For Clients & Friends of The Gualco Group, Inc.
IN THIS ISSUE – “…It’s Almost Impossible to Kill These Things…”
UNDER THE DOME
- Precarious State Fiscal Health Depends on Just a Few Taxpayers
- Newsom Budget Adds State Departments, Services
- Voters Make Homeless #1 Issue in Record Time
- “The Process Lacks Transparency”: Housing Bill Dies Mysterious Death in Legislative Committee
RESOURCES
- California Unions Grow, Bucking National Shrinkage
- High Housing Costs…are Complicated
- Cleaning Up Transportation Emissions…is Complicated
- Petroleum Executives Discuss Tougher Carbon Targets Behind Closed Doors at Global Business Conference
- Historic Groundwater Management Starts Next Week
FOR THE WEEK ENDING JAN. 24, 2020
Capital News & Notes (CN&N) harvests California legislative and regulatory insights from dozens of media and official sources for the past week, tailored to your business and advocacy interests. Please feel free to forward.
Stay current daily! For our focused updates via Twitter: @jrgualco / @robertjgore / @gualcogroup
READ ALL ABOUT IT!!
Precarious State Fiscal Health Depends on Just a Few Taxpayers
CalMatters commentary
The final pages of the 2020-21 budget that Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed this month contain arguably its most important factor — an utter dependence on taxing a relative handful of high-income Californians.
Personal income taxes, the budget projects, will generate $102.8 billion during the fiscal year that will begin on July 1, or slightly over two-thirds of general fund revenues, and 47% will come from the top 1% of California’s taxpayers who file about 15,000 tax returns in a state of 40 million people.
To put it another way, nearly a third of what California spends on K-12 schools, public colleges, prisons, welfare grants and health care is supplied by fewer Californians than it would take to fill a professional basketball arena.
It wasn’t always so. A chart in the budget reveals that 70 years ago, in 1950, personal income taxes accounted for just 11.3% of the state’s general fund revenues, with sales taxes the biggest source at 59.4%. Nine years ago, personal income taxes were scarcely half of the state’s revenue stream.
What happened?
A strong recovery from the Great Recession and a rising stock market, compounded by a voter-approved increase in income tax rates on the most affluent Californians, increased dependence on them.
So what’s the problem with that?
The rich can take care of themselves but being so dependent on so few people is dangerous from a fiscal standpoint, particularly since their incomes largely stem from investment earnings, such as those from the stock market, which can go up and down like an elevator.
It’s called “volatility” and it means that were another recession to hit, California’s budget would be clobbered, with projected revenue drops of about $25 billion a year. The state’s “rainy day fund” would cover only a fraction of that decline.
There’s another aspect to being so dependent on the rich to finance services that mainly serve middle- and low-income Californians. Wealthy taxpayers could — and some already have — simply move to another state and take their income-generating investments with them.
The potential for such an exodus increased a couple of years ago when a Republican-dominated Congress passed, and President Donald Trump signed, a federal tax overhaul that, among other things, capped the deductibility of state and local taxes at $10,000.
It increased the net impact of state and local taxes on high-income taxpayers, thus creating another reason to flee high-taxing states such as California for states that levy low or no income taxes, such as Nevada and Florida.
Not surprisingly, the Democrats who dominate high-taxing states complained loudly about the $10,000 limit, openly fearful that it would entice the wealthy to migrate.
Last month, the House of Representatives, now controlled by Democrats, voted to repeal the $10,000 limit and thus ease the tax burden on the rich — a move dripping with irony, given calls by Democratic presidential hopefuls for taxing them even more.
Prior to the House vote, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center calculated that one-percenters, households reporting $755,000 or more in income, would see 56% of the benefit from repealing the deduction cap, low-income Americans would get virtually nothing, and only about 3% of middle-income taxpayers would see their tax bills cut.
It’s unlikely that the Republican-dominated Senate would repeal the limit, and it’s not certain it would do so even if Democrats take control this year. It would be seen as a boon to high-taxing states, such as California and New York, at the expense of states that have more modest tax burdens.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/state-budget-depends-on-the-rich/
Newsom Budget Adds State Departments, Services
Sacramento Bee
Eight years ago, former Gov. Jerry Brown trimmed and reorganized California’s bureaucracy in an effort to help haul the state out of the Great Recession.
