Jerry Brown, lawmakers propose $1.1 billion drought relief bill amid increasing tension

With California trudging into its fourth dry year, Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders on Thursday announced $1.1 billion in emergency funding for flood protection and drought relief.

The vast majority of the money – all but about $30 million – was already included in Brown’s January budget proposal, and the measure is similar to a bill package lawmakers approved last year.

But tension over the drought runs higher today than it did then, when Brown first declared a drought emergency and urged Californians to reduce water consumption by 20 percent. This year, California recorded its driest-ever January, and state regulators on Tuesday ordered water agencies to limit the number of days each week customers can water their lawns.

Brown, who said last month that he was reluctant to impose mandatory water restrictions, suggested Thursday that he is open to more stringent measures.

“I’m not going to second-guess (state water regulators), but I would share your urgency that we step it up in the weeks and months ahead,” the Democratic governor said at a news conference at the Capitol.

Brown said, “If this drought continues, we’ll crank it down and it will get extremely challenging for people in California.”

The Legislature is expected to hold votes next week on the drought package, whose passage will allow spending immediately – months before the July 1 start of the next budget year.

The measure includes $272.7 million in water recycling and drinking water quality programs funded by Proposition 1, the water bond voters approved last year.

But the majority of the funding – $660 million – comes from water and flood-prevention bonds voters approved nearly a decade ago, in 2006.

Brown said, “The fact is, these projects take a long time.”

Outside the Capitol, patience appears to be waning.

According to a February Field Poll, 94 percent of California voters consider the drought situation in California “serious,” with nearly 70 percent calling it “extremely serious.” Public support for water rationing, though still just more than one-third of voters, has grown in the past year.

“I think, for the public, an increasingly large proportion is becoming alarmed,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the poll. “The governor is taking actions which I think make him at least appear to the public that he’s attending to the problem.”

Contributing to the public’s growing concern was a widely circulated editorial in the Los Angeles Times last week in which Jay Famiglietti, senior water scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said the state was at risk of running out of water altogether.

“Right now the state has only about one year of water supply left in its reservoirs, and our strategic backup supply, groundwater, is rapidly disappearing,” Famiglietti wrote. “California has no contingency plan for a persistent drought like this one (let alone a 20-plus-year mega-drought), except, apparently, staying in emergency mode and praying for rain.”

Speaking at the Capitol, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León said the one-year water supply estimate and the lack of water this year “is creating a renewed sense of urgency.”

He said the drought package “is just the first round” in the Legislature’s effort to address the drought and that “we have much work to do.”

The water bond voters approved last year includes $2.7 billion for storage projects such as dams and reservoirs. Brown said “these are big projects, and I’m certainly looking very carefully at how we can get more storage as quickly as possible.”

Republican lawmakers have been more insistent, seizing on the drought to criticize the lack of water infrastructure investments in the past, as well as the current pace of project approvals.

“I’m calling on the state water agencies, on state government to get projects out of the red tape, to get them moving because they’ve been hung up for decades,” said Assembly Republican leader Kristin Olsen of Riverbank.

Nevertheless, Olsen and Bob Huff, the Republican Senate leader, stood with Brown and Democratic lawmakers for the drought package’s announcement.

Last year’s version was approved by the Legislature with nearly unanimous support, as is expected for this drought package.

Though Republican lawmakers appeared to have no hand in crafting the measure – having only been made aware of it shortly before the announcement – Brown said the Republicans’ support was evidence “we’re doing well.”

He dismissed the timing of their involvement as a “narrative that’s not particularly interesting.”

Still, it made for awkward stagecraft.

After first planning to address reporters after the news conference Thursday, Republican leaders changed course at the last minute to appear with Brown and the Democratic legislative leaders.

Republicans attended their first meetings on the plan Wednesday, and the governor contacted Olsen on Thursday morning, Olsen spokeswoman Amanda Fulkerson said.

