Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Nunes’ Top Ten Christmas Wish List

Congressman Nunes' Christmas list for 2009...


1) For Ray Appleton, a hat like Paul Rodriguez.



2) For Paul Rodriguez, a new hat.


Perhaps a bowler?


3) For the Fresno Bee’s Mark Grossi, a cruise ship for his next trip down the San Joaquin River.



4) For Fresno Bee reporter Mike Doyle, one of Gary Condit’s Baskin Robbins in Arizona.



5) For Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner’s for those long trips home to San Francisco.



6) A solar powered plane to replace his fuel guzzling private jet for Governor Schwarzenegger’s next climate summit trip.



7) The addition of Central Valley farmers and farm workers to the endangered species list.



8) A new environmental think tank in Mendota for George Miller and his political allies in Congress.


(maybe some of the radical environmentalists who protested in Copenhagen can help run the center)

9) For Sean Hannity of FOX News, a salmon fishing trip with bailout recipients who will explain how the $250 million salmon disaster payments are being spent.



10) Hip boots for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar – his current boots aren’t high enough for his rhetoric.






Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Obama Administration: Federal Action Plan for Water Crisis in California

In case you missed it, please see the latest news from the Department of Interior detailing the President's response to our water crisis (it speaks for itself).

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR PRESS RELEASE
December 22, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Obama Administration today released a coordinated interim action plan to address the water crisis in California. In accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by six federal agencies at the end of September, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Chair Nancy Sutley of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) joined the Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Army and the Department of Agriculture to release a list of actions being taken by the six federal agencies.

“The California water crisis is a full-blown crisis that requires all hands on deck to help those who are suffering. We are moving aggressively to do our part to address the urgent need to provide reliable water supplies for 25 million Californians, while also protecting the Bay-Delta ecosystem upon which the supplies depend,” Secretary Salazar said. “Everything we do will be done in close partnership with the State of California and will build upon the path-breaking legislation recently enacted by the State.”

"The Obama Administration is committed to robust reengagement in restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem and addressing California’s water needs,” said Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. “The actions that Federal agencies announce today will have real, on-the-ground impacts in 2010 and will complement the State of California’s ongoing response.”

The coordinated federal action plan will:

• strengthen the federal government’s coordination of actions with the state – especially its commitment to more fully engage federal agencies in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, the most significant effort currently underway to address critical long-term water issues in California.

• help to meet water needs through actions that promote smarter water supply and use such as constructing projects that increase flexibility in the water supply system; enhancing water transfers; ensuring that the best science is applied to water supply decisions; and intensifying and aligning Federal water conservation efforts with those of the state.

• help ensure healthy ecosystems and improved water quality through independent reviews of key scientific questions, including a review of all factors that are contributing to the decline of the Bay-Delta ecosystem; investigation and mitigation of other stressors affecting water quality in the Bay-Delta and impacts to its imperiled species; advancing ecosystem restoration projects, including near-term habitat projects in the Bay-Delta; accelerating the restoration and propagation of Delta smelt and other aquatic species; continuing construction of fish screens; and addressing climate change impacts on the Bay-Delta.

• call for agencies to help deliver drought relief services and ensure integrated flood risk management, including the prioritization of projects and activities for flood risk management and related levee stabilization projects and navigation.

Deputy Secretary of the Interior David J. Hayes today noted that the federal officials reviewed and considered public comments in preparing this interim plan. “This plan was produced on an expedited basis due to the crisis, and it will remain a living document that is updated and revised on a going-forward basis.”

The federal agencies will now begin to implement the actions contained in this plan, working in close partnership with the State of California to advance their shared priorities.

To view the draft plan, go here: http://www.doi.gov/documents/CAWaterWorkPlan.pdf

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

The Turn on the Pumps Act

Afterreceiving news from California that the State Water Project allocationfor 2010 would be the lowest in history, a mere 5%, I began circulating a discharge petition for my bill, "The Turn onthe Pumps Act" (H.R.3105). The legislation would restore the flow ofwater in California by waiving the Endangered Species Act (ESA)provisions responsible for Delta pumping restrictions. A dischargepetition requires 218 signatures and would move my bill out of the House Committee on Natural Resources to the House Floor for debate. If enacted, "The Turn onthe Pumps Act" would immediately restore the flow of water to dryCalifornia communities. 

I have fought for nearly two years to gain passage of a temporaryESA waiver that would restore the flow of water to San Joaquin Valleycommunities while California’s long-term water supply challenges areaddressed. My proposal to help the people of the San Joaquin Valley,as well as Southern California residents, is virtually identical tolegislation that passed Congress without controversy in 2003.

Theaction by Congress in 2003 was bipartisan and swift. Water supplies inNew Mexico were threatened due to ESA rules related to the silveryminnow – a three inch bait fish. In order to protect the water supplyof Albuquerque, as well as other communities dependent on the RioGrande River, a temporary ESA waiver was enacted.

Currentwater shortages in California, including the announcement of a 5%allocation for 2010, are the direct result of ESA protections relatedto the Delta smelt – a three inch bait fish. Federal and state pumpingfrom the Delta have been severely restricted thanks to the flawedimplementation of the ESA. This has resulted in the transformation ofour nation’s most fertile farmland into desert and driven unemploymentto historic levels.

Overthe past several years, we have witnessed the hypocrisy ofCongressional leaders, including the Speaker, California’s senators andother senior Democrats, who supported the 2003 New Mexico language butrefuse to do the same for their own constituents. The dischargepetition I am circulating will highlight our supporters and expose ouropponents. It will clearly show who in the House favors fish overfamilies.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Government takeover of health care

Tonight, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats passed H.R. 3962, the government takeover of health care in America.

I joined 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats in opposing the bill. You can click here to see how each Member of Congress voted. More information on the bill can be found here.

You can watch my remarks earlier this evening during the debate on the House floor here.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

America is at a Crossroads

Hours ago, the finishing touches were placed on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s health care reform bill. It is now available for public inspection – all 2000 pages of it. I encourage you to read the bill, its supporting documents, and analysis (click here). It is important for each of us to know what Congress is planning – which is undoubtedly the most significant domestic policy change we have witnessed in our lifetime.

My reaction:
Upon reading the bill, you will discover several compelling problems. First, the Pelosi legislation entirely ignores the fact that existing government health programs – Medicaid and Medicare – are on the verge of financial collapse. Fully funding our existing entitlement programs would require $40 trillion be raised today. This is money we neither have nor are capable of squeezing out of our economy.

Worse than ignoring the crisis, the Pelosi bill actually compounds it by forcing more than ten million Americans onto Medicaid and creating a new middle class health care entitlement program. These changes will cost more than $1 trillion, according to conservative estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office. However, less optimistic projections suggest the cost will exceed $2 trillion.

Another key problem relates to the Pelosi bill’s false premise that Americans do not spend enough on health care today. In fact, we spend more on health care than any country in the world. On the other hand, we are not spending this money efficiently. The more government has taken over health care, the less efficient and more expensive it has become. We do not need to add another trillion dollars into a system that has proven to possess an endless appetite for spending; particularly government spending.

Thirdly, Democrats seek to solve the problem of the uninsured by forcing all Americans – including those with good insurance – into a new centrally controlled government system. If you like what you have, you will not be able to keep it.

