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.

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?

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.

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).

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.