water bond

Feinstein Urges President to Increase Delta Pumping

Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) TODAY called on President Obama to direct federal agencies “to maximize pumping in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the maximum extent allowed under the Endangered Species Act and biological opinions.”

Feinstein wrote in her letter to the president: “I believe that this year’s El Niño has highlighted a fundamental problem with our water system: A dogmatic adherence to a rigid set of operating criteria that continues to handcuff our ability to rebuild our reserves. We need a more nimble system. That’s why I included $150 million the past two years in the Energy and Water budget—so that decisions would be based on real-time data, rather than relying on intuition.”

Full text of the letter follows:

March 24, 2016

The Honorable Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I ask you to direct the Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service to maximize pumping in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the maximum extent allowed under the Endangered Species Act and biological opinions. Water flows in the Sacramento River are the highest they have been in four years. Just last week, flows in the Sacramento were as high as 76,000 cubic feet per second. We’ve only seen flows that high twice in the past ten years, and not once during this drought. Yet the Bureau of Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife Service are now considering reducing pumping due to concerns about larval smelt.

Despite these high flows, rather than pumping as much water as possible without undue harm to the smelt, pumping levels remained constant for the past month (see Chart B). Coupled with the fact that only three individual smelt were caught at the pumps this year, and that the most recent trawls revealed no Delta smelt in the south Delta, it seems to me that the agencies operate the system in a manner that may be contrary to the available data, culled from what is already a limited monitoring regime. I understand that the biological opinions impose a ceiling of -5,000 cubic feet per second, but the agencies have the discretion to exercise at least some flexibility to pump above that level.

To put this all in context, between January 1 and March 6 last year, 1.5 million acre-feet of water flowed through the Delta and 745,000 acre-feet were pumped out. During the same period this year, 5.5 million acre-feet of water flowed through the Delta, but only 852,000 acre-feet were pumped out (see Chart A). If we can’t increase pumping during an El Niño year, then when else can we?

The agencies have also put California and the communities that depend on this water in a Catch-22: Pumping is reduced when there are concerns about the presence of smelt caught as far away as 17 miles from the pumps. Yet agencies will also reduce pumping due to the absence of smelt, based on the idea that historically low smelt populations make detection difficult.

I believe that this year’s El Niño has highlighted a fundamental problem with our water system: A dogmatic adherence to a rigid set of operating criteria that continues to handcuff our ability to rebuild our reserves. We need a more nimble system. That’s why I included $150 million the past two years in the Energy and Water budget—so that decisions would be based on real-time data, rather than relying on intuition.

There are real-world consequences to the decisions being made in the Delta. 69 communities in the Southern San Joaquin Valley reported significant water supply and quality issues. And land is caving, bridges collapsing, as a result of overdrawn ground wells and subsidence. That’s why we need to make sure we’re using every possible tool to make the right choices. Basing pumping decisions on better science and real-time monitoring is the least we can do.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

###

Photo Source: Dianne Feinstein website

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:24:09-07:00March 24th, 2016|

David Gutierrez on Dams

David Gutierrez on Dams, Water Management and Economics

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Deputy Editor

David Gutierrez, chief of Division of Safety of Dams and program manager for the Groundwater Sustainability Program within the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), talked with Patrick Cavanaugh, California Ag Today’s farm news director, regarding dams and the DWR in Sacramento.

California Ag Today: Please explain the differences between the DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

Gutierrez: This is actually really important to understand. DWR and SWRCB have completely different functions, just generally. We have different functions with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) passed last year. The responsibilities of DWR lie with developing the regulations—the rules—and assisting the locals to be successful. SWRCB is the backstop; they are the ones who are actually going to manage a basin that is not being managed successfully. They are completely different; SWRCB is a Board and DWR is not a board; it’s a department.

California Ag Today: Do you think SWRCB should have been thinking about the things we are doing today 20 years ago?

Gutierrez: On the record, the citizens of California, everybody, should have been thinking about this more than 20 years ago. You can’t really blame one group; all of us should have been thinking about this 20 years ago. We usually don’t solve problems until we get into a crisis, and that is where we are.

California Ag Today: Wasn’t it 40 years ago when the dams were denied or no longer supported by the population?

Gutierrez: So the Central Valley Project and SWRCB were both supported in the 20’s and 30’s, all the way up through the 70’s. After the 70’s, things did change and dams stopped getting built, but also most of the resources were already tapped at that point. So now you are seeing reservoirs being built off stream as most of the resources on stream have already been tapped into. So, there is a little more to it than people being for or against dams.

California Ag Today: Do you think the Temperance Flat and Sites Reservoirs will ever be built?

Gutierrez: It is an economic question, so I bet if you did an economic analysis, during certain times it would be economically feasible, and at other times it would not be. You have got to tie in the value of the water; if water becomes valuable, it is worth doing the project. If water is not valuable, you can’t afford the project.