In short, the Pelosi bill empowers civil servants and other Washington elites instead of Americans, their doctors, and other health providers. When fully implemented, the plan will force every insurance policy in America to be the product of a government contracting process. Traditional health insurance will be banned.

Health care in America is at a crossroads. At a cost of $500 million per page, the latest Democratic plan takes big government to an entirely new level. It is the wrong way to solve our health care challenges and it should be defeated.

If you are interested in learning more about my views on health care reform, including legislation I have authored, click here.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Distorted Water

During the debate in Congress about the government-imposed drought, I have witnessed a lot of misinformation and even downright dishonesty. I have posted a lot of the debate on my YouTube Channel and have discussed this issue at length on this blog. However, I think it is important to address the distortions used against us in a more comprehensive manner. The most common distortions, as well as my responses, are detailed below:

Download Distorted Water in Adobe format.  Click here for the high quality PDF and here for the smaller file.

DISTORTION: Agriculture uses 80% of California's water.
FACT: Quite the reverse is true – 76% of Delta water is used by the environment.

In an average year, the entire state of California receives about 200 million acre feet of water through precipitation. More than 50% evaporates into the atmosphere, percolates into the soil, or is used by native vegetation.

The remaining water, approximately 82 million acre feet, flows into rivers. Of this amount, California dedicates 48% to the environment – the single largest use of water in California. The remaining water is used by agriculture (41%) and cities (11%).

It is important to note that of the water that actually reaches the Delta, 76% is flushed to the ocean for environmental reasons. Bay Area water users, combined with users in Central and Southern California, consume 18% of Delta water. Delta cities and farmers use the remaining 6%.

DISTORTION: The Westside received 80% of the water it needed in 2009. They were even hoarding water from 2008.
FACT: Federal water deliveries were 10% for 2009

There is no "hoarded" water being held by any San Joaquin Valley agency. In 2009, Westlands Water District had hopes that their claim for 270,000 acre feet of water would be honored. However, this water was not guaranteed to be delivered.

Westside farmers were able to offset some lost surface water deliveries by pumping groundwater and  negotiating transfers. However, groundwater is an exhaustible resource and transfers are not reliable - both are temporary stopgaps. In addition, groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley is of a much lower quality. Not all crops can be irrigated with groundwater. Despite the best efforts of local farmers and governments to mitigate for lost water, shortages resulted in 500,000 acres of farmland being fallowed. This represents a land mass the size of Rhode Island.

DISTORTION: The pumps are on.
FACT: The pumps are turned off from December through July and do not operate at full capacity the rest of the year thanks to government decisions.

The state and federal water projects were built for year-round operation. Since two-thirds of California's water is located in the north and two-thirds of the population is in the south, it is essential that water deliveries continue year-round.

The entire system of dams and canals composing the state and federal water projects were specifically built for the purpose of balancing wet and dry years.

The San Luis Reservoir, just south of the Delta, is a key component of California's water conveyance infrastructure – holding just over two million acre feet of water. It has no natural streams and is filled by Delta pumping during the fall and winter. It is important to note that water stored at the San Luis Reservoir is used to supply the San Joaquin Valley, as well as Southern California – particularly during periods of significant drought when pumping may be reduced.

In summary, farmers do not make planting decisions in July when they may get water. They make them in the early winter. Farmers have to decide what they are going to plant based on the expected water deliveries for the next year. The farmers then go to their bankers with that information to secure loans to purchase seed, fertilizer, etc. The farmers plant in the early spring and need the water at that time. If you do not have water in the spring, you can't plant. Therefore, water deliveries in July are not enough to save rural communities – there isn't anything to water because the crops were never planted.

Environmental activists cannot dispute that the Delta pumps were shut off between December and July and will be again every year for the foreseeable future unless Congress acts.

DISTORTION: The pumps are the reason the Delta smelt, salmon, and other species are in decline.
FACT: This statement is disputed. Approximately 76% of the water that transits the Delta flows into the ocean.

Do environmentalists really expect us to believe that increasing flows will restore these species? Even NOAA, the federal agency who authored the infamous "killer whale" biological opinion, admitted during Congressional testimony that salmon and other species are impacted more profoundly by ocean conditions.

When the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) was enacted in 1992, environmental flows were increased by 1.2 million acre feet. Since then, biological decisions on the Delta have raised this number to 3.4 million. Meanwhile, none of the threatened or endangered species have recovered. In fact, since CVPIA became law more species have been listed not less. Common sense demands we try something new.

DISTORTION: A drought is to blame for water shortages, not the Endangered Species Act.
FACT: While the past few years have been declared "droughts", Northern Sierra precipitation for 2009 was 93% of average according to the State of California. This is where Delta water originates – the water that serves San Joaquin Valley residents, as well as Californians further south.

Water shortages in central and southern California are not uncommon – both regions are historically dry and can be desert-like. However, the construction of our state and federal water projects allowed reliable water deliveries despite unfavorable natural conditions. This has been true even during catastrophic droughts of our recent past.

Today, we are experiencing a drought that is mild in comparison to many we have already survived. Overall, California's state-wide precipitation for 2009 was 81% of normal. By comparison, during 1977's drought - the driest year in state history - it was 45% of normal and in the 1991 drought - the fifth year of a protracted drought - it was 76%. Indeed, during late-season rain events this year a number of reservoirs associated with the state and federal water projects were forced to spill water as they reached capacity. Massive water flows passed through the Delta but could not be stored in the San Luis Reservoir because the pumps were off.

While new storage and conveyance systems are needed to meet growing needs and to improve reliability of the system, the current crisis is directly related to government decisions to withhold water (pumping restrictions).

The bottom line: The Delta pumps must operate year-long if the state and federal water projects are to serve the people of Central and Southern California.

DISTORTION: Water has been over-promised to farmers.
FACT: This statement is false.

In order to come to the conclusion that water is over-promised, you have to first accept the false notion that water is only used once.  Water is used, processed and reused many times as it travels through the state's water system. The only water that is not recycled is the water that is flushed into the ocean for environmental purposes.

DISTORTION: Fishermen are out of work because of Delta pumping. More than 23,000 jobs and $1.4 billion has been lost to the economy of California due to termination of commercial and recreational salmon fishing
FACT: According to the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman, there are approximately 3,000 fishermen in California and Oregon. There is no reliable data that suggests these individuals are all unemployed nor is there reliable data that suggests as many as 23,000 workers have lost their jobs.

With the American people not buying the policy of protecting fish at the expense of families, liberals are now touting a new argument. Congress can't restore the flow of water because it would hurt fishermen. This simply isn't true.

Furthermore, despite limited evidence of "devastation" more than $200 million has been spent by taxpayers to bail out fishermen over the past two years - more money per recipient than Hurricane Katrina survivors.

Indeed, thanks to an earmark by liberal leaders in Congress, each of 1,722 permit holding salmon fishermen received generous payments from the federal government in 2008 - $170 million worth. More than a thousand businesses also received payments. This large sum was provided despite the fact that the total economic impact of the closed salmon run was estimated at $82 million (according to the Congressional Research Service, the economic impact was actually $57.9 million, but we will accept the higher number for the sake of argument).

