By:Shivaji Deshmukh, General Manager, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Valerie Pryor, General Manager, Zone 7 Water Agency
Assembly Bill 2215 by Assemblymember Calderon does only one thing: it extends the deadline on an existing State Water Project water right. But that straightforward act preserves something far greater – water security for 27 million Californians and 750,000 acres of farmland in an era of accelerating climate extremes. For this reason, a broad coalition of family farmers, business groups, labor, local government, public safety advocates, conservationists, taxpayer groups and citizens support this common-sense legislation.
Opponents have framed AB 2215 as a Trojan Horse for the Delta Conveyance Project, but that framing doesn’t hold up. A date change on an existing water right is not a shovel in the ground. It is a modest legal update that preserves the state’s options for adaptive planning without committing to any specific project. AB 2215 retains the capacity for the state to design, test, and permit potential climate adaptation solutions on the State Water Project (SWP).
Defending a mere deadline extension should not be controversial. And yet, the legislation has become a contest over how water gets managed in an era of climate chaos.
It’s impossible to ignore the politics at play here. Opposition to AB 2215 is the same opposition that has litigated the SWP’s very existence over the last decade. Bond validations, routine incidental take permits, water transfers, long-term repayment contracts, you name it – they have all been opposed by the same organizations. This isn’t principled environmentalism. It’s a strategy to erode the SWP over time by tying projects up in court until the cost of moving forward becomes prohibitive.
The fiercest opposition to AB 2215 will continue weaponizing regulatory processes to limit California’s capacity to respond when the next mega-storm or multi-year drought hits. It’s time to start calling this what it is: unaffordable obstruction dressed as oversight.
The California legislature has a choice to make with AB 2215: allow California the flexibility to manage an uncertain climate while maintaining affordable water supplies or create permanent gridlock and strand our state’s most valuable water delivery infrastructure.
On behalf of the millions of Californians that rely on the SWP, we implore our elected officials to choose the more balanced option. AB 2215 isn’t the endgame. It’s a choice about whether California will plan for an unstable future or simply litigate its way into one.
COMMENTARY: AB 2215 protects California’s water future
By:Shivaji Deshmukh, General Manager, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Valerie Pryor, General Manager, Zone 7 Water Agency
Assembly Bill 2215 by Assemblymember Calderon does only one thing: it extends the deadline on an existing State Water Project water right. But that straightforward act preserves something far greater – water security for 27 million Californians and 750,000 acres of farmland in an era of accelerating climate extremes. For this reason, a broad coalition of family farmers, business groups, labor, local government, public safety advocates, conservationists, taxpayer groups and citizens support this common-sense legislation.
Opponents have framed AB 2215 as a Trojan Horse for the Delta Conveyance Project, but that framing doesn’t hold up. A date change on an existing water right is not a shovel in the ground. It is a modest legal update that preserves the state’s options for adaptive planning without committing to any specific project. AB 2215 retains the capacity for the state to design, test, and permit potential climate adaptation solutions on the State Water Project (SWP).
Defending a mere deadline extension should not be controversial. And yet, the legislation has become a contest over how water gets managed in an era of climate chaos.
It’s impossible to ignore the politics at play here. Opposition to AB 2215 is the same opposition that has litigated the SWP’s very existence over the last decade. Bond validations, routine incidental take permits, water transfers, long-term repayment contracts, you name it – they have all been opposed by the same organizations. This isn’t principled environmentalism. It’s a strategy to erode the SWP over time by tying projects up in court until the cost of moving forward becomes prohibitive.
The fiercest opposition to AB 2215 will continue weaponizing regulatory processes to limit California’s capacity to respond when the next mega-storm or multi-year drought hits. It’s time to start calling this what it is: unaffordable obstruction dressed as oversight.
The California legislature has a choice to make with AB 2215: allow California the flexibility to manage an uncertain climate while maintaining affordable water supplies or create permanent gridlock and strand our state’s most valuable water delivery infrastructure.
On behalf of the millions of Californians that rely on the SWP, we implore our elected officials to choose the more balanced option. AB 2215 isn’t the endgame. It’s a choice about whether California will plan for an unstable future or simply litigate its way into one.
Tags