Schwarzenegger uses manufactured drought to push water bond
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 6, 2008 at 7:20 am
From Dan Bacher:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his relentless desire to destroy the imperiled California Delta and its ecosystem, yesterday used the manufactured “drought” as his excuse to push for his outrageously expensive $9.3 billion water bond.
Nowhere in his statement following the Department of Water Resources’ Drought Summit held Thursday in Sacramento did he mention the real reason for the current “drought” - the draining of Shasta, Folsom, Oroville and other California reservoirs over the past two years to serve the needs of subsidized corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.
At the meeting, members of the Schwarzenegger Administration and federal and local water officials “discussed the current drought and ways to alleviate the effects of ongoing dry conditions,” according to the Governor’s office. The Department of Water Resources also announced the creation of the 2009 Drought Water Bank, which will purchase water from “willing sellers” and transfer it to water agencies that are at risk of experiencing water shortages next year due to drought conditions.
“California’s drought is impacting our economy, our agriculture and our families, and an end to these dry conditions is nowhere in sight,” Schwarzenegger said. “We are facing the potential for another dry year in 2009, which is why my Administration is actively planning for an ongoing drought and working to alleviate the effects of the state’s dry conditions. The Water Bank program will help by providing water to communities who need it most.”
From the Delta to the Colorado: Michael George opines on California’s water policy deadlock
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 3, 2008 at 5:57 amFrom The Planning Report:
With a crowded and controversial November ballot looming and no end in sight to the state’s budget woes, California’s water crisis has seemingly become a casualty of difficult political times. With the political deadlock on water issues in mind, MIR sought the candid view of Michael George, executive vice president of Golden State Water Company, one of the leading water management companies in California, and a long-time participant in water policy debate and action. The following response reflects his personal observations and, he cautions, those which are too candid should not be held against his employer.
As the California budget stalemate drags on and as political attention turns to the conventions and presidential campaigns, now is a good time to assess the prospects for desperately needed progress on our state’s impending water crisis. From my perspective, the budget, the political process, and the water crisis have become dangerously—and perhaps hopelessly—intertwined.
First, it is important for California—and Southern California in particular—to realize that a water crisis is upon us, with little time left for practical and effective reaction. All of our sources of imported water are under pressure, from growing demand, the need for environmental restoration, regulatory and legal gridlock, and long-term inattention to our infrastructure. Based on new limitations on importing water from the Colorado River and from Northern California through the Delta, Southern California must emphasize more stringent and intelligent conservation as well as improved management of local resources (particularly native groundwater and institutional arrangements). However, without real solutions to the challenges to our imported supplies, Southern California’s economy, life-style, and vibrancy are at risk.
Second, crafting solutions to our imported water challenges requires not only good planning but also courageous, far-reaching, and non-partisan leadership in Sacramento—just at the time that political courage, a long-term perspective on problems, and willingness to reach across the aisle to find solutions have become no-shows in the capital. Each of the three branches of government has a role to play on water issues, and none of them is currently doing so constructively or consistently. …
Read more from The Planning Report by clicking here.
Friends of the River opposes ‘compromise’ water bond
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 1, 2008 at 6:52 amFrom IndyBay.org, this press release from Friends of the River:
Friends of the River today announced its opposition to new water bond legislation – AB8xx – touted by its authors as a compromise between various legislative factions that have been debating the merits, content, and amount of a water bond for more than two years.
“AB8xx may represent a political compromise,” stated Steve Evans, Conservation Director of Friends of the River, “But it is bad for California’s environment and it will be bad for the California taxpayer.”
The proposed $9.8 billion bond was introduced by Assemblymembers Jared Huffman, Anna Caballero, and Lois Wolk. Some California Legislators are demanding that a water bond be placed on the November ballot as a condition of their approval of the state’s long-delayed budget, which have driven rumors that there is a budget/water bond deal in the works.
“It’s never a good idea to push through controversial legislation that will require the taxpayers to borrow billions of dollars while the Legislature struggles with a multi-billion budget deficit in the last days of the session,” said Evans. “This almost always results in the generation of poor public policy,” he noted.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates the total cost of the $9.8 billion bond to be more than $19 billion over 30 years and will require an increased debt payment by the taxpayers of $700 million annually. The state already has an annual debt payment of nearly $12 billion.