A unique form of disaster relief, the salmon bailout money replaced 100% of fishing income based on the their "best recent year," resulting in six figure payouts for many. This unprecedented bailout came on top of a $60 million salmon industry bailout in 2007.

While I believe there are serious problems with the fisheries off the coast of California, I reject the claims of radical environmentalists and their proxies in the fishing industry. Delta pumping is not responsible for the fishery collapse (see chart on opposite page). And while there are likely commercial and recreation fishermen who have suffered as a result of these problems, the magnitude both in economic terms and human cost does not begin to compare with the suffering in the San Joaquin Valley – where nearly 40,000 people are out of work, and 500,000 thousand acres of farmland have become desert.

A final point, the unemployment on the North Coast of California, the supposed area of great economic distress due to fishery collapse, is below the state average.

DISTORTION: Republicans are also to blame – they supported/signed laws that hurt the valley. This is not a partisan problem.
FACT: There are several compelling facts that prove the origin of our crisis to be Democratic lawmakers.

The first major blow against San Joaquin Valley farming occurred in 1992 with the passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. The bill was authored by Democrat Congressman George Miller, who was Chairman of the Resources Committee at the time, and folded into a larger piece of legislation – where it passed with veto proof majorities in the House and Senate. At the time, Democrats controlled 270 House seats and 57 Senate seats. CVPIA diverted more than a million acre feet of water away from communities south of the Delta.

In addition, Congressman George Miller has admitted to a central role in a host of lawsuits that have devastated the San Joaquin Valley. These lawsuits lead to biological opinions that are seriously flawed - denying entire regions of California access to water. Democrats were also instrumental in the passage of the San Joaquin River Settlement earlier this year, which in time will dry up communities on the east side of the valley.

DISTORTION: Unemployment in the farm economy of California has gone down in the past year, not up.
FACT: According to a May 2009 study conducted by the University of California, Davis, 35,285 jobs and $1.6 billion in economic revenue have been lost as a result of the man-made drought.

Far more jobs and economic activity are at risk. The overall unemployment rate in the San Joaquin Valley (15%) is far higher than the rest of California (12%). The unemployment in water deprived communities is still higher (36%). Farmers, local governments, small businesses and unemployed workers all cite water shortages as the predominate factor. In sharp contrast, each of the North State counties claiming catastrophic unemployment due to closed fisheries are experiencing unemployment rates below the state average (Mendocino 10.1%, Humboldt 10.3%, Sonoma 9.9%, Del Norte 11.9%, Marin 8%).

DISTORTION: Radicals are not in control of the environmental movement. They are the exception.
FACT: Radicals have taken control of the environmental movement – including organizations that are viewed as "mainstream" by the public.

Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace and environmental activist, recently said that many environmental leaders "have abandoned science and are following agendas that have little to do with saving the Earth." Moore continues to explain that radical activists have anti-human agendas.

There are countless examples of radicalism run amok in the environmental community. While most of these groups push their anti-human policies through Congress and the courts, some are more direct. For example, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) are identified by the FBI as terrorist organizations. In 2001, ELF was named one of our nation's most active extremist groups and a top terrorist threat. Despite their notoriety among our nation's top law enforcement agencies, these organizations are virtually invisible in America. So too is their association with organizations like Greenpeace, which has helped finance acts of eco-terrorism according to federal prosecutors.

Acts of terrorism are not the only indicator of extremism among environmental groups today. The modern environmental movement is a threat to public health and safety in other ways. For example, radicals are working to ban the chlorination of water. This backwards policy is being advocated despite the fact that it would result in epidemics of cholera and other deadly diseases around the world.

Environmentalists also persist in opposing the use of the lifesaving chemical DDT. This chemical was used to protect the American people from malaria until the 1960s but was banned following a public campaign led by activist Rachel Carson. She has since been recognized as the founder of the modern environmental movement.

Despite the fact that the World Health Organization (WHO) has rejected the scientific basis for banning DDT, environmentalists like Al Gore cling to the ban for political rather than scientific reasons. Meanwhile, malaria is an epidemic and global health threat. There are 500 million cases of the preventable disease every year.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Liberal Politicians And Ag Organizations Team Up To Keep Water Shut Off


I have fought aggressively to bring our water crisis to the attention of Congress and the American people. In the past year, we have achieved an important milestone – we are part of the national debate.

There should be no confusion as to what the goal is. The legislation I have been offering to my colleagues is virtually identical to legislation passed in 2003 for the people of New Mexico. That bill passed the Senate unanimously and passed the House with an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

Recently, Senator Dianne Feinstein said of my efforts, "I've been very disappointed in his approach, to hit and hit." And that, "We have a problem and it won't be solved by saying, turn the pumps on, turn the pumps off." (see the article here)

My response is two-fold. First, Senator if you don't turn on the pumps in the short-term, you will preside over the mass conversion of our nation's most fertile and valuable farmland into desert. Second, since the Senator and her allies in the House were willing to vote for an ESA waiver for New Mexico in 2003, I would like to know what exactly has changed. Why was an Endangered Species Act (ESA) waiver good enough for the citizens of New Mexico but not California?

In the meantime, I will continue to force Feinstein and others to vote with or against the people of California. To date, every time we've brought the issue up the vast majority of Democrats chose fish. That's not partisan. That's the way it is (see my remarks at Interior).

If Senator Feinstein wants to know how many times I am going to keep hitting, she should know that I will keep doing it – finding every creative way to make use of the House and Senate Rules - until Democrats do what's right. That means passage of the same type of relief they unanimously accepted in 2003 for New Mexico. In that instance, the three inch bait fish causing all the trouble was called the silvery minnow.

Why are Democrats blocking any effort to bring swift relief to our region? Just listen to their statements on the House Floor and it becomes clear that they are proxies for the radical environmental movement:

Congressmen Sam Farr (see here), Earl Blumenauer (see here), and Mike Thompson (see here) have all decried the San Joaquin Valley’s illegal use of water. The very water that keeps our communities alive and transformed the San Joaquin Valley into the most productive farmland in the nation has been taken because we have benefited from “illegal water deliveries.”

Congressman Farr believes we live in a desert (see here). He blames the massive public projects, built by Democrats like President Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, for the destruction of fisheries throughout the West. Keep in mind that these are the same fisherman that the government paid more than $100 million not to fish.

During his diatribe against my efforts to gain support for common sense water policy, Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall suggested we all do a rain dance (see here).

These statements, as well as others made during the water debate, represent damning evidence of a lack of compassion for the people of the San Joaquin Valley. Worse, they have proven that Democrats are held hostage by radical interests in the environmental movement - people who believe balanced environmental policy means returning our region to a desert.

Not only have House Democrats blocked progress, but so too have California's U.S. Senators. Senator Jim DeMint, representing the interests of the people in our state, tried to gain approval of a watered down New Mexico amendment – a one year ESA waiver. Our Senators led the charge against it. Feinstein cried ambush, likening the move to Pearl Harbor (see here), and claimed not to understand the goal. In truth, she understood it. She was given nearly six hours to read the one page amendment and was approached prior to the debate with both a copy of the amendment and the rational (see here).

The contrast in leadership could not be more striking. Jeff Bingaman, a liberal U.S. Senator from New Mexico, worked with Republicans in 2003 to get an ESA waiver to restore the flow of water to his constituents. Senator Feinstein supported Bingaman's effort, acknowledging the urgency of the situation. However, when it comes to her own state, she claims not to understand the provision and opposes it.

