Dangerous Ideas in the Legislature and State Administration

Dangerous ideas in the legislature

It’s silly season in the California legislature. It’s the time for spot bills (bills introduced with the intention of being amended later) to materialize — and some are pretty ugly.

One of those is ACA 2, the Water Resiliency Act of 2024(1), introduced by Assemblyman Juan Alanis (R-Modesto).

This proposed constitutional ballot-box-budgeting amendment would annually set aside 1.5% of California’s general fund budget for a variety of water projects, including “Expansion, repair, or replacement of existing surface reservoirs, and construction of new surface reservoirs” and “[w]ater conveyance development, maintenance, or expansion…” For those not counting, that could easily amount to $3 billion per year (about the cost of one giant Temperance Flat Dam per year). Friends of the River objected to this provision, among many other issues with ACA 2, in a letter to state legislators(2).

California Gov. Edmund G. Pat Brown, 1962 re-election campaign. Public domain.

Of course, when Governor Pat Brown proposed the dams and canals for the State Water Project, these projects would not be the financial burden of state taxpayers, but instead this responsibility would fall on actual beneficiaries of the project. And, no one expected state taxpayers to finance projects being built by others.

President Ronald Reagan, official White House portrait. From Whitehouse.gov.

Brown’s successor, Governor Ronald Reagan took that principle with him to Washington, D.C., where, as President, he re-enshrined that “beneficiaries-pay” policy into federal law.

Alanis’s proposal represents the water industry’s “Empire Strikes Back” counterattack to win back their subsidies that had been pruned back by Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan.

The bill was initially referred to the Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife Committee for a hearing on March 19, but as of this writing, has been pulled from the hearing.

Rubber meeting the road for the proposed Sites dam

Among the deadbeat dams revived in the 2014 California Water Bond is the proposed Sites Reservoir, a 1.5 million acre-foot $4 billion reservoir that would draw off water from the Sacramento River for eventual delivery to mostly Southern California water districts.

The proposed location of Sites Reservoir. Image courtesy of Greg Kareofelas, 2015.

Other than the challenges of financing the project (the Sites Project Authority expects a billion each from the state and the federal government, and $2.5 billion in federal loans), the big hurdle for the project is securing the water rights for the project. The Authority received $40 million state taxpayer subsidies for permitting costs.

With the urging of Governor Gavin Newsom, the State Water Resources Control Board just announced that the water rights proceeding would begin shortly, setting aside nearly 30 days for hearings.

Protestants (who received no state subsidies) are preparing for the hearing that may establish conditions on the operations of the project meant to protect the public interest.

The outcome is by no means certain. The Authority will be arguing for diversion and operational conditions that (with major subsidies) might provide a positive cash flow for the project. The protestants are likely to argue that if the project is not profitable with responsible operational conditions, then so be it. It would not be the first or last water project that was laid to rest because it failed to demonstrate economic viability.

Thus, the politicians’ effort to shower the project with taxpayer subsidies.

Up next at the State Water Resources Control Board: Tunneling under the Delta

The cover of Bulletin No. 3, a 1957 report by the Department of Water Resources, illustrates the clear design intent of the State Water Project—to move water from north to south. Public domain.

This is shaping up to be a busy and consequential year and more for the State Water Resources Control Board. For it also just announced the receipt of the California Department of Water Resources petition to add a large tunnel to take Sacramento River water and transport that water under the San Joaquin/Sacramento River/Bay Delta for delivery to the giant pumps feeding the California Aqueduct that snakes south(3).

There are likely to be a fair number of participants in the Board’s new diversion (change) proceeding, and this is the time for organizations and individuals to tell the Board and the Department the concerns they wish to take into the proceeding (done by filing protests).

In the past Friends of the River has told the Board and the Department that the construction of a new super highway (the tunnel) to thirsty users in the south state represents an effectively unmitigated threat to north state rivers (4,5,6).

That threat remains.

Resources:

(1) ACA 2, the Water Resiliency Act of 2024

(2) FOR opposition letter to ACA 2

(3) Delta Tunnel water rights petition

(4) FOR Delta Tunnel EIR Comments, (5) EIS Comments, (6) WaterFix Testimony of Ron Stork