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:24:10-07:00March 14th, 2016|

Water Regulators Operate in Silos

State Senator Cannella Says Water Regulators Operate in Silos

By Laurie Greene Editor

California State Senator Anthony Cannella, (R-Ceres), who represents District 12, the Westside of the Central San Joaquin Valley from Modesto to Coalinga, knows how growers must feel about so much fresh water from recent rain and early snowmelt flowing out to the ocean instead of being stored for future use. Cannella, who is currently serving as vice chairman of the Agriculture Committee said, “Obviously growers are out there; they have their life savings out there; they have been relying on water from the State Water Project or they have been relying on reservoirs; and the state has been taking more and more of their water due to ESA restrictions.”

“If farmers do not have surface water again this year,’ he continued, “they are going to pump from the groundwater. But state and federal officials do not see the connection that no surface water means more groundwater pumping. It would be much more sustainable if farmers could receive more surface water instead of having it flow out to the ocean.”

Cannella said, “Water regulators operate in silos. On one hand, they say groundwater has to be at an equilibrium; and, on the other hand, they say that they cannot pump much fresh water into reservoirs. They don’t combine the two; they don’t connect the two; and I think that is wrong.”

“If you are going to regulate or take away surface storage, there will be an impact on groundwater,” explained Cannella. “But the state does not operate that way, and that is why we are having the problem we are having,” he said.

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:24:11-07:00February 22nd, 2016|

Interior Assesses California Water

U.S. Department of Interior’s Tom Iseman Assesses California Water

Tom Iseman, deputy assistant secretary for water and science at the U.S. Department of the Interior, in an exclusive interview with California Ag Today’s farm news director, Patrick Cavanaugh, assessed how California is faring given the drought.

Cavanaugh: I see you as someone who focuses on not just solutions but also the issues and tragedies caused by the extended drought in California. From your perspective, how is California doing and how could things be better?

Iseman: First of all, I think California is obviously on the leading edge for a lot of reasons, but the state is in the midst of an extended drought. So it is really forcing us to be smarter about how we address these water scarcity challenges. I have been very impressed with the way we have been able to really work together—the Bureau of Reclamation working with the state, the water users and the conservation groups—to think about how we can stretch our limited water supplies to meet these different purposes.

Tom Iseman, deputy assistant secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior (Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-iseman-3354aa7)

Cavanaugh: Obviously the country is not able to build another Hoover Dam, but does the Interior understand that we need more storage in California for the rainy days?

Iseman: Absolutely. There are different ways to do it, so we are looking at a number of projects. One is raising Shasta Dam; one is a new reservoir possibly on the upper San Joaquin River (Temperance Flats); and Sites Reservoir.

Cavanaugh: But those projects are a long way off, and they may never be built. What can California do now to increase its water portfolio?

Iseman: There are smarter ways we can build smaller-scale storage and new ways to operate our facilities to stretch water supplies to our advantage.

Cavanaugh: Could you talk about how we can use water differently? Desal is more expensive water, but water needs to be more expensive. When water gets more expensive, people conserve more, right? Talk about your vision of desal in America, particularly in California.

Iseman: Generally, clean water technology is a big part of what we need to be doing. It is not just building new storage; it’s being smarter with what we have. So, technology is a great way to do that. We have desalination, water recycling and water reuse. Having these options creates an opportunity for more partnerships. So now you can have cities recycling their water and sending their water supply to agricultural water users—a win-win situation. The city gets some revenue and deals with its wastewater, and agricultural water users get a new supply. That is the way we should be thinking—about the possible partnerships to take advantage of these options.

Cavanaugh: People building desal plants in cities like Santa Barbara, mothballed the plants when the rains came. We need to make desal part of the culture of these cities located on the ocean. I mean, does the Department of the Interior see that as a rational thing to do?

Iseman: It’s interesting. Obviously it has been done in other places, and they have invested quite a bit of money here in California. It comes down to economics; we don’t make the decision about whether a city builds or doesn’t build a desal plant, but it is part of the water supply list, potentially.

The challenges with desal is just the cost right now and how much energy and waste it can produce. And they are comparing that to the other options out there. Are there other technologies out there that we can use? Are there water markets or water rights I can acquire? Is there potential for new storage? I think the cost will help sort that out.

The part that cost doesn’t address in some ways—and it can be built in—is the uncertainty. One thing, I think, about a desal plant that people like is that you know there is going to be a water supply if you are on the ocean. And if you have the money and can generate the energy, you can get the water. As you see more uncertainty in our climate and in our existing water supplies, that would be one argument in favor of desal.

Cavanaugh: It is stable.

Iseman: Yes, and we need reliability.

Cavanaugh: Well, you talked about the cost and the economics, but we all need to pay more for water, and I’d be the first one. It would make everyone conserve more, right?

Iseman: Absolutely.

Cavanaugh: Maybe, raise the cost of water $10 a bill?