Let me be clear for those who continue to plead ignorance – both in Congress and in various agricultural organizations in our state. My goal, the only goal, is for the water supply to be restored to our region – water that has been flowing to San Joaquin Valley communities for 50 years. My temporary measure, the New Mexico language, is the only way to grant the San Joaquin Valley relief while larger and more ambitious plans are debated.

As a side effect of my work, I have exposed the relationship between Democrat politicians and the radical environmental movement. During a public forum, Congressman George Miller went so far as to take credit for lawsuits that have devastated our region (see his admission during a speech at Interior here).

In addition, I have exposed a weakness in our own community – rural California. I have discovered a prevailing mentality among some agriculture industry leaders that favor appeasement in all matters. In defense of inaction, these political appeasers and defenders of the status quo have signaled their true loyalties. They would rather farming communities be transformed into desert than any of their friends in government be held accountable. They are providing permanent political cover to Democrats whose loyalty has long since left rural California.

Some of our state's agriculture community 'leaders' have even become an extension of Senator's Feinstein's public relations staff. Apparently concerned about the Senator's reputation, one career ag leader responded to my efforts with Senator DeMint by saying "it was wrong on his part." (read the story) Several others have issued press releases praising the Senator for her work on behalf of farmers.

These organizations, through their actions, have undermined my work to restore the flow of water in our state. At the same time they have clung to a host of symbolic acts and misled their members. For example, some agriculture groups have decided studies are an adequate response to the man-made drought. Meanwhile, little or no leadership is being shown when it comes to delivering real relief to the people.

Californians know the status quo isn't working. What they want to know is how many times their representatives will compromise in order to gain political favor? Is being part of the discussion worth selling out rural communities?

Aggressive representation is how the radical environmental movement has been able to take control of California's water supply. At the same time, pacifists and apologists in our own community have hastened our losses. Every time we turn around, courts, legislators and radical environmentalists are demanding more water from increasingly dry California communities. Yet they give us nothing in return. No additional water sources; No way to transfer water around the Delta; No plan to deal with shrinking ground water aquifers.

Worse than nothing, they give us failed policies. More fish species are endangered today than in 1992, when Congressman George Miller and his allies diverted more than a million acre feet of our water to protect the Delta ecosystem. That water giveaway, known as CVPIA, was the first major blow to our way of life in the San Joaquin. Since then, we have endured more water give-aways – including the San Joaquin River Settlement Act.

Dry farmland and high unemployment is where "compromises" have gotten us. We can thank passivism for CVPIA, the San Joaquin River Settlement, various biological decisions and lawsuits. Further compromise is certain death – something Senator Feinstein understood in 1994 when she said, "I oppose any efforts to take water from Friant Dam for the purpose of restoring a long gone fishery on the San Joaquin River (click here)." Unfortunately, representatives of rural communities weren't done compromising and thanks to Senator Feinstein's legislation earlier this year, the San Joaquin River Settlement Act is law and the Eastside of the valley is poised to suffer the same fate as the Westside.

Now is the time for strong representation, not political expediency. We have clear legislative language that passed Congress in 2003 that is capable of delivering us the short-term relief we need to survive.

Now is not the time for agriculture industry representatives to make excuses for politicians. You should insist that the people who represent you are more concerned about our region's future than their continued access to choice political discussions. You must insist that your association unequivocally endorses the New Mexico amendment and a temporary waiver to the ESA for California.

Finally, we should thank the Fresno Bee and Mike Doyle for helping to uncover some of the serious issues we face. The paper helped expose leaders in our own community who are obstructing a resolution to the water crisis, while claiming to represent rural communities and farmers. Now it is time for the Bee to tackle another tough question. Why did Senators Feinstein and Boxer support the New Mexico language in 2003 but continue to block similar language for their own constituents in 2009?
I have fought aggressively to bring our water crisis to the attention of Congress and the American people. In the past year, we have achieved an important milestone – we are part of the national debate.


There should be no confusion as to what the goal is. The legislation I have been offering to my colleagues is virtually identical to legislation passed in 2003 for the people of New Mexico. That bill passed the Senate unanimously and passed the House with an overwhelming bipartisan vote.



Recently, Senator Dianne Feinstein said of my efforts, “I've been very disappointed in his approach, to hit and hit." And that, “We have a problem and it won't be solved by saying, turn the pumps on, turn the pumps off.” (see the article here)



My response is two-fold. First, Senator if you don’t turn on the pumps in the short-term, you will preside over the mass conversion of our nation’s most fertile and valuable farmland into desert. Second, since the Senator and her allies in the House were willing to vote for an ESA waiver for New Mexico in 2003, I would like to know what exactly has changed. Why was an ESA waiver good enough for the citizens of New Mexico but not California?



In the meantime, I will continue to force Feinstein and others to vote with or against the people of California. To date, every time we’ve brought the issue up the vast majority of Democrats chose fish. That’s not partisan. That’s the way it is (see my remarks at Interior).



If Senator Feinstein wants to know how many times I am going to keep hitting, she should know that I will keep doing it – finding every creative way to make use of the House and Senate Rules - until Democrats do what’s right. That means passage of the same type of relief they unanimously accepted in 2003 for New Mexico. In that instance, the three inch bait fish causing all the trouble was called the silvery minnow.



Why are Democrats blocking any effort to bring swift relief to our region? Just listen to their statements on the House Floor and it becomes clear that they are proxies for the radical environmental movement:



Congressmen Sam Farr, Earl Blumenauer, and Mike Thompson have all decried the San Joaquin Valley’s illegal use of water. The very water that keeps our communities alive and transformed the San Joaquin Valley into the most productive farmland in the nation has been taken because we have benefited from “illegal water deliveries.”



Congressman Farr believes we live in a desert. He blames the massive public projects, built by Democrats like President Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, for the destruction of fisheries throughout the West. Keep in mind that these are the same fisherman that the government paid more than $100 million not to fish.



During his diatribe against my efforts to gain support for common sense water policy, Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall suggested we all do a rain dance.



These statements, as well as others made during the water debate, represent damning evidence of a lack of compassion for the people of the San Joaquin Valley. Worse, they have proven that Democrats are held hostage by radical interests in the environmental movement - people who believe balanced environmental policy means returning our region to a desert.



Not only have House Democrats blocked progress, but so too have California’s U.S. Senators. Senator Jim DeMint, representing the interests of the people in our state, tried to gain approval of a watered down New Mexico amendment – a one year ESA waiver. Our Senators led the charge against it. Feinstein cried ambush, likening the move to Pearl Harbor, and claimed not to understand the goal. In truth, she understood it. She was given nearly six hours to read the one page amendment and was approached prior to the debate with both a copy of the amendment and the rational.



The contrast in leadership could not be more striking. Jeff Bingaman, a liberal U.S. Senator from New Mexico, worked with Republicans in 2003 to get an ESA waiver to restore the flow of water to his constituents. Senator Feinstein supported Bingaman’s effort, acknowledging the urgency of the situation. However, when it comes to her own state, she claims not to understand the provision and opposes it.



