Legislators and the governor are crafting a landmark limitation on groundwater pumping.
Paul Rogers reports for the Mercury News: “If the bill passes, the local agencies would be required to regularly measure water tables and set numerical goals so that only as much water is taken out as is naturally replenished.”
“Each county could use a wide variety of tools, including setting up programs to recharge aquifers by putting more water in the ground, and requiring farmers — some of whom don’t have meters on their wells — to carefully measure and report how much they pump, and maybe pump less.”
“If local governments didn’t set up oversight systems or failed to show progress, state officials could step in and write and enforce the local rules.”
Compromises on storage and Brown’s Delta tunnels are holding up water bond negotiations.
Ben Adler reports for Capitol Public Radio: ”Even Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) says Brown’s proposal is “too small to meet the state’s dire needs.” But in an interview last week with Capital Public Radio, Brown pointed to California’s $30 billion debt and said his proposal is the most the state should borrow.”
““They’re arguing about this $3 billion storage,' says Brown. "You’re not gonna get these dams built without more billions, and it’s gonna take many years. We have a problem right now, and the $6 billion covers all the immediate stuff that we can do now.””
The chances of a second bond for school funding seem null.
The Sac Bee Editorial Board writes: “Yet some legislators, builders and union leaders are hoping that once the governor finishes with the water bond, he will sign off on a second bond for the ballot, this one for $4.5 billion to build new schools and modernize existing ones. It’s a tough sell.”
“Neither Brown nor his staff will comment on which way they might be leaning on the prospect of a school bond this year. But knowing our debt-averse governor – and considering his recent comments that new schools avoid “unsustainable reliance” on state debt – we suspect he’s not inclined.”
eHighway powered trucks traveling from ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.
Karen Robes Meeks reports in the LA Daily News: “The South Coast Air Quality Management District in July is expected to start a yearlong demonstration of an “eHighway” system near the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.”
“The first of its kind in the U.S., the $13.5 million highway project to be built starting in early 2015 will consist of a two-way, 1-mile overhead electric catenary system that will run on Alameda Street from East Lomita Boulevard to the Dominguez Channel.”
In Sacramento, the chances of a crude oil train derailment are growing.
Tony Bizjack reports in the Sacramento Bee: “What are those odds in the Sacramento region, which serves as a major rail crossroads and stop-over site?”
“Interviews and a review of state rail data suggest the likelihood is low but mounting.”
“Sacramento has experienced no spills in recent years, but fire officials are concerned. A Bakken train now traverses Sacramento to the Bay Area a few times a month. Another oil train regularly pulls into McClellan Business Park, where the oil is transferred to tanker trucks to the Bay Area. Next year, two more crude oil trains are expected to roll through Sacramento daily on their way to the Bay Area, possibly carrying Bakken. More could follow.”
Let’s pretend for a moment that Tim Draper’s “Six Californias” measure passes, what would it mean politically?
Ethan Rarick and Jack Citrin reports in Fox and Hounds Daily: ”We will say right up front that we believe there is no chance California will be allowed to subdivide itself into six states, a question that has qualified for the 2016 ballot. As we have explained elsewhere, we believe Congress would never approve such a plan, because it would dilute the political power of other states. But as a fun political exercise – and one that may yield some insights into the politics of California as it exists today – we analyzed how these six new states would shape up politically. (We’re not saying that any of these outcomes would be good or bad; we’re just presenting the data.)”