The Little Hoover Commission praised the plan for pushing the state toward a more “effective, efficient and transparent” government that would be more responsive to unfavorable employment and revenue trends.
Today, with a state budget surplus, Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing to add new departments, offices, divisions and programs to the state’s government to bolster ambitious plans to improve everything from early childhood development to dysfunctional state technology.
The Jan. 10 proposal calls for a Department of Cannabis Control, a Department of Early Childhood Development and a Department of Better Jobs and Higher Wages. It calls for creating an Office of Health Care Affordability and building a robust program to carry out a new California consumer financial protection Law.
The departments would consolidate functions scattered across some of the state’s 150-odd departments, according to budget documents. The cannabis department, for instance, would consolidate marijuana licensing programs currently carried out by three different offices into one organization. The early childhood and jobs departments would group together programs and data from a range of offices.
The new departments would also provide launching pads for new functions focused on making government more user-friendly for residents, according to budget proposal documents.
Government growth is common in flush financial times, but it can make the inevitable downward adjustments more difficult when a recession arrives, according to government experts. Newsom has also expanded the governor’s office itself, increasing spending by 22 percent last year on top staff positions.
“During times of expansion it’s easy to do these things,” said Michael Shires, an associate professor of public policy at the Pepperdine School of Public Policy. “In the long term, when it’s time to adjust, it’s almost impossible to kill these things. And you’ve got to squeeze everyone else a little harder.”
Spending projections haven’t been finalized, but ongoing costs for five of the largest of the new departments and offices likely will be in the neighborhood of $50 million to $100 million per year, according to preliminary estimates.
That’s a relatively small portion of the $222 billion in proposed spending, but the money will form new interests and political constituencies that could push them to keep growing, Shires said.
The combined costs of the Department of Better Jobs and Higher Wages and the Department of Early Childhood Development, along with the consumer protection program, total $32.1 million per year, according to budget request documents.
Detailed projections aren’t yet available for the health care office or the Department of Cannabis Control, according to a Department of Finance spokesman. A line item in the budget for the “Bureau of Cannabis Control” estimates it will cost about $25 million per year.
This year’s additions follow proposals from Newsom last year to create a $36 million Office of Digital Innovation and to convert the Division of Juvenile Justice to the Department of Youth and Community Restoration.
Top Republicans on the Legislature’s budget committees said the permanent costs of new bureaucracies could make the state less flexible in the future.
“This is certainly something that the budget subcommittees are going to be taking a close look at,” said Jay Obernolte, R-Big Bear Lake, vice chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee. “I remain concerned about the overall level of state spending and the expansion of state bureaucracies in this budget.”
Obernolte said his office has identified 25 new government entities, including departments, offices, divisions, programs and task forces, in the budget proposal.
State Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, vice chairman of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, said the government needs to reduce or move jobs if it is going to create new departments or offices.
“If we just pile it on and add a new agency, all we’re doing is creating more cost, and less efficiency and effectiveness,” Nielsen said.
Budget proposals indicate not every job in each new department will be new — some will transfer from other departments.
“The creation and consolidation of these new departments will better position the state to tackle key challenges and leverage opportunities today and into the future,” Governor’s Office spokeswoman Vicky Waters said in an email. “They will increase efficiencies and focus as we strive to serve Californians to the best of our abilities.”
Consolidation is sorely needed for some government services, including early childhood services, said Joanne Kozberg, a veteran of government reorganization efforts under past governors who served as former Gov. Pete Wilson’s secretary of State and Consumer Services.
“There are different revenue streams, rules and regulations; I don’t know that the people working within child development know where to go,” Kozberg said. “I applaud that effort.”
Similarly, Kozberg and Shires agreed the state needs a cannabis control agency to regulate the new industry. They likened the department to the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
The Office of Digital Innovation, launched last year under a $36 million proposal, was created to improve the often “cumbersome and frustrating” experience of interacting with government, according to a proposal for the office.
Newsom announced the office last January and it launched in July. The office is described on its website as “a start-up inside state government focused on improving services for the people of California.”