Let me be clear for those who continue to plead ignorance – both in Congress and in various agricultural organizations in our state. My goal, the only goal, is for the water supply to be restored to our region – water that has been flowing to San Joaquin Valley communities for 50 years. My temporary measure, the New Mexico language, is the only way to grant the San Joaquin Valley relief while larger and more ambitious plans are debated.



As a side effect of my work, I have exposed the relationship between Democrat politicians and the radical environmental movement. During a public forum, Congressman George Miller went so far as to take credit for lawsuits that have devastated our region (see his admission during a speech at Interior here).



In addition, I have exposed a weakness in our own community – rural California. I have discovered a prevailing mentality among some agriculture industry leaders that favor appeasement in all matters. In defense of inaction, these political appeasers and defenders of the status quo have signaled their true loyalties. They would rather farming communities be transformed into desert than any of their friends in government be held accountable. They are providing permanent political cover to Democrats whose loyalty has long since left rural California.



Some of our state’s agriculture community ‘leaders’ have even become an extension of Senator’s Feinstein’s public relations staff. Apparently concerned about the Senator’s reputation, one career ag leader responded to my efforts with Senator DeMint by saying “it was wrong on his part.” (read the story) Several others have issued press releases praising the Senator for her work on behalf of farmers.



These organizations, through their actions, have undermined my work to restore the flow of water in our state. At the same time they have clung to a host of symbolic acts and misled their members. For example, some agriculture groups have decided studies are an adequate response to the man-made drought. Meanwhile, little or no leadership is being shown when it comes to delivering real relief to the people.



Californians know the status quo isn’t working. What they want to know is how many times their representatives will compromise in order to gain political favor? Is being part of the discussion worth selling out rural communities?



Aggressive representation is how the radical environmental movement has been able to take control of California’s water supply. At the same time, pacifists and apologists in our own community have hastened our losses. Every time we turn around, courts, legislators and radical environmentalists are demanding more water from increasingly dry California communities. Yet they give us nothing in return. No additional water sources; No way to transfer water around the Delta; No plan to deal with shrinking ground water aquifers.



Worse than nothing, they give us failed policies. More fish species are endangered today than in 1992, when Congressman George Miller and his allies diverted more than a million acre feet of our water to protect the Delta ecosystem. That water giveaway, known as CVPIA, was the first major blow to our way of life in the San Joaquin. Since then, we have endured more water give-aways – including the San Joaquin River Settlement Act.



Dry farmland and high unemployment is where “compromises” have gotten us. We can thank passivism for CVPIA, the San Joaquin River Settlement, various biological decisions and lawsuits. Further compromise is certain death – something Senator Feinstein understood in 1994 when she said, “I oppose any efforts to take water from Friant Dam for the purpose of restoring a long gone fishery on the San Joaquin River.” Unfortunately, representatives of rural communities weren’t done compromising and thanks to Senator Feinstein’s legislation earlier this year, the San Joaquin River Settlement Act is law and the Eastside of the valley is poised to suffer the same fate as the Westside.



Now is the time for strong representation, not political expediency. We have clear legislative language that passed Congress in 2003 that is capable of delivering us the short-term relief we need to survive.



Now is not the time for agriculture industry representatives to make excuses for politicians. You should insist that the people who represent you are more concerned about our region’s future than their continued access to choice political discussions. You must insist that your association unequivocally endorses the New Mexico amendment and a temporary waiver to the ESA for California.



Finally, we should thank the Fresno Bee and Mike Doyle for helping to uncover some of the serious issues we face. The paper helped expose leaders in our own community who are obstructing a resolution to the water crisis, while claiming to represent rural communities and farmers. Now it is time for the Bee to tackle another tough question. Why did Senators Feinstein and Boxer support the New Mexico language in 2003 but continue to block similar language for their own constituents in 2009?
I have fought aggressively to bring our water crisis to the attention of Congress and the American people. In the past year, we have achieved an important milestone – we are part of the national debate.


There should be no confusion as to what the goal is. The legislation I have been offering to my colleagues is virtually identical to legislation passed in 2003 for the people of New Mexico. That bill passed the Senate unanimously and passed the House with an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

Recently, Senator Dianne Feinstein said of my efforts, “I've been very disappointed in his approach, to hit and hit." And that, “We have a problem and it won't be solved by saying, turn the pumps on, turn the pumps off.” (see the article here)

My response is two-fold. First, Senator if you don’t turn on the pumps in the short-term, you will preside over the mass conversion of our nation’s most fertile and valuable farmland into desert. Second, since the Senator and her allies in the House were willing to vote for an ESA waiver for New Mexico in 2003, I would like to know what exactly has changed. Why was an ESA waiver good enough for the citizens of New Mexico but not California?

In the meantime, I will continue to force Feinstein and others to vote with or against the people of California. To date, every time we’ve brought the issue up the vast majority of Democrats chose fish. That’s not partisan. That’s the way it is (see my remarks at Interior).

If Senator Feinstein wants to know how many times I am going to keep hitting, she should know that I will keep doing it – finding every creative way to make use of the House and Senate Rules - until Democrats do what’s right. That means passage of the same type of relief they unanimously accepted in 2003 for New Mexico. In that instance, the three inch bait fish causing all the trouble was called the silvery minnow.

Why are Democrats blocking any effort to bring swift relief to our region? Just listen to their statements on the House Floor and it becomes clear that they are proxies for the radical environmental movement:

Congressmen Sam Farr, Earl Blumenauer, and Mike Thompson have all decried the San Joaquin Valley’s illegal use of water. The very water that keeps our communities alive and transformed the San Joaquin Valley into the most productive farmland in the nation has been taken because we have benefited from “illegal water deliveries.”

Congressman Farr believes we live in a desert. He blames the massive public projects, built by Democrats like President Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, for the destruction of fisheries throughout the West. Keep in mind that these are the same fisherman that the government paid more than $100 million not to fish.

During his diatribe against my efforts to gain support for common sense water policy, Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall suggested we all do a rain dance.

These statements, as well as others made during the water debate, represent damning evidence of a lack of compassion for the people of the San Joaquin Valley. Worse, they have proven that Democrats are held hostage by radical interests in the environmental movement - people who believe balanced environmental policy means returning our region to a desert.

Not only have House Democrats blocked progress, but so too have California’s U.S. Senators. Senator Jim DeMint, representing the interests of the people in our state, tried to gain approval of a watered down New Mexico amendment – a one year ESA waiver. Our Senators led the charge against it. Feinstein cried ambush, likening the move to Pearl Harbor, and claimed not to understand the goal. In truth, she understood it. She was given nearly six hours to read the one page amendment and was approached prior to the debate with both a copy of the amendment and the rational.

The contrast in leadership could not be more striking. Jeff Bingaman, a liberal U.S. Senator from New Mexico, worked with Republicans in 2003 to get an ESA waiver to restore the flow of water to his constituents. Senator Feinstein supported Bingaman’s effort, acknowledging the urgency of the situation. However, when it comes to her own state, she claims not to understand the provision and opposes it.

Let me be clear for those who continue to plead ignorance – both in Congress and in various agricultural organizations in our state. My goal, the only goal, is for the water supply to be restored to our region – water that has been flowing to San Joaquin Valley communities for 50 years. My temporary measure, the New Mexico language, is the only way to grant the San Joaquin Valley relief while larger and more ambitious plans are debated.