Iseman: Well, I’m not going to say we are going to raise people’s water rates, but if you talk to the industry and look at the future of the industry, a lot of people say, ‘People need to pay more for water.’ That is how you get the investments.

The federal budget is constrained; they are not going to be there when we are going out and building Hoover Dam in ten years. We just don’t have that kind of resources anymore. So the question is, how do you get more revenue stream in to help contribute to the cost of those investments? And that goes back to rates. And at some point, we will have to decide how much we pay for water and how much we value our water.

Cavanaugh: Thanks for being aware of all this. Are you encouraged we will find solutions?

Iseman: We talk about California everyday; we are all very aware of the things that are happening. But I really gained an appreciation of the innovation, the energy and the cooperation of people here—the commitment they have in dealing with these issues. I was glad to be a part of it.

_____________________________

Link:

U.S. Department of the Interior

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:24:12-07:00February 19th, 2016|

LA Included in Water Priorities Act

CaWater4All-Proposed Water Priorities Act Includes Los Angeles

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Deputy Editor

The Water Priorities Constitutional Amendment and Bond Act is good for all of California—people, farms and the environment. Should the required 565,880 petition signatures necessary for inclusion on the November 2016 ballot be collected by the April 26, 2016 deadline, and should the Water Priorities Act receive a majority of affirmative votes in November, it will provide big benefits to cities such as Los Angeles.

“The availability of regional water projects is massive for our urban centers,” stated Aubrey Bettencourt, executive director of the California Water Alliance, the ballot initiative’s sponsor. “The ability for urban centers to create water in their own regions and become less dependent on other parts of the water system, actually helps the other regions in the system as well.”

The proposed water priorities act creates flexibility all around. Bettencourt explained, “Consider that the Los Angeles (LA) River loses as much water in an average storm event as the water supply for 180,000 homes annually—in one storm! In an average normal water year, Los Angeles loses the equivalent of the Shasta Reservoir in stormwater runoff, and they are under state and federal mandates to capture that water, recycle it and put it back in their water supply. This helps clean up their beaches and ocean water, which would otherwise end up with a lot of pollution through runoff,” she said.

“This ballot measure would increase their regional water supply by capturing and injecting stormwater runoff back into their groundwater supply. That would providing flexibility and reliability to the water supply for Southern California, but also affordability, which is such a key part of this effort,” Bettencourt noted.

“And Governor Brown just extended the drought cut mandates through the end of October of this year, and a lot of communities are conserving and conserving,” she said.”They are conserving so much that they using less; and, now they have to pay more because they are using less. So they are using less water, paying more for it, and still being punished. And that should not have to happen if we have a system big enough to supply all of our diverse water needs: agricultural, urban and environmental.”

Bettencourt noted, “The system hasn’t been updated since the late ’60’s-early ’70’s, in terms of some of our large-scale infrastructure. And you have to remember, our population was half the size it is today, and we didn’t have the same type of demand on that system that we do today,” she emphasized.

“Currently, we allocate 50% of our surface water to environmental protection. That is not wrong; but what is wrong is that we didn’t expand the system enough to take care of that allocation and our people. That is what this water ballot initiative is aiming to provide: to increase our infrastructure to meet the demands of the 21st century,” said Bettencourt.

_____________________________

Links:

California Water Alliance Initiative Fund

California Water Alliance

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:24:12-07:00February 18th, 2016|

California Water Priorities Ballot Measure

Petitioning for California Water Priorities Ballot Measure Kicks off Friday in Fresno

California Water Alliance (CalWA) executive director Aubrey Bettencourt announced TODAY that a petition drive for the California Water Priorities Ballot Measure will take place Friday, January 29, 2016, at KMJ Studios, 1071 W. Shaw Avenue in Fresno, from 2-6 pm.

Earlier this week, the proposed ballot measure was approved by Attorney General Kamala Harris, opening the door to begin signature-gathering efforts with initiative supporters. Since the measure’s approval, CalWA has received an overwhelming amount of support and requests for petitions to circulate.

Electronic copies of the petition are not available, as use of them would disqualify the signatures gathered. Requests for petitions may be made online at www.CaWater4All.com. CalWA will begin mailing petitions on Friday, January 29.

A second signature drive is being scheduled February 9-11, 2016, at the World Ag Expo in Tulare. More information on this event will be available on the CaWater4All website.

The California Water Alliance is a statewide nonprofit organization dedicated to raising awareness about the nature of water and promoting long-term, sustainable solutions that meet the health and security needs of families, cities, businesses, farmers and the environment.

The California Water Alliance Initiative Fund Committee (FPPC ID#1381113), sponsored by the California Water Alliance, a non-profit IRC §501(c)(4) organization, is a state primarily formed ballot measure recipient committee organized to qualify two or more state ballot measures for the November 2016 ballot. It is permitted to accept unlimited, non-tax-deductible donations from individuals, corporations, partnerships, nonprofit organizations, and any other lawfully permissible sources. For more information and restrictions, please visit http://cawater4all.com/.

