Pasadena Star News
By: Cynthia Kurtz
Posted: 3/26/2014
Recently I joined
the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce on a trip to Washington, D.C. to talk
to legislators about managing California’s drought. We received a good
reception. Water is a bi-partisan issue. Inside the “Washington bubble” we
found that support for programs that provide water crosses party lines. However,
what those programs should contain can take very different paths.
Elected officials
from California and across the nation know about the California drought. A
drought in California isn’t just a California problem. The $44.7 billion
agricultural sector in California helps feed the nation. Southern California is
the eighth largest economy in the world. If our economy suffers, the country
suffers.
This is the worst
drought since at least 1976 --1977. While Southern California’s long term investments
in storage and conservation are providing the supplies that are needed here,
for now, other parts of the state which haven’t made these investments are suffering.
Safe drinking water is in danger of running out in as many as 10 California
communities.
Long term
investments are needed to address California’s water supply and use challenges.
But as a wise philosopher once said, “When the alligator is nipping at your
butt it is hard to remember that your goal was to drain the swamp.” So most of
the conversations for now are about what to do now.
There are several
bills proposed to help manage the drought. The ones getting the most attention
are House Resolution 3964 introduced by Congressman Valadao (R) from the
Sacramento - San Joaquin Valley, Senate Resolution 2016 introduced by Senator
Feinstein (D) and a similar bill, House
Resolution 4039, introduced by Congressman Costa (D) from Mercer, Madera and Fresno
Counties.
HR 3964 focuses
on the needs of the farmers who have had to fallow land for lack of irrigation
water. It proposes to direct more water to farming by reducing regulatory
requirements. There could also be an increase in the water available for the
State Water Project that brings water to Southern California. Republicans say
HR 3964 would help both farmers and urban interests.
Democrats say it
is in direct conflict with California’s co-equal goals of meeting both Delta
and urban water needs, pits interests group against each other, and damages the
efforts of divergent groups to agree on long-term water solutions for the
state.
SR 2016 and HR
4039 direct federal agencies to use operational changes to maximize the flow of
water especially to the communities hardest hit in the central valley, provides $300 million in federal funding for
a variety of water programs that both conserve water and increase supply, and
expedites federal regulatory control without changing or exempting any environmental
requirements.
Democrats say it
will provide more water by opening cross channels in the Delta when fish aren’t
migrating, allowing water to reach the communities who need it most, and without
damaging the environment.
Republicans say
is it too little too late. Conservation projects to increase supply take too
long and won’t provide water soon enough.
It is an
important debate. There are no easy answers. The wrong answer is to do nothing
No comments:
Post a Comment