As a side effect of my work, I have exposed the relationship between Democrat politicians and the radical environmental movement. During a public forum, Congressman George Miller went so far as to take credit for lawsuits that have devastated our region (see his admission during a speech at Interior here).

In addition, I have exposed a weakness in our own community – rural California. I have discovered a prevailing mentality among some agriculture industry leaders that favor appeasement in all matters. In defense of inaction, these political appeasers and defenders of the status quo have signaled their true loyalties. They would rather farming communities be transformed into desert than any of their friends in government be held accountable. They are providing permanent political cover to Democrats whose loyalty has long since left rural California.

Some of our state’s agriculture community ‘leaders’ have even become an extension of Senator’s Feinstein’s public relations staff. Apparently concerned about the Senator’s reputation, one career ag leader responded to my efforts with Senator DeMint by saying “it was wrong on his part.” (read the story) Several others have issued press releases praising the Senator for her work on behalf of farmers.

These organizations, through their actions, have undermined my work to restore the flow of water in our state. At the same time they have clung to a host of symbolic acts and misled their members. For example, some agriculture groups have decided studies are an adequate response to the man-made drought. Meanwhile, little or no leadership is being shown when it comes to delivering real relief to the people.

Californians know the status quo isn’t working. What they want to know is how many times their representatives will compromise in order to gain political favor? Is being part of the discussion worth selling out rural communities?



Aggressive representation is how the radical environmental movement has been able to take control of California’s water supply. At the same time, pacifists and apologists in our own community have hastened our losses. Every time we turn around, courts, legislators and radical environmentalists are demanding more water from increasingly dry California communities. Yet they give us nothing in return. No additional water sources; No way to transfer water around the Delta; No plan to deal with shrinking ground water aquifers.



Worse than nothing, they give us failed policies. More fish species are endangered today than in 1992, when Congressman George Miller and his allies diverted more than a million acre feet of our water to protect the Delta ecosystem. That water giveaway, known as CVPIA, was the first major blow to our way of life in the San Joaquin. Since then, we have endured more water give-aways – including the San Joaquin River Settlement Act.



Dry farmland and high unemployment is where “compromises” have gotten us. We can thank passivism for CVPIA, the San Joaquin River Settlement, various biological decisions and lawsuits. Further compromise is certain death – something Senator Feinstein understood in 1994 when she said, “I oppose any efforts to take water from Friant Dam for the purpose of restoring a long gone fishery on the San Joaquin River.” Unfortunately, representatives of rural communities weren’t done compromising and thanks to Senator Feinstein’s legislation earlier this year, the San Joaquin River Settlement Act is law and the Eastside of the valley is poised to suffer the same fate as the Westside.



Now is the time for strong representation, not political expediency. We have clear legislative language that passed Congress in 2003 that is capable of delivering us the short-term relief we need to survive.



Now is not the time for agriculture industry representatives to make excuses for politicians. You should insist that the people who represent you are more concerned about our region’s future than their continued access to choice political discussions. You must insist that your association unequivocally endorses the New Mexico amendment and a temporary waiver to the ESA for California.



Finally, we should thank the Fresno Bee and Mike Doyle for helping to uncover some of the serious issues we face. The paper helped expose leaders in our own community who are obstructing a resolution to the water crisis, while claiming to represent rural communities and farmers. Now it is time for the Bee to tackle another tough question. Why did Senators Feinstein and Boxer support the New Mexico language in 2003 but continue to block similar language for their own constituents in 2009?

Thursday, October 15, 2009

The House of Hypocrisy

Earlier today, the House passed H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act by George Miller (D-Martinez).  Passage of the bill came despite strong opposition by Republicans.

Miller’s legislation provides $38 million for water recycling programs in the greater San Francisco Bay Area.  The bill does nothing to address the ongoing water crisis in the San Joaquin Valley where half a million acres of productive farmland has been transformed into desert in order to protect a three inch bait fish, the Delta smelt.

This legislation is an insult to the water-starved communities of the San Joaquin Valley.  It is offensive to those of us who have fought for and been denied any legislative relief for the real water crisis in California – the one that has turned half a million acres into desert.

I have offered a variety of legislative proposals that would end the government-imposed drought – restoring the flow of water to communities that are approaching 40% unemployment.  Each of my proposals has been blocked by Democratic leaders.

My plan, which is to provide California’s federal and state water pumping facilities a short-term exemption to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), is virtually identical to legislation previously passed by Congress.

George Miller and his friends on the left supported the ESA waiver for New Mexico in 2003.  Now they are telling the people of the San Joaquin Valley "no."  The hypocrisy of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the isle is very telling.  Their actions today do not reflect the values of the American people.

In 2003, the New Mexico delegation received unanimous support in the Senate and an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House, for legislation that waived the ESA on the Rio Grande River.  This was necessary to protect the water supply of Albuquerque residents from radical environmentalists who wanted to divert the water in order to protect a three inch bait fish - the silvery minnow.

The Delta smelt is virtually identical to New Mexico’s silvery minnow.  They are both three inch bait fish.  Californians deserve relief from the government-imposed drought, just like the people of New Mexico did in 2003.

See video of the debate on my YouTube Channel.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

You can’t spend what you don’t have. Let's try something new.

California has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation. Yet, the government can’t pay its bills and is on the brink of financial collapse. If changes are not made to business as usual policies in Sacramento, our state faces long-term economic instability.

If we want to reverse this trend and grow our economy, we must begin by establishing a mandatory spending cap on our state government. It is essential that we force our state leaders to prioritize spending. They need to learn what every family in California already understands – you can’t spend what you don’t have.

We also need to bring jobs back. To accomplish this, we must grow our economy and reduce the burden on small businesses. Tax reform is the key. Our state’s complex and oppressive tax laws drive employers out of California.

A healthy economy will require the scraping of the tax code. In place of corporate and personal income taxes, we should create a simple consumption oriented retail sales tax. According to a recent report by the American Enterprise Institute, that sales tax would only need to be about 10% to fund our government at current levels.

Our state can either lead the way in economic recovery by establishing a pro-investment, pro-job creation environment or we can lead the way in the opposite direction. If no changes are made, California is on auto-pilot to become permanently economically depressed. For this reason, I have urged Governor Schwarzenegger and other state leaders to seriously consider the changes I have outlined (click here for more info).

Friday, October 2, 2009

In their own words…

by DEVIN NUNES

Although actions speak louder than words, it is important to listen to the way our nation’s leaders describe the water crisis in California (the government-imposed drought).

Here are some clips from the public forum held at the Department of Interior in Washington, DC on September 30th.

If you missed my remarks, you can listen here.

Senator Dianne Feinstein
“We have a problem and it’s not going to be solved by saying turn the pumps on or turn the pumps off…”
“The pumps have been on since June 30th…”
“I think the National Academy study is really important.”
“I also know that the Delta is under enormous stress.”

Congressman George Miller
“Somebody must be in charge of this effort.”
“We have an opportunity with David’s leadership…” (the water czar)
“Today we are going to have a bill on the floor, Devin I don’t know if you are going to ambush the bill or not, but its 26 billion gallons of water for the Bay Area...companion bills have been already passed for Southern California.”
“To restore the functions of the Delta is key to that process.”
“We all know and recognize that we have a badly overprescribed system.”
“I don’t think I have lost many lawsuits in court over the last 10 or 15 years.”
“There has been no clear winner.”

