The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pledged that lead regulations will be a prominent feature of the agency’s work in 2018 — but that work will take longer than anticipated. The agency expects that a revision to federal rules that are designed to reduce the risk of lead in drinking water will be published in draft form in August 2018, a seven-month delay from a timetable announced this summer.
Wow, so this is what it looked like watching Rome burn? Or in our case, farmers’ fields and family taps running dry while Colorado River water managers hole up at Caesars Palace rearranging the deck chairs poolside. For more than a decade, the crescendo from outside the Palace has been that Southern Nevadans and the other 38 million people reliant on this river should prepare for major shortages.
California’s management of water for is not working for anyone. Environmental advocates argue that state and federal regulators have set water quality and flow standards that do not adequately protect fish and wildlife, and have not enforced these requirements when they are most needed. Farm and urban interests claim that these regulations have been ineffective and cause unnecessary economic harm.
For almost a half century, the Clean Water Act has protected many of America’s rivers, lakes and bays from harmful pollution. But still too many of our nation’s waters remain at risk. That’s why, a few years ago, through an extensive public process involving rural communities and industry, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a new rule, the Clean Water Rule (also known as the Waters of the U.S. Rule), to further protect precious sources of drinking water.
During the U.S. Climate Action Pavilion in Bonn, Germany, on Nov. 11, Gov. [Jerry] Brown presented America’s Pledge report detailing how U.S. cities, states and businesses will take action on climate targets it set forth in the Paris Agreement. … But Brown was interrupted by members of the Native American community speaking against his support of fracking and contending that his policies have hurt low-income communities.
Gov. Jerry Brown and legislators are negotiating a new water bond that would go before voters in November. If negotiations break down in the next few weeks – and we hope they don’t – voters would decide on a flawed $11 billion water bond crafted in 2009.
Gov. Jerry Brown’s call for a drastically cheaper water bond set off a fresh round of negotiations in the Capitol on Wednesday, as lawmakers and stakeholders seek to craft a plan that addresses the state’s myriad water needs without a bloated price tag.
From U-T San Diego, in a column by Steven Greenhut:
Few issues are more important to the future of California than providing a reliable source of water for the state’s growing population. But despite the sense of urgency caused by this year’s particularly severe drought, legislators still aren’t sure exactly what to do about the problem.
Water bond politics look poised to dominate the remainder of California’s legislative session, with Senate leadership and Gov. Jerry Brown billions of dollars apart on the size of a revised water bond for the November 2014 ballot.
Gov. Jerry Brown told legislative leaders Tuesday that he wants a $6-billion water bond to be put before voters in November — a substantially lower price tag than proposals making their way through the Legislature.
The governor told legislative leaders in private meetings Tuesday that he opposes the existing water bond, which was negotiated by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers in 2009, and wants a $6 billion bond instead.
From the Los Angeles Times, in a commentary by Gary Polakovic:
It’s been 40 years since the June 20, 1974, opening of “Chinatown,” the fictionalized drama about power, corruption and what is arguably L.A.’s most crucial resource: water. The iconic film was Hollywood’s make-believe version of an undying reality: In L.A., you have to follow the water.
From the PPIC Viewpoints blog, in a post by Emma Freeman and Ellen Hanak:
Much of the current water talk in Sacramento surrounds a new state water bond for the November ballot. Yet as we show in our study Paying for Water in California, most water spending—84 percent—is actually raised locally.
“Wielding two decades of Senate experience and sheer force of will, Sen. Dianne Feinstein overcame environmentalists’ objections and Republicans’ skepticism in pushing through a drought-relief bill that could ship more water to farms and cities and weaken protections for fish.”