The proposal called for hiring 50 people. So far, the department has hired just a few employees and is still searching for a director — someone who has both a Silicon Valley background and experience working in government, said Mike Wilkening, who oversees the department as the governor’s special advisor on digital and innovation projects.
The office has undertaken two main projects, Wilkening said.
One is alpha.ca.gov, an experiment in making California state government’s primary website more user-friendly. The stripped-down version of ca.gov loads faster, requires less data and is simpler, he said.
The other project is a portal that organizes state data according to geographic area and subject matter, rather than by department. For example, Wilkening said, a user looking for salmon migration data kept by the state can go to the portal and find a broad data set instead of guessing which state departments might have the information and trying to find it on their websites.
In the future, the office will be available to partner with state departments on their digital projects, working to help identify root problems and tailor solutions to them, Wilkening said. The office also will work under an “intervention model,” where top-level government officials may dispatch the office to address problems when needed, he said.
Wilkening said the department had been holding off on full-scale hiring for the department until it could find a director, but recently has shifted course. The department now is working with a consultant from the U.S. Digital Service to staff up for specific projects while the search for a director continues, Wilkening said.
Better data is also a focus of the proposed Department of Better Jobs and Higher Wages, which would consolidate existing workforce and training programs into one department, according to a proposal for the department.
The changes would create a “better environment for embracing bold ideas for improving the lives of Californians by supporting opportunities to create good jobs with a career pathway to upward mobility, according to the proposal.”
https://www.sacbee.com/article239461768.html#storylink=cpy
Voters Make Homeless #1 Issue in Record Time
Public Policy Institute of California
Gov. Gavin Newsom kicked off 2020 by pledging to plow an extra $1.4 billion into homeless services, proposing a state constitutional amendment to make it easier to sue cities who fail to provide shelter for their unhoused populations, and embarking on a statewide “homelessness tour” to visit shelters and other providers.
Homelessness, he said last week as he unveiled his proposed budget last week, is “the issue that defines our times.”
According to a poll released Wednesday, more Californians than ever agree.
Twenty percent of Californians surveyed by the Public Policy Institute of California cited homelessness as the most important issue for the governor and Legislature to work on this year.
That’s a record, said the institute’s president, Mark Baldassare: “It’s never, ever been in the double digits.”
Another 10% of Californians named “housing costs (and) availability.”
When the institute asked the same question last year, only 6% of respondents named homelessness at the state’s top policy priority.
And when the new poll focused in on likely voters, the results were even more emphatic: 23% named homelessness their chief concern, with another 11% citing housing.
The survey also suggested that Newsom’s approval among likely voters may be inching up. It showed presidential candidate Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders surging with California’s Democratic electorate (particularly young voters), making him the nominal frontrunner — but adjusting for the poll’s margin of error, he’s in a three-way tie with former Vice President Joe Biden and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. And the poll found that California Republicans largely support President Trump, but tend to part ways with him on immigration.
The survey was conducted Jan. 3 to 12 — mostly before the state’s Democratic governor announced his new plans on homelessness, although after President Trump has repeatedly lambasted California for allowing the problem to worsen.
“I don’t think its something that’s coming up because they’re reading about it or because the president has tweeted about,” said Baldassare. “It’s on people’s minds because they’re seeing it in their daily lives.”
Homelessness is not a new problem in California, but data collected by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development suggests it has grown more acute in recent years. At last count, more than 150,000 Californians are now living in their cars, in shelters or on the sidewalks and below freeway underpasses — more than at any time since at least 2007.
“The Process Lacks Transparency”: Bill Dies Mysterious Death in Legislative Committee
Sacramento Bee
A legislative bill that would have created a “right to housing” mandate died a mysterious death on Thursday in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Assembly Bill 22 would have declared that California children and families have a “right to safe, decent and affordable housing” and required state agencies to keep people in shelters if they don’t have stable housing.
Assemblywoman Autumn Burke, D-Inglewood, said she was “1,000 percent” shocked that the Assembly Appropriations committee blocked it, and learned about its demise only after she walked into the hearing room to present the measure.
The legislative appropriations process is notoriously complicated, and one that lacks transparency. It’s often difficult to discern why a bill died or was changed, as lawmakers vote privately on the measures.