If you prefer to listen to the entire forum, you can do so by clicking here.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

A meeting at the Department of the Interior

For those who didn’t already know – the lines in the ongoing water debate are now clearly drawn.  Earlier today, I attended a meeting at the Department of Interior.  Those in attendance were a virtual ‘whose who’ in the leftist environmental movement.  Included among them was the water czar himself, David Hayes, as well as his patron, Bay Area Congressman George Miller.

At this meeting, Secretary Salazar again denied the existence of a man-made drought in California (click here to hear the Secretary).  Flanked by George Miller, Dianne Feinstein and a host of liberal lawmakers, the Secretary dismissed the need for immediate relief in our region and reiterated tired arguments about the complex nature of California water policy.  In other words – expect more lip service but no help from Washington. 

During my brief remarks (click here), I told the Secretary in no uncertain terms that he and the Democrats in Congress were waging war against the people of the San Joaquin.  They have rejected seven separate efforts in the House and one in the Senate – each of which would have provided temporary relief to our region. 

Earlier this year, the Delta pumps were turned off and hundreds of acres of farmland became desert – all because of a three inch minnow.  While those pumps are running today, they will soon be shut down again.  Congress must pass a temporary measure to protect our water supply.  Only after this can we move forward in search of larger solutions. 



Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Honesty is needed in water debate, not intimidation

Last week, I worked with Senator Jim DeMint (South Carolina) to move an amendment that would have temporarily restored water deliveries in California. The Senate defeated the effort with California’s Senators leading the opposition. Since that time, there has been a lot of discussion about the vote – including a dishonest campaign that must be challenged.

Firstly, the notion that the DeMint amendment was tantamount to Pearl Harbor – that it was a sneak attack – is pure fiction. Senator DeMint approached Senator Feinstein at 12:20 pm on the day in question and provided her the language of his amendment (see video). This gave Feinstein and her advisors approximately six hours to read the amendment’s ten lines of text before the vote.

Secondly, it is not possible for anyone who claims to be involved in California water policy to be ignorant as to the needs of our rural communities and farms. Put simply, they need water. This requires a temporary restoration of normal pumping operations so that water can be delivered when it is needed. I have been calling for action in this regard for two years, have participated in numerous debates, and forced votes in the House on seven occasions.

Furthermore, organizations associated with agriculture from throughout California have pressed for immediate relief from the man-made drought. They have done so publically and they have done so privately with their Congressional delegation. These requests have been reported by the national media – including an hour long broadcast on the Hannity program.

Yet, despite these facts the Senator and her allies are today exerting pressure on California agriculture interests. Instead of working to provide California immediate relief, the Senator is trying to convince the people of our state that we need more studies and deliberation. Unfortunately, in the past “study” has been code for inaction or worse – additional water takings.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Where the water goes

Unfortunately, there have been a number of inaccurate and misleading statements over the past few weeks on the man-made drought in the San Joaquin Valley.  For example, there have been allegations that agriculture is the using too much Delta water.  The image that I have uploaded shows water distributions.




Some have also mentioned the story of a “farmer” selling his water for $77 million, claiming this is the problem – not the environmental restrictions.  It was a Bay Area businessman that sold the water.  He sold 14,000 acre feet of water for the next ten years at $5,500 an acre foot.  The water is going to the Mojave Irrigation District for groundwater banking.  It can be frustrating to see water sold from of the Valley at this time.  But this sale pales in comparison to the environmental losses we have seen just this year. "Protecting" the Delta smelt has blocked over 600,000 acre feet of water from being delivered.  Starting October 1, 2009, another 250,000 acre feet will be released from Friant Dam to bring salmon back and won't happen.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

California farmers again denied water. This time by Senators Feinstein and Boxer.

This evening, Senate Democrats – led by Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer – defeated a California water amendment offered by South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint.
 
The amendment was simple.  It would have prevented the federal government from spending any money to implement biological decisions that are denying Californians access to essential water supplies from the Delta.  This prohibition would have lasted one year. 
 
Despite the clear suffering of people in California, my state's senior Senator blocked passage of urgently needed relief.  She even went so far as to compare our efforts to the attack on Pearl Harbor. The defeat of the DeMint amendment today is shameful.  The fact that California's Senators are responsible adds insult to injury.
 
These two Senators opposed the amendment, despite having voted for a similar provision in 2003.  That provision, related to the silvery minnow, was meant to protect the water supplies of New Mexicans.  It suspended the Endangered Species Act for two years.  In sharp contrast, Senator DeMint’s effort on behalf of Californians was limited to one year.
 
During the debate, Senator Feinstein eluded to the complex nature of the California water debate.  She expressed dismay that a South Carolina Senator would meddle in California’s affairs and pointed to a $750,000 earmark she is supporting to study the California water crisis.  Senator DeMint countered that the issue was national in scope and that our nation’s food supply was in jeopardy.  He further argued that farmers needed immediate relief.
 
How can anyone purporting to represent the interests of Californians not know that our state’s farmers and rural communities need immediate relief?  Studies are not the answer.
 
While infrastructure is urgently needed, including a canal to bypass the Delta, these projects are years from completion and have not even begun despite years of promises.  The only real answer is a temporary waiver to the ESA or some other provision, such as the one before the Senate today, which restores the flow of water until alternatives are realized.  Californians should be very disappointed in the outcome today.  But they should be reassured that some in Congress are working on their behalf – including the Senator from South Carolina.

Friday, September 18, 2009

There they go again

Yesterday the Department of Interior released a document in an attempt to confuse the water issue. I find it unbelievable that Interior denies a man-made drought exists! They defend the biological decisions that have devastated our region and make no secret of their belief that our water shortages are not their problem. Check out the document here.

I do agree with Interior in one respect: we are experiencing a drought. But the drought devastating the San Joaquin is not the fault of Mother Nature or global warming. It is a man-made.

The Northern Sierra’s precipitation (where Delta water comes from) has reached 95% of average and many of the reservoirs responsible for delivering our water were forced to spill as they became full. Overall, statewide precipitation is 81% of normal (see for yourself here).

California is naturally arid. Significant portions of our population centers were desert-like before water delivery systems were built. Once Democrats and Republicans worked together to create the world’s largest water storage and conveyance system. But no longer. Radical environmentalists who control the Democrat Party have forced on us a water shortage that is unique to the developed world: a government imposed drought that you would see in a dictatorship like Zimbabwe. If they win this battle in California, no one in our country is safe.

Sean Hannity yesterday


Thank you to those who attended the Sean Hannity broadcast on the Fox News Channel yesterday. Your participation showed the nation that we are united against the cruel actions of our government. The national attention Sean is bringing to our man-made drought will be enormously helpful as we fight to restore the flow of water to our valley.

If you missed Sean, you can watch the broadcast in three parts on my You Tube channel by clicking here.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Sean Hannity in the San Joaquin Valley

On Thursday, September 17, 2009, Sean Hannity will visit the San Joaquin Valley for a live broadcast. He will devote his entire program to the water crisis facing our state.

