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

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

Demonstrators demand statewide fracking ban

About 60 students and community members rallied on Upper Sproul Plaza on Tuesday afternoon in opposition to fracking in California as part of a statewide movement demanding that Gov. Jerry Brown ban fracking.

The demonstrators — who chanted, “Ban fracking now,” and “If you frack, we’ll be back,” among other phrases — carried handmade signs and hosted four speakers during the hour-long rally.

The rally’s coordinators, Students Against Fracking at UC Berkeley and the ASUC Office of Sustainability, are demanding Brown issue an executive order to ban fracking by Nov. 1. Tuesday’s rally follows a larger rally at the state Capitol on Saturday, where thousands of people gathered from around the state to call for a ban on fracking, including some students from UC Berkeley.

Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, is the process of extracting natural gas and oil by injecting water, sand and chemicals underground at high pressures to fracture the rock surrounding an oil or gas well.

“The industry is toxic,” said Kristy Drutman, a UC Berkeley freshman and co-coordinator for Students Against Fracking. “We have the resources. We need people to invest in renewable energy and make it accessible.”

Many rally attendees and organizers cited concerns that fracking uses too much water, especially considering California’s ongoing drought. According to Alastair Iles, a UC Berkeley assistant professor of environmental science, policy and management who gave a speech at the rally, every time fracking happens, up to 10 million gallons of water could be pumped down.

Mac Farrell, global warming organizer for the advocacy organization Environment California, said that although it’s difficult to tell the long-term consequences of fracking, every drop of water used is wasted.

Farrell cited New York’s years-long moratorium on fracking and other similar bans as evidence that the campaign against the technique has escalated.

“We need to move from NIMBY — not in my backyard — to NOPE — not on planet earth,” said David Solnit, Berkeley resident and a volunteer organizer with the Sunflower Alliance, a local environmental justice group.

Some have said, however, that fracking has benefits for the economy. President Barack Obama, in his 2014 State of the Union address, called natural gas a “bridge fuel” that has the ability to power the economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change.

The president has encouraged further research on fracking, and some California legislators are thinking along the same lines, introducing legislation last month that would require additional research into fracking.

Several passers-by stopped to listen to the message presented by the demonstrators and speakers during the afternoon rally.

“Fracking is a buzzword,” said Kayla Friedrichsen, a UC Berkeley senior. “Everyone is going to say fracking is bad. A more well-rounded description of the issues and political facets is necessary.”

Contact Angel Jennings at ajennings@dailycal.org and follow her on Twitter @angeljenningss.

California drought relief package heads to Gov. Jerry Brown

In a concerted effort to aid California's drought-stricken communities, the Legislature on Thursday sped a $687 million relief package to Gov. Jerry Brown.

One week after Brown and legislative leaders unveiled the emergency legislation, both houses of the Legislature approved the bill with little resistance. The Assembly passed the bill 65-0, and the Senate sent it to Brown's desk with only three dissenting votes.

Relying largely on unspent bond money, the measure sets aside more than $500 million to quench the thirst of afflicted communities with infrastructure projects like capturing storm water and distributing recycled water.

It also sets aside millions for drinking water in communities at risk of running out and allocates food and housing aid for Californians, like those in the agricultural industry, who have seen their livelihoods damaged by diminished water supplies.

In the Assembly, Republicans used the opportunity to call for more storage capacity, an issue being debated via a set of water bond proposals. But they agreed with their Democratic colleagues that the emergency water package marked a needed intermediate step.

"This is part of the puzzle, part of the solution for the entire state," said Assemblyman Rudy Salas, D-Bakersfield.

Things went a little less smoothly in the Senate, where the water debate occurred against the backdrop of Republicans seeking to expel a state senator who has been convicted on eight felony charges stemming from lying about his residence. Senate Democrats rebuffed that attempt, preserving a status quo that has seen Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood, accept a paid leave of absence.

The drought bills passed the Senate handily in the end, though during floor debate Republicans accused Democrats of maneuvering the procedure to avoid a two-thirds vote. 

Democrats do not have a supermajority this week because Wright and Sen. Ron Calderon, indicted last week by a federal grand jury, are out dealing with legal problems.

Republicans argued that the bills should be urgency measures -- which require two-thirds approval -- instead of budget trailer bills that take a simple majority to pass. They also argued that taking up budget trailer bills several months after the budget was approved violates a voter-approved initiative that the Legislature cannot get paid if it doesn't complete the budget by June 15.

