Tumbleweeds grow in a dry canal at the outskirts of Kettleman City.
HANFORD – Agricultural
leaders with a big stake in the water bond debate were waiting for Gov.
Jerry Brown to weigh in on a proposal set to go on the November ballot.
Now that Brown's come forward with a pared-down $6 billion version, those same growers are working hard against it.
The governor's decision to slash the $11.1 billion deal from 2009 – which hasn’t yet been approved by voters – might satisfy hardline budget conservatives, but it appears to be dead-on-arrival with southern San Joaquin Valley agriculture supporters who argue it’s not enough to address the state’s water shortage problems.
They say they won’t budge on the demand for a $3-billion continuous set-aside for new reservoirs and water-banking projects. They also object to Brown’s decision to terminate $2.25 billion that would have supported the controversial twin-tunnels project to divert Northern California water around the sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to water users in Central and Southern California.
Mario Santoyo, executive director of the Latino Water Coalition, said he had no idea why Brown, a strong defender of the twin tunnels, sliced out the funding. Brown has so far been mum on the decision. According to Santoyo, getting rid of the delta component jeopardizes Southern-Californian support for the delicately-negotiated 2009 package.
Los Angeles’ behemoth Metropolitan Water District, gets deliveries from the Delta.
Santoyo praised Brown’s involvement in the debate but said the governor’s idea won’t get the Republican support it needs.
“The 2009 bond was designed to satisfy the whole state,” Santoyo said. “[Brown’s] somewhat ignoring that.”
Polls have shown that voters are more likely to support a bond costing less than $10 billion. Santoyo said he’s focusing on something in the $8 billion to $9 billion range.
“I don’t see $6 billion as the ending game,” he said. “I see it as the beginning game.”
Brown’s slimmed-down version is partly a reaction to pork spending stuffed into the 2009 version – which goes on the ballot in November unless the Legislature changes the wording.
But Santoyo and other leaders argue that a summer of exceptional drought is making it more likely that voters will support it, even at the $11-billion mark.
“People’s opinions … may change a fair amount,” said Danny Merkley, director of water resources at the California Farm Bureau Federation.
Merkley doesn’t think $6 billion is enough to address environmental preservation demands, the need to capture more rain runoff and the state’s seemingly inexorable population growth.
“All I can say is, we’re keeping our nose to the grindstone,” he said.
Merkley thinks the window of opportunity for lawmakers to make changes to the bond closes next week. The Legislature’s summer recess starts Thursday and lasts until August.
He noted that the bond is competing for attention with intense debate over two separate bills that would comprehensively regulate groundwater. Merkley tied the two issues together, saying that good management of groundwater must be tied to more storage capacity to better ensure that depleted aquifers get recharged in wet years.
“It needs to be tied directly to the passage of a water bond,” Merkley said.
Ag industry representatives are expected to push harder for the bond than they did in 2009 because the 2014 drought is more severe.
Now that Brown's come forward with a pared-down $6 billion version, those same growers are working hard against it.
The governor's decision to slash the $11.1 billion deal from 2009 – which hasn’t yet been approved by voters – might satisfy hardline budget conservatives, but it appears to be dead-on-arrival with southern San Joaquin Valley agriculture supporters who argue it’s not enough to address the state’s water shortage problems.
They say they won’t budge on the demand for a $3-billion continuous set-aside for new reservoirs and water-banking projects. They also object to Brown’s decision to terminate $2.25 billion that would have supported the controversial twin-tunnels project to divert Northern California water around the sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to water users in Central and Southern California.
Mario Santoyo, executive director of the Latino Water Coalition, said he had no idea why Brown, a strong defender of the twin tunnels, sliced out the funding. Brown has so far been mum on the decision. According to Santoyo, getting rid of the delta component jeopardizes Southern-Californian support for the delicately-negotiated 2009 package.
Los Angeles’ behemoth Metropolitan Water District, gets deliveries from the Delta.
Santoyo praised Brown’s involvement in the debate but said the governor’s idea won’t get the Republican support it needs.
“The 2009 bond was designed to satisfy the whole state,” Santoyo said. “[Brown’s] somewhat ignoring that.”
Polls have shown that voters are more likely to support a bond costing less than $10 billion. Santoyo said he’s focusing on something in the $8 billion to $9 billion range.
“I don’t see $6 billion as the ending game,” he said. “I see it as the beginning game.”
Brown’s slimmed-down version is partly a reaction to pork spending stuffed into the 2009 version – which goes on the ballot in November unless the Legislature changes the wording.
But Santoyo and other leaders argue that a summer of exceptional drought is making it more likely that voters will support it, even at the $11-billion mark.
“People’s opinions … may change a fair amount,” said Danny Merkley, director of water resources at the California Farm Bureau Federation.
Merkley doesn’t think $6 billion is enough to address environmental preservation demands, the need to capture more rain runoff and the state’s seemingly inexorable population growth.
“All I can say is, we’re keeping our nose to the grindstone,” he said.
Merkley thinks the window of opportunity for lawmakers to make changes to the bond closes next week. The Legislature’s summer recess starts Thursday and lasts until August.
He noted that the bond is competing for attention with intense debate over two separate bills that would comprehensively regulate groundwater. Merkley tied the two issues together, saying that good management of groundwater must be tied to more storage capacity to better ensure that depleted aquifers get recharged in wet years.
“It needs to be tied directly to the passage of a water bond,” Merkley said.
Ag industry representatives are expected to push harder for the bond than they did in 2009 because the 2014 drought is more severe.
No comments:
Post a Comment