GRASS VALLEY, Calif. March 12, 2010 - Making a rare appearance on March 10 before Nevada Irrigation District's board, Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), offered a broad overview of California's recently approved water legislation and the state's controversial $11.4 billion bond up for voter consideration in November.
"We represent a large number of diverse public agencies, almost 450," Quinn began, noting that ACWA membership includes agricultural and urban interests spanning California's coastal, inland, and Sierra regions. "ACWA's function is to bring all varied views together into a common interest. We never forget local interests but pretty much check provincialism at the door," Quinn added, referring to his organization's over 30-member board. NID's general manager Ron Nelson is an ACWA director and Region 3 vice-chair.
On the water policy package passed by voters in November 2009, Quinn waxed generally positive. "It is a powerful piece of legislation," he stated. "While no legislation is perfect -- and I don't like some of the compromises -- it is built around the notion of coequal values."
Summing up some of these values, Quinn said the state's new water legislation seeks to manage statewide water supply reliability while simultaneously addressing ecosystem restoration.
But Quinn also noted that policy commitments to efficiency and conservation must be coupled with an equal commitment to infrastructure development. Making a pitch for the proposed $11.4 billion bond on the ballot in November, he said that achieving these two coequal goals can't be achieved without some kind of financing mechanism.
"I'm not sure how the voters will vote," he said, voicing concerns that this was not the best "time" to ask Californians to approve a bond this size. But he added that new infrastructure projects translate into potentially thousands of new jobs for state residents.
Nevertheless, when NID Director Nick Wilcox asked if the benefits of the current water policy legislation rely on passage of the bond, Quinn clarified his previous statements. "The legislation and bond are legally decoupled," he advised, adding that the package of water policies does not rely on the bond being forwarded. "If it turns out the bond is not approved, then it is important to know you still have policy direction from the four bills," Quinn said, but also noted that financing from the bond helps achieve the goals of the legislation.
Just Another Bond in a Long Line of Many?
Wilcox responded by reminding Quinn and NID directors of a prevailing argument against bringing another water bond to California voters. "We keep passing bond after bond to restore the Delta, but it continues to decline," Wilcox pointed out. "Where is the guarantee that we pass more money and it will get fixed?"
Dodging the reference to previous bonds, Quinn continued to promote the pending bond. "No body wins under the status quo -- we need comprehensive solutions and this is the first time we have one."
Who Pays -- and Who Benefits?
NID Director Nancy Weber queried Quinn around the issue of who pays for the bond versus who benefits from it. "A general obligation bond is inequitable for people in our area," Weber said, referring to the fact NID property owners would be taxed to pay for the bond, but wouldn't necessarily benefit from infrastructure projects and programs to address ecosystem and water supply issues in other areas of California. "If Southern California or other places need our water, then they should pay for it," she added, emphasizing the need for beneficiary pays-based assessments. "I think it's crucial that we are recognized for the asset we bring to the state water system," Weber continued. "It is a financial asset that we really need considered."
Quinn assured NID directors that those in Southern California who benefit from water originating in the northern regions of the state will bear financial responsibility for what they receive. "This is a very legitimate concern, but the vast majority of infrastructure costs will be paid by southern California," Quinn responded, referencing, however, only conveyance costs -- and not the cost of water originating potentially from northern California. Quinn added that the "only place the bond is asking for the public to pay is for future storage."
Along with increasing the tax burden of California residents, it has been calculated that the proposed general obligation bond would drain roughly $600 million from the state's general fund to support interest payments alone on the bond.
Water Rights and Area-of-Origin Concerns
While speaking directly to the idea that "those who benefit should pay," Weber's questions also touched on the sensitive issue of NID's water rights and how the new water legislation affects area-of-origin interests. Earlier in his presentation, Quinn offered some comments regarding these concerns.
"There is strong language protecting your water rights, as strong as we can get it," he offered, acknowledging that many people in northern California, including some environmentalists, were very worried about area-of-origin water rights protection. "Most of those questions seem to be behind us now," Quinn added.
Sierra Foothill Watersheds: Protections for NID's Water Source?
While concerned with potential impacts to NID's water rights, Director Weber also asked Quinn how the proposed bond addresses watershed protection. "I'm worried about protection of our watersheds," Weber said. "The extraction mentality up here with mining and logging is the same with water. I see this same mentality to some degree in the bond. We need mandated protection of our watersheds."
Assuring Weber that the bond provides "a lot of money in watershed protection," Quinn suggested that as a member of ACWA, the district should encourage general manager Ron Nelson to promote this aspect of the bond -- and seek out these dollars if it passes.
"Is Agriculture Being Left Out of the Process?"
This was the lone question posited by director Jim Bachman, whose division includes cattle and farming operations in Placer County. Quinn assured Bachman and the board that agriculture is very much a part of the water policy and bond process. "We are working with the Farm Bureau," Quinn noted, adding that legislation addresses water rights for farming interests and assistance for developing better conservation practices.
In fact, for the first time in California history, part of the new water legislation requires that local agencies monitor the elevation of their groundwater basins to better manage the resource during both normal water years and drought conditions. And while SB 7 requires urban water agencies to reduce statewide per capital water consumption 20 percent by 2020, the bill avoids any call for mandatory reduction in water use by agricultural water users, who receive roughly 80% of all water delivered in California.
In addition, while SB 7 calls for agricultural water suppliers to measure water deliveries and adopt pricing structures for their irrigation customers based at least, in part, on water delivered, the bill requires this only "where technically and economically feasible." Most agencies like NID that deliver raw water to customers claim it is nearly impossible to make the change to volumetric, metered (like household or domestic water usage) water deliveries to their irrigation customers.
The proposed water bond also has provisions for drought relief, agriculture water use efficiency and conservation projects, and farmland conservancy grant programs.
And What of a Peripheral Canal?
The real elephant in the room -- discussion of the contentious peripheral canal -- was noticeably absent throughout most of Quinn's presentation. At one point, he edged dangerously close as talk turned toward the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Citing conflicting and disparate environmental attitudes toward finding a solution to the Delta's troubled ecosystem, Quinn offered an interesting perspective. "For some environmentalists, they view the Delta as broken, but don't really care because they have a federal judge protecting it," Quinn said. He added for those who really want a Delta restoration project, the bond will be necessary.
"On the environmental side, it is interesting," Quinn continued. "Some environmentalists don't want to solve problems, but then there are some that are very into solving problems -- and these are the ones who supported the legislative package," he noted. But Quinn added that the big question is whether these same environmental groups will support the bond.
It was only at the end of Quinn's presentation that NID Director Nick Wilcox offered an opinion on the idea of a peripheral canal, its price tag now estimated to be in excess of $40 billion -- and a potential cost to California taxpayers separate and in addition to the the proposed $11.4 billion November 2010 bond. "I personally support a Delta transfer facility," Wilcox said emphatically.
By submitting a comment you consent to our rules. Please use your real first and last name, not a nickname or alias. Thank you.
