For Clients & Friends of The Gualco Group, Inc.
IN THIS ISSUE – “What’s your why?”
Gov. Newsom to an interviewer when asked how he makes tough choices
- Leading California Poll Finds Economy & Housing Are Top Concerns; Newsom Approval Rating High, Legislature…Not So Much
- “My Entire Life is Desperate Not to Be Laughed At”: Gov. Newsom’s Latest Interview
- New Ballot Initiatives Already Adding to a Contentious 2024 Election
- Snowpack at Epic Level, But Officials Urge Caution
- Environmental Group Urges State Limits on Farm Water & Water Right Reform
- US & 7 Western States Battle Over Colorado River Water as Flow Bottoms Out
Capital News & Notes (CN&N) harvests California policy, legislative and regulatory insights from dozens of media and official sources for the past week. Please feel free to forward this unique client service.
FOR THE WEEK ENDING FEB. 3, 2023
Public Policy Institute of California
As a new legislative session and state budget cycle get into full swing, Californians say that the economy and homelessness are the most important issues for the governor and legislature to address.
A solid majority of Californians are very concerned that their family’s younger generation will not be able to afford a home in their part of the state. And similar to a year ago, most Californians approve of the job that Governor Newsom is doing.
These are among the key findings from a statewide survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California.
When asked about the most important issue for the governor and state legislature to work on this year, Californians are most likely to name jobs, the economy, and inflation (23%) or homelessness (20%). The environment (6%) and housing costs and availability (6%) are the other issues named by more than 5 percent of residents.
Six in ten Californians (61% adults, 64% likely voters) think that Newsom and the legislature will be able to work together and accomplish a lot in the next year. Across partisan groups, Democrats (81%) are far more likely than independents (58%) and Republicans (27%) to hold this view.
The new statewide survey also finds:
Housing affordability concerns are widespread. An overwhelming majority of Californians (70%) say that housing affordability is a big problem in their part of the state. This includes overwhelming majorities in the San Francisco Bay Area (80%) and Los Angeles (75%) along with 69 percent in the Inland Empire, 67 percent in Orange/San Diego, and 59 percent in the Central Valley.
Asked how concerned they are that the cost of housing will prevent their family’s younger generation from buying a home in their part of California, 60 percent say they are very concerned. This includes majorities across all regions of the state (67% Inland Empire, 63% Orange/San Diego, 62% San Francisco Bay Area, 61% Los Angeles, 52% Central Valley).
An overwhelming majority say homelessness is a big problem. Seventy percent of Californians say that homelessness is a big problem in their part of the state. This includes strong majorities across all regions (74% Los Angeles, 74% San Francisco Bay Area, 67% Orange/San Diego, 66% Central Valley, 65% Inland Empire). Also, 70 percent statewide believe that the presence of homeless people in their local community has increased in the last 12 months, including strong majorities across regions (74% Central Valley, 73% Inland Empire, 72% Los Angeles, 70% San Francisco Bay Area, 67% Orange/San Diego).
Most support Governor Newsom’s overall budget plan for 2023-24. early January, the governor released a proposed $297 billion budget, including a $22.5 billion budget shortfall. One-third (34% adults, 38% likely voters) think the state budget situation is a big problem, a similar share to a year ago (39% adults, 40% likely voters) when the state had an estimated $97.5 billion surplus. After hearing a brief summary of the governor’s budget proposal, solid majorities (60% adults, 62% likely voters) approve of the spending plan, though support varies across party lines (79% Democrats, 61% independents, 27% Republicans).
Solid majorities approve of the governor’s plan to avoid using the state’s Rainy Day Fund to help address the budget shortfall (70% adults, 73% likely voters) as well as his proposal to sustain previously planned investments in—among other things— transitional kindergarten (TK) expansion, universal school meals, the state’s homelessness strategy, and increased health care access (66% adults, 63% likely voters). But Californians are divided (48% of adults and 49% of likely voters approving) on the governor’s proposed cuts to workforce training, transportation, housing programs, and climate change efforts.
Two thirds expect bad economic items for California in the next year.
Sixty-six percent of Californians think that the state will have bad times financially over the next 12 months. This is more than at any point in 2021 or 2022 and is similar to views in December 2020 (68%). Six in ten believe that California is now in a recession (22% serious recession, 33% moderate recession, 7% mild recession). A year ago, just slightly over half thought the state was in a recession (23% serious, 20% moderate, 8% mild).
