Skip to content
Sign up free
News

Water Change We Need?

By Susannah Kopecky

2-minute read

Earlier this month, California lawmakers and Governor Schwarzenegger agreed to a five-pronged “solution” to the statewide water crisis. The solution in question is composed of four bills (Senate Bills 1, 6, 7 and 8) and what the governor’s office describes an $11.14 billion bond that will “fund, with local cost-sharing, drought-relief, water supply reliability, Delta sustainability, groundwater protection, and water recycling and water conservation programs.” It’s both refreshing to see state lawmakers recognize that $11.14 billion is a lot of money, especially when well managed, and depressing to see just how fast lawmakers are hoping to spend more than $11 billion of taxpayer money on ideas more abstract than concrete.

Senate Bill 1 restructures the Delta Protection Commission and establishes the Delta Stewardship Council, among other things. This is of importance to all state residents, as if the council can provide an affective answer to the delta water restriction crisis, it could affect the livelihood and lives of many residents, including farmers in small valley towns where unemployment is nearly 50 percent. Senate Bill 6 focuses on the monitoring of groundwater throughout the state, and offers financial consequences to those local organizations which do not implement groundwater monitoring plans. Senate Bill is that infamous one which makes mandatory the conservation of water. Senate Bill 7 “requires the development of agricultural water management plans” and pushes water suppliers closer to the 20x2020 goal of having a “20 percent reduction in urban water use,” according to the statement from the Office of the Governor. This is a piece of legislation which will affect every resident, as it mandates exactly how much water the individual can use on a given day. Senate Bill 8 focuses on water diversion and its relation to the delta. In addition, it also offers a framework for how to spend $546 million, obtained through voter-approved propositions, on water use grants. The $11.14 billion bond, known as the Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 would fund activities such as conservation, water recycling, drought relief, “Delta sustainability” and “water supply reliability” (the latter of which would receive $1.4 billion in funding).

The Office of the Governor lauded the proposed fix as a historic move, perhaps mostly because the governor and the legislature at least see eye to eye on one thing: there is a problem affecting the state, and the time to sit, twiddling thumbs has passed. Though the idea behind the package is a positive one, there still does not appear to be a cohesive plan on how to address the drought, other than trying to legislate the amount of water individuals can use, and throwing more money towards loosely defined conservation and sustainability projects. Updating the aging water infrastructure is necessary, but reading through this plan, one cannot help but get the idea it was cobbled together in a hurry, to provide perceived relief rather than an actual plan. Let us hope something good can come out of this very expensive plan.

Tags: News

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Water Change We Need?

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us