“I thought I would at least be allowed to present on the bill,” Burke said in a phone interview with The Sacramento Bee. “There are accountability issues that need to be addressed. This can’t be cities by themselves. It has to be a partnership between cities, counties and states.”
The bill sailed through its first hearing on Jan. 15, with a 6-0 vote in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee. The legislation included 15 co-authors, at least one of them Republican, representing the Central Valley, the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
Burke said she also met with two members of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s homelessness task force, which recently urged the Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would force local governments and the state to more dramatically address the homeless crisis.
The Appropriations Committee estimated that AB 22 would require at least tens of millions of dollars to help shelter children and families. About $928,000 in the proposed law’s first year would be needed to coordinate and provide resources.
Burke said she had revised portions of the bill with the task force’s recommendations, based on urging from Assembly Appropriations Chairwoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego.
The changes including pushing back the “right to housing” date so cities and counties would have more time to establish plans that meet requirements, Burke said.
Despite the amendments, Burke said she didn’t receive “any constructive feedback” from Gonzalez or the committee.
“She didn’t want to give me the chance to speak or give me a chance to explain where the bill was and where we were planning on taking it,” Burke said. “At some point she and I will obviously have to have a conversation about it, and I hope it’s more productive than what happened today.”
Gonzalez, however, said she had notified Burke of AB 22’s likely fate the day before it faced her committee’s consideration. The issue wasn’t the bill itself, Gonzalez said, but one of procedural consideration.
AB 22 is a two-year proposal, meaning the bill was introduced last year but then paused until 2020. Lawmakers will usually delay their own measures to buy time for negotiations. However, Burke just recently included the “right to housing” language through a process called “gut and amend,” when legislators will swap out one policy with a new proposal.
Gonzalez said Burke needed to restart the bill so she could work with the Legislature’s housing consultants to “get a bill in shape that we could properly analyze and move forward.” Gonzalez also said Burke’s most recent amendments arrived too late this week and were not filed correctly, but through email correspondence.
Gonzalez said many of the bills her committee killed on Thursday would likely be reintroduced. Because California faces an obvious homelessness emergency that demands urgent attention, she said, Burke’s idea is “an important issue to get right.”
“I gave her a heads up because I know it’s an important issue, it’s important to the caucus and it’s important to her obviously,” Gonzalez told The Bee. “I did something that I so rarely do so she could get started on reintroducing a bill.”
Burke can technically revive her idea through fresh legislation by the Feb. 21 bill introduction deadline. Then it would have to start fresh with committee hearings and, eventually, another Appropriations hurdle.
“This isn’t over, by a long shot,” Burke said. “This supersedes politics. This is children and families living on the streets, living in tents under freeways. It’s not an ego project, a politics project, it’s a moral imperative.”
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article239576043.html#storylink=cpy
California Unions Grow, Bucking Natonal Trend
Calmmatters brief, no link
Bucking a national trend, organized labor gained members in California in 2019, 139,000 to be exact, US Bureau of Labor Statistics new figures show.
California’s 2.72 million union workers amounted to 16.5% of the state’s labor force, compared with 15.8% in 2018. It’s still below the 2010 level of 18.6%.
The growth has been enabled by a labor-friendly Legislature enacting measures to crack down on wage theft and retaliation against union organizers, according to the LA Times reportage.
The uptick follows intense outreach by union leaders to members comes after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
Union opponents hoped that decision would have restricted the ability of public employee unions to retain workers. There seems to be no clear impact from that decision, yet.
By the numbers:
- Hawaii’s workforcewas the most organized, at 25.5%, followed by New York at 22.7%.
States with the smallest share of union workers were:
- South Carolina,7%, North Carolina, 3.4%, Georgia, 5%, and Virginia and Texas, 5.2%.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t05.htm?utm_source=CalMatters+Newsletters&utm_campaign=54c45eadd9-WHATMATTERS_NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_faa7be558d-54c45eadd9-150181777&mc_cid=54c45eadd9&mc_eid=2833f18cca
High Housing Costs…are Complicated
Brookings Institute
Public debate falls into two schools of thought as to why housing costs are so high in many parts of the U.S. The YIMBY (“Yes In My Backyard”) school argues that housing is expensive because local governments—and voters—have adopted overly restrictive land use regulations that limit the construction of new housing. On the other hand, left-leaning politicians like Bernie Sanders contend that housing is expensive because “corrupt real estate developers are gentrifying neighborhoods.”