A solid majority (61%) say that recent price Increases have caused hardship for their household. Meanwhile, nearly one-third (30%) are concerned that someone in their family will lose their job in the next year. More than four in ten are either very concerned (17%) or somewhat concerned (28%) about being able to pay their rent or mortgage.
Most approve of Newsom, while about half approve of the state legislature.
Majorities of Californians (58% adults, 57% likely voters) approve of how Governor Newsom is handling his job. This is similar to his approval rating a year ago (56% adults, 57%), and approval for Newsom has been above 50 percent since the beginning of 2020. Californians are split on approval of the state legislature, with 49 percent of both adults and likely voters approving.
“My Entire Life is Desperate Not to Be Laughed At”: Gov. Newsom’s Latest Interview
CalMatters
These days, Gov. Newsom is just as likely to talk to a national news anchor as answer questions from the Capitol press corps.
Or be a guest on a podcast on leadership hosted by Bob Myers, general manager of the Golden State Warriors, in the NBA team’s locker room.
In the 38-minute video segment out this week on “Lead by Example” from Omaha Productions, Newsom talks to Myers about how sports gave him more confidence to overcome dyslexia and a lisp growing up — and helped him learn the value of hard work: “My entire life is desperate not to be laughed at, embarrassed.”
The governor also discusses how he took a leadership role on gay marriage as San Francisco mayor — “It was the most ennobling and extraordinary thing” — though it carried some political risk.
With any difficult decision, Newsom said he asks: “What’s your why?” For him: “Standing up for ideals and striking out against injustice.”
He also said that political leadership, and life, is often about showing up, being persistent and facing challenges and overcoming “stupid decisions,” alluding to his infamous mask-less dinner at the French Laundry restaurant during COVID restrictions.
Newsom: “I made some damn mistakes. But you also own the mistakes…I’m not trying to model perfection.”
While he again criticized the “cruelty” of Republican governors of “exploiting” migrant children to make a political point, he said Democrats are losing the messaging battle: “Narrative is dominating facts.”
Asked by Myers about the legacy he wants to leave his children, Newsom said he hopes they learn empathy, respect and honor and want to make the world a better place.
Newsom: “If I can leave any of that as an example — a shred of that in their lives to the example that is my life — man, I’ll feel like my life was worth living.”
New Ballot Initiatives Already Adding to a Contentious 2024 Election
CalMatters
Atop a November 2024 ballot already teeming with contentious propositions, a new initiative qualified this week that might be the biggest doozy of them all: A proposal to hobble the ability of state and local governments to raise taxes.
In the spirit of California’s 1978’s tax revolt, the proposed constitutional amendment would require the Legislature to put any new statewide tax up for a popular vote. Local governments would have to do the same. Other fiscal tighteners include expanding the definition of what a “tax” is and requiring all local taxes raised for a specific purpose to win a two-thirds majority, undoing a series ofrecent state Supreme Court rulings that loosened that rule.
California Business Roundtable, an advocacy group that represents the state’s biggest businesses, is the public face of the campaign — though much of its funding has so far come from major real estate firms.
Opponents, which include advocates for local government and organized labor groups, have responded to the measure like a declaration of war.
Marcel Rodarte, executive director of the California Contract Cities Association: “This measure could cause irreparable harm to a city’s ability to provide essential services to its residents. This measure is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
They say it’s a wolf that looks like one pitched in 2018 by the Business Roundtable, with the financial backing of the American Beverage Association. Those proponents ended up pulling that measure, but only after the Legislature agreed to pass a 13-year ban on local soda taxes. Irate lawmakers likened the maneuver to “extortion” and a “nuclear weapon.”
Is there a similar strategy in the works this time around? Pointing to the heavy real estate industry backing, Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik suggested that a narrow ban on a particular property development tax might be the ultimate target.
But Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, said the soda deal was “never intended as the strategy” in 2018 and he denied that proponents this time have any ulterior motive.
Lapsley: Voters “want the opportunity to have the final say on future taxes…We would not have introduced it if we weren’t intent on going full speed ahead to pass this.”
Last week, the secretary of state’s office announced that a referendum aimed at overturning California’s landmark law to regulate wages and working conditions for fast food restaurants had qualified for the November 2024 ballot.
Contending that low-wage fast food workers are exploited and otherwise powerless, unions and other advocates crafted Assembly Bill 257, which would create a 10-member Fast Food Council to set wages and working conditions, only four of whose members would represent franchisees and franchisors.
A coalition of fast food corporations and other business groups, dubbed Save Local Restaurants, immediately launched a drive to collect enough signatures on petitions to place the issue on the ballot.
