good evening. welcome to kqed newsroom. on toptnight's show, the presidential race, tech companies and tax havens and jerry brown's difficult decision. first el nino. temperatures in the pacific ocean are already well above average. this video compares the sea surface temperatures to those in 1997, which saw a historic el nino. government scientists predict that the current el nino will peak in january and february. they are forecasting above average precipitation in california. while california needs the rain, a strong s el nino could exacerbate a problem that's grown worse since the drought began.

>> fire it up. >> it's better than nothing. >> reporter: johnny and drew joa third generation farmer. >> my grandpa came out of texas. he told me years ago, whiz i sks for drinking. >> reporter: andrew is struggling to keep the drought green. >> it's lifting the water. >> reporter: he is turning to a last resort, drilling for ground water. >> you are looking at $200,000 to drill a well. you are looking at the pumping cost every month of about between $2,500 and $3,500 per well. >> reporter: farmers like andrews use 80% of the state's developed water, growing everything from tomatoes to almonds. with the drought in its fourth year, farmers are drilling deeper and deeper. running pumps day and night. >> these are running ought the time.

>> they're running all the time. they're burning four gallons an hour. >> reporter: all that pumping has consequences. the ground water gets drawn up, the land sinks down. these fields in california's central valley have been sinking by more than one foot per year. that means that about five years ago, these fields were would have been above my head. no one knows exactly how much water is being pumped. but hydrologist michelle sneed is alarmed by how quickly the ground is sinking. >> i've been studying land subsidence for 20 years. i've never measured rates like this before. >> reporter: over the past two decades, the ground in one area has sunk from sneed's head to her feet. according to nasa, some parts of the central valley are now sinking more two inches a month. >> we saw that the area being affected by subsidence was enormous. stretching all the way from i-5 to 99, about 1,200 square miles

being affected. >> reporter: that's an area the side of rhode island. and it has sunk permanently. how do you stop those areas from sinking? >> well, the scientific solution is really easy. you stop lowering ground water levels. putting that into practice is another ball of wax. >> reporter: farmers would cut back on drilling for water. >> the center is down south of here. >> reporter: what do we have going on here? >> yeah. a few years ago it wasn't this bent. it's showing evidence of continuing to warp. >> reporter: the canals deliver water to farms and cities throughout southern california, including los angeles. this isn't the only one i see. i see it here. i see it down there. i see a third one. >> there's another one up that direction as well. >> reporter: this can be hepening to the bridges, to the roadways, to the railroads? >> correct. there's a bridge right down the road from here that the water level is now coming up over the

base of the road because that area has sunk. >> reporter: when i went to see the bridge, the flood risk was clear. the water level has risen so high that it would go right over the surface of the road if they hadn't built these retaining walls. problems like these are already costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. subsidence is also damaging a vital part of california's flood control system. >> the levees through here are about five to six feet lower than they were historically. >> reporter: chris white runs the central california irrigation district. he says subsidence is weakening levees. >> this area, we have always had flood challenges. but with this subsidence that's occurred, it's going to be more challenging to deal with floods in the future. >> reporter: forecasters are predicting a record el nino. the wet weather could bring heavy rains to the region. >> red on this map is bad. >> reporter: he showed me areas most at risk of flooding. >> there's an elementary school.

highway 152 crosses through the area. there is significant farmland assets. i'm praying for rain, regardless. but it's a high risk situation. from a flood control standpoint. >> reporter: nearly half the nation's fruits, vegetables and nuts are produced in california. to find out what the state is doing to protect its vital farmland, i met with janine jones. >> subsidence is not regulated historically under california law. no one is responsible for it. >> reporter: the state doesn't know how big the subsidence problem is. >> we're not monitoring all of the subsidence? >> there is -- there has not been funding or programs because there has been no statutory responsibility or requirement to do so. >> reporter: last year, california lawmakers passed legislation to manage ground water. but it won't require regulators to limit pumping for another 25 years. until then, the sinking will likely continue.

the independent non-profit california water foundation has estimated that damage due to subsidence across the state could cost taxpayers billions of dollars to fix. do you think a billion dollars is a highest mat estimate? >> i don't have the data. >> reporter: for some farmers, drilling for water has provided a life line during the drought. the long-term conseqnces of that drilling are becoming clear. as large swaths of the state continue to sink, the risk of flooding increases. people like johnny andrews whose farms have survived four dry years are worried they could be wiped out about the i rain the state desperately needs. >> we're talking about the state and feeding the people in the state. if that flood is bad enough, it will wipe out the next year's farming or a lot of it. >> and nathan is here with me now. welcome. those pictures that you showed are so stark.

