In the Sunday FR was an article featured also on Sunday from the San Diego UT, concerning water storage. Democrat leadership pronouncing DOA any funding for new water storage in California had me more than a little dismayed. The Governor hasn’t even delivered yet his State of the State speech where he may well outline a proposal for one or two new water storage projects as part of the much needed infrastructure overhaul and augmentation this state desperately needs. Yet already, this prepronounced negativity. This on the heels of all the talk on the Assembly floor of working in a "bi-partisan way" [evidently meaning Republican principles being excluded in all or part in negotiations] and the enthusiastic embrace of "post-partisanship" from the Governor’s Inaugural day. I would call the statement that "Democrats don’t support water storage" a wet blanket on the "new spirit" down in Sacramento, but you need water to dampen the #@&% blanket.
But that statement isn’t completely true. Governor Schwarzenegger in last years state of the state speech listed new water storage as one of his "I say build it!" items. I applauded loudly.
Our Republican Caucus is committed to it. I also remember a press conference in April, a bi–partisan one, where Democrat members Nicole Parra, Barbara Matthews, and Juan Arambula
all strongly stated the need for true funding for new storage as a prerequisite for supporting a flood control bond. Perhaps water storage as a flood control measure is a non-partisan issue, it should be. You would think so after New Orleans and how much fun it was for Dems to criticize President Bush and the Feds or the reality in our own NorCal backyard during January thru March, culminating in the Governor’s positive action with declaring an emergency for levee repairs.
So if we are in an era of post-partisanship, will Democrat leadership work with Republicans and a handful of Valley Dems that profess their support for storage? If last year was a "great example of working together" on priorities that Dems find important, will Republicans receive that same grace on an area they have gotten no traction on since 1974, when the last state storage project was completed? [This while our population has grown by over 50% since.] Instead, water users are told "we’ll do storage in the next bond." That was 3 or 4 "water bonds" ago.
Ms. Parra stated how important it is that her colleagues understand how serious the lack of storage is for the Valley, and for it’s flood control needs as well.
Will it be that any one that steps out of line will be punished, like Mr Arambula was when he boldly stated that he would not support any water bond that didn’t have funds for Temperance Flat, a proposed sight above Fresno, that the Central Valley will be the most hurt when water supplies run short? [True.] His "no" vote got him kicked off the chairmanship of a committee and into a "lowly freshman Republican-style" Capitol office. Is it any wonder why he has decided to forego running for a third Assembly term that he is eligible for?
The Dept of Water Resources has outlined that by the year 2020, California will be from 2.2 million to 4.2 million acre feet short of water. If the Governor’s proposal is for 2 new projects as is being predicted, Temperance Flat and another project, Sites Reservoir, a proposal for the the Sites Valley in western Colusa County, up here in the 2nd A.D., will go along way to covering that shortage.
Last year, Sites seemed to be the front runner in water bond negotiations as it’s near finished being studied [to death…did I say that?] There was a 1/2 Billion dollars in the package til near the end when it was abandoned to get a deal…you know, the one we voted on at 2:30 AM one night.
But even that was disingenuous as $.5B would build maybe half of one dam at best and the provisions were that the Legislature, unlike other bonds, would have to approve more appropriations to finish a half-done dam. Uh huh. From a legislature that has shown they don’t want one to begin with.
Our state’s Capitol itself, the city with the least flood protection of any it’s size in the nation, has a cost effective solution upstream as well, according to the Army Corps, who opine that a flood detention facility is preferred to a levee only solution. "Reliance on levees for flood protection for Sacramento is considered inherently less safe than an upstream detention dam." One that would also provide power for the stretched electricity grid and water supply towards the shortage we face.
But we can’t talk about the Auburn Dam in polite company can we, wouldn’t be bi-partisan.
Imagine the quandary that enviros will go through [like "paper or plastic?" -gasp!-] when we contemplate "global warming" or perhaps in reality, a natural cyclical climate change that may make our mountaintop snow pack, that acts as a supply reservoir until June or July, disappear out to the sea by April with no detention dam to slow it. Is warming the trend? Then we better capture us some water. Naw, we can’t "Throw up our arms and say warming is inevitable, loss of snowpack is inevitable, we have to build reservoirs."…so say the enviros. Pretty funny. "I reject your reality…and replace it with my reality." I love moral relativism! Go ahead, you only think that pool is empty!
So who are the ones stopping genuine bi-partisan solutions here? Republicans state repeatedly they are ready and willing to work in an honest discussion on the pressing issues facing California. When our childrens drinking fountain shuts off, when the tap is dry as they seek to cleanse their hands, will that be a pressing bi-partisan or post partisan issue? Or will it be instead The Majority succumbing to the desires of a handful of members of the extreme wing of the environmental movement, in fear of holding their seats in the legislature and in the process, threaten and punish fellow Dems that don’t walk the line?
The solution appears to be more bricks in your toilet tank, violating long held water rights, idling [and paving over] even more prime farm land and relying on luck. That’s what Governors Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan did, didn’t they, when our State Water Project infrastructure magically evolved, whose fruits we comfortably enjoy up and down this state still today, as we dream of the next dam to dismantle…didn’t they? Double-dealing partisans, beware the backlash when a thirsty public finally learns the truth.