August 24, 2009

 

Senator Fran Pavley, Chair

Senate Committee on natural Resources and Water

Room 4035, State Capitol

Sacramento, CA 95814

 

Assembly Member Jared Huffman, Chair

Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife

P.O. Box 942849, State Capitol

Sacramento, CA 95814

 

 

Dear Senator Pavley and Assembly Member Huffman:

 

My name is Robert Johnson, Jr., and I live in Contra Costa County - about 15 minutes drive to the Delta. I am an avid fly fisherman, fisheries advocate and political activist. I work closely with organizations such as the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and Restore the Delta, and have created a site called StopCanal.org. Through this site, I put forth reasons why a Peripheral Canal is a poor choice, and offer solutions to California’s water issues that are more cost effective, more yielding, and more sustainable and eco-friendly than are the Peripheral Canal components called for within the BDCP. A just-released report called “California Water Solutions Now” by the Environmental Water Caucus that was submitted to you last week aptly identifies these solutions. 

 

I appreciate your efforts to steer the Governor’s freight train leading to a 15,000 cfs conveyance to something that will more judiciously serve the interests of stakeholders while preserving our fantastic estuary. And while there are many components to your suite of bills that I like, my biggest concern is that the needs of the estuary must be met – BEFORE and not after – the remaining items are addressed within the BDCP. Being that there was never an adjudication of water rights with the construction of the state and federal water projects, California at a minimum needs to define as a preference, an objectively determined, peer reviewed, amount of water to protect and preserve the San Francisco Bay-Delta. After 50 years of broken promises – and a slew of lawsuits and lobbying efforts underway right now to undo the ESA for more broken promises, the delta watershed needs iron-clad protections!

 

Let me expand on these concerns, and humbly request a few modifications to your legislation: 

 

When are we going to start taking into account that the pace of agriculture expansion in the San Joaquin Valley is not sustainable, and stop formulating State water policy based on continued expansion of a region that has drawn down its regional ground water aquifers an average of 400 feet (per a recent, July 2009 US Geological Survey Study). This equates to 61+ million acre feet or an average of 1.5 MAF per year - in addition to the increasing surface deliveries that by themselves are straining the delta!!! And the rest of the vast central valley region delivered a slight net surplus of groundwater over the same study period. What happens when the SJV region runs flat out of ground water?   The region’s growth has been achieved from “borrowed” water that at some point must be paid back.

 

The San Joaquin Valley has seen record growth in agricultural output for several years in a row. For instance, per the Fresno County Department of Agriculture’s 2008 annual report, agricultural production was $5.7 billion, exceeding $5 billion for the second time in history, and representing a 7% increase over 2007 (itself a record year). And this was in a supposed “drought” year! Yet despite the phenomenal growth in agriculture sector output, Fresno County reports among the lowest median incomes in the state and nation! The county (and region) obviously needs to diversify away from an over reliance on agriculture to higher value industries.

 

And much if not most of this growth has been occurring on the west side, which has no water supply of its own and relies 100% on Delta water exports. Given the known toxicity issues associated with “drainage impacted lands” in this region, the state of California (DWR) and the federal Bureau of Reclamation are being negligent, in my opinion, in allowing a) non-sustainable growth in PERMANENT crops to continue for many years, and b) continued build up of known toxins by irrigating this region in the first place.   Our water policy is in some ways hurting this region. While the west side lands are under the fed’s CVP, this legislation should specifically acknowledge that that uninterrupted irrigation of much of these lands cannot continue, and encourage the federal government to retire much of the west side drainage impacted lands.

 

Westside contractors have been negotiating with the federal government and seek what could be nearly a Billion a year (and growing) in a long-term water purchase contract. Specifically:  Negotiations over the San Luis Unit drain clean up involve Westside contractors seeking 1) forgiveness of the 1/2 Billion in debt principal they owe from public construction of their share of the CVP in early 60s - of which they have paid no interest!!, and 2). A permanent contract to purchase heavily subsidized water - for approx $50 per AF, with no restrictions on usage, fully enabling these Westside contractors to sell to the highest bidder, with prices already approaching $650 per AF! 

