2 Days in the (San Joaquin) Valley

In this case, I'm not talking about the film with a similar title but Congressional hearings in DC on  2 June and 13 June 2011.The hearings were conducted by the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the House Natural Resources Committee. Both hearings dealt with a bill sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), H.R. 1837.

Download San_Joaquin_Valley_Water_Reliability_Act_FINAL

Love that title!

So what would the bill do? According to California water guru Lloyd G. Carter (who has provided detailed notes on the 13 June hearing - and I do mean detailed), it would:

(1) strip state and federal Endangered Species Act(s) protection for the Bay-Delta Estuary allowing the massive federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP) to operate virtually unfettered even if harming the Delta;

(2) unravel a court-approved settlement on San Joaquin River restoration;

 (3) eliminate a 109-year old Reclamation law requiring federal agencies to defer to state water law;

(4) move the Westlands Water District to the head of the bucket line ahead of senior water rights holders; and

(5) require senior water rights holders, especially Delta riparians, to give up property rights in their water supplies in order to meet Delta ecosystem flow standards. 

Carter called this bill:

...effort to gut the ESA in California water issues, kill the San Joaquin River restoration effort, and move junior water rights holder Westlands to the head of the bucketline, usurping private property rights of senior water rights holders.

Tony Willlardson, Executive Director of the Western States Water Council provided these cautionary comments:

Download WillardsonTestimony06.13.11

Carter comments:

The next witness, Tony Willardson, Execute Director of the Western States Water Council based in Murray, Utah, made comments likely to give Republican congress members outside California pause.

Willardson, noted his Council is a non-partisan government  organization representing 18 western states, with members appointed by governors (some of them Republican governors) and that most members were concerned about the Nunes’ bill precedential impact on state water rights.

Willardson said the council had not had a chance to review H.R. 1837 in detail but he was concerned that the Nunes bill was antithetical to principles of federalism, contending “We need to defer to state water law” when making water resource decisions, as required by Section 8 of the 1902 Reclamation law, as amended.

 McClintock [Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), the Subcommittee Chair] had no questions for Willardson, despite the obvious implication that H.R. 1837 is a frontal assault on both state water rights decision-making authority and private property rights, the bedrock of conservative Republicanism.

Carter provided these comments on the Nunes bill  from none other than Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA), who is no liberal (not even close):

 After carefully reviewing H.R. 1837 and discussing it with water users in our area, I have strong concerns that the bill, as currently drafted, would negatively impact Northern California rights and preempt state water laws. As I have long stated, California's area of origin protections are clear and unambiguous - our water needs must be met first, before excess water is allowed to flow south.

In the same piece, Subcommittee Chair Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) seemed to back off a bit from the Nunes bill, given his statements after the 2 June 2011 hearing.

Both McClintock and Herger are from Northern California; Nunes' district is in the San Joaquin Valley.

Nunes is a conservative Republican, the kind of legislator who salivates over personal property rights, so it strikes me as odd that he would sponsor a bill that would give short shrift to senior water rights holders and move junior ones ahead of them.  But then again, politics and water make strange bedfellows. Or perhaps water flows uphill to money and power is more apt. Or better still:

"Conservatives are supposed to defend to the death private property rights.  Unless special interest patrons want a sweetheart deal." -- Lloyd G. Carter

Comments

[Michael]

Hey, Tim.

Great comment.

You'll have to forgive me - I still think there are extant Republicans who are conservative in the Barry Goldwater/Bill Buckley sense yet who are not nutso (i.e., the 'Three Gs' - God, Guns, and Gays). Although Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, the Maine senators, fall into that category I suppose I'm quite wrong.

Then again, I even recall when there were liberal Republicans - the Nelson Rockefeller/Jacob Javits wing, and more recently, moderates (Mark Hatfield/Tom McCall).

[Tim]

The phrase "Conservative Republican" is really grating on my nerves. There are almost no such people. The GOP constantly calls itself the party of conservatives, and the press and public go along with that, in spite of all evidence to the contrary! Nearly all Republican politicians regularly betray every one of the supposed core principles of Conservatism, with breathtaking hypocrisy. Nunes is no different, just more obvious about it.

[Lloyd Carter]

I urge all Water wired readers to visit my website, www.LloydGCarter.com and read my law review article, which can be located in the "quick links" box in the upper right corner of the home page. It is titled "Reaping Riches in a Wretched Region."
It turns out the nation's richest farming region is the poorest place in America.