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

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

California Assembly Speaker Atkins: Water bond deal has stalled

In an interview with Capital Public Radio, Assembly Speaker Atkins (D-San Diego) blamed outside interest groups for blowing up negotiations to replace the $11 billion water bond currently on the November ballot. 

“I’m incredibly disappointed,” Atkins said in the interview. “The stakeholders are really going to have to understand, if they hold out for everything that they want, they could end up with nothing – and I think that’s my biggest concern. We need parochial interests to take a back seat to the needs of the entire state. If one region gets undercut, that’s going to have economic and environmental repercussions in other parts of the state.”

Atkins specifically said water storage supporters and environmental groups that oppose money for dams won’t get everything they want.

“Storage is absolutely a part of our package, but it can’t be at the 2009 level, Atkins said.“Other areas have taken a bigger haircut to help ensure that we find an overall way to get this bond passed,” Atkins said.

Her message to environmental groups: “There are opponents to dams – which is a piece of storage – that are gonna have to realize that some of the storage needs need to be part of the solution. So blowing up a water bond b/c it includes storage will actually sacrifice long-term environmental gains.”

Assembly Minority Leader Connie Conway (R-Tulare) said the sides will continue to talk.“You have to remember it took six years to get the last water bond passed. These things will take some time. We have a good framework, but this can not be rushed,” Conway said.

“Sen. Steinberg already has his sleeves rolled up and is willing to keep working at it,” said a spokesman for Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento).

Steinberg and his fellow Senate Democrats failed to pass a $10.5 billion water bond last week. The next day, Gov. Jerry Brown told legislative leaders he wanted a $6 billion measure. Atkins says Assembly Democrats had nearly reached consensus on an $8 billion bond before outside groups interfered.

“The outside interests have basically taken the time to pretty much get people who were on board before to hold out for everything that they could possibly get. Now the concern I have is that they may eventually wind up with nothing,” Atkins said.

The speaker says she still believes a water bond deal can be reached in August, but the interest groups will need to accept less money than they want.

Northern California leaders frame their position on water bond

Cynical observers of California politicssometimes assume the real reason for a new statewide water bond is to pay for projects that take water from the north and ship it south. But on Monday, a number of Northern Californialeaders made it clear they are prepared to support a water bond for the November ballot – under certain conditions.

About three dozen politicians and water managers representing the North State Water Alliance convened on the Capitol steps Monday to outline for lawmakers five general principles they believe must guide a water bond. They were joined by several collaborators from environmental and business groups.

The five principles: Existing water rights’ priorities and laws must be maintained; a bond should contribute to sustainable groundwater management; it should strongly emphasize water conservation and recycling; it should include projects to restore critical migratory corridors for salmon and waterfowl; and any money dedicated to new reservoirs should pay for dedicated environmental benefits and enhanced flexibility of the California water system as a whole.

“We have issues related to water that can only be fixed with a water bond, and we need to fix it with this Legislature,” said Bryce Lundberg, chairman of the alliance and owner of Lundberg Family Farms, a major rice-growing enterprise in Butte County. “We’re asking you for your strong leadership and rapid resolve that will move these criteria forward.”

There are currently seven different bond measures proposed in the Legislature that propose varying amounts of public spending on new dams, water conservation and habitat restoration projects. All are intended to replace an $11 billion bond measure approved for the ballot in 2009, but which was twice delayed because lawmakers feared it was too large and too packed with pork-barrel spending.

The Legislature faces a June 26 deadline to place a bond on the November ballot, although it could tweak the rules to delay into late August. A two-thirds vote by lawmakers is required, which means the bond will need bipartisan support.

Given the severe drought gripping California, it would seem an ideal time to offer voters a major water infrastructure bond. But the subject is always controversial because it involves big public debt for divisive projects like new dams.

“What brings us together today is a recognition that negotiations over a state water bond are coming to a head,” said Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, also a member of the alliance. “We want to show our strength in Northern California on this very important issue. This coalition stands ready to be a part of a solution.”

Partners in the North State Water Alliance include the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce, Sacramento Regional Water Authority, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Mountain Counties Water Resources Association and the Northern California Water Association.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/10/6470386/norcal-leaders-frame-their-position.html#mi_rss=State%20Politics#storylink=cpy