30 Almond Facts
SEPTEMBER | OCTOBER 2014
Agricultural
Council of California
EMILY ROONEY,
President
State Legislature Shirks U.S. Constitution in
Development of Groundwater Bills
This quote is in Article III, Section 1 of our state’s
constitution. Unfortunately, recent actions by the State
Legislature make it clear that California adheres to the U.S.
Constitution at its own discretion – specifcally as it relates to
separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative and
Judicial branches of government. Additionally, promises of
transparent and open government have been broken.
The recent passage of the package of groundwater bills
clearly highlights this mindset. The U.S. Constitution does
not apply in the creation of California’s laws.
In California’s legislative system, we often see various
administrative agencies get involved with the legislative
process. Ag Council has always had concerns with
this comingling of duties, but with the drafting of the
groundwater bills, it was a blatant disregard of our
constitutional rights.
First, the authors of the bills accepted language from State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) staff that would
improve their standing in existing litigation – blurring the
lines between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches
of government in one fell swoop.
Second, when private stakeholders had meetings in the
authors’ offces to seek changes in the bill, SWRCB staff was
on hand for negotiations. Again, blurring the lines between
the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
Finally, SWRCB attended and testifed at the Appropriations
Committee in support of the bill. Once again, the lines
between Executive and Legislative branches have been
blurred, and this is at a signifcant disadvantage to the
farmers, ranchers and dairymen of the State of California.
Let’s be clear — SWRCB staff was seeking broad new
authorities through this package of bills. They were
never going to be good-faith negotiators with us, or any
stakeholders with differing points of view, unless our
priorities match their agenda.
Additionally, the blurred lines were coupled with a process
that lacked in transparency and accountability. In early
August, we started seeing major amendments to the bills.
SB 1168 alone was amended fve separate times in August,
including on the last day of the legislative session, and not
one policy hearing was held on the bill in its fnal form.
AB 1739 was amended four different times in August
and a policy hearing was also not held after the August
amendments were made. SB 1319 was a “gut and amend”
measure, which came to light on August 28.
There was a fscal hearing for consideration of the bills on
August 28, but we were only given a few hours notice. The
hearing began around 8:00 p.m. For interested parties not
in the Capitol building at that time, they did not have an
opportunity to participate in the only hearing considering the
bills in almost their full context.
Even at this time, the bills were not fully developed. Final
amendments to two of the three bills took place on the last
day of the legislative session — the same day the bills were
heard on the foor — August 29. The process was confusing
and truly lacking in transparency on an issue fundamental
to California agriculture. Simply put, this process is certainly
not the appropriate way to make considerable changes to
groundwater management in our state.
Groundwater issues are extraordinarily complex and must
be thoroughly considered before new policies become law.
“The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of
America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”
- Constitution of the State of California.