what are the current rules on ground water? >> california has recently passed the sustainable ground water management act. it's the first of its kind legislation in california. other states have similar things on the books. but essentially, what it's going to is eventually regulate how much ground water people can pump. but ultimately, it really isn't going to take affect for 25 years. >> that's a generation away. why isn't ground water regulated more strictly now? >> well, the state constitution allows for the state of california to regulate surface water. but ground water is deemed sort of at least for now its own beast. the state can't regulate it outside of this law that, again, won't have any teeth for another 25 years. >> the piece we just saw, you showed that california produces nearly half of the nation's fruits and vegetables and nuts. we're likely facing a wet el nino. how would potential flooding affect the food supply and food

prices? >> well, that's the million dollar question, i guess. i mean, if the flooding is bad enough, as johnny andrews the farmer stated, they remember -- he has been around since the drought of '78. following that was a lot of precipitation. it destroyed a lot of crops. as a result, what you can get is a spike in food prices, a real problem. >> what is being done on local, state and federal levels to address infrastructure damage? >> well, from what i have gathered, very little. unfortunately -- i mean, i e-mails caltrans. are any bridges being impacted? they said, heno. they are not being impacted by subsidence. but you can see there's a bridge about to go under water as a result of subsidence. a bridge that will cost millions to be replaced. >> was that a falsehood or

unaware? >> i think it's unaware. i think that they are just not tracking costs as it relates to subsidence. but for the people that have begun looking at it, what they are saying is that given these historic rates of sinking in california, we're looking at potentially billions of dollars in tax -- in cost to taxpayers. >> the subsidence we're seeing as you pointed out started well before the current drought. this is simply exacerbating it. what, if anything, have we learned from past experience? >> that if we stop pumping as much ground water and let the system come back into balance so that as much water as we are pumpingnaturally going back in, the subsidence stops, eventually. even if we stopped right now and we let that equal out, we could continue to have subsidence, because sometimes there's a lag affect. even if we brought it back into balance, things could continue to sink is what i have been told by the geologists at the federal government.

but in the mid term it will equal out. the sinking will stop. >> we hope. keep our fingers crossed. thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me. next year, californians will vote for president and choose a u.s. senator. a lead over her democratic rival. and all the republicans in the field by a large margin. what do the numbers tell you? >> it says that voters are voting their party preferences in the early going. it's name recognition, party prevalence. these are the two better known candidates. they happen to be democrats. the republicans are known to a third of the voters. they are dividing up the vote of the republicans. they are at a disadvantage. >> a large percentage of people saying they are undecided, 34%.

is that typical for this point? >> i think if you looked at this race, you wouldn't be surprised. there hasn't been a lot of visibility of the u.s. senate race. it's down from 58% back in may. at least some more voters are paying attention. >> so loretta sanchez, where does her support come from? >> latinos. she's two to one over harris among latinos. and also in southern california, her home base. >> where she's better known? >> she's actually almost in the lead there as well. but it's clear harris is the leader in broad state wide measure. it would be surprising if she doesn't finish out on top in this race. >> although, she has won state wide twice. you would think -- would you think her numbers might be higher given that? >> i suppose. voters haven't been paying attention much. i think it probably gives her opportunities to expand her support. but it's an open primary, which is unique.

>> i want to ask you about that. everybody can vote for anybody. democrats can vote independent, you can vote whoever you want. you have the prospect that in november of 2016, the top two finishers could both be democrats facing off against each other. if that were the case, how do the two top candidates -- who would do best? who is doing best with republicans and independents? >> we're in uncharted territory. we have never done a head to head of the electorate among two democrats. this would be the first time in california history for a state wide election. it's hard to predict, because 57% of the voters would not be democrats. so there would have to be a strategy for each of the candidates to try to broaden their support among republicans, among independents. that's a tricky call. you don't want to lose your base. who would be good at it? loretta sanchez used to be a republican. she could hint at that. but she doesn't want to lose support among democrats.

