Editorial: Feinstein water bill better than the last, but...

...The legislation's weaknesses come to light with a careful reading of the 147-page document, however.

Feinstein proposes allocating $600 million for additional storage in the form of new dams and reservoirs -- most of which would be less efficient and more damaging to the environment than alternative storage proposals.

Doug Obegi, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, says Section 312 of the bill would eliminate the requirement that Congress approve any new dams. Instead the U.S. Secretary of Interior would be able to approve a project if it is technically and financially feasible and -- here's the catch -- has what can be described as acceptable environmental impacts.

The language isn't as strong as Gov. Jerry Brown's $7.5 billion water bond, Proposition 1, that voters overwhelmingly approved last November. The measure required that any new dam projects must have environmental benefits, not just costs "acceptable" to whoever is sitting in the Secretary of Interior's office.

Feinstein says coming up with this bill, balancing all the vocal and conflicting interests, is one of the most difficult she's done in her 23 years in the U.S. Senate. We don't doubt it.

But it should pass only if it sufficiently protects California's environment for future generations -- and leaving it up to one political appointee, the Interior secretary, with no direct responsibility to voters looks dubious to us..

 READ ENTIRE EDITORIAL

Someone should immediately shut off the water to this newspaper.  They can then layoff all employees, editors first.  Before they go they should explain to the rest of the employees and their families, and to any stockholders, that this is for future generations.