the National Academy of Sciences that found many states lacked sufficient data to develop TMDLs for all their impaired waters.
The EPA study estimates additional data gathering to support a TMDL program will cost the states $17 million per year, and that once good data has been collected, the states will spend $69 million annually over the next 15 years to develop plans to clean up some 20,000 impaired waters currently on state lists.
Grange policy is supportive of the idea that sound scientific data is an absolute necessity before listing a water body as impaired. In addition, sometimes the existing pollutant is from past practices from now-closed businesses (for example, abandoned mines, World War II ammunition dumps, closed chemical or manufacturing facilities, etc.). A business should not be unfairly punished by having to further reduce its pollutant load to compensate for past practices of another party. Increased federal funding for so-called "orphan shares" may be the preferred option.
Federal Legislation
Two federal bills have been introduced to address the water shortage issue in California and provide the federal share of funding for Calfed, the state-federal effort to resolve water issues in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a key link in providing water to the state's major job centers.
Federal funding for Calfed this budget cycle is imperative because it was not federally funded last year. Both bills, S. 976 (Feinstein) and H.R. 1985 (Calvert), include $3 billion for Calfed.
S. 976, the California Ecosystem, Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement Act of 2001, is a comprehensive bill that balances the need to protect the environment with the need to provide additional water for a growing population. It protects and restores endangered habitats and ecosystems as well as creating off-stream storage so that more water from wet years can be stored and used during dry years.p> The bill authorizes about $3 billion in funding for a variety of programs and projects, ranging from new fish screens to levee improvements.
Perhaps the two most contentious provisions are the fast tracking feasibility studies for enlarging Shasta Dam and the Los Vaqueros Reservoir and the $50 million over four years to purchase water for the Environmental Water Account.
H.R. 1985 (Calvert), the Western Water Enhancement Security Act, takes a slightly different approach. The first two of its components are available to all western states: re-authorizing the Small Reclamation Project Act at $1.3 billion in funding and authorizing $328 million annually for a competitive grant program of water projects that improve water quality, supply or reliability.
Most important to the business community are the provisions in H.R. 1985 authorizing enlarging the Shasta Dam and the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and ensuring that farmers south of the Delta get at least 70 percent of their contracted water allotments from the Central Valley Project.
Both bills are under attack by the environmental community, which alleges that the bills provide substantial new water development without furthering Calfed's ecosystem restoration goals.
Grangers are asked to contact members of the California congressional delegation to express support for S. 976 and H.R. 1985. These proposals further Calfed's long-term solution to the water crisis. Increased water supply is an integral part of the overall Calfed solution.
Legislating more funding & projects for water in CA is like trying to deliver humanitarian food & aid to Somalia or Ethiopia: the intentions are noble, but dumping money & resources into the region ignores the fact that it's a desert, naturally incapable of supporting a dense population.
I highly recommend the PBS series Cadillac Desert which shows the history of the region, how CA has been transformed from mostly inhospitable desert to world breadbasket, how delicately balanced the water system is structured, how much is subsidized, and how it's rapidly growing toward a catastrophic breakdown.
California the populous cityscape and productive farmland as we know it, is really a fluke of the last 50 years. Legislative fiat cannot indefinitely prolong flukes.
If the envirals and Club Sierra had their way, we would not any water for food, to drink, to bath in and for recreation unless you are a big donor to Club Sierra and run a rafting or canoe business! Of course no water for electricity!
They will have some type of ESA critter from the Barbara Boxer short nosed Suckers, to Coho inspite of millions of them, to the red legged frog to control the water!
If you control water in California, Oregon and Washington, you control all who live in these 3 states. Of course any farmer/rancher or someone who lives in the country is a vile person and should be disposed of in the view of the Green Nazis!
One of the positive aspects of 9/11 is that Club Sierra and many envirals have stopped their 24/7/365 attacks on President Bush to raise money. This plus the slow down in our economies on the left coast before and after 9/11 are apparently really hurting these enviral phoney charities! Lets hope that they really get hurt!
You always hear the how expensive it is crap when you bring this up, but the fact is it's done everyday in the Middle East.
If California wanted to they could do it, but they are used to the rest of the country sacrificing for them.
to:grange_list
Looks like most of the activity described here is in Northern California.
We have some activity down here in Southern California.
I'll post the article and flag you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.