it's a hard call. >> let's go to the republican presidential race. among likely voters, the outsiders are in. businessman donald trump is first in your poll with 17%. physician ben carson second with 15%. former hewlett-packard ceo at 13. what does your data tell you about where the outsiders are getting their support from? >> i think most of it is frustration from voters on the republican side and most of that is coming from key party activists and strong conservatives. the poll will show those three are doing better among those constituencies. they're frustrated. they have had control of the two houses of congress. they're not seeing any of their own policies coming through the congress. that's where the -- they want to take out their frustration. >> when you look at this field of republicans, who has the most room to grow do you think? >> it's hard to say. i think the establishment

candidates are probably where you want to watch. march doe r ma marco rubio is doing well. jeb bush has not performed well. he was leading early in this year. >> just collapsed. >> he has not done well. but i don't think he is done. he has endorsement support. he has money. he can change his image a bit, polish up the campaign. i wouldn't count him out. >> on the democratic side, hillary clinton remains in first place with 47%. she's followed by vermont senator bernie sanders who is at 35%, up from 9% in your last survey in may. it's a fourfold increase. when you add joe biden who is considering getting in, hillary clinton's lead slips even further. where is biden support coming from? is it coming out of her support? is he getting a little across the board? >> biden doesn't really influence -- he is only getting 15%, which is a little

surprising in some national polls he is doing better than that. he is not particularly popular in california. it comes more out of hillary's hide than bernie sanders. i think he makes the race closer and gives sanders a better shot. if he should choose to jump in, the threshold of victory would be probably in the mid to high 30s. bernie sanders could potentially get to that level. if you had a two-way race, hillary is probably still the favorite, unless she's indicted or something else. >> biden, although he gets 15% in your pole, 63% want him to get in. they think that would be a good thing. what does that tell you? >> i think democrats would like the attention shifted to the democratic candidates. they would like more debates. the republicans have been dominating the media in terms of the debates and the discussion. they want democrats to start voicing and i think biden would contribute to that. >> i went back eight years and looked at your 2007. who was ahead, do you remember at this point? >> probably not the winner.

>> jewrudy juliani. >> it's really too soon. so much depends, in california, on what precedes us. the early primaries, you have to assess who is going to win in iowa, who will win in new hampshire, who will win in the southern primaries. that's not my expertise. you can give as good an opinion as i can. >> it could be wrapped up by the time it comes out here. >> it will be easier polling. we will be down to three or four. >> obama is in town this weekend with kanye west who sedz he ays running in 2020. we won't poll on that yet. >> not yet. for years many u.s. corporations have paid less tax by holding their profits in other countries. america's top companies are holding more than $2.1 trillion in profits offshore. that's according to a new record

by two non-profit organizations, citizens for tax justice and the public interest research group education fund. there are lists of the companies with the most money abroad include a number of bay area firms. we contacted all of the companies. nbc's on the record comments from one of them, chevron. a company spokeswoman told us, chevron pays our fair share in taxes. the income tax rates are as high or higher than many other u.s. companies. in testimony before congress in 2013, apple's ceo tim cook said the company wants to reform the u.s. corporate tax system and would lower tax rates and implement a reasonable tax that allows free movement of capitol back to the u.s. joining me to discuss how the practice works is stanford law professor joseph bankman. thanks for being here.

>> thank you for having me. >> we saw the big numbers. how accurate are they? >> they're accurate in the main. everybody admits there's a trillion dollars plus of more or less untaxed profits that our multinationals are holding offshore. >> explain to us how this process of holding money offshore works. are companies just using offshore mailboxes? do they have companies in those locations? >> it's a great question. here is how the system was supposed to xdwork. a company like apple would make money in germany and they would pay taxes in germany. once their income is taxed in germany, it could come back to this country tax free. but if it isn't taxed anywhere, then we tax it when they bring it back. what's happened is, our multinationals have been incredibly skilled at finding ways not to pay tax in the eu countries and other countries.

one approach they are using is to put i.p. in tax havens. that's a low tax country like ireland or the camen islands and have some of the income that would be recognized in germany shifted to that tax haven. but there's lots of other approaches our countries have been use -- our companies have been using as well. >> in effect, in those kinds of situations, they're not paying taxes at all. not in the countries that they're doing business in and not here in the u.s. >> that's right. >> how much tax revenue is lost every year in the u.s.? >> well, we might be talking right now since there's a horde of cash, we would be talking about $400 billion or $500 billion. we might be talking about $100 billion a year every year, if we could tax it and if we thought we wanted to tax it at our current high marginal rate of

