« Pete Retrieves The Cheese | Main | “Reform, no – democracy, yes!” »
October 23, 2007
More Thoughts On California Water Crisis
by Jack Lee
This is one of those pay me now or "PAY ME LATER" situations. By 2030 we will have a severe water shortage in SoCal given current growth proejctions, unless . . . we increase our surface water storage capacity in the North state and regulate the winter runoff for more even distribution. The overall cost will have to be funded by bond debt initially, but it can be repaid by the end users in their monthly water bills. This would cover the cost of the entire water project with no taxpayer debt.
Keep in mind, the North State has a problem with our aging levee system and if we don't build surface water storage we are increasingly relying on these old levees to keep us out of harms way.
Summer drought and winter flooding are only part of the pay me later plan.
California also needs clean energy and hydroelectric is about as clean as it gets. Dams and hydro power are a natural match. If you don't want that, the second option is nuclear plants. Right...hydroelectric it is! But, whatever the energy choice the facilities ought to be eventually paid by the end users, not taxpayers.
There are other options of course, but they get more draconian as we go down the list. One is to place a moratorium on new home construction in those drought prone areas like anything south of the east bay. Can't see that happening. Or maybe we could abandon the environmental mandates that now consume about 50% of our surface water. That's right, nearly half our current water is mandated for use in environmental projects like keeping river water temperatures colder for certain types of fish or flushing the brackish water from the delta, to name but a few. Nah, can't see that happening either.
Now aside from the expected protests and legal hurdles that will cost extra millions, we face an equal, if not a more daunting challenge. That would be stopping our politicians from attaching earmarks (pork) to legislation destined to fund the water projects. You can't appropriate big bucks for anything these days without some sly politician trying to siphon off some of it for his personal glory. A big appropriations bill like water management is like chum in the ocean for these sharks.
The Gov's latest water project allocating about 10.1 billion dollars is almost half consumed by pork before the money even get's out of Sacramento. Ideally an anti-pork bill should precede any major funding for a major water project just to make sure the money gets spent where its supposed to be spent!
Posted by Post Scripts at October 23, 2007 08:11 PM
Comments
...but it can be repaid by the end users in their monthly water bills.
SoCal included!
Ideally an anti-pork bill should precede any major funding for a major water project...
Fabulous idea...we can dream.
Posted by: Tina at October 23, 2007 09:45 PM
We have to make some improvements to our water delivery system because failure to do what we know is right is not a viable option. We face draught conditions for farmers and flood for citizens...and thats just the north area. We have to ultilize our resources more efficiently or be subject to the whims of nature
Posted by: Jack at October 24, 2007 08:24 AM
Here's another idea. Split the state somewhere South of the East Bay. If people want to move to a desert, they can't expect to have it look like anything but what it is. If the people of South California want our water, they can buy it.
Posted by: Jordan Frazer at October 24, 2007 02:14 PM
That is a good idea and it has crossed my mind too Jordan!
I'm afraid the time has passed when we could have split the state. SoCal has to agree and they wouldn't now because of water.
I agree they should pay for our water. One good way is via end users where those who use it pay for it. The longer we take to strike a deal the more likely they will be to just take it!
Posted by: Jack at October 24, 2007 04:25 PM