Resources:

The Water Priorities Constitutional Amendment and Bond Act Fact Sheet

California Water Explained

California Water Use Facts

California Water Polling Infographic

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:24:14-07:00January 28th, 2016|

California Water Priorities Ballot Measure Review Completed

Legislative Analyst Completes Review of California Water Priorities Ballot Measure

California Water Alliance (CalWA) executive director Aubrey Bettencourt announced TODAY that California Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor and Director of Finance Michael Cohen reported their findings to Attorney General Kamala Harris regarding CalWA’s proposed constitutional and statutory amendment for November’s General Election ballot.

In its report to Attorney General Harris, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) found that the water priorities ballot measure “would not significantly increase or decrease the state’s anticipated debt payments.”

“We are pleased that the LAO agrees that our measure performs as we intended and has no undesirable fiscal effects,” said Bettencourt. “From the outset, we wrote it to avoid any new taxes, new debt, new user fees, or other costs to the state’s taxpayers.”

The measure would redirect up to $10.7 billion in previously-authorized High-Speed Rail Project and 2014 Water Bond general obligation bond authority to fund construction of specific water-storage related projects throughout the state and amend the state’s constitution to prioritize uses of water, putting people’s needs first.

By helping to solve California’s water storage infrastructure needs, the initiative would remove unspent bond funds from the High-Speed Rail Project approved by voters in 2008, now listed as the least important infrastructure priority according to the recent Stanford Golden State Poll. Dealing with the state’s water problems is the majority of voters’ top priority, according to the same poll.

CalWA sponsored the measure with State Senator Bob Huff and Board of Equalization Vice-Chair George Runner, its proponents.

The LAO also found the net effect of the measure on federal funds and its impact on state and local governments were unknown. The LAO also reported the measure could cause unknowable changes in other state capital projects.

Bettencourt said that Attorney General Harris is expected to finish her review within a week and release an official title and summary for the measure, the first step in circulating petitions to qualify the measure for placement on November’s ballot.

“The people of California will be given the ability to reprioritize the state’s direction for the needs of today—from a high speed train to water storage,” Bettencourt said. “They will soon be able to sign the measure’s petition and help us in our efforts to qualify this important initiative measure for a vote of the people,” she concluded.

_____________________________

About the California Water Alliance

The California Water Alliance is a statewide nonprofit organization dedicated to raising awareness about the nature of water and promoting long-term, sustainable solutions that meet the health and security needs of families, cities, businesses, farmers and the environment. To learn more, visit www.CaliforniaWaterAlliance.org.

About the California Water Alliance Initiative Fund Committee

Paid for by the California Water Alliance Initiative Fund | 455 Capitol Mall Suite 600, Sacramento, CA 95814

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:24:15-07:00January 20th, 2016|

Irrigation Uniformity in Almonds

Attaining Irrigation Uniformity in Almond Orchards

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Deputy Editor

Terry Prichard, a water management specialist with UC Cooperative Extension at UC Davis for 35 years whe he retired five years ago, is still at work. Prichard is currently collaborating with Almond Board of California to improve water management in almonds, especially irrigation uniformity. “I am still researching nitrogen management for all crops through a grant through the UC from CDFA, and I am helping the Almond Board with their irrigation initiative and their Irrigation Improvement Continuum,” Prichard said.

Prichard explained, “We try to apply water in order to get an average amount of water throughout the field and do that very uniformly. When it is done non-uniformly, farmers are using extra water to reach all parts of the field. So improving irrigation uniformity allows us to apply less total water, but still meet the crop’s water demands,” Prichard noted.

Dormant almond trees with micro-sprinkers

Improvements to irrigation uniformity can be done in any field, according to Prichard. He suggests your designer should strive for good irrigation uniformity when creating your irrigation design. “However,” he clarified, “if you design a less expensive minimal system which uses minimal size piping, you end up using extra energy to drive the pressure through the system to deliver water to the end. Driving that pressure causes friction loss in the pipe—pressure differentials from the top of the system near the pump to the end of the system on the last sprinkler or dripper. These pressure differentials deliver different volumes of water out of each sprinkler, micro-sprinkler or drip emitter, and that is what drives non-uniformity.”

Also important is irrigation maintenance—making sure the system is flushed out and emitters are changed when needed. “Improving uniformity with large orifice-type sprinklers or even larger micro-sprinklers,” stated Prichard, “tends to be a little easier because the holes are larger and don’t plug as easily. In smaller orifice-type systems such as drip irrigation, emitters easily become clogged with physical particulates or biological particulates like slime and algae. Most commonly, lime or manganese forms inside the emitter, clogs it up and reduces the flow, so maintenance of those systems is very important to maximize your designed-in uniformity,” he said.