35%. >> that's a lot of money that is not going into could haffers he. what is the consequence for the taxpayer? >> everybody pays more. we have to get that income. all of our taxes are a little higher. >> do you think the law needs to be changed? >> i think everybody t enks the law needs to be changed. what people debate is which direction to change it. some people say that the right amount of taxes our multinationals should pay is zero. that's by the way what germany levees on its multinationals. so some people think our multinationals should do the same. that's roughly the bush position on this. it would have a zero tax on offshore income of multinationals. >> then you have other presidential candidates who are supporting repatriation polly

day. bring the money back. give them a tax break. maybe 5%. what do you think of that idea? >> the problem is you show if you give them a break giving the money back, you are just really writing out a check to those companies. and that's just benefitting the shareholders in the company. it's probably not increasing investment in america. the notion of a repatriation holiday or a tax amnesty doesn't seem like the right idea. the real question is, what's the right rate on those companies going forward? once we address that, then we can decide what to do about this cache of cash. >> we try a repatriation holiday. a lot of the companies, in fact, did just that. there were layoffs. they spent money buying back their own shares. i want to ask you about what is

the best speaker likely to win support in congress? you have bernie sanders who wants the companies to be taxed at thetop 35%. you have president obama who wants a 19% tax. >> i think the political solution is in the middle. you can look at obama and the administration's position as somewhere in the middle between, say, bush's and sanders. lowering the top rate on the other hand, leveeing some tax on offshore income, whether or not the cash is brought onshore. the one thing everybody agrees is it makes no sense to have $2 trillion offshore untaxed. >> it's enormously complicated. it has been going on for years. we will see if anything gets done in light of this report. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. this week, governor jerry brown signed legislation allowing california doctors to prescribe life ending drugs to

terminally ill patients. california is the fifth state to legalize medically assisted suicide. in a personal signing message, the governor said he consulted with friends, family and clergy before making his decision. he wrote, i do not know what i would do if i were dieing in pain. i'm certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. i wouldn't deny that right to others. joining me to discuss what happens next is april demboski. this takes affect next year. what needs to happen between now and then? >> there needs to be a big educational push to teach doctors what the law does, how to prescribe the medication, the protocols for how to talk to patients about it. remember, new medications and treatments come out all the time. so healthcare systems are going to be folding this into their operations. advocacy groups are going to lead the charge. they're going to partner with doctor groups.

one of the groups actually has a 1-800 hotline for doctors that they can fall if somebody asks them for the medication. it's answered by doctors in states where this is legal. >> is there a government agency or agency that will be responsible for sort of overseeing the preparations? >> there's the department of public health will play a role in it. pretty much everything was laid out in the law. >> it's very prescribed, so to speak. this law will allow doctors to prescribe these medications. but they don't have to, right? this is optional for doctors. obviously, for patients. >> absolutely. lawmakers wrote several protections into the law to allow religious hospitals to opt out or any doctor really who had any objections. studies from oregon show that of doctors who receive requests for these life ending drugs, 37% said they were unwilling to write the prescription. >> so obviously, that's an option for them. what else did we learn from oregon? that law up there, the death

with dignity law has been in place since 1997. what have we learned? what experiences have they had up there? >> one of the most interesting things to know is how few people actually take advantage of this law. in the first couple of years, only about 25 people took the drugs. last year, 34,000 people died in oregon. only 150 people received the prescription. only 100 people took it. >> you would assume that that's partly because people had other options and didn't want do it or that they didn't know about it. could it be a combination? >> i'm certain it could be a combination. i think that the poll came out and showed there was support for this law. when it really comes down to it, people don't know what they're going to choose. >> i want to ask about two issues that don't seem similar but have some overlap. that is capital punishment and, doctor, assisted suicide. there have been a lot of issues around states accessing drugs to

end the life of inmates who are on death row. some companies don't want to use or sell those drugs for that purpose. why will that not be an issue here in california? how are the issues different? >> right. well, so, the drugs used in executions, it's a three drug cocktail. there's only one drug that is used for aid in dieing. in oregon, it's an old-fashion sleeping pill. the other big difference is that in executions, the drugs are injected. of course, there are a lot of moral issues and questions around whether doctors should be actively euthanizing patients. this is a purely optional law. patients have to take the drugs themselves. they have to physically be able to swallow the drugs. it's a different compound when you talk about an injectable drug and a powdered drug. >> new drugs come on the market all the time. so i'm sure that this law will be implemented with those --

with that flexibility in mind as well. also, as you said, this seems -- the public seems ready for this with very widespread bipartisan support, 65%. we will keep an eye on it. april, thanks so much. i'm scott shaffer. thanks for joining us. police go to kqed.org for all of our news coverage.

kacyra: it kind of was, like, the bang that set off the night. rogers: that is the funkiest restaurant. thomas: the honey-walnut prawns will make your insides smile. [ laughter ] klugman: more tortillas, please! khazar: what is comfort food if it isn't gluten and grease? braff: i love crème brûlée. sobel: the octopus should have been, like, quadripus, because it was really small. sbrocco: and you know that when you split something, all the calories evaporate, and then there's none. whalen: that's right.