So, which is it? Are government regulations making it impossible to build new homes, or are developers price gouging homebuyers and renters? Who really pockets the profits from building—or not building—new housing?
In this piece, I lay out some basic facts about the financial ecosystem of housing development, and discuss the ways land use regulations affect development decisions. How do regulatory barriers impact the profitability of a new housing development? And how are the costs of development (including complying with regulations) shared among developers, lenders, and investors?
Cleaning Up Transportation Emissions…is Complicated
Pew Research
State lawmakers and regulators are turning their eyes to the road in the fight against climate change, recognizing that the transportation sector now produces more greenhouse gas emissions than any other portion of the economy.
They are finding few simple solutions.
California, long the leader in policies to curb transportation emissions, also has had trouble advancing its policies. The state is battling the Trump administration in court over its authority to set stricter auto emission levels than the national standard, which the administration rolled back.
Meanwhile, the California Air Resources Board is considering applying its zero-emission car mandate to trucks, ranging from pickups to tractor-trailers. That would require manufacturers to offer electric truck models in California, while meeting certain sales thresholds, the first such mandate in the United States.
Petroleum Executives Discuss Tougher Carbon Targets Behind Closed Doors at Davos
Bloomberg Business
The bosses of some of the world’s biggest oil companies discussed adopting much more ambitious carbon targets at a closed-door meeting in Davos, a sign of how much pressure they’re under from activists and investors to address climate change.
The meeting, part of a World Economic Forum dominated by climate issues, included a debate on widening the industry’s target to include reductions in emissions from the fuels they sell, not just the greenhouse gases produced by their own operations, people familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
The talks between the chief executive officers of companies including Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Chevron Corp., Total SA, Saudi Aramco, Equinor ASA and BP Plc showed general agreement on the need to move toward this broader definition, known as Scope 3, the people said, asking not to be named because the session was closed to the press. The executives didn’t take any final decisions.
Shell and Aramco declined to comment. Media representatives for Chevron, Total and BP weren’t immediately able to respond to requests for comment. Equinor confirmed its CEO Eldar Saetre attended the meeting.
Targeting Scope 3 emissions would be a big shift for an industry that produces the bulk of the world’s planet-warming emissions, once that could eventually require them to sell far less oil and gas. The simple fact that the industry’s top executives were considering it underscored how climate concerns suddenly came into focus in Davos this year.
For the first time, environmental risks occupied the WEF’s top five long-term concerns. Business leaders from BlackRock Inc. CEO Larry Fink to Allianz SEboss Oliver Baete used their platform at the event to focus on sustainable investment. The two highest-profile attendees at the forum — President Donald Trump and climate activist Greta Thunberg — made headlines as they staked out opposing positions on the issue.
The oil and gas executives debated a document produced by the WEF on “neutralizing emissions at the pump,” a reference to the gasoline and diesel sold to customers. There’s an urgent need to shift the industry’s target from production to emissions from end users, said one person.
Several companies have already set targets for Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gases, which come directly from pumping and refining hydrocarbons. Yet these account for less than 10% of total emissions from the life cycle of oil and gas. Some of their pledges have also focused on curbing emissions intensity — the amount of carbon dioxide released per unit of energy — which wouldn’t necessarily lead to a reduction in the volume of greenhouse gases produced if a company’s output is growing.
Historic Groundwater Management Starts Next Week
National Public Radio
Much of California’s water supply is a hidden asset: Deep below the surface, rocks, gravel and sand store water like a sponge, in an underground zone called an aquifer.
In dry years, this groundwater has been tapped to save farms, keep grass green and provide drinking water to millions of Californians. But over time, people have taken more water out than nature has put back in. Estimates vary, but according to the U.S. Geological Survey, California pumped 41 trillion gallons of water fom the ground in about 100 years, through 2013. In some parts of the Central Valley, that means land has been dropping around a foot a year.