The LAO’s findings prompted Evans to question why the Legislature is considering a multi-billion dollar water bond when the state is deeply in debt, approval of a budget is weeks overdue, the California economy is in recession, and California taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet.
Read the rest of this press release at IndyBay.org by clicking here.
Assembly OKs water bill despite lack of a budget
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 30, 2008 at 1:35 pmFrom the Woodland Daily Democrat:
Acting Thursday, during a special legislative session on water, the State Assembly approved a proposal to spend prior voter approved bonds on urgently-needed water storage, reliability, and conservation efforts. Senate Bill 1xx by Senate Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, appropriates about $820 million in funds from bonds including Proposition 84 and Proposition 1E, which voters passed in 2006.
Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, chairwoman of the Assembly’s Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee and Special Committee on Water, presented the bill on the Assembly floor.
“This measure is a first step to providing Californians throughout the state with a safe, reliable, long-term water supply,” she said. “It is essential that we allocate these funds immediately in response to the state’s most urgent needs.”
SB 1xx makes a number of appropriations, most significantly $325 million to help stabilize the Sacramento San Joaquin Bay Delta, which supplies roughly two-thirds of the state with drinking water, and is the heart of California’s water and agricultural system.
Read more from the Woodland Daily Democrat by clicking here.
Bad bonds and good legislation: special committee on water gets an earful
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 30, 2008 at 1:20 pmFrom the California Progress Report:
On Tuesday, the Assembly Special Committee on Water passed two strong water bills to the Assembly Floor and also heard testimony from many parties who have serious concerns about proposals to place a nearly $10 billion water bond on the November ballot.
The committee’s first order of business was to pass SBX2 1 (Perata), which appropriates existing bond funds for much needed ecosystem restoration, water quality, and water supply reliability projects, and ABX2 7 (Wolk) , which ensures water planning and management will incorporate existing information on the impacts of climate change to water resources. SBX2 1 subsequently passed off of the Assembly Floor on Thursday and ABX2 7 is scheduled to be heard on the Assembly Floor on Friday. Both of these bills have garnered broad support and are priority bills for the environmental community.
The committee then turned its attention to an informational hearing on the Assembly water bond proposal, ABX2 8, and the bond proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. Both these proposals would provide over $9 billion in bond funds. Both include $3 billion for highly controversial water storage projects including new dams. The informational hearing consisted of several panels of stakeholders giving their input on the water proposals.
Read more from the California Progress Report by clicking here.
Let’s hope the politicians’ mouths run dry before the state does, says editorial
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 29, 2008 at 7:47 amFrom the Modesto Bee:
How long have Sacramento’s politicians been arguing over a water bond? A year? A decade? Or does it just feel like forever?
As the politicians go round and round without budging, it’s only natural to come full circle. And so we have. A couple of months ago, Gov. Schwarzenegger proposed a $9.3 billion water bond — his second try for such a bond in two years. On Aug. 15, Assembly Democrats proposed a $9.8 billion water bond, their second try in two years.
After looking at the two very similar ideas, it’s clear we’ve been here before. And the same issue that kept our elected officials from getting a bond onto the ballot in 2007 is likely to kill it again in 2008.
The sticking point is the same this year as last year: allocation of funds, with Democrats wanting an ‘annual allocation’ (meaning every year, the legislature must approve the funds), and Republicans wanting only regulatory oversight on spending once the project is approved.
Read the full text of this editorial from the Modesto Bee by clicking here.
Editorial: How dry we are! Let’s act like it, too
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 29, 2008 at 7:36 amFrom the Sacramento Bee:
The exposed stumps and shoreline of Folsom Lake tell the story this year. With reservoir levels so low, Californians can’t afford to waste a drop. Conservation has to be part of a multi-pronged strategy to stretch supplies and survive droughts.
To that end, Assemblyman John Laird is trying to pass a bill that would require a 20 percent reduction in urban per-capita water usage by 2020. Cities and counties would have flexibility in how to reach this target, but they could no longer casually water their sidewalks, as occurs almost every day in Sacramento, Los Angeles and other cities.