Another referendum is another example – an oil industry drive to overturn last year’s Senate Bill 1137, which bans drilling or upgrading oil wells within 3,200 feet of a “sensitive receptor,” such as a school or hospital.
Advocates say the buffer zone is needed to protect health and safety of people in those facilities, but the industry sees it as part of an effort by Newsom and other Democratic politicians to force the industry out of California.
The other three measures likely to make the 2024 ballot are initiatives, to wit:
—Another effort by business groups to undo legislation they deem harmful, in this case a 2016 law called the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). It allows employees to file lawsuits against employers alleging violations of state laws governing wages and working conditions, bypassing the Department of Industrial Relations. Business is also waging a battle in the courts over the law.
—A proposed surtax on personal incomes over $5 million to finance pandemic preparedness, sponsored by some high technology executives. It could have appeared on the 2022 ballot but was postponed due to the presence of another income tax hike, Proposition 30, that failed.
—A long-pending measure to increase the state’s minimum wage and automatically adjust it to inflation in the future. The measure is opposed by many business groups that are also engaged in the fast food duel and the battle over PAGA.
There are several other measures that that could make it to the 2024 ballot but these are the virtual certainties.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/01/high-impact-measures-headed-for-2024-california-ballot/
Snowpack at Epic Level, But Officials Urge Caution
Sacramento Bee
California’s snowpack is at a historic level. But state water officials still want you to keep those sprinklers off. More than 85 inches of snow was measured at Phillips Station in the high Sierra on Wednesday, nearly double the average for this time of year and well above the average for April 1 — the statewide average, according to state Department of Water Resources officials, was calculated at 33.7 inches.
The stored water content is ahead of the epic 1982-83 winter that was the wettest in at least the past 40 years. Similar readings were measured throughout the Sierra. The snowpack provides roughly 30% of the state’s water supply.
“Our snowpack is off to an incredible start and it’s exactly what California needs to really help break from our ongoing drought,” said Sean de Guzman, the snow surveys and water supply forecasting manager for DWR.
However, there are still two months left in California’s wet season, and state officials are far from declaring an end to the drought. A solid start to last year’s winter was followed by the three driest months on record.
“This is a traditional wet month that is actually starting off pretty dry and given where the forecast are, that dryness is expected to continue,” DWR director Karla Nemeth said.
“I don’t want to be the downer here, but I do want to make sure everyone understands we need to exercise caution,” Nemeth added.
As of Wednesday, the statewide snowpack was calculated at 205% of normal for Feb. 1, 128% of the average come April 1. The southern Sierra had a higher snow-water equivalent, 249% of normal for the first of the month.
The central and northern Sierra regions were at 203% and 171%, respectively. A series of January storms has left many of the state’s reservoirs in good shape. Nearly 9 million acre-feet of water has been added to the reservoir system since December, de Guzman said (one acre-foot is equivalent to about 326,000 gallons).
Oroville Lake, the second-largest, is at 112% of its historical average, and other smaller reservoirs such as Folsom, New Bullards Bar and Don Pedro are also above their average levels for this time of year. Still, some reservoirs below their average for this time of year.
Shasta Lake, the state’s largest reservoir, is at 87% of its historical average for today’s date. Trinity, San Luis and New Melones – also significant reservoirs – are below the average as well.
Nemeth urged California residents to “turn off your sprinklers.” “When we think about drought, we think about, ‘Does this big January actually bust the drought in California?’” she said. “It’s too soon to tell.”
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/water-and-drought/article271933972.html#storylink=cpy
Environmental Group Urges State Limits on Farm Water & Water Right Reform
LA Times
As drought and climate change continue to wreak havoc on California’s water supply, an environmental advocacy group is calling on the state to limit the cultivation of thirsty crops like almonds and alfalfa, saying the agriculture industry is guzzling most of the state’s supplies at the expense of residents.
Large agribusinesses and factory farms — as well as oil and gas operators — are among the biggest water users in the state and should therefore be making greater sacrifices, argues a report by the nonprofit Food and Water Watch.
The group is demanding that Gov. Gavin Newsom develop new water policies that stop the expansion of agriculture and fossil fuel industries, while making good on the state’s promise to provide clean, safe and affordable water to all residents.
“California needs to make fundamental reconsiderations and changes to our water infrastructure, and the governor currently has the authority to act immediately,” said Chirag Bhakta, the organization’s California director. “California is mired in long-term drought right now, and even though this is the case, the state still misuses billions and billions of gallons of water that go to the fossil fuel and big agricultural sectors.”
