Our View: An unlikely win for Gray’s water bill

Once Speaker Toni Atkins’ pet bills had been heard; once the people who want emissions limits on fracking had finished; once the manufacturers of recycled plastics had wrapped up, the Assembly Natural Resources Committee took up the concerns of some 120 people who had been waiting two hours in the hallway.

It was worth the wait.

The committee passed Assemblyman Adam Gray’s amended bill requiring the State Water Resources Control Board to first identify then consider other ways to protect fish before taking more water away from those counting on it. That’s a significant improvement of how the water board had planned to do business.

The water board has said the only way to fix the problems of diminished fish populations on the Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced rivers is to have more water flowing down each river – more than twice as much, overall. That will leave less for human use. It called the concerns of residents “significant but unavoidable.”

Hundreds of area residents refuse to accept that analysis.

While the state has been quick to point out the environmental benefits of depriving our region of the water it normally holds behind dams, the “unavoidable” costs have been vastly understated. The state’s original impact document said the loss of the water would idle roughly 120,000 irrigated acres in Merced, Stanislaus and south San Joaquin counties – costing $124 million. Others have put the cost closer to $800 million, maybe $1 billion.

If the bill that cleared its second committee hurdle Monday becomes law, the state would at least be required to consider other ways of protecting endangered fish.

“The valley community is united in this effort,” said Merced County Supervisor Hub Walsh, who was one of roughly 120 to attend a morning rally on the Capitol steps and one of 60 who took the microphone in the small hearing room. Assembly Republican Leader Kristin Olsen helped organize the rally, which also focused on getting water storage projects approved without undue red tape.

“Today, citizens of the Central Valley sent a powerful message to Sacramento,” said Gray.

Following Walsh were Daron McDaniel and John Pedrozo of Merced County and Terry Withrow, speaking for a unanimous Stanislaus County board. Bill Zoslocki represented the city of Modesto, and members of the Merced, Atwater, Livingston and Los Banos city councils. Then came the farm bureaus, the chambers of commerce, and every water district followed by farmer after farmer – including one who brought an empty bucket.

Steve Gomes, superintendent of Merced County Office of Education, told the committee that 25,000 students in Merced County attend schools with wells, and the water level at each one is dropping. He worries that if the state deprives the region of the water that normally recharges those aquifers, his students will be drinking bottled water and using Port-a-potties.

Michael Frantz, a member of the Turlock Irrigation District board, noted the value of the Tuolumne River to recharging groundwater basins on either side of the river.

“There’s a whole bunch of people in this building because we’re worried,” said Frantz.

“This is a good day for us,” said Stanislaus Farm Bureau executive director Wayne Zipser.

This battle is not even over. Six environmental organizations (about 1 for every 10 people in favor) testified against the bill. They are formidable. Two weeks ago, after Democrat Gray and Olsen worked overtime to get the original bill passed in its first committee, Gray was kicked off that committee by Speaker Atkins. A clear message.

Monday, the San Joaquin Valley sent a message of its own.

“The struggle to protect our water and promote sustainability is not over,” said Gray. “The residents of the Central Valley have made it clear that they demand to have a voice at the table.”

Continuing to use that voice is absolutely essential.

This story was originally published April 28, 2015 at 4:36 PM with the headline "Our View: An unlikely win for Gray’s water bill."