Senator Feinstein Learns That, in the Delta, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
Posted December 20, 2010 in Living Sustainably, Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
Last Thursday, Senator Feinstein tried, unsuccessfully to pass through the Senate a modest piece of Delta legislation. The bill would designate the Delta as a National Heritage Area, officially recognizing this imperiled, critically important and little known region, and allowing up to a million dollars a year to be spent on tourism and economic development. The idea for the legislation came from the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force and the ambitious state water reform legislative package passed at the end of last year.
Central Valley Congressman Devin Nunes reacted to this uncontroversial bill with remarkable vitriol, describing the effort as “Pearl Harbor style” legislating.
The Congressman described the bill as a “sneak attack to take control of our water”. This must be the slowest sneak attack in history. Senator Feinstein introduced her bill in September, based on state legislation passed in November 2009, which was, in turn, intended to implement Delta Vision recommendations adopted in October 2008. (You’ll find the National Heritage Area recommendation on page 59.)
The Congressman calls the legislation “a thinly veiled effort to cut off valley water supplies”. In fact, the bill clearly states that “nothing in this section…affects any water rights or contracts.”
Finally, the Congressman asserts that the bill is “opposed by water users, farmers, and rural communities.” Yet Senator Feinstein and her staff have made a major effort to involve local communities in the process of drafting her bill. As a result, all five Delta counties support the Senator’s effort, as do community leaders in this highly agricultural region.
To help bridge this reality gap, Senator Feinstein’s press secretary invited Congressman Nunes to read the bill. Here it is.
This story is more than just an episode of classic, post-bipartisan political squabbling in which facts don’t seem to matter. Everyone involved recognizes that the status quo in the Delta is unacceptable. Making progress will require finding ways to involve, rather than antagonize, Delta communities. That’s true if you’re an environmentalist who wants to see Delta habitat restoration or a salmon fisherman concerned about your industry. It’s also true if you’re a South of Delta water user who wants to build a major new Delta water facility. And all of us have an interest in working with Delta local governments and levee districts to avoid catastrophic levee failure. If Delta issues are held hostage to this kind of partisan wrangling in the coming Congress, we’re all in trouble.
Senator Feinstein has made a real effort to involve Delta interests in developing solutions – and she deserves credit for it. Congressman Nunes should make such an effort as well. After he reads the bill, perhaps he’ll spend some time meeting with leaders in the Delta. We’d be happy to help with introductions.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Karen Medders — Dec 21 2010 07:08 PM
For those of us that reside inside the Primary Zone and oppose this federal designation, not to mention Sen. Feinstein's attempt to usurp the state's legislated process via the Delta Protection Commission, this is yet another layer of government as well as more interference/control by the Secretary of the Interior.
When one puts together each of the pieces to make an entire picture, this is furthering the land and water grab that is being perpetuated upon not only the residents of the Delta but all of the residents of California.
It is my belief, that the five Delta counties can and should come together to brand the Delta, publicize its special importance in California's history as well as the Nation's. We do not need these federal dollars along with the strings, implied or otherwise attached.
While the NHA may come across as non-threatening, taken into context with a federal government that utilizes Presidential Executive Orders to bypass Congress...let alone potential future Acts of Congress, there is nothing that guarantees no changes in federal legislation or federal interference or control of such lands once placed under these designations.
The people of the Delta are strong, independent business people who can and will further their economic interests just fine without this 'feel good' legislation.
Barry Nelson — Dec 21 2010 07:29 PM
Karen -- Thanks for your comment. Can you help me here? I agree with you that the Delta community has good reason to be concerned about some of the proposals floating around at the moment. However, I don't understand how a NHA designation could be a problem for Delta residents. One of the problems that you, and we, fight to overcome is that most of California and the nation don't really know what the Delta is. (It's not just an airline!) It seems to me that a NHA designation could help the Delta community to educate the public, brand the Delta, preserve a Delta agricultural economy, promote tourism, and solve the real ecosystem and flood management issues that the Delta faces. Could you explain to me more specifically how you believe a NHA designation would harm Delta interests? I truly don't get it. Thanks.
Barry