 

All of this, the Westside contractors seek, for their agreeing to clean up the toxicity associated with the San Luis Unit drain! If the federal government can’t figure out how to clean this mess up, how can a private entity? My guess is if the Westside contractors are successful at renewing their long term water purchase rights at anything resembling these terms, they will very quickly and voluntarily abandon growing on the drainage impacted lands and most of the other land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. They will then resort to purely selling water to municipal and other users!  

 

And the San Luis Unit contractors are not the only ones making windfall profit from Delta water. Contra Costa Times reporter Mike Taugher produced wrote a recent series, led by the article: “Pumping Water for Cash from the Delta.” In these articles, Mr. Taugher discusses how the Kern Water Bank was privatized in a non-transparent matter, and how its owner, billionaire Stuart Resnick and others, had been able to game the system, making hundreds of millions recently, among other troubling things. 

 

Why do these water contractors deserve to earn hundreds of millions (in the future Billions) selling our public trust resources - back to us?! Why aren’t these water districts run more like a utility, with a cost-plus regulated pricing arrangement? 

 

Conclusion:

So I ask our legislators to PLEASE SLOW DOWN. As Rendele Kanouse of EBMUD testified last week, this is the most comprehensive water legislation in the last 30+ years.   If this means that a new package of bills must be introduced in the spring, fine. As for any final Delta Water Solutions Package, I have the following recommendations that I hope can be included:

1.      I urge you to call for a full adjudication of water rights within the SWP and CVP; or at a minimum establish a priority for the SF Bay-Delta estuary’s minimum required natural water flows – before any other diversions (other than an urban preference) are considered. Obviously such a priority needs to be objectively determined by the best available science, and peer reviewed to remove all obstacles.

2.      Restore the Urban Preference and dismantle the Monterey Agreement and other agreements that were done years prior that were not negotiated in an open, transparent manner.

3.      Legislatively restrict windfall profiteering from SWP water contracting; encourage same with federal CVP. President Obama pledged to: a) restore transparency in government involving legislation of heavily lobbied industries such as this and, b) to eliminate all abusive farm subsidies. Well, is this not the perfect time for you to help uphold this promise to the American people? 

The state should work with the feds to remove abusive crop and water subsidies, which are pervasive in the SJ Valley, and re-write to the extent possible contracts for services, among other things. Until we take windfall profiteering out of water distribution, there will always be a water crisis in CA.

THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE NATION WILL SUPPORT YOU IF YOU TAKE THIS ISSUE STRAIGHT TO THEM – LOBBYISTS BE DAMNED.

4.      Restructure the state agencies dealing with water regulations to remove the apparent conflict of interest arising from having politically appointed directors that come from the very industries these agencies are suppose to govern. (This should include the Department of Fish & Game.)

5.      Draft wording in the bills to encourage the Fed’s to retire the drainage impacted lands, as recommended by the USGS and others. The negotiations involving the San Luis Unit drain must be made fully transparent to the people of California. It is clear that, at a minimum, the 379,000 acres must be permanently retired, and with this, a corresponding reduction in allocated water. If this leaves a bill for the clean up of SL drain toxicity of several billion than so bit! But the state of California should consider working with the federal government to purchase much or all of these Westside lands – possibly the whole 1.3 million acres. 

And as part of any land retirement initiative, this legislation should specifically provide for a coordinated state and federal stimulus plan to help diversify this region and deal with the humanitarian crisis that exists due to over reliance on big ag, coupled with a severe foreclosure and economic crisis. This new “Appalachia of the West" needs help immediately. 

 

Thank you so much for your consideration of my suggestions. I am proud and honored to have had the opportunity to weigh in on this issue with various assembly and senate members, and I look forward to seeing the next draft soon. Please never forget that the fate of this great SF Bay-Delta estuary lies with you, and that you have the opportunity to deliver a water reform legislative package that can take this state into the 21^st century and beyond – and enhance & preserve the largest freshwater estuary in the western hemisphere . So please think for the long term as you consider all your constituents’ comments and prepare the drafts for conference committee.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Robert Johnson, Jr.