The recommendations the report outlined for Newsom and state agencies include ending new gas and oil drilling and banning new mega-dairies; ensuring that water rights and allocations benefit the public; and strengthening groundwater protections.
The report comes at a time when the state is feeling increasing pressure to reduce the amount of water it takes from the Colorado River, and as growers struggle with curtailments. (See next story.)
Authors of the report found that expanded acreage for nut crops like almonds and pistachios used 520 billion gallons more water in 2021 than in 2017, indicating that expansion is happening despite tightened water supplies. That’s enough to supply more than 34 million people, or nearly 90% of California’s population, for a year, the report said.
The Food and Water Watch report also found that alfalfa uses an average of 945 billion gallons of water annually, and that mega-dairies consume more than 142 million gallons per day to maintain their cows, while oil and gas companies spent 3 billion gallons between 2018 and 2021 for drilling operations.
Andrew Ayres, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California’s Water Policy Center, said that it’s fair to point out the agriculture industry’s consumptive water use, but that “it’s also important to remember all the benefits that we get from using water in these applications.”
California grows more than 80% of the world’s almonds and a large portion of the nation’s fruits, vegetables and other nuts.
“Especially in winter, California is producing the majority of things like lettuce and other leafy greens that otherwise would be very difficult to get your hands on through the year,” he said.
Steve Lyle, a spokesperson for the California Department of Food and Agriculture, said in an email that a “culture of conservation” has driven the state’s agriculture for decades.
He cited data from the Department of Water Resources showing that farmers and ranchers used 14% less water over a 35-year period while increasing yields by 38%, and that in the span of 20 years, almond growers lowered the amount of water used to grow a pound of almonds by 33%.
The industry is “committed to achieving another 20% reduction by 2025,” he said, adding that “water-efficient micro-irrigation is currently utilized by 85% of California almond farms.”
As for dairy farms, water used for milk production shrank by 88% over a 50-year period, Lyle said.
Although agriculture represents only about 1% to 3% of California’s gross domestic product in a given year, it provides about 11% of the nation’s food supply, more than any other state. California is also the nation’s primary producer of several crops, including almonds, artichokes, olives and walnuts.
But agriculture is also a thirsty sector, accounting for about 80% of the state’s water allocated for human consumption. While that sounds like a huge share, it’s not unique to California, said Thomas Harter, a professor in the Department of Land, Air and Water Resources at UC Davis.
“Any place in the world where you have irrigated agriculture, that will be the dominant water user, just because of the nature of growing foods with irrigation,” he said.
In California, most of that water comes from underground aquifers, which the state relies on more heavily during dry years. The overpumping of groundwater in some parts of the state is drying up wells in record numbers, causing the land to subside and harming wildlife and ecosystems.
In response to the problem, the state in 2014 passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which is intended to regulate the amount of groundwater pumping in California. But the timeline for implementation spans more than two decades, which has led to a frenzy of well drilling by many hoping to tap into supplies before they’re cut off.
Authors of the report say that timeline “falls far short of protecting groundwater by delaying action until 2040.” They argue that SGMA puts industry before people. “Low-resource households, people of color, and communities already burdened with environmental injustices are more likely to face severe drought impacts and water shortages,” they wrote.
Lyle said that SGMA is already being implemented and that the Department of Water Resources has required groundwater sustainability agencies submit plans to protect drinking water for vulnerable communities. Water agencies must meet their sustainability goals within the 20 years, he said.
The report also looked at the dairy industry, whose products represented the state’s highest amount of agricultural cash receipts in 2021 at $7.57 billion, according to the Department of Food and Agriculture.
Harter said there’s no doubt that animal-based foods, on the whole, have a larger water footprint than plant-based ones.
“I’m not advertising against animal products, but I think the more important part is to find, in the long run, a better balance between [the two] that allows us to be sustainable, not just in California but across the world,” he said.
Like dairy, a lot of crops grown in the state are sent overseas. According to the report, more than half of the state’s almonds are exported, equating to about 800 billion gallons of water per year. Alfalfa too is often exported, with about 35% of California’s hay products sent abroad in 2020.
While alfalfa requires a lot of water to grow, it has a high return based on how much water is applied, said Daniel Putnam, a cooperative extension specialist at UC Davis who focuses on alfalfa. The plant’s deep root systems are also good for soil health.