“Continuum irrigation is an important concept because there is a whole array of current grower practices, some at the minimum level for what we consider for most growers, some are transitioning to more sophisticated methods, and others are already there. I think this continuum will reassure people who are at the minimum level and encourage them to adopt more technological solutions to irrigation scheduling.”

Prichard said the Almond Board’s Almond Irrigation Improvement Continuum doesn’t have a set timeframe. ”It has more accomplishment phases and so what we hope to do is provide each grower with information that they can use on their farm to improve their efficient use of water to produce almonds.”

“And the Almond Board is making these strategies and new technology systems web-based,” noted Prichard. “It is very easy with a web-based system to input new things. The current continuum on the website conceptualizes the basic visual measurements and practices, and you can click on a specific practice for more information on how to incorporate it to accomplish your goals. Then there is a link to a specific discussion such as how to accomplish these efficiencies using drip irrigation, for example,” said Prichard.

Double drip irrigation on almond trees

”Almond growers have made tremendous strides in improving their efficient use of water, primarily from changing older flood-type irrigation systems to the newer pressure systems. This progress has been tremendous for the industry and for growers in terms of producing more crop using less resources.”

“However, we are now at the next level of using these methods, such as weather-based irrigation scheduling estimates, followed by soil- and plant-based checks, to ensure that you are delivering just the right amount of water,” explained Prichard. “The continuum has generated a lot of grower interest. We have several ways to go and many more tools now than we did ten or twenty years ago.”

__________________________

Introduced at The Almond Conference in December, the full Irrigation Improvement Continuum and comprehensive background materials will be posted on the Almond Board’s website by March 1, 2016, providing “one-stop shopping” for almond irrigation management at all levels.

According to Almond Board’s January 2016 Outlook newsletter, the continuum describes three proficiency levels and provides a comprehensive program of irrigation management and scheduling practices in five key areas, and also explains how these practices can be effectively integrated at each level. The five key areas include:

Measuring irrigation system performance and efficiency;
Estimating orchard water requirements based on evapotranspiration;
Determining the amount of water applied;
Evaluating soil moisture; and
Evaluating plant water status.

Proficiency level 1.0 (minimum) outlines research-based irrigation management practices that are within reach of all California Almond growers. Proficiency levels 2.0 (intermediate) and 3.0 (advanced) enhance practices to more sophisticated levels to attain even more “crop per drop.”

The goal is to assist all almond growers in meeting level 1.0 proficiency. Beyond this, Almond Board will work with growers to help them progress along the continuum to proficiency levels 2.0 and 3.0, in partnership with technical experts and resources available to California Almond growers, such as through University of California Cooperative Extension.

__________________________

Link: Almond Board of California

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:05:59-07:00January 11th, 2016|

Farmers are Asset Managers

By Brian German, Associate Editor

Richard Casias, principal scientist and managing member at RCC Group, LLC, an environmental management consulting company based in Davis, expressed his deep respect for the Valley’s local farmers’ positive outlook, “What I really appreciate about these individuals is farmers are true asset managers. Their goal is to work efficiently, effectively and bring a good investment off the land they are managing.”

RCC Group’s primary customer base of almond, walnut and pistachio growers approach Casias by introducing their asset, emphasizing ongoing preservation of that asset, and making certain that the inputs are positive, and losses are minimized, like any company. With over 30 years of experience in earth science and environmental management, Casias attributes his expertise to this ongoing learning process.

Casias has traveled nationwide, including Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico and Texas, promoting environmental management systems and conducting environmental and water resource investigations. “I’ve been advocating for an environmental management system for farming operations. Australia and other countries have been doing it, and it is completely applicable here in Central Valley farming operations.”

Casias continued, “So many of the farming practices that are being done are not getting farmers the positive feedback and validation as good land and water stewards. That is part of my motivation—to make sure growers recognize and take credit for all the extra work that they do to make their farming operations successful.”

When it comes to increasing water regulations on farming, Casias commented, “I try to remind growers that public scrutiny is not solely focused on agriculture as the villain; there are a number of people [and industries] using these natural resources.”

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:26:59-07:00January 7th, 2016|

California Water Ballot Initiative

California Water Ballot Initiative May Go to Voters in Nov. 2016

[embedvideo id=”O6sMsPaJPB4″ website=”youtube”]

Aubrey Bettencourt, executive director of the California Water Alliance (CalWA or “Alliance”), described the Alliance’s California water ballot initiative to California Ag Today’s farm news director, Patrick Cavanaugh. If passed by the voters, the measure, which rests in the hands of California Attorney General Kamala Harris to approve it for inclusion on the state’s November 2016 ballot, would strikingly change the water horizon for California. The initiative prioritizes all water to go to citizens of California and then to farms, before it reaches the environment. It combines $8 billion from the high-speed rail project funding with the $2.7 billon approved in November 2014 for water storage projects.