The landmark Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, or SGMA, requires some of the state’s thirstiest areas form local “Groundwater Sustainability Agencies” and submit long-term plans by Jan. 31 for keeping aquifers healthy. Together, those plans will add up to a big reveal, as groundwater managers finally disclose how badly they believe their aquifers are overdrawn, and a collective picture emerges. It’s a major shift and arguably the most important new California water law in 50 years.
Here are some key things to know about the groundwater situation in California and how the law will impact the state.
Until six years ago, California did not routinely regulate or monitor groundwater.
The California Constitution decrees that water use has to be reasonable and beneficial, but the state has placed few limits on how water can be pumped from the ground. A 1914 law empowering the state water board to manage the resource omitted groundwater. You can blame the lack of regulation partly on 18th-century Spanish colonists who brought with them the idea that a landowner is entitled to all of the water below the surface, without any obligation to share it.
At the beginning of the 20th century, water was still plentiful in California, and the idea of unfettered access to groundwater made sense in a state lush with wetlands.
So for the last century, landowners continued to think of groundwater as pretty much a birthright. It’s become an essential component of California’s water portfolio: State officials say 30 million residents rely on groundwater for at least some portion of their drinking supply, and in the driest years, people keep basically sticking a straw into the earth to slake their thirst.
Water at the surface is connected to the water hidden below.
The water from California’s rivers and streams, along with rainwater, seeps into the ground, where it remains among the rocks, gravel and sand. Between these surface and sub-surface supplies lies the water table, which is what hydrologists call the top of the area that has been saturated underground.
Using too much groundwater affects not only surface water supplies but also entire ecosystems. Pumping from the earth deep enough to suck water out can lower the groundwater table and dry out surface soils.
Rivers and streams feed more than 500 aquifers around California. Less than a quarter of these account for the overwhelming majority of groundwater pumping.
In these basins, this landmark law already has begun to transform the Central Valley.
For decades, farmers fought the regulation and monitoring of groundwater tooth and nail. Now that it’s here, SGMA has already begun to change the region’s economy and landscape, as some farmers have sold or fallowed land in antipation of the coming changes.
The Public Policy Institute of California predicts that agricultural interests may have to let 750,000 acres of land go fallow, mostly in parts of the San Joaquin Valley where the most severe overpumping has occurred.
Farmers may also have to cycle current crops out for those requiring less water. For example, almonds are water-intensive but have been profitable in recent years; those margins would change if water becomes much more expensive than it is now.
Some local water managers have a lot of work to show by the end of the month.
There are 21 “critically overdrafted” basins for which officials must submit groundwater management plans by Jan. 31.
In each area where people have habitually pumped more than has come back in, local water managers have to figure out how much they’ve taken from underground, and how water at the surface replenishes those stores. Each region has to propose ways to monitor groundwater over multiple intervals: day-to-day, short-term, seasonal, and yearslong. Basically, they’re creating monitoring systems, in some cases from scratch, to help determine whether conditions are changing.
The groundwater plans are built around models for how to share water in a way that’s sustainable by 2040. Each one can be a little different, but local managers and the state have to check up on every single one and meet interim deadlines every five years.
The Department of Water Resources can accept the plans as is or ask for tweaks. DWR can also refer the plans to the state water board for intervention, meaning that local officials may have to try again if the state judges a plan unlikely to succeed. In extreme cases, the state may have to step in to settle disputes over local rights.
This isn’t just a Valley problem.
Balancing aquifers like bank accounts will cost money and effort in the Bay Area and other parts of the state. Two years from now, managers for dozens more groundwater basins with state-designated risk ratings of high or medium must submit their own plans to the State Water Resources Control Board. They include water managers in Sonoma, Napa, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.
Even though these plans will take years to come into focus, plenty of political decisions remain.
State requirements for sustainable regional groundwater management haven’t taken away anyone’s rights; the rules have changed how localities must meet their water needs from now on. Even the plans submitted by the locally formed groundwater agencies that will meet this year’s deadline haven’t absolutely nailed down who gets to use what in the future. The coming decisions and politics about water may be tense, but the alternative is that one day, wells could run dry.