She declined to elaborate further on Republicans’ role in discussions.

“I’ll let the governor’s remarks stand for themselves,” Fulkerson said.


DROUGHT RELIEF

Here is how most of the proposed drought funds will be spent:

$660 million for flood management planning and infrastructure improvements, including levee work.

$272.7 million for drinking water quality, water recycling and desalination projects.

$24 million for emergency food aid for people, such as farm workers, out of work due to drought.


Via: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article15381434.html#storylink=cpy

Water Bond Initiative of 2014

Proposition 1, a measure formerly known as Proposition 43, the Water Bond, is slated to be on the November 4, 2014 ballot in California as a legislatively-referred bond act.  A "bond" means security of any kind, including money, given to ensure performance of an obligation arising under an enactment, a license, a permit, a contract or another similar obligation, and includes the terms under which the security may be realized (Source: http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96030_01). The measure, upon voter approval, would enact the Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012.

More specifically, Proposition 1 will:

• Authorizes $11.14 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, including surface and groundwater storage, ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration, and Bay-Delta Estuary sustainability.
• Appropriate money from the General Fund to pay off bonds.
• Require certain projects to provide matching funds from non-state sources in order to receive bond funds.

As many California residents may already know, our state has been undergoing a severe drought for the past several years. Reservoirs are low, groundwater basins and ecosystems are stressed, water quality is impaired, and wildfire risks are extremely high. Three consecutive dry years have pushed California’s water system to its limits and exposed vulnerabilities that must be addressed now if we are to avoid even more dire challenges in the coming years.

Signs of California’s severe water challenges include:

• Drinking water shortages and mandatory rationing in some areas
• Impaired water quality and contaminated groundwater basins
• Water cutbacks to family farms
• Lost farm jobs and reduced economic activity
• Extreme wildfire danger
• Increased food prices

In order to prevent a future where these water challenges continue, the passage of Proposition 1 will help California prepare for droughts, ensure reliable water for farms, clean contamination of water resources, protect against the collapse of our water system in an earthquake, repair the Delta, one of the most important ecosystems on the West Coast, create jobs now by fixing vital infrastructure, and protect taxpayers with strong fiscal safeguards.

Water is essential—we must act now to protect our economy and quality of life. Proposition 43 will be the solution we need to combat drought and create a more resilient water system for California.

For more information on the Water Bond ballot initiative, please visit: http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_43,_Water_Bond_(2014)

California water bond: Support for the latest $7 billion plan builds as deadline looms to OK it

SACRAMENTO -- Powerful voices in California's water wars pledged their support Tuesday for a $7 billion state water bond that lawmakers must pass before Wednesday's midnight deadline if they hope to see it on the November ballot.

The California Farm Bureau Federation and Los Angeles County's Metropolitan Water District had hoped for at least $3 billion in the bond for construction of dams, reservoirs and other storage projects.

But with time running out, they called on lawmakers from both parties to support a package crafted over the weekend by Gov. Jerry Brown and Democratic legislative leaders with $2.5 billion for water storage.

"With California experiencing an unprecedented drought on the heels of two dry years, the most important issue on the November ballot is the passage of a water bond," said Paul Wenger, president of the Farm Bureau, the state's largest farm association, whose members have been crippled by the lengthening drought.

Some business and water district leaders saw the bond proposal as a "workable framework" that respects the state's fiscal limitations while acknowledging the need for an array of water projects, including groundwater cleanup and river habitat restoration.

Wenger compared Brown's commitment to increasing the state's water storage capacity to that of his father, former Gov. Pat Brown, who built the enormous network of dams, reservoirs and canals in the 1960s that the state depends on today to move water from north to south.

"It is an absolute necessity that the greatest single component of this bond be dedicated to water storage, something that has been sorely absent in the last five water bonds that have been passed by voters since 1996," Wenger said. "We applaud Gov. Brown."

