Right until the bitter end, Jeff Denham insisted he was against Jerry Brown’s twin tunnels, the key features of the now defunct California Water Fix. The facts showed otherwise; Denham consistently supported the program with votes he figured would never be exposed to his northern San Joaquin Valley constituents.
Like Republicans throughout the Valley, Denham knew that if he wanted to get ahead in politics, his default command was allegiance to Kevin McCarthy, the powerful Congressional leader from Bakersfield. McCarthy’s power in large part derives from his ability to deliver water to the southern part of the Valley, where Stewart Resnick, the Boswell Corporation, and John Vidovich convert public resources like water, aqueducts, pumping plants and canals into billions of dollars, more than enough to fill the campaign war chests of politicians like Kevin McCarthy many times over.
Denham’s dilemma lay in the knowledge that the vast majority of his constituents preferred to keep their water and water rights at home, whether they were local farmers, urban residents looking at rising costs of water, or people who love living rivers and thriving Delta economies. Denham skated along without oversight for years until Josh Harder came along in 2018 and forced him to defend his policy choices.
Harder is part of a new generation of leaders who understand that climate change, disruptive economies and global unrest require new infrastructure and policy. Megastorms, drought, and rising temperatures will require more storage and fewer conveyance facilities. Instead of tunnels and pumping plants, we’re going to need more reservoirs and wetlands. We’re going to need desalinization plants, especially in southern parts of the state.
Water kept closer to home results in less loss from evaporation and lower costs of transportation. Anyone thinking we can keep transferring water from the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers southward need only consider the grim realities of the once-mighty Colorado River. The Colorado has run dry and the Colorado River Delta is undergoing restoration that will take dozens of years and hundreds of millions of dollars, if it’s possible at all.
Gavin Newsom’s plan for a single tunnel instead of two may be less expensive than Jerry Brown’s twins, but it isn’t any less foolish. Rather than promote more growth and demand down south, we should be keeping water where it belongs and building better ways to store and sustain it.
Joining Congressmembers Jerry McNerney and John Garamendi, Josh Harder has introduced an amendment that would prevent shipping priceless water out of his district and downstate, where relentless growth and unwise use have drained the Colorado River, depleted aquifers, and increased demand for more every year.
“I refuse to let politicians in Sacramento get away with a “water grab that would take Valley water and ship it downstate,” said Congressman Harder on July 21.
“It’s time we protect our Valley water so every farmer, rancher, mom and dad has the water they need to support their business and their family. My family has spent generations on the Delta, and I plan on protecting it so my daughter can do the same.”
Unlike Jeff Denham, Josh Harder puts his constituents first, no matter who is trying to call the shots, whether it’s Kevin McCarthy or Gavin Newsom. On water, Josh Harder gets it right.
Right on! But how does Josh feel about the Del Puerto Canyon, west of Patterson, being dammed? Is Josh getting it right about building another dam in a seismic active area like San Luis Reservoir dam on Pacheco Pass to store water to be later moved south out of our Valley and to the coast? Oh but water might take a break and stop at Vidovich, Resnick or Boswell “farms” on the way. Would like to hear from Josh on this.
I like Josh, but his water plan also includes support for the proposed Del Puerto Canyon Dam. Not everyone supports the creation of another dam, especially many of the local Patterson residents.
Kent and JO: Agree that Del Puerto Dam is a very bad idea. Dams in general are bad. We do need reservoirs, off site from rivers, but dams as a rule have been shown to be harmful in too many ways to count. Del Puerto Dam won’t survive the EIR process IF there is money enough to force a good EIR.
This is a complicated issue, and I’m not sure where my thoughts land. The current Delta water infrastructure is at risk from seismic activity and ocean rise, which could inundate the interior Delta with salt water, making intakes for East Bay, southern San Joaquin Valley and Los Angeles water useless. What would that do to the state economy? I’m not a fan of the Resnicks and Boswells, and I think a lot of that land probably should be fallowed. But if residents in the East Bay and LA find only brine coming from their taps, the state has a big problem. A lot of the argument against the tunnel(s) has assumed that the tunnel would increase the amount of water taken from the Delta. Proponents contend it would take more water in wet weather events but not in normal or dry years, and would benefit migrating salmon by easing off on the destructive pumps that change river flows in the south Delta. Construction would certainly be disruptive for Delta residents for several years. I’ve heard testimony from both sides in the hearings on the twin tunnels proposal a few years ago, and I’ve concluded that it’s complicated, and a tough call.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment Tim. As I understand it, at least half a million acres will be fallowed in the southern part of the Valley, and probably closer to a million should be. I believe infrastructure resisting incursion of salt water could be a better approach than the tunnel, and also think it is a mistake to keep sending water south. With the reduction in farmland, demand for northern California water should drop precipitously. Again, as I understand it, the great proportion of Delta water that goes south is for agriculture. Ultimately, I much prefer a healthy Delta to shipping water to AG barons who are essentially in the export business. However, you are correct that this issue is complex. I do believe Delta preservation should a priority.
I think we agree. A lot of the farmland in the southern valley is marginal land, with poor soils and drainage, and never should have been planted in the first place. LA is often used as a scapegoat for the water exports, but it has done a fairly good job of water conservation over the years. The Delta is teetering on the brink of disaster, and has become a very unhealthy place for many fish species. One of the reasons I’m not a big fan of Sen. Feinstein is her allegiance to the Westlands Water District. The resistance of the MID and TID to more reasonable flows on the Tuolumne is another topic…
You’re correct, Tim. We agree on most points and especially on Senator Feinstein.
Well put, Eric. We have seen what moving water has done with examples such as Colorado River, Owens Lake, Mono Lake. Let’s not have this happen to Central Valley.
Yes, Congressman Harder has been a champion for Stanislaus County residents. His intentions are clear. However, most community members, politicians included, are not aware of the dire situation in the delta and our local rivers. See “River’s End” documentary for some factual and frightening information. https://www.riversendfilm.com