Bill Overview
Title: WATER for California Act
Description: This bill addresses the operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP), a federal water project in California owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the California State Water Project (SWP), which is operated jointly with the CVP. Specifically, the bill requires that Reclamation operate the CVP and SWP pursuant to a specified alternative to a proposed action in a final environmental impact statement and 2019 agency published Biological Opinions (BiOps). The bill also requires Reclamation and the Department of Commerce to submit a justification to Congress that meets certain requirements prior to requesting or completing a reinitiation of consultation that will result in new BiOps. This bill also requires Reclamation to allocate water to existing agricultural water service contractors within the CVP's Sacramento River Watershed based on the water year type (e.g., dry, wet). These allocations must not affect the United States' ability or obligations to deliver water under other designated contracts. Further, the bill repeals certain eligibility requirements for water infrastructure construction funding under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to make the Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project in California eligible for funding. The bill also requires that Reclamation funds made available but not used for this project in previous appropriations years be made available to the project. Finally, the bill reauthorizes Reclamation's support for the construction or expansion of water storage projects.
Sponsors: Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-21]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) in California
Estimated Size: 15000000
- The Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) are key sources of water for California, especially for agricultural, urban, and environmental purposes.
- California is a major agricultural producer in the United States, with a large number of farms and agricultural businesses depending on these water projects for irrigation.
- The Shasta Dam and Reservoir are critical infrastructure components in the state's water system, providing water supply, flood control, and recreation.
- Changes to water allocations can significantly impact agricultural output, influencing food supply chains and market prices.
- Environmental regulations and biological opinions (BiOps) aim to protect ecosystems and species, so changes in these can affect environmental groups and biodiversity advocates.
- Water storage and infrastructure developments are typically of interest to local communities, construction industries, and public policy advocates focused on water conservation and management.
Reasoning
- A significant portion of the Californian population relies on the CVP and SWP for water, particularly in the Central Valley, which is crucial for agriculture.
- The budget constraints limit the extent of infrastructure enhancements and expansions; hence, not every potential project could be funded.
- The Shasta Dam enlargement could particularly benefit agricultural water users but potentially at a conservation trade-off.
- Urban populations might experience secondary effects from agricultural impact, such as food price adjustments.
- The environmental section of the population might oppose aspects of the policy, particularly relating to BiOps and environmental protections.
- There is a need to balance allocations between agricultural, urban, and ecosystem needs, often leading to conflicting interests.
- Given the long-term nature of infrastructure projects, some anticipated benefits might not materialize in the short term.
- The project could create jobs, particularly in construction, but limited by the budget in initial years.
- Diverse opinions likely due to regional and occupational differences across California.
- Impacts could range from high to none depending mostly on the direct dependency on these water resources and environmental considerations.
Simulated Interviews
Almond Farmer (Fresno, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial for securing my farm's water supply in dry years.
- I'm concerned about potential environmental backlashes and prolonged regulatory processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Municipal Water Manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy helps stabilize water sources, but I'm worried about the environmental trade-offs.
- It's critical to integrate urban and agricultural needs without disproportionately harming ecosystems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Construction Worker (Redding, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I look forward to more work opportunities due to the construction aspects of this policy.
- Employment stability in this field is vital for me and my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Sacramento, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The risks to endangered species with new BiOps are concerning.
- We need to prioritize environmental protections alongside water resource management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Berkeley, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could stabilize food markets by securing irrigation resources.
- Economic effects on low-income communities need more attention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Tech Industry Executive (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy indirectly affects tech markets tied to agritech innovations.
- A stable water supply for agriculture can open more opportunities for innovation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Teacher (Bakersfield, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Education on balanced resource management is crucial; this policy provides real-world examples.
- Our schools need to address both benefits and potential adverse effects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Small Dairy Farmer (Modesto, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A consistent water supply is key for sustaining my dairy operation.
- I'm hopeful this policy might lower the risks of facing water scarcity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Retired Reclamation Officer (Red Bluff, CA)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy reinforces the importance of maintaining our state's water infrastructure.
- Strong policies like this have been necessary to avert crises for decades.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Urban Planner (San Diego, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Urban areas must not be neglected in these water allocations.
- Strong integration with local policies is critical for success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $260000000)
Year 3: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $270000000)
Year 5: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $280000000)
Year 10: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $290000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- The need for rapid reallocation and efficient use of existing Reclamation funds to alleviate initial fiscal impacts.
- Potential long-term benefits versus short-term costs of infrastructure enhancements.
- Navigating regulatory changes without significant delays to maintain stakeholder support.