It is important to give Sean a warm welcome and to thank him for his vigilant efforts to increase national awareness of the man-made drought.


Details about the broadcast are below:

What: LIVE broadcast of the Sean Hannity Show
When: Thursday, September 17th, 2009
Time: Please arrive by 5:00 pm
Where: A fallowed field on the Westside in Fresno County
Directions: Located on the south side of Highway 198, to the west of the Fresno/Kings County line. The field is exactly 8 miles west of Lemoore Naval Air Station. The field is marked with a speed limit sign and a white wrought iron gate. The area will also be clearly marked with signs and banners.

In addition to the Hannity broadcast next week, I would like to call your attention to several editorial responses recently published by The Wall Street Journal. These responses (see below) relate to the Journal’s coverage of the water crisis as well as my recent editorial. They were written by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Environmental Defense Fund Regional Director Laura Harnish and highlight the challenges we face by exposing the people who are working to prevent a meaningful resolution.

It is noteworthy that Secretary Salazar again denies a man-made drought exists and Ms. Harnish believes that the root of the problem is that farmers don’t pay enough for water.

From The Wall Street Journal
Central Valley Water: Nor Any Drop for Plants to Drink

Your editorial "California's Man-Made Drought" (Sept. 2) about the severe drought and water crisis in California argues that California's water problems could be wished away if our nation were only willing to sacrifice an endangered three-inch fish, turn on a few pumps to move water from Northern California to the Central Valley, and wave a magic wand. The trouble is: The fish are a sliver of the problem, the pumps are already on, and pointed fingers can't make it rain.


California's water crisis is far more troubling than your editorial suggests. The state is in its third year of a devastating drought, caused by a lack of precipitation. In California's Central Valley, where half the nation's produce is grown, many farms and fields are bone dry, unemployment has surged, and the state's inadequate water infrastructure—built 50 years ago for a population half as large—cannot handle the stress. Moreover, California's Bay Delta, upon which 25 million Californians depend for drinking water, is in a state of full environmental collapse.


As a proposed response, your editorial asks the Obama administration to ignore science and convene a so-called "God Squad" that would override protections on watersheds and turn California's water crisis over to the courts. Trying to force more water out of a dying system will only cause more human tragedy, while diverting attention from the governor and the legislature, who face a Sept. 11 legislative deadline to decide whether to fix the broken water system in California after decades of neglect.


Rather than more finger pointing, we need real solutions. After eight years on the sidelines, the federal government has stepped in to help. The Obama administration is investing over $400 million through the president's economic recovery plan to help modernize California's water infrastructure, including over $40 million in emergency assistance to help water-short Central Valley farmers. We have helped move record amounts of water to communities in most need and are taking steps to prepare for a potential fourth year of drought. And perhaps most importantly, the federal government is now engaging as a full partner in the collaborative process that the governor launched two years ago to restore the Bay Delta, and modernize the state's woefully outdated water infrastructure. Though what we need most is rain and snow to fill the reservoirs, these actions will help mitigate the devastating impact of the ongoing drought and deliver help to the families and communities suffering most.


This is the type of locally-driven, solution-oriented, collaborative approach that we must all support—and to which we must all contribute.

Ken Salazar
Secretary of the Interior
Washington


It's not about fish, it's about market fairness. In California's water rights system, farmers on one side of the Central Valley pay less than $10 for an acre-foot of water (enough water to cover an acre one-foot deep), while those on the other side are forced to pay up to 60 times more—$600 an acre-foot—to keep trees alive.


What is needed is a new and fair set of market-based rules, created by water stakeholders and California's government, that can spawn new industries and new jobs, while intelligently allocating the state's water to serve agriculture, cities and suburbs, recreational users and nature.

Laura Harnish
Regional Director
Environmental Defense Fund

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

California's Man-Made Drought





California's Man-Made Drought
The green war against San Joaquin Valley farmers


California has a new endangered species on its hands in the San Joaquin Valley—farmers. Thanks to environmental regulations designed to protect the likes of the three-inch long delta smelt, one of America's premier agricultural regions is suffering in a drought made worse by federal regulations.

The state's water emergency is unfolding thanks to the latest mishandling of the Endangered Species Act. Last December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued what is known as a "biological opinion" imposing water reductions on the San Joaquin Valley and environs to safeguard the federally protected hypomesus transpacificus, a.k.a., the delta smelt. As a result, tens of billions of gallons of water from mountains east and north of Sacramento have been channeled away from farmers and into the ocean, leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land fallow or scorched.

For this, Californians can thank the usual environmental suspects, er, lawyers. Last year's government ruling was the result of a 2006 lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other outfits objecting to increased water pumping in the smelt vicinity. In June, things got even dustier when the National Marine Fisheries Service concluded that local salmon and steelhead also needed to be defended from the valley's water pumps. Those additional restrictions will begin to effect pumping operations next year.

The result has already been devastating for the state's farm economy. In the inland areas affected by the court-ordered water restrictions, the jobless rate has hit 14.3%, with some farming towns like Mendota seeing unemployment numbers near 40%. Statewide, the rate reached 11.6% in July, higher than it has been in 30 years. In August, 50 mayors from the San Joaquin Valley signed a letter asking President Obama to observe the impact of the draconian water rules firsthand.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has said that he "doesn't have the authority to turn on the pumps" that would supply the delta with water, or "otherwise, they would be on." He did, however, have the ability to request intervention from the Department of Interior. Under a provision added to the Endangered Species Act in 1978 after the snail darter fiasco, a panel of seven cabinet officials known as a "God Squad" is able to intercede in economic emergencies, such as the one now parching California farmers. Despite a petition with more than 12,000 signers, Mr. Schwarzenegger has refused that remedy.

The issue now turns to the Obama Administration and the courts, though the farmers have so far found scant hope for relief from the White House. In June, the Administration denied the governor's request to designate California a federal disaster area as a result of the drought conditions, which U.S. Drought Monitor currently lists as a "severe drought" in 43% of the state. Doing so would force the Administration to acknowledge awkward questions about the role its own environmental policies have played in scorching the Earth.

As the crisis has deepened, the political stakes have risen as well. In late August, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack came to the devastated valley to meet with farmers and community leaders. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein has pledged to press the issue with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. "There are 30 lawsuits on the biological opinions and two separate opinions, one for the smelt and one for the salmon," Ms. Feinstein said, "The rules need to be reconsidered."

The Pacific Legal Foundation has filed a lawsuit on behalf of three farmers in the valley, calling the federal regulations "immoral and unconstitutional." Because the delta smelt is only found in California, the Foundation says, it does not fall under the regulatory powers provided by the Constitution's Commerce Clause. On a statutory basis, the Fish and Wildlife Service also neglected to appropriately consider the economic devastation the pumping restrictions would bring.

Things in California may have to get so bad that they endanger Democratic Congressional incumbents before Washington wakes up, but it doesn't have to be that way. Mr. Salazar has said that convening the God Squad would be "admitting failure" in the effort to save the smelt under the Endangered Species Act. Maybe so, but the livelihoods of tens of thousands of humans are also at stake. If the Obama Administration wants to help, it can take up Governor Schwarzenegger's request that it revisit the two biological opinions that are hanging farmers and farm workers out to dry.

For the editorial online and reader comments click here.