But he acknowledged that the method of growing the crop, which is most often through gravity-fed irrigation flood systems, could be improved “through more careful irrigation systems” and by increasing yields.
“This is why growers have been working on overhead irrigation, they’ve been working on subsurface drip irrigation, and in my book, all of these hold a lot of promise,” he said.
But while there is room for improvement, Putnam emphasized that agriculture uses a lot of water because it takes a lot of water to grow almost anything.
“Even with urban water use, the majority is for landscaping, the majority goes to plants,” he said. “And there’s a reason for that — plants need lots of water, and that’s just the way it is. … Food systems require water.”
US & 7 Western States Battle Over Colorado River Water As Flow Bottoms Out
Associated Press
California released a plan Tuesday detailing how Western states reliant on the Colorado River should save more water. It came a day after the six other states in the river basin made a competing proposal.
In a letter to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California described how states could conserve between 1 million and nearly 2 million acre feet of water through new cuts based on the elevation of Lake Mead, a key reservoir.
Its plan did not account for water lost to evaporation and during transportation — a move sought by the other states that would mean big cuts for California.
The 1,450-mile river (2,334-kilometer) serves 40 million people across the West and Mexico, generating hydroelectric power for regional markets and irrigating nearly 6 million acres (2,428 hectares) of farmland.
A multi-decade drought in the West worsened by climate change, rising demand and overuse has sent water levels at key reservoirs along the river to unprecedented lows. That has forced federal and state officials to take additional steps to protect the system.
California’s plan and the separate methods outlined by states Monday came in response to Reclamation asking them last year to detail how they would use between 15% and 30% less water. The federal agency operates the major dams in the river system.
All seven states missed that deadline last August. Six of them regrouped and came to an agreement by the end of January. California was the the lone holdout to that agreement, and responded Tuesday with its own plan.
Unlike the other states’ plan, California’s does not factor the roughly 1.5 million acre feet of Colorado River water lost to evaporation and transportation.
Instead, it proposes reducing water taken out of Lake Mead by 1 million acre feet, with 400,000 acre feet coming from its own users. The state previously outlined that level of cuts in October. Arizona would bear the brunt of bigger cuts — 560,000 acre feet — while Nevada would make up the rest. Those numbers are based on discussions from prior negotiations, California’s letter said.
An acre foot is enough water to supply two to three U.S. households for a year.
The Arizona Department of Water Resources said it was still reviewing California’s proposal and didn’t have an immediate comment.
But Tom Buschatzke, the department’s director, said earlier Tuesday that water managers across the basin couldn’t reach agreement with California on cuts, even at the broader state level.
“The big issues are what does the priority system mean, what does the junior priority mean and how does that attach to that outcome of who takes what cut?” he said. “That was the issue over the summer, that was the issue over the fall, that’s still the issue.”
California has the largest allocation of water among the seven U.S. states that tap the Colorado River. It is also among the last to face water cuts in times of shortage because of its senior water rights.
That has given the state an advantage over others in talks that spanned months over how to cut water use.
California water officials have often repeated that any additional water cuts must be legally defensible and in line with western water law that honors its water rights.
JB Hamby, chairman of the Colorado River Board of California and a board member of the Imperial Irrigation District, indicated California may file a lawsuit if the federal government attempts to count for evaporative losses.
“The best way to avoid conflict and ensure that we can put water in the river right away is through a voluntary approach, not putting proposals that sidestep the Law of the River and ignore California’s senior right and give no respect to that,” he said.
Existing agreements only spell cuts when Lake Mead’s elevation is between 1,090 feet (332 meters) and 1,025 feet (312 meters). If it drops any lower than 1,025 feet, California’s plan proposes even further cuts based on the so-called Law of the River — likely meaning Arizona and Nevada would bear the brunt of them. Those cuts are designed to keep Lake Mead from reaching “dead pool,” when it could no longer pump out water to farms and cities including Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Phoenix.
The reservoir’s current elevation is around 1,045 feet.
In total, California’s plan could save between 1 million and 2 million acre-feet of water based on the elevation levels at Lake Mead, from which Arizona, California, Nevada and Mexico draw their share of the river.
Adel Hagekhalil, general manager for the Metropolitan Water District of California, the nation’s largest water supplier, said it was important to protect key reservoirs “without getting mired in lengthy legal battles.”
The new proposals do not change states’ water allocations immediately — or disrupt their existing water rights. Instead, they will be folded into a larger proposal Reclamation is working on to revise how it operates Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams — behemoth power producers on the Colorado River.