CalWA, a non-profit advocacy and education organization that is dedicated to raising awareness about the nature of water, advocates for the short- and long-term, sustainable policy and infrastructure positions that meet the need for safe, reliable and affordable water by the people, cities, businesses, farms and environment in California.

Aubrey Bettencourt, executive director of California Water Alliance

Cavanaugh: You have created a California water ballot initiative that, hopefully, will appear on the November 2016 ballot.

Bettencourt: Yes. It’s known as “California Water 4 All,” and it is really quite simple. After the Water Bond of 2014 passed, the California Water Commission—the fund administrators entrusted with the $2.7 billion allocated for water storage—placed other stipulations on that funding.

For instance, 50% of the water had to go to the environment and 50% had to directly benefit the Delta. Furthermore, the Commission would not release project funds prior to December 2016, so even though voters allocated funding and were promised water storage, construction was not to start for a long time. All these stipulations on the California Water Commission, through no fault of their own, actually challenged and limited the availability of regional water projects.

Then, when the Commission started to monitor both its funding and its responsibility over that funding—which we don’t blame them for, whatsoever—a lot of organizations that had opposed the Water Bond in 2014 for creating new water storage, suddenly started soliciting the Commission with letters saying, “You don’t have to define that water storage component as traditional water storage. You can open up that funding and grant it to anything else. You don’t have to use it for new water.”

We, as an organization, filed a number of letters in response and actually brought it to [the press], “Hey, they are trying to gut this tiny sliver of funding that was allocated in this program voted on by the people of California as a promise to create new water for us in this drought.” And also, “$2.7 billion would maybe build one and one half projects in California.”

We all know our water infrastructure is 60 years out-of-date, and it cannot keep it up with the needs of the environmental community, the government community, the agricultural community, and the urban community. You will hear everyone say that our infrastructure is so out-of-date that it can’t even keep up with the number of people we have or the amount of priorities we have set. Take a look at how various environmental projects end up competing against each other; a good example is when all of this came to light in the 2014 water bond fight.

Look at this year alone; there wasn’t enough water in storage and there wasn’t enough water available anywhere, so state policymakers had to decide between species. Which species were going to live? Which species were going to die? Why? ’Because there wasn’t enough water for all of them.

There are wetlands in Los Banos that never got water. The creatures and animals and species that are dependent on that habitat and viable property for their existence, did not get that opportunity. Why? ’Because an environmental project and species upstream took higher priority. There is not enough water to go around for all of the water users.

Cavanaugh: So what was the thought process behind combining the approved public funding of the high-speed rail project with the approved Water Bond funding?

Bettencourt: We are very connected to our community. We have always heard, “Well what if we could just change the priorities?” So we thought, “What if we could just take that money being used for high-speed rail and use it for water storage?”

Fallowed Field in Fresno County, California in 2014 due to zero water allocation.

Finally, our conversation with a number of our members and board transitioned to, “Well, what if? What would that look like?” Nobody had really looked into it. So our board decided to really invest into what that would look like. Could it be done? We were always told it couldn’t from a practical standpoint or even from a legal standpoint. We spent some time and resources looking into “What if” with some great legal minds in Sacramento.

We spoke with other organizations and people, especially those who had been involved in the rail and transportation side of this equation longer than we had—Citizens for High Speed Rail Accountability, most notably. We started pooling our resources into this inquiry, and sure enough, we found out it could be done.

Cavanaugh: And if the initiative were allowed on the ballot, it would be up to the voters to decide?

Bettencourt: Yes, it would. So, as we looked at it, we figured it was really quite remarkably elegant to reprioritize. And really, the theme of this ballot initiative is priorities. It is about getting our priorities in this state in the right order again and letting the public direct our elected officials with those decisions.

This ballot initiative takes the unissued bond funding from the high-speed rail project, which is about $8 billion, plus the $2.7 billion in water storage money from the 2014 Water Bond, and pools it in a new locked fund. The reason we did that is, quite frankly, “Why would we have two pots of money going toward the same thing?” It all needs to go into this new locked fund with the sole purpose of expanding the supply of new water for the state of California.

That fund can’t be borrowed against, pulled away from or pirated. The only way to change that funding would be to go back to the ballot and get the voters’ approval to move that funding around again.

An elected board would administer the locked fund.

Cavanaugh: ’Not the Water Commission?

Bettencourt: ’Not the Water Commission, nor appointed body at the state level, not even a legislative body. The board would be elected members from each of the water management districts. So, people from your community who have expertise and experience in water in their own region administer this fund that will benefit the entire state. Everybody gets a vote. You don’t have one region of the state having more of a vote than another region of the state; that is not what happens here. Everybody has a vote, and there is one at-large member that everyone in the state gets to vote on.

Cavanaugh: What about the Bay Area, and Los Angeles?

Bettencourt: ’Equal Players. Each of the regions has a representative on the board.