Laird’s legislation, AB 2175, has passed the Assembly but is in trouble in the Senate. Its survival could depend on two local senators – Mike Machado of Linden and Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento.
Read more of this editorial from the Sacramento Bee by clicking here.
Assembly Democrats prevail on water bill
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 29, 2008 at 7:33 amFrom the Los Angeles Times:
In a heated debate Thursday, Assembly Republicans and Democrats agreed that California needs more reliable water supplies. But Republicans voted against spending $820 million from voter-approved water bonds because, they said, Democrats had not consulted them and too much of the money was dedicated to studies instead of construction.
“I’m studied out,” said Assemblyman Joel Anderson (R-San Diego). “What my constituents want is brick and mortar.”
But the dominant Democrats overrode Republicans’ objections and passed a bill to spend $820 million from four water bonds. The money would go toward preparing for an earthquake in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, from which most of the state’s drinking and irrigation water is pumped; finding supplies for rural communities with contaminated aquifers; and projects around the state for conservation, recycling and groundwater cleanup.
“This is about putting to work money the voters want us to put to work,” said Assemblywoman Lori Saldana (D-San Diego).
Read more from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
More coverage from the California Chronicle:
Today, during a special legislative session on water, the State Assembly approved a proposal to spend prior voter approved bonds on urgently-needed water storage, reliability, and conservation efforts. Senate Bill 1xx by Senate President pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) appropriates approximately $820 million in funds from bonds including Proposition 84 and Proposition 1E, which voters passed in 2006.
“This week, during a hearing of the Special Committee on Water, Californians from throughout the state whose livelihoods depend on adequate water supply urged the state to step up and take the necessary steps to provide for this state´s water needs. Today, the Assembly responded by passing SB 1xx, which allocates funds desperately needed to provide relief from the current drought, help stabilize the failing Sacramento San Joaquin Bay Delta, and invest in water supply quality and reliability,” said Assemblywoman Lois Wolk (D-Davis), chair of the Assembly´s Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee and Special Committee on Water, who presented the bill on the Assembly floor.
“This measure is a first step to providing Californians throughout the state with a safe, reliable, long-term water supply. It is essential that we allocate these funds immediately in response to the state´s most urgent needs,” she said.
More from the California Chronicle by clicking here.
Perata’s measure to improve state’s water system passes Assembly committee
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 29, 2008 at 6:40 amFrom the California Chronicle:
Legislation by Senate President pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) that would fund water storage, reliability and conservation efforts with already approved bond money cleared the Assembly Special Committee on Water.
SB 1XX (Second Extraordinary Session) appropriates $842 million in Proposition 84 and Proposition 1-E dollars that voters passed in 2006. These funds are desperately needed by water agencies to address the current water drought and fire crisis and to provide immediate investments in water supply reliability.
“This bill is the first step to addressing California´s long-term water needs,” Perata said. “SB 1XX gets money out the door immediately so water agencies can tackle the most pressing problems, boost supplies and improve water reliability for all Californians.”
The legislation includes $200 million to help stabilize the Sacramento San Joaquin Bay Delta, the fulcrum of the state´s water supply system. The funding will help prevent catastrophic failure of the Delta´s levees and accommodate pumping restrictions mandated by a federal court ruling. In addition, SB 1XX provides $100 million to help clean up ground water basins in Southern California that can store more water than the entire volume of Lake Tahoe.
Get a rundown of specific projects that will be funded by this measure from the California Chronicle by clicking here.
Water bill divides Yolo County’s reps; LaMalfa, Wolk disagree on climate change, effects of analyzing it
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 28, 2008 at 3:58 pmFrom the Woodland Daily Democrat:
Yolo County’s two Assembly representatives clashed Tuesday over legislation that seeks to incorporate climate change prevention into state and local water-planning efforts.
The bill, authored by 8th District Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, was approved 8-4 Tuesday by the Assembly Special Committee on Water, of which Wolk is chairwoman. Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, whose 2nd District shares Yolo County with Wolk’s district, is also a member of the 12-person committee and voted against the bill, along with the three other Republican members.
The bill would require the state Department of Water Resources, or DWR, to include climate change analysis in all of its water management reports and plans, including surface storage feasibility studies and plans related to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
After Jan. 1, 2011, the DWR would be prohibited from approving any integrated regional water management grants for plans that do not include such analysis.
