The more I learn about the water problems in California, the
more convinced I am that there are many who would like to keep the
public in just that state, feeling like we don’t know enough and so
we just go along.
The more I learn about the water problems in California, the more convinced I am that there are many who would like to keep the public in just that state, feeling like we don’t know enough and so we just go along.
It is time that this attitude changes, because what you hear is rarely much more than a sprinkling of truth on a plate full of intellectual mush. Let me give you three examples.
n Man vs. Fish: Television coverage of California’s water crisis, when it does touch on agriculture, almost always poses this as the poor hard working farmers against the environmental lobby who would protect a little fish. Such a gross simplification of the issues is intended to lead you to make a quick, easy decision to support the farmers.
What they never mention is that there are only 600 farms in the area most affected by the drought and that these farms have the most junior of water rights. Still, the Westlands Water District is the largest district in the country with more than 600,000 acres cultivated in approximately 1,000 square miles. That is close to the size of Rhode Island.
The Westlands spokespersons are careful not to talk about the role of the delta smelt near the bottom of the aquatic food chain. They are food fish for larger species including salmon.
When you lose the major food for larger species, it is the fishing industries, both sport and commercial, who will have to deal with the result and neither of these are in good shape now.
n The Call for Unity: Writing in the Contra Costa Times, Jim Wunderman and Carl Guardino, the leaders of the Bay Area Council and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, made the point that, “When a region doesn’t speak with a clear voice on an issue as important as water, the region risks having no voice at all.” Unfortunately, Guardino’s voice is not one that represents me or my citizen interests.
Their concern is really water rights and whether they will be impacted to manage the Delta ecosystem.
The current sum of all water rights is already greater than the water available, even in a good rainfall year. They talk of climate change and population growth, but make the question of adjusting water rights into a complicated legal process that only those with deep pockets can afford to follow.
n Public input from the powerful: Finally, I could sense that the Legislature was about to deliver a sham when Senate President ProTem Darrell Steinberg used so much of his committee time to explain (for the press?) just how much public input they had gotten, how many hearings had been held, how much testimony had been given.
He failed to mention that the process shut out those most affected, the residents of the Delta, those whose livelihood is tied to a healthy fishing ecology, the tribal organization whose treaty rights to fish, to water or to land have all been taken in the name of progress. All of these groups had to fight to have any chance to offer testimony and then they were ignored. That was not the case for the Westlands Water District or other major users.
Perhaps the best thing the legislature did was to separate legislation regarding governance from the controversial question of building new dams and water conveyances. It gives hope that some of it may turn out to be rational.
The proposed bond is radically different from other water bonds in the past. Previous measures provided for the costs of environmental mitigation to be carried by the beneficiaries. In other words, those who get the water, pay for it. In this proposed legislation, those costs would be paid for out of the bond funds. This passes the cost from the beneficiaries to the taxpayer.
As I write this, the legislation is supposed to go to the floor Monday. That means that by the time you read this, the bill may have passed. I have taken stands against this bill and the companion bond measure. I was concerned about the fact that they had created an organizational structure, but made no provision for funding it.
I hope that there is still time to force amendments to these bills that will make them workable.
I fear that we will have to live with another faux solution for another decade or so before someone admits they made a mistake.
Wes Rolley is a Morgan Hill artist and concerned citizen. He is Co-Chairman of the EcoAction Committee, Green Party.