Still, if Brown and his Democratic allies hope to meet the deadline to replace the bloated, unpopular water bond originally scheduled for the November ballot, they must work feverishly over the next 24 hours to address lingering concerns that threaten to scuttle a deal, Capitol observers say.

Senate Republicans and Central Valley Democrats want more money dedicated to water storage projects, while legislators who represent towns near the San Joaquin River Delta are seeking stronger safeguards to block bond money from being spent on Brown's controversial plan to build twin tunnels beneath the Delta to siphon water south.

Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-Fresno, is actively negotiating with Brown for more than $2.5 billion for water storage. Even a little more will be essential to "landing this plane," he said.

"This is a good first step, but we'll need to do a little better than that to get Central Valley support for this bond," Perea said. "It's a concern I have that others from the region, both Democrats and Republicans, share."

Splitting from the Farm Bureau's position, some agricultural groups, including ones that represent citrus, rice and table grape growers, are also pressing for more water storage funding.

"Where we differ from some of our colleagues in agriculture," said Joel Nelson, president of California Citrus Mutual, "is that they're willing to take a chance.

"We want more guarantees that we're going to create more water and make it available to those tho need it."

via: http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_26325189/california-water-bond-support-latest-7-billion-plan

Dianne Feinstein recasts California water bill

In a move designed to lure Republican support, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein has introduced a revised California water bill that could move lawmakers closer to meaningful negotiation.

The new bill drops spending proposals that had been included in the original California water bill introduced by Feinstein and Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer on Feb. 11. The $300 million in spending, in turn, had stuck in the craw of some Senate Republicans.

"It was a problem on the Republican side," Feinstein acknowledged at a Senate subcommittee hearing Wednesday.

By cutting the bill's costs, and tweaking other elements, Feinstein hopes the bill reintroduced this week can secure the 60 Senate votes needed to avoid going through the standard committee review.

Speedier Senate consideration under what's called Rule 14, in turn, is designed to pass something that can form the basis of a compromise with a far different California water bill passed in early February by the Republican-controlled House.

The redrawn Senate bill mandates that federal agencies operate California water projects with "maximum flexibility" to boost irrigation deliveries, among other provisions. It also takes a number of technical steps, some going beyond California, but unlike the House bill it does not specifically authorize big new water projects and it leaves intact the current San Joaquin River restoration program.

PHOTO: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., left, talks with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2013.Associated Press/ Evan Vucci.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/04/feinstein-recasts-california-water-bill.html#storylink=cpy

California drought to drive up food prices in the long term

With 2013 the driest year on record and 2014 possibly worse, the devastation of California’s drought is trickling down to crops, fields, farmers markets, grocery stores — and the kitchen table.

While it’s too early to tell precisely how much the drought will push up household grocery bills, economists say consumers can expect to pay more for food later this year because fewer acres of land are being planted and crop yields are shrinking.

Large grocery chains have distribution networks and can import produce from around the world to keep customers in everything from cantaloupe to cauliflower, but experts say California’s smaller yields will inevitably lead to higher consumer prices here and elsewhere. Some consumers already are plotting ways to keep their food budgets under control if there is a big spike in prices.

“The first thing I would cut back on is eating meat,” retired schoolteacher Sharon Jay, 66, said as she shopped for pears and asparagus at a Safeway in Oakland’s lower Rockridge neighborhood. “And I wouldn’t go out to eat very often. If food costs go up, restaurant meals will cost more, too.”

Kathy Jackson, CEO of the Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, which distributes 52 million pounds of food each year to low-income residents from Daly City to Gilroy, says the drought could prove devastating to the people her organization serves. That’s because 27 million pounds of the food her organization hands out annually is fruits and vegetables donated by California farms and growers.

Many of the families Second Harvest serves live in “food deserts” with no major retailers nearby, just corner stores. “Fresh produce is the most difficult food for our clients to both find and afford,” she said.