To assist local water agencies in sifting through the ever-expanding body of research related to climate change, the DWR would be required to identify the most reliable climate change information.
“This bill will be the first comprehensive statute to begin preparing California to adapt to the climate change threat to California water resources,” the bill summary states. “Those threats include a reduced Sierra Nevada snowpack and prolonged droughts in the Colorado River basin.”
Read the rest of this story from the Woodland Daily Democrat by clicking here.
Water logjam at Assembly committee meeting
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 28, 2008 at 3:51 pmSan Francisco Chronicle reporter Kelly Zito traveled to Sacramento and attended Tuesday’s Assembly committee meeting on water and files this blog report:
I’ve researched California’s water crisis in lots of different ways: Watching a well drilling rig bore into the ground near a golf tee, listening to a San Leandro couple explain how they collect water “scraps” and standing in a parched almond grove where you could almost hear the leaves shriveling.
This week, it was time to travel to another setting — the one that matters most. Sacramento. On Tuesday (originally it was scheduled for Monday. Go figure!), Assembly members on the special committee on water met to talk about various plans to fix the state’s water supply problems. A few proposals are on the table, and they’re competing for a place on November’s ballot.
Read the rest of Kelly Zito’s post at the SF Chronicle blog Village Green by clicking here.
Put down the credit card, says commentary; “Rather than address our problems as a one-time purchase, we need to come up with a steady “stream” of financing that we can use to take on the big, ongoing problems facing our state’s water systems”
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 28, 2008 at 8:04 amFrom the California Progress Report, this commentary by Jim Metropulos of the Sierra Club:
It’s great that our state’s leaders want to take on our state’s water woes, and that the California Assembly has dived into this issue with enthusiasm. But right now, they are talking about spending $10 billion for water – and essentially putting that charge on a “credit card” of more bond-money borrowing. Annual payments on existing borrowing already represent the fourth-largest expenditure in the state’s budget.
Rather than address our problems as a one-time purchase, we need to come up with a steady “stream” of financing that we can use to take on the big, ongoing problems facing our state’s water systems:
• A collapsing Delta capable of delivering an unprecedented shock to the 23 million Californians who drink its water;
• Worsening water quality, as bacteria, trash, pharmaceuticals, plastic byproducts and nitrates poison our rivers and streams;
• Costly, unnecessary dam proposals that would cost billions to build and benefit only a few;
• And a complete failure to regulate groundwater, which plays an increased role in drinking water supplies during droughts.
A one-time water bond won’t do enough to address those problems, and it definitely doesn’t provide a consistent, stable source of funding for water.
Read more of Jim Metropulos’ commentary at the California Progress Report by clicking here.
Assemblyman LaMalfa Responds To Democrats’ “Water Bond” Proposal: Notes that plan contains no protections for water rights
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 28, 2008 at 7:53 amFrom the California State Assembly Republican Caucus:
Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, today stated his opposition to the $9.8 billion dollar bond proposal considered in the state Assembly’s Special Committee on Water. LaMalfa has long advocated a comprehensive solution to the state’s water supply problems that includes secure funding for new surface storage, but he said this proposal does not meet that standard.
“This so-called “water bond” actually has more funding for environmentalists’ pet projects than it does for projects that would help people,” said LaMalfa. “Of the $9.8 billion in borrowed tax dollars this plan would spend, less than a third would be available to build new surface storage. Even worse, there is no guarantee that a single dollar would actually go to any major storage projects at all. Billions could all be frittered away on habitat projects that not only don’t help a single Californian, but haven’t been proven to work, either.”
The bond plan considered today, Assembly Bill 8xx, is Democrat legislators’ response to Republican calls for a water bond to address California’s water crisis. However, the plan would spend over three billion dollars directly on environmental projects, and billions more could ultimately be redirected to such projects. The Republican plan authored by Assemblyman George Plescia has not been allowed a hearing.
“The need for new surface storage is clear: the North State reservoirs that supply water to much of the state are dangerously low, with Lake Shasta at 45% of capacity and Lake Oroville at a thirty- year low with just 38% of capacity,” added LaMalfa. “We’re already seeing communities in Southern California planning for mandatory rationing next year, and many farmers are being forced to cut back their crops due to water shortages. Relying on entirely on conservation and groundwater is not a realistic option for our state, and it is clear that we need new surface storage for both urban and agricultural use.”