"This bill is just another example of how our budget process has been twisted over the years," said Sen.Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, one of three opposing votes.

Laurel Rosenhall of The Bee Capitol Bureau contributed to this report.
via: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/02/california-drought-relief-package-heads-to-gov-jerry-brown.html

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/02/california-drought-relief-package-heads-to-gov-jerry-brown.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/02/california-drought-relief-package-heads-to-gov-jerry-brown.html#storylink=cpy

California chamber appeals ruling on cap-and-trade fees

The California Chamber of Commerce is appealing a local judge's ruling that California's "cap-and-trade" fees on business to curb greenhouse gas emissions are legal.

The business organization maintains that when the Air Resources Board adopted the fee program, which is expected to raise billions of dollars, it violated a constitutional provision, passed in 1978 as part ofProposition 13, that requires two-thirds legislative vote on new taxes.

It maintains that fee revenue in excess of that needed to administer the state's greenhouse gas reduction program are illegal taxes and is taking that contention to the 3rd District Court of Appeal in response to Sacramento County Judge Timothy Frawley's ruling in November. He declared that Assembly Bill 32, California's anti-greenhouse gas law, was sufficient authority for the fees.

"We stand by our belief that the Legislature in passing AB 32 did not authorize the ARB to raise revenue for the state beyond those costs necessary to administer the program," said Allan Zaremberg, the chamber's president, said in a statement. "We also believe the ARB's auction violates Proposition 13, because it imposes a new tax that did not receive two-thirds approval by the Legislature."

Gov. Jerry Brown is counting on the fees for variety of spending, including drought relief and a proposed bullet train system linking the northern and southern halves of the state.

"We believe that the judge inappropriately created a new category of regulatory fees," said Zaremberg, "in order to avoid ruling that the revenues came from an illegal tax -- not approved by two-thirds of the Legislature. The judge himself called this a close question.'"

Categories: Gov. Jerry Brown, Water

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/02/california-chamber-appeals-ruling-on-cap-and-trade-fees.html#storylink=cpy

California May Start Huge Water Project Before Knowing If It'll Work

One thing stood out in the pile of documents released Thursday detailing state plans to replumb California's water hub: Construction could start on the massive project before water managers know whether it will work as intended.

The still-evolving proposal, backed by Gov. Jerry Brown's administration and the federal government, is designed to partially restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta environment and halt reductions in delta water exports.

But uncertainty over the volume of future water deliveries is likely to linger for years as government scientists try to nail down how much water imperiled salmon and smelt need in the delta.

"This plan does not include any guarantees for water supply deliveries," said Mark Cowin, director of the state Department of Water Resources.

Proponents also don't know whether restoring about 100,000 acres of habitat in the much-altered delta will produce the desired effect of bolstering fish and wildlife populations.

But state officials argue that doing nothing will guarantee the continued deterioration of the delta ecosystem, and with it, additional cuts to southbound water deliveries.

The more than 1,000 pages released Thursday by the California Natural Resources Agency covered only part of a plan that has been under discussion for years.

It would change the way supplies are diverted from the delta by constructing three large intakes on the Sacramento River that would feed into two 35-mile tunnels, each about four stories tall. The tunnels, burrowed more than 150 feet beneath the delta, would carry water by gravity to existing export pumps in the south delta.

The new facilities would cost $14 billion, which would be paid by water users, including Southern California agencies and San Joaquin Valley irrigation districts that depend on the delta for part of their supplies.

Restoration of delta wetlands, flood plains and wildlife habitat would cost an additional $4 billion, most of which is expected to come from federal and state funds.

A final decision on the project is more than a year away. The resources agency will roll out the rest of the draft plan over the next two months. The proposal still has to obtain environmental approvals, and federal and state fish and wildlife agencies have to determine the conditions under which the system would operate.

Those conditions, aimed at protecting endangered species, would determine the volume of delta exports. The resources agency said deliveries could be 10% less than the average of the last two decades — or 5% more.

Reactions to the plan echoed previously voiced support and criticism.

"There's a rush to build it first and then test it," said Zeke Grader, vice chairman of the Golden Gate Salmon Assn., a consortium of commercial, recreational and tribal fishermen that says the new system would harm migrating salmon.

Water and irrigation districts that have suffered cutbacks in delta supplies called the plan a landmark.

"California's water delivery system is broken and the [plan] is the best option our state has in securing a reliable water future," said Mike Wade, executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition.

via LA Times