Cavanaugh: They only get one vote?

Central Valley Project (CVP) Water

Bettencourt: That’s right. So, in that structure, the funding is used fairly for the whole state. That is the long-term infrastructure portion of the proposed initiative.

We always talk about how the water crisis in California has two problems. One is an infrastructure problem, and, two: we have a management crisis. We don’t have set rules and regulations for where our water goes and how.

Cavanaugh: Can you elaborate?

Bettencourt: A good example is our own governor is saying he doesn’t have a plan for getting us out of this, and we don’t know what will happen when it starts raining. We don’t know how the system is supposed to be operated. There are no guidelines on the books anywhere right now. And in this time of drought, where you have low supply, you are seeing regulators making ad-hoc decisions. Well, there are no rules and there are no first, second, and last priorities. They are making decisions on a case-by-case basis, and that is no way to solve this.

We address the long-term shortage by expanding our water supply with more storage. Expanding the water supply for everyone increases the flexibility of our system, overall, for the environment, for agriculture, and for the communities of our state.

Cavanaugh: Is a constitutional amendment part of the initiative?

Bettencourt: The theme of this ballot is to get our priorities straight. We are taking what is already in the California Water Code that was passed in 1928. The people of California said, “This is the way we want our water used and in this priority,” and it was put in the California Water Code. Since then it has been subjectively adhered to.

But we take what was in the California Water Code—the intention of the people of California—put it into the State Constitution. And we say, “Reasonable and beneficial use of water is for people, food security, irrigation; and then everything else.” And we define what that is.

It is very simple. It is nothing new. It is already out there; but what is so important is that it addresses the immediate, and it instantly hands down the guidelines:

So, this is how we operate the system.

This is how we make these decisions.

These are the rules and orders of operation.

This is how we get ourselves out of the drought.

This is how we get our system back up and running. This is how you address the short-term: by setting the priorities, making them clear, providing guidelines to the regulators so they can do their jobs on behalf of the people of California to get us out of this drought and protect us from future droughts. From an operational standpoint, this provides the certainty we need in our water supply that we just don’t have. Also, when you expand supply for everybody, you gain back flexibility in the system.

Cavanaugh: That’s great, because as we know, the proposed Temperance Flat Reservoir can move water North or South and really help out if a seismic event were to occur in the Delta. How do we get around the Environmental Species Act (ESA) rules that affect the Delta?

Water in Friant-Kern Canal

Bettencourt: That is all federal, and this initiative does not address federal law. This is purely California-only. However, I think, should this measure pass, it would bump against the federal statute from an infrastructure standpoint because California pays for half the cost of an infrastructure project and from an operations standpoint as well. How would the federal regulatory system affect this California measure, should it pass? A new dialogue with the federal government would have to ensue after state voters adjust the priorities for our water supply.

Cavanaugh: So “California Water 4 All” is going to address water infrastructure. Of course, you can leave the whole ESA out of the conversation. So are building dams beyond Temperance, plus the Cross-Valley Canal the top priorities?

Bettencourt: Yes, we outline four specific projects within the infrastructure component of this initiative: Temperance Flat and Sites are the two darlings of the recent new water projects. In addition, we outline raising both Shasta and San Luis, which would minimally impact the environment and maximally impact water supply. The cost is low because while you are building on existing infrastructure and having less impact on the space you are taking up, you end up capturing more water utilizing existing footprints, which is great.

So we outline those four specific projects, which leaves almost $5.5 billion for additional regional water projects with the stipulation of creating new water. One good example is our partners in the Southland have a mandate from both the state and federal governments to capture and use storm runoff, but they don’t have the mechanisms to do that.

This ballot initiative could help them capture and store rain runoff in Southern California, which would provide more local regional water and increase flexibility to move water around the state north of them. So it is all about capturing more water and expanding supply, so we have more supply to go around.

Cavanaugh: It appears the best part of this initiative is that it benefits everyone in the state.

Bettencourt: Absolutely, and that was important to us when we crafted this initiative, that it couldn’t be so tight. This proposal really does benefit the entire state, not only from the macro-economic standpoint, such as new reservoirs; we are talking about groundwater recharge, storm water runoff, water recycling, desal, all of these projects would have a nice pot of money with the explicit direction of creating new water supply. And the best part about this entire initiative is it doesn’t cost anybody anything.

Cavanaugh: That must ring very nicely up there in Sacramento.

Bettencourt: It does. There is no new burden on the taxpayers; these are dollars that already been approved of by the voters. The only thing we are doing is reprioritizing. It is no different than if you are at home considering, “Well, I’d really like that new pair of shoes, but I have a leaky toilet I must fix. I’m going to take that money and say, “The shoes are great. I love the shoes. They get me to where I want to go, but the toilet is kind of mandatory right now. It is the only one in the house and that’s that priority.”