LaMalfa also expressed frustration that this proposal was not the first that failed to include funding for real water supply projects.
“Any water bond measure must contain dedicated funding for new surface storage. Of key importance to us in the North State is protection for area of origin water rights, as well as to provide a comprehensive solution to our water crisis. This plan fails to meet these standards,” LaMalfa said. “California will be home to nearly fifty million people in twenty years and our water supply is already stretched to the limit. We need new surface storage, and I won’t support a bond proposal that fails to provide dedicated funding to increase our supply of water.”
Legislators debate water bond that could include dam; Committee member says they are near a compromise
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 27, 2008 at 8:25 amFrom the Visalia Times-Delta:
Legislators debated, but didn’t agree on, a water bond Tuesday that could build a new dam at Temperance Flat on the San Joaquin River and help clean up contaminated groundwater in Tulare County and elsewhere.
The Special Committee on Water focused primarily on a $9.8 billion bond co-authored by Assemblywoman Anna Caballero, D-Salinas, a proposal that represented a new formal effort by Assembly Democrats. “It’s a work in progress,” Caballero said, “but we’ve moved closer to a consensus product than has ever been achieved.”
Republicans criticized the Democratic proposal and, more specifically, the Democrats for refusing to include a $9.98 billion GOP water bond in the hearing. “I think that is a [Democratic] leadership issue,” Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, committee chair, said of any hearing on the GOP plan.
The regular session of the legislature is set to end on Sunday, but the water bond may be considered in the special session to follow. Click here for more from the Visalia Times-Delta.
ACWA welcomes new water bond bill: calls for legislature to act now to put measure on November ballot
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 27, 2008 at 8:19 amFrom Market Watch:
The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) today renewed its support for a comprehensive water bond for the November ballot and called on lawmakers to reach agreement on a package before time runs out.
“We are in the midst of a water crisis that threatens our environment and our economy, and it grows worse each day that we delay action on a comprehensive water package,” ACWA Executive Director Timothy Quinn said. “Californians have waited long enough for a solution. The time to move forward is now.”
During the past six weeks, three constructive proposals for a comprehensive water bond have been put forth. In July, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein proposed a $9.3 billion bond, which the ACWA board voted unanimously to support, recognizing that further negotiation would be necessary. Two additional water bond bills were introduced in recent days. AB 8XX (Huffman, Caballero and Wolk) would place a $9.8 billion bond on the November ballot, while AB 9XX (Plescia) would authorize a $9.98 billion bond for November.
Noting that Feinstein and Schwarzenegger deserve credit for jump-starting the process, Quinn said that taken together, all of the pieces for a bipartisan proposal are on the table and urged the Legislature to work out their remaining differences.
“Though there are key differences in the proposals, this is the closest we have been to agreement in three years. The building blocks for success are now before us,” Quinn said. “Polls show California voters understand the urgency of our water situation and they want action now. I urge the Legislature to continue this important work and put a bipartisan water bond before voters in November.”
ACWA also supported the action today by the Assembly Special Water Committee to approve SB 1XX (Perata), which appropriates more than $800 million for projects throughout California from previously approved bonds, and AB 7XX (Wolk), dealing with climate change.ACWA is a statewide association of public agencies whose 450 members are responsible for about 90% of the water delivered in California. For more information, visit www.acwa.com.
The Price of Being Late … $50 million to $100 million
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 26, 2008 at 6:44 amFrom the San Francisco Chronicle Politics Blog:
[$50 million to $100 million] That’s the range of what taxpayers will have to pony up if a special election is called as part of a deal on the budget that is 56 days overdue, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Debra Bowen told us today.
At least two significant pieces in budget negotiations require voter approval: structural changes in budgeting such as limiting spending, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposal to borrow against future state lottery revenues. Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista (Los Angeles County) is also hoping to place a water bond on the ballot as well.
And Legislative leaders and the governor have been hoping to use the upcoming November general election to place those items on the ballot. But with no sign of a compromise to break the budget impasse, the window of opportunity to place new measures on the November ballot is closing fast.
