Typically Republican organization joins with Legislative leaders for a press conference this morning
From the "huh?" department:
Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John A Pérez will be joined by leaders of the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and other legislators to announce proposals to improve California's business climate and create much-needed jobs.
A press conference to detail the effort will be held today, September 1, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 317 of the State Capitol. Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Pérez (D-Los Angeles) will be joined by Cal Chamber president and CEO Allan Zaremberg, and CMTA president Jack Stewart.
We'll let you know more later today, but guesses are welcome.
Update: well, I guess I should have known, they're going after "regulation":
New business regulations proposed in California would be reviewed for their effect on the economy of the most-populous state under a bill introduced by Democratic leaders who control the state Assembly and Senate.
Senate President Pro-tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John Perez outlined the plan at a news conference with the presidents of the California Chamber of Commerce, the state's largest business group, and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.(Bloomberg)
Ahh, that evil bastard "regulation" reaching into the cribs of jobs everywhere and strangling them. In reality what needs to be done is to reduce duplicative regulation, where we have agencies overlapping. If done wrong, simply to gut environmental and labor regulations, well, it will be bad.
But he just isn't going to be the one to sign his name to that
by Brian Leubitz
During the intermission between paychecks for the Legislators, there were a lot of angry press releases sent out decrying the nerve of that darn Controller. And at the time, I thought aloud that eventually somebody would challenge it, though the nerve of that particular legislator would likely be something to behold.
And I stick to that more than ever today. Yesterday, Sen. Steinberg says that the COntroller really didn't have the authority to decide what was balanced, and that his decision needs to be litigated.
Steinberg, a Sacramento Democrat, said the issue needs to be legally challenged, though he still doesn't know who will pursue the case.
"In the moment, of course, it was a popular decision," Steinberg told The Bee's Capitol Bureau. "But over the long term, do we really want any governor of the state of California, or a controller, or it could be an attorney general, to say, 'I demand more cuts. I demand solutions different from what you presented or else people aren't going to get paid.' "
*** **** ***
"I think it was an erroneous decision," Steinberg said. "And I think over time it will be seen as a decision with very troubling precedent for this state and our system of government."(SacBee)
I'm not sure that it made a really huge difference this time, as it was ultimately the Gov. that tossed in the towel this time. But next time this comes up, what if the Governor, perhaps even a Republican...gasp!, is playing Arnold-like games of brinksmanship. Does the legislator, sans pay, really have the ability to hold out forever?
For a few years, San Francisco's legislators have been pushing, in one form or another, legislation to allow at least that county to control additional forms of taxation. The chief target of that has been the vehicle license fee since the time that Gov. Schwarzenegger lopped off a huge chunk of revenue from that source. Both Sen. Migden and Leno have been keen on allowing my fair city to restore the VLF to return revenue to the City and County of San Francisco.
Now, there have been a few stumbling blocks around this. Logistically, the taxes would be approved by different majorities depending upon the election circumstances. That's not an overwhelming obstacle, but certainly getting 2/3 is challenging. Not impossible, as the slew of parcel taxes over the past few years has shown, but difficult nonetheless.
But in a larger sense, it would be something of a declaration of war against the Republicans and their ideology. And frankly Gov. Schwarzenegger was having no part of that policy, or of the politics. But things are different now; Gov. Brown is not Gov. Schwarzenegger, and the time for a smooth reconciliation is drawing ever smaller.
And so, the possibility of local taxation is back in a major way. This would allow counties to tax a whole slew of items that were previously regulated only by the state, and the anti-taxers are none too pleased. Dan Morain has an excellent column on the subject in today's Bee:
The latest: Grant all 58 counties the power to tax everything from booze and cigarettes to oil extraction and personal income. Don't forget cars, soda pop and more, assuming voters would approve the new local levies. ... Lobbyists representing the oil, tobacco, soft drink, auto industry and many more are taking the latest tactic in California's budget battle seriously.