Jim Cochran of Swanton Berry Farm in Davenport, Calif., offers a hint of what may come. He stopped watering his artichokes a month ago and expects the cost of a pint of organic strawberries, which usually sell for $3.50 at Bay Area farmers markets, to go up roughly 20 percent to at least $4.20 a pint.

“We are going to have to sell our products for higher prices because we are not going to have the yield,” Cochran said. “We’re not trying to make more money; we’re trying to lose less.”

California is the nation’s largest producer of many fruits, vegetables and nuts. But with the traditional rainy season more than half over, farmers are making hard decisions about what crops to plant and how many acres to leave fallow. At least 500,000 prime acres, representing an area the size of Los Angeles and San Diego combined, are expected to go unplanted this spring because of insufficient water.

“We’re really concerned about the extent to which acreage is being taken out of action,” said Richard Volpe, an economist in the Foods Markets Branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “The real economic impact is long term and will be felt down the road, when there will be a structural shift in prices.”

Dave Heylen, spokesman for the California Grocers Association — which represents 80 percent of the grocery stores in California, including large chains like Safeway and Trader Joe’s — said the reduced planting may result in a limited supply of particular produce at certain times of the year. But he declined to speculate on the exact impact the drought will have on food prices, noting that large retailers have global distribution systems that give them access to foods from other parts of the country and throughout the world.

“When I was growing up, when peach season was over it was over; there were no more peaches,” Heylen said. “Now you can get peaches from South America.”

While California’s drought may be good for growers elsewhere, the state’s farmers are feeling increasing stress. Last week, the federal government announced that it will not allocate any water to the Central Valley via the federally controlled Central Valley Project, California’s largest water delivery system. The Westlands Water District provides water to nearly 600 farms in western Fresno and Kings counties and now has to contend with an allocation of zero. Roughly 200,000 acres of the 500,000 acres of land expected to be taken out of production this year fall within Westland’s boundaries.

“Typically there would be huge amounts of lettuces in the ground right now, and you are going to see lost production of lettuce,” said Gayle Holman of the Westlands Water District. “As we move further into the prime harvest season, consumers are not going to see as many California-grown honeydew, cantaloupes and watermelon at their Fourth of July celebrations. We imagine higher prices, higher demand and less availability. We need buckets of daily rainfall to even get us to the point of catching up to the worst-case scenario.”

Besides being the nation’s leading wine and dairy state, California produces 80 percent of the world’s almonds and is a major producer of strawberries, walnuts, celery, leaf lettuce, spinach and cattle. The $45 billion agriculture sector includes 2.6 million acres of permanent crops like almonds and grapes, which allow farmers less flexibility in tough times.

“There will be thousands of acres of fruit and nut trees that will die this year because of lack of water,” said David Sunding, a professor in the College of Natural Resources at UC Berkeley. “The reduction in yield will drive up prices.”

But Mike Wade, executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition, said the precise impact on consumers is difficult to gauge because other states and countries might increase production of the crops that California farmers cut back on.

“We’re not expecting to see much in terms of spring planting of peppers and melons,” said Wade. “But planting may be ramped up somewhere else. It could be grown in Arizona or Mexico.”

Full Belly Farm, a 350-acre organic farm in Yolo County’s Capay Valley, is cutting back on water-intensive crops like corn and melons, which means that there will be less variety at Bay Area farmers markets. And the lack of rain has forced growers to spend money fighting another intrusion: wildlife. Deer and wild pigs are increasingly coming onto the farm in search of food, and Full Belly expects to spend $20,000 this year just on fencing.

PHOTO: President Barack Obama, walks and chats with Joe De Bosque, second from right, and his wife Maria Gloria De Bosque, far right, while California governor Jerry Brown walks at the far left, addressing drought issues on the couple's farmland south of Los Banos, Calif. on Friday. (The Fresno Bee, Eric Paul Zamora, AP Photo) 

via: http://www.sbsun.com/business/20140312/california-drought-to-drive-up-food-prices-in-the-long-term