Apparently while on the stump in Fresno late last week, talking about the state’s fiscal crisis, a frustrated Fresnan lambasted the Governor for the lack of water — and calling for dams and canals to be built.
This unnamed man in the Sacramento Bee story linked above is justified in venting his frustration about the problems of water delivery in the Central Valley — that having been said, his aim is a bit off. If I am a Californian who is frustrated about the water-availability challenges facing the Golden-But-Thirsty state, I would look at these three primary causes, all of which place the blame for our current man-made crisis at the feet of Sacramento Democrats:
1) Federal laws prioritize critters and plant-life over people. The federal government primarily has passed too many laws that deprioritize the needs of people — and rather places a higher priority in the protection of critters and plants. We all understand the need for some balance to ensure that resources are available for this and future generations, but many of these laws — especially many of the draconian provisions in the Endangered Species Act — are totally outrageous and should be repealed. It is this law and others that allow federal judges to lord over us, cutting off available water supply in order to preserve the environment of fishes such as the Delta Smelt. Does anyone besides extemists the Sierra Club really care if the smelt goes extinct? I don’t. It is unrealistic to believe that mankind is going to continue to multiply on planet earth, and yet somehow not squeeze out other plants or animals. It’s the way it goes.
2) Democrats hate canals and dams. The liberals Democrats in Sacramento are unwilling to support common sense approaches to movement and storage of water. Whether it is the construction of a canal to help transport more water from areas of plenty to more arid parts of the state — or a refusal to allow the building of large dams in order to create reservoirs to allow for water to be stored when it flows, to then be tapped when it isn’t flowing — these approaches are opposed.
Why? Look to the loony left — the eco-nuts. If you build a canal, you may negatively impact the Sacramento Delta. Why don’t we go ahead and just force all of the people who live there to move — since undoubtedly the presence of human beings in the region is bad for the delta. And, let us not forget that if you built a dam, you will permanently change the eco-system of the area which will soon be under the newly created reservoir? And…? The folks who oppose canals and dams are the ones who, had they been in a position to do so a few hundred years ago, would have called for no people in California — in order to preserve the natural habitat of the critters.
3) Liberals want to use this artificially created crisis to extort taxpayers. The reality is that the costs to the state of California to solve our water woes are small. Certainly no where near the astronomal figures I hear proposed to "solve" our problem. If you figure that the various water agencies in Southern California such as the Metropolitan Water District will finance the costs of building a canal to convey water, and then pass the costs of building a canal on to their ratepayers. As for the construction of dams — again, the water districts and customers that "own" the water held behind the dams can bear the costs of storage, and make the payments on the capital costs of constructing the dams.
But that is not good enough for the liberals in Sacramento. In order to put up their votes for reasonable, low cost solutions to our state’s water crisis, they want to use the urgency of the crisis to justify adding literally billions upon billions upon billions in spending for what I will call enviro-pork. They literally want to have the taxpayers borrow three to four times the amount necessary to deal with the real crisis (water needs for people) so that they can use all of that extra money to promulgate happiness for plants and animals.
I am not saying that conservation isn’t an important thing — like I said above, preserving resources for future generations is critical. But there is no doubt that at this time, financial circumstances being what they are — the legislature needs to put on the Governor’s desk a bared-boned, low cost solution to the water crisis.
The word to be afraid of when you tune-in to the water debate is "comprehensive solution" — this is code for totally screwing California taxpayers with solution that literally includes billions and billions of dollars in debt for taxpayers and our children, in order to give in to the unrealistic and outrageous demands of the Sierra Club and their eco-nut allies.
In case anyone has missed reading this website or a newspaper lately, we are not only in a recession, but the people of Californian have sent a strong message — they don’t want to be taxed any more. So those folks who are looking to "solve" the water crisis need to step back, and either support a legislative solution that takes out the billions in eco-pork, or go straight to the voters with an initiative that doesn’t get "sign off" from the left.
Failure to strip out the billions of enviro-pork from a water solution that needs voter approval is going to lead us to a redux of the May special election — with all of the same people who opposed Proposition 1A coming out against the water solution. And our opposition won’t be because of the good in the proposal (like our opposition to 1A wasn’t because of the mild spending limit), it will be because, like 1A was burdened with taxes, a "comprehensive" water solution will be burdened with billions upon billions of dollars of unnecessary borrowing. This is the same formula that saw 1A defeated by a wide margin. Those serious about solving our state’s water woes should take heed, and look for a solution that works for California taxpayers.
Care to add your ten cents? Comment on this commentary’s abbreviated post on the FR Blog here.