Southern California was in the midst of its fourth rain event of the season this week and with another expected next week, some experts believe the arrival of the weather phenomenon known as El Niño could be imminent. While it may be too early to link the Pacific storms to El Niño, the federal Climate Prediction Center’s El Niño “diagnostics discussion” could make the call next week on Dec. 13.
In a vote that was as important for its message as the funding it appropriates, California voters on June 5 supported Proposition 68, the $4.1 billion water bond that specifically included $200 million for Salton Sea restoration. That funding will support the ten-year phase one list of projects under the state’s Salton Sea restoration plan known as the Salton Sea Management Program (SSMP).
Coupled with $80 million for the sea from a previous bond, the $200 million moves the state closer to achieving its ten-year target of addressing 30,000 acres of exposed playa. Another water bond scheduled for the November election includes an additional $200 million for the sea to completely fund phase one of the SSMP.
Passage of Proposition 68, which voters in San Diego and Imperial County both supported, advances the SSMP at a time when there is growing concern on the state’s ability to build air quality and habitat projects to meet annual targets for playa coverage. In fact, the state has acknowledged the 2018 target of 500 acres will not be met. However, that delay is mainly due to finalizing land liability issues rather than a lack of funding. State officials working on the sea have indicated they are close to settling those issues and anticipate progress will be expedited once the necessary legal agreements are resolved. The passage of Proposition 68 means the state will be in an even better position to make up for lost time so targets can be achieved going forward.
The “yes” vote by California voters also sends an important message to the state that since additional resources have been allocated for restoration at the sea, better progress on meeting the established milestones is expected more than ever. Voters have armed the state with funding to push the SSMP forward, and it now falls upon the state to meet its responsibilities. According to the state’s SSMP ten-year planning committee meeting last week, there is a solid list of projects ready to move forward toward meeting annual targets. Those projects include ones that have been touted before, plus new projects state officials have added, at least one of which they say can be accomplished at a faster rate. Long heralded projects include the state’s Species Conservation Habitat (SCH) project. Phase one of that project, which is already funded, will address 640 acres, but with the funding from Proposition 68, additional phases of the SCH are expected to move forward. At total build-out, the SCH would address nearly 4,000 acres along the southern shore of the sea. Another project set to move forward by the year’s end is the 500-acre wetlands at Red Hill Marina on the southern shore.
According to state officials, a new 290-acre project on the southern shore will be developed as wetlands on the site of a planned geothermal project. Additional projects are planned for the northern shore under a perimeter lake proposal from Riverside County, and at least one project is under development near the communities closest to the sea.
The passage of Proposition 68 also comes as the state has begun the effort to consider longer term projects as well. Part of that effort has included a request for proposals for importing a new source of water supply to the Salton Sea. As many as 11 conceptual proposals were submitted, most of which involve importing water from Mexico, and were introduced during a recent public forum in Imperial County. Proposition 68 funding is not expected to go toward water importation projects. While the state plans to evaluate water importation proposals as a possible long-term effort, the current focus is on implementing the first ten years of the SSMP and getting projects on the ground to address air quality and habitat.
While it is likely concerns about the state’s progress will continue, thanks to California voters, the state now has the opportunity to prove the delays of the past will not continue and that there will be real headway toward addressing restoration. Additionally, state officials indicated at last week’s SSMP ten-year planning committee meeting that they intend to apply lessons learned thus far to other projects to help expedite implementation of the SSMP, understanding though, that each project is distinct as well. Now is the time for stakeholders to remain even more vigilant to make sure the pendulum swings toward greater progress.
San Diego, Calif. – Civic and business leaders statewide are increasingly expressing opposition to the proposed state drinking water tax.
They call on the state’s leaders to find a better way to fund clean water than adding a tax, as proposed by state Senate Bill 623 and the Brown administration’s Budget Trailer Bill. A chief concern is that a precedent-setting tax today would lead to more taxes on water in the future.
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Sacramento: “It is unconscionable that California, which has a record-high $130 billion General Fund budget with a $6 billion surplus, can’t provide clean drinking water to a million people using existing resources. Is this not the first role of government, providing a public good essential to life? The statewide tax would represent a diversion of local ratepayer dollars to an out-of-control state bureaucracy that has little accountability.”
John Coleman, past president, Association of California Water Agencies; board member, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland: The process through which this tax has been proposed is also problematic. Proponents have been planning to insert this tax for months, but kept all details under wraps until the last few weeks of session … To impose a statewide tax on Californians’ water bills would turn local water agencies into taxation entities that send money to Sacramento
The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board: “Californians are told lawmakers can’t commit themselves to devoting a tiny fraction of the state budget to honor the intent of the measure, so a new category of taxation must be created. Baloney. Yes, of course, the water problem must be addressed — but with honesty, not subterfuge.
Haney Hong, president and CEO of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association: “Twenty percent of the funding for this correction for the water source, which is an important thing to do, comes from the polluters, and the rest, the 80 percent, comes from the rest of us in California. That’s not how this should work.”
Mark Muir, chair of the San Diego County Water Authority’s Board of Directors: “Make no mistake: This is a tax, and taxing Californians for something as essential as water does not make sense. It will increase the cost of water, making it less affordable. It also will place undo upward pressure on food prices. Call it a lose-lose for low-income residents – and everyone else.”
The Agoura Hills/Calabasas Acorn Editorial Board: “Water districts are caught in a squeeze between environmentalists who want the cleanest water possible released into the state’s waterways—a demand that comes at a high cost—and consumers who are tired of footing the bill … And all of this doesn’t even take into account the future cost of the twin tunnel megalith that will channel fresh water underneath the Sacramento Bay Delta for supposedly more efficient delivery to farms and urban areas in the South. What’s that going to cost? Customer costs are already too high.”
Assemblyman Philip Chen (Brea): “Supporters of SB623 will argue that this legislation will help those who are poor, disadvantaged, and reside in rural areas. It does not … Adding a tax on drinking water will only make clean and safe water less affordable for all Californians. According to the California Tax Foundation, since the beginning of this year Sacramento lawmakers have introduced more than 90 bills that would cost taxpayers more than $370 billion annually in higher taxes and fees. Now these lawmakers want to add another tax but this time on your drinking water. Will there be anything that is not taxed in California?”