Both Schwarzenegger & Speaker Bass have said that they support a special election. More from the SF Chronicle Politics Blog by clicking here.
Dan Walters: California’s borrowing orgy unlikely to end soon
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 25, 2008 at 2:26 pmDan Walter’s column at the Sacramento Bee today questions the wisdom of California’s bond borrowing ‘orgy’, saying it isn’t likely to end soon:
Californians’ penchant for debt has a political counterpart in the absolute tidal wave of borrowing that the state’s officeholders and voters have undertaken, some above-board bonds, some clandestine off-the-books loans, some for legitimate public purposes, and some to cover deficit spending.
The irony is that until a couple of decades ago, California had an almost pathological aversion to public debt and relied on pay-as-you-go approaches, even for public works projects. The state’s once-matchless highway system was financed from fuel taxes, for instance, while its world-class system of colleges and universities was largely built with royalties from oil on state-owned tidelands.
Our massive water system, including Oroville Dam and the California Aqueduct, was built with “revenue bonds” repaid from water sales, not general taxes. Local facilities were financed either from fees, such as those for water and sewer service, or property taxes.
Proposition 13, the 1978 property tax limit measure, didn’t preclude tax increases for local debt, but the atmosphere turned sour. The state began issuing bonds to finance school buildings, courthouses, jails and other local public works.
Looks like there’s more on the way … Read more from Dan Walter’s column in the Sacramento Bee by clicking here.
Parra gets local kudos for water decision
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 25, 2008 at 5:42 amFrom the Hanford Sentinel:
It’s a tale of two reactions. When Nicole Parra, Kings County’s Democratic representative in the state Assembly, refused last week to vote on a budget package crafted by her own party, the discipline was swift: Banishment the next day to a nameless office across the street from the Capitol in a building where no other legislators are housed. But in Kings County, the popularity of the soon-to-be-termed-out assemblywoman has soared. The reason? Parra vowed she wouldn’t vote on a budget package unless legislators agreed to put a water bond on the Nov. 4 ballot — something farmers in the area have long sought to address mounting shortages.
A key element of such a bond would likely be more above ground storage, such as the proposed reservoir upstream of Millerton Lake at Temperance Flat on the San Joaquin River.
Parra kept her promise Aug. 17 amid intense pressure, and she paid the price.
“I really appreciate what she has done. I think she has a conscience,” said Russ Waymire, a Kings County farmer and an agricultural consultant active on water issues.
Kings County supervisors were equally effusive. “She’s standing up for her district, which is also part of the state of California. The accusations they are making against her are totally false,” said Supervisor Joe Neves.
The accusations Neves was referring to came from some Democratic legislators who expressed outrage at Parra’s refusal to side with her party at a time when they need every vote to break a nearly two-month standoff with Republicans over the budget.
“They’re treating her like a second-class citizen, unfortunately like Sacramento treats the San Joaquin Valley. We don’t have the Silicon Valleys or the shipping hubs or the entertainment mecca down south, and yet we produce a lot of food and fiber and that sort of thing,” Neves said.
Some, like Waymire, don’t think that Parra, now in the waning months of her last term, had much to lose.
Read more from the Hanford Sentinel by clicking here.
Special ballot favored if no budget deal made
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 24, 2008 at 5:21 amFrom the San Francisco Chronicle:
State legislative leaders said Friday they agree with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that a special election should be called next year if a budget compromise is not reached in the next few days. At the heart of budget negotiations are issues that require voter approval: making structural changes in the state’s budgeting and Schwarzenegger’s proposal to borrow against future state lottery sales.
The governor had hoped to place the measures on the November ballot, but many lawmakers believe Sunday will be the last day to place them on the supplemental ballot for the general election.
A special election next year would also breathe life into other measures, including a multibillion-dollar water bond. On Friday, Assembly Democrats unannounced a $9.8 billion bond to improve the state’s water infrastructure. The Democrats’ proposal is similar to a $9.2 billion proposal made earlier by Schwarzenegger and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, which would set aside $3 billion for dams and other water storage facilities. The money would be appropriated by the Legislature under the Democrats’ plan; Schwarzenegger’s plan would revive a dormant state commission to dole out funds.
