"I know what you're thinking about," said Tweedledum; "but it isn't so, nohow."
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
That's logic." -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
We found it necessary to consult this primary text in logic to attempt to "parse" (even to robustly and proactively parse") the following statement from the desk of our very own White Queen, Dianne Feinstein, senior US Senator for California:
Because California can't store enough water during wet years to compensate for dry years, transferring water is a criticaltool to help provide farmers, businesses and residential areas with a dependable water supply.--US Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Sacramento Bee, Jan. 17, 2012.
Within the primary unexamimed assumption, "Because California can't store enough water during wet years to compensate for dry years," there is another fundamental assumption, "California" itself.
While we recognize of course that the White Queen regards California as no more than the population from which she has been able to extract election majorities since 1992, we suggest that is not the whole story. However, within the context of this impeccable statement of political logic from the White Queen, we find an inner, economic syllogism that goes: California = Capitalism; Capitalism = Growth; Growth in California = the Next Real Estate Bubble; A Next California Real Estate Bubble = Higher Profits on White Queen and King Investments.
Badlands Journal editorial board
Another View: Critic painted skewed picture of water transfers…1-15-12
Dianne Feinstein, the senior U.S. senator from California, is responding to the Jan. 8 Viewpoints article "Water barons will corner market in new 'Chinatown,' " which stated, "A one-sentence provision inserted in the 2012 budget bill by U.S. Sen.Dianne Feinstein will allow a handful of powerful San Joaquin Valley water oligarchs to sell federally subsidizedagricultural water in a private market for as much as 150 times more than what they pay for it."
A recent Viewpoints article misrepresents an important federal provision to allow Central Valley irrigation districts to transfer water.
The author describes water transfers as ominous, when in fact they are a vital and commonly used tool to stabilize California's water supply by permitting water districts with excess water to sell water to districts without enough.
Because California can't store enough water during wet years to compensate for dry years, transferring water is a critical tool to help provide farmers, businesses and residential areas with a dependable water supply.
The author suggests this provision allows water managers to bypass federal review; that is wrong. Transfers undergo rigorous environmental review and must be approved by the Bureau of Reclamation. The process is very public, and it's not new – temporary authority permitting transfers expired at the end of 2011, and there were no reports of problems under thatprogram.
The author says taxpayer investments are uncompensated and that the provision will result in gratuitous profits. Both claims are wrong. Any federal costs of moving water are fully reimbursed; every district is contractually obligated to pay into the costs of the Central Valley Project. And there have been no reports of profiteering from farm-to-farm transfers covered by this authority.
The author uses misleading terms such as "privatization" and "deregulation." Neither is accurate. Basic water allocation is still based largely on public and environmental priorities, water sales in no way convert to private water rights and heavy regulation of the system will remain in place.
Finally, the author refers to the provision as a "rider," suggesting it was added without examination. That is incorrect. The plan was proposed in 2009, was the focus of a hearing with public testimony and the final language was a result of prolonged negotiations among interested parties.
This provision provides California's water managers with another tool to help deliver a reliable water supply while protecting the environment. This is good for California, and I'm proud to have championed the effort.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) filed petitions with the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of WaterRights (Division) for temporary change to transfer up to 100,000 acre-feet of water
On January 5, 2012, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) filed petitions with the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights (Division) for temporary change to transfer up to 100,000 acre-feet of water pursuant to Water Code section 1725 et seq., under water right License 1986 (Application 23) and Permits 273, 11315, 11316, 11885, 11886, 11887, 11967, 11968, 11969, 11970, 11971, 11972, 11973, 12364, 12721, 12722, 12723, 12725, 12726, 12727, 12860, and 15735 (Applications 234, 1465, 5638, 13370, 13371, 5628, 15374, 15375, 15376, 16767, 16768, 17374, 17376, 5626, 9363, 9364, 9366, 9367, 9368, 15764, and 22316, respectively). The petitions were filed to temporarily modify the municipal and industrial place of use in Reclamation's water rights to facilitate water exchanges between Arvin-Edison Water Storage District (a Central Valley Project contractor) and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (a State Water Project contractor). Temporary changes under Water Code section 1725 may be effective for a period of up to one year. To view project information, please visit the Division website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/applications/transfers_tu_notices/index.shtml A hard copy of the petition materials may be obtained upon request from Kathy Mrowka at (916) 341-5363, or by email at
firstname.lastname@example.org. Comments on the proposed transfer must be received by the Division by 4:30 p.m. on February 22, 2012. Date of Notice: January 21, 2012