We have only one water supply, and transportation is absolutely important…

Cavanaugh: You are talking about the health and safety of the state—not just drinking water—but health and safety.

Bettencourt: The health and safety of our state and its environment are absolutely important. We were talking about this as a team, and someone on the team said, “This is about survival. In order to survive, you need to know what your need and use priorities are.”

California voters have made priorities of water need and use very clear, and it is time that we put that first so we can afford everything else. This is a great state and our organization always advocates from the position of, “We should be able to BE the Golden State and grow and revolutionize going forward over the next century. And that will happen if we get up to speed and have our priorities straight to meet and provide the most basic needs of the innovators and doers of California.

Lettuce Harvest in Fresno County

So we have written the initiative; that was a heavy lift. Then we found two great proponents in California State Senator George Runner, Vice Chair of the Board of Equalization, and California State Senator Bob Huff to act as our submitting proponents. We, at CalWA, are the sponsoring organization, and we have submitted the package to Attorney General Harris.

Now the Attorney General has 50 days from November 13, 2015 to say, “Yes this can go on the ballot,” and to return it with a suggested title and ballot summary or how it will appear on the ballot to be read by the voter.

We have also held required meetings with the Legislative Analyst’s Office, which score the ballot measure’s costs to the taxpayer. The costs will be budget neutral because there are no new funds. So, after 50 days, we will know whether or not we will be permitted to qualify for the ballot. We are hoping we will be, at which point we would have until April 16 to get 900,000 signatures of California voters to qualify automatically.

Cavanaugh: April 16 is not a lot of time before the election.

Bettencourt: That’s right. So everyone with a ballot initiative has to follow these rules: 50 days then hit the streets and get the signatures. This is the campaign mode so voters can make this decision in November 2016.

Cavanaugh: Do you anticipate any lobbying from Attorney General Kamala Harris’s office?

Bettencourt: No, It’s strictly in Kamala Harris’s hands on this one. We are permitted to suggest our own title and summary, but the decision will come from her office. I think over 100 ballot initiatives have been submitted.

Our biggest concern is that someone will say there are too many initiatives. Secondly, how do we stand out among so many other ballot initiatives?

Cavanaugh: How do we ensure this initiative stands out? It is going to be competing for attention in a presidential election year, as well as a big election year in the state, so it is no easy undertaking.

Bettencourt: The feedback we are getting is voters want to make this decision. They want to say, “Yep, we are changing priorities, not that we think certain projects are not important. We believe certain projects are more important than others at a given point in time.”

Cavanaugh: Doesn’t it seem like the best time to do it? A poll of California citizens shows they are concerned. The top priority, behind jobs, is water availability.

Bettencourt: Yes, the Public Policy Institute of California’s polls over the last year support that. And I think the Hoover Institute conducted an independent survey of California voters at the beginning of last year, ranking the top 36 priorities of the state: number 36 was high-speed rail and number 2 was water. So the California public is stating, “This is our priority now.” We want to make sure we give the voters of California an official opportunity to say that.

Cavanaugh: While we wait for the Attorney General’s approval or disapproval, where can we get more information on California Water 4 All?

Bettencourt: Visit our website: CAWater4All.com. There you will find the language of the ballot initiative. You’ll be able to read the legalese, first-hand. It is about 25 pages—could be worse; could be better.

We worked really hard to make that tight. You’ll also find summaries of the initiative, how it benefits the environment, what the facts are on high-speed rail and why all of a sudden we think high-speed rail needs to be a different priority at this point. What are the facts on water supply and where are we on our storage? Where are we regarding the competing mandates on our existing supply? Why are changes in direction and priority needed? We must create certainty in our water supply so we can get out of this drought and we need to know how to handle the next one when it comes.

Cavanaugh: Comment on your outreach for people to connect with you on the website to increase voter awareness of what’s going on.

Bettencourt: We are setting up this campaign to be as interactive with constituents as possible. Right now during the 50-day period, there is not much to do besides staying connected with us. We’ll be communicating on a weekly basis, if not more often. We’ll share not only what are other people saying about the initiative, but also where we are in the process: when it is time to sign up, to volunteer and to help us gather these signatures and where to get them.

If you visit the website, CAWater4all.com, you’ll can register with your email, your cell phone if you choose, and your zip code so we know your location in the state. You’ll be able to stay connected with us on next steps in the process and be active with us as well. There is also a donation page. This ambitious endeavor is going to take time, treasure and talent, so we need all the help we can get.

Cavanaugh: Once on the ballot, what do you envision initiative cost will be?

Bettencourt: The rule of thumb for an average statewide campaign in California when we took this on was $10 million, and that is the operating budget we are thinking about here. So, this is going to take little donations and big donations. But more importantly, this is going to take spreading the word, so we really encourage people to get connected.

Cavanaugh: Other social media?

Bettencourt: All social media: @cawater4all on on Twitter and cawater4all on Facebook as well.