More from the San Francisco Chronicle by clicking here.
Commentary: Water bonds wouldn’t aid those in need
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 23, 2008 at 9:00 amFrom the Sacramento Bee, this commentary by Susana De Anda, the co-executive director of the Community Water Center, a Visalia-based nonprofit organization that provides assistance to low-income communities facing water challenges:
When hundreds of farmworkers gathered at the state Capitol in July to advocate in support of the most recent water bond proposal, a $9.3 billion boondoggle, they were sold a faulty bill of goods, or a leaky list of projects, as the case may be.
The governor and water bond proponents would have farmworkers and all other Californians believe it’s a choice between jobs and water. While such a simple message may be appealing, water in California is never that simple.
Many of those farmworkers were bused in by labor contractors from areas where agri- culture may not be sustainable in the long term. If the governor were truly concerned about these farmworkers, wouldn’t he be pushing for job training and economic investment in their communities to transition the work force to something more sustainable? Or perhaps he could start by ensuring living wages or economic hardship relief during this drought time?
If the bond really provided relief for the water woes suffered by farmworkers, wouldn’t it also address the drinking water crisis that’s afflicting their communities, and tens of thousands of other Central Valley residents, by investing in sustainable solutions to provide them with the safe drinking water that many of them lack?
Read the full text of this commentary from the Sacramento Bee by clicking here.
Aquafornia's Information Desk
Aquafornia Photos on Flickr
Upcoming Events
Check out the upcoming events from the Water Education Foundation.
Recent Posts
- C-WIN, CSPA file suit to end wasteful Delta diversions, protect public trust resources
- Angelenos heed water warnings
- Indian tribes awaiting Klamath Dam removal
- Whitaker-Bermite facility: The perchlorate cleanup plan is a reality, says commentary
- Suppliers seek approval for the “Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance Program”
- Salmon-tracking network challenges conventional wisdom
- State panel floats ‘litter tax’ to curb debris along coast
- Delta smelt closer to extinction
- Water settlement knots finally untangling
- Normal rainfall predicted for north state this winter
- Should we recycle urine on Earth, too?
- Who will be Delta’s keeper?
- Increasingly scarce water is the new California gold
- Californians need to worry about food security, says commentary
- Court rejects POWER appeal of All-American Canal case
Aquafornia's Mission
Aquafornia's mission is to educate readers about the complex and often controversial issues surrounding water in California.
Aquafornia is affiliated with the Water Education Foundation, an impartial non-profit organization, whose mission is to create a better understanding of water issues and help resolve water resource problems through educational programs.
Find It
Save / E-mail / Share Aquafornia
E-mail Newsletter
To receive email announcements from the Water Education Foundation, sign up here.
News Article Archives
- Agriculture
- Aquafornia Exclusives
- Biofuels
- Bottled water
- Climate change & water supply
- Commentary
- Conservation
- Delta Issues
- Desalination
- Development & Water
- Drinking Water
- Drought Tolerant Landscaping
- Drought, Weather & Snowpack
- Endangered Species & Wildlife
- Environment & Water
- Events
- General Water Issues
- Grandiose water plans
- Great Green Ideas
- Groundwater
- Indian Water Rights
- Infrastructure
- International Water Issues
- Invasive Species
- Levees
- Monterey Agreements
- National water news
- Oceans and Beaches (all)
- Odds and Ends
- Recycled Water
- Regional Water Issues
- All-American Canal
- Antelope Valley
- Bakersfield
- Bay Area
- Coachella Valley
- Colorado River Basin
- Imperial Irrigation District & Imperial Valley
- Lake Tahoe & the Sierra's
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles River
- Northern California
- Orange County
- Owens Valley & Mono Lake
- Riverside - San Bernardino
- Sacramento
- Salton Sea
- San Diego
- San Joaquin Valley
- Southern California
- Southwest Water Issues
- Westlands Water District
- Stromwater & Urban Runoff
- Uncategorized
- Water & Energy
- Water & Investing
- Water Agency News (all)
- Water Banking
- Water History
- Water Legislation
- Water Quality
- Water Rights
- Water Storage
- Water Supply
- Water Technologies
- Water Transfers
- Weird & Wacky Water News
