One-sided water panel

The Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee has come to be known as “the death committee” for what it does to legislation opposed by business and agricultural interests. Chairwoman Lois Wolk (D-Davis) is valiantly trying to shed that doomsday label, but it’s not easy.

The committee is stacked in favor of agriculture and with Southern Californians new to the state’s complex water system. No member is based in the Bay Area, with more than 7 million people. Five of the 14 members represent the farm-rich Central Valley. Generally, the panel’s Republicans follow agriculture and business interests. It’s an example of how special interests can dominate the legislative process.

Consider the fate of three progressive bills that came before the committee recently.

SB 350 by Sen. Michael Machado (D-Linden) would have taken a first step toward restoring water to the lower, dried-up San Joaquin River during irrigation season. The bill was held in committee until Machado considered amendments to weaken it enough to get the necessary eight “yes” votes. In the end, Machado gave up and put off further consideration of the bill until next year.

SB 409 by Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) would have merely required counties to consider the availability of water supplies when adopting their county plans. It was opposed by developers and Republican leaders. The committee killed it.

SB 820 by Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) would require annual reports on the amount of groundwater pumped for urban and farm use. This has been done in Los Angeles and several other Southern California counties since the 1950s, but not the rest of California. Amazingly, California is only one of two states without laws governing the pumping of water from aquifers. In most areas, a landowner can pump unlimited amounts regardless of the effect on neighbors’ supplies. The bill was extensively amended before finally getting eight votes. Even then, several members warned they might switch from “yes” to “no” after studying the amendments.

California’s water needs are more than the sum of its farms and businesses. Stacking this committee with agricultural and development interests ill serves most of the state’s population.