"I know it has gotten the attention of a lot of people, and I'm glad," Steinberg told me Wednesday. "The majority party needs to begin, appropriately and intelligently, using the power of its majority. One way or another, it is our responsibility to do everything we can do to avoid $5 billion in cuts to education, and billions in cuts to public safety." (SacBee)
As this doesn't actually raise any taxes, it is a majority vote measure. No Republican votes are necessary. Tony Strickland was suitably apoplectic, but really nothing new there. And as the budget fight grows longer, and more teachers get pink slips, county supervisors are going to find this ability extremely attractive. While voters won't have the right to vote on statewide taxes, they may get the chance to vote on local taxes.
As Morain suggests in his column, this really isn't the ideal situation. It's one more way to draw the line between the haves and the havenots of the state. What we'll end up with is Bay Area counties with more stable revenue streams, while the Central Valley faces ever deepening cuts. The inequality would be both troubling, and possibly violate some laws.
On the other hand, counties that choose a more reasonable fiscal path shouldn't necessarily be bogged down by an obstinate minority in the Legislature. And if this is what it is coming to, then so be it. The state, and the counties, need additional revenue. There are several counties that have shown themselves ready to tax themselves, and we shouldn't rule that out right away. If the decision is between inconsistency across counties, and keeping thousands of teachers in classrooms, I suspect many Californians would opt for the inconsistency. Heck, at least that way our kids can learn about inconsistency at school.
Perhaps this is just a negotiation ploy, but it is one that should be viewed from a serious policy perspective. It's certainly not the best alternative, but it is among the best options that we have remaining, given the Republican Minority.
Sen. Steinberg looks pretty peeved in this little impromptu press conference. His frustration with dealing with the Republicans is plainly visible, and for that you really can't blame him. After all, if you can blame him for anything, it is being too patient with them. The question that is worth pondering now is whether we should have seen this coming three months ago?
Look, the Republicans are content to sit there and let the clock tick down. As we proceed now, Gov. Brown becomes less popular, and there is a decreased sense of unity of purpose after the disaster that was Gov. Schwarzenegger. Really, if your goal is to beat the government into submission, at this point you are just playing the long game.
And so the Republicans just sit there, taking their salary, taking that per diem, and sitting around playing tiddleywinks. They haven't even proposed anything resembling a full solution to the budget plan. They keep talking about pension reform, but any economist or budget analyst can tell you that even if you did slash into public pensions, the savings wouldn't come for at least 5-10 years.
In other words, the Republicans aren't serious about balancing the budget. They are content to watch the teacher layoffs and the elderly lose assistance. It is all one big piece of white noise to them.
So, will the Democratic leadership give up? Well, at some point they won't have a choice, but the Republicans are aware of that and have their own plan:
As Gov. Jerry Brown mulls his options on how to bring an election on taxes to the voters, Republicans are readying election measures of their own. GOP operatives filed two initiatives with the attorney general's office Thursday -- one to curb public employee pensions and another aimed at capping future state spending -- in the event Brown walks away from talks with Republican lawmakers and opts for a November special election.
"I want to make sure appropriate reforms join any potential November election," said former Assemblyman Roger Niello, the sponsor of the pension initiative. Niello, one of the Republicans to support tax increases in 2009, said he supports the five senators who are trying to broker a compromise with Brown. "My preference is that they work out a deal," he said. (LA Times)
If it comes to a November ballot, it's going to be pricey, and there are going to be a lot of ugly measures. This just might end up being 2005 all over again. Whether it will defeat Gov. Brown like it did to Schwarzenegger is a whole other question.
(Cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)
This morning Assembly Speaker John Pérez and Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg announced the Clean Energy Jobs Initiative, a package of four bills that focus on green jobs and clean energy growth.
Why the focus on green jobs? You might remember that a couple weeks ago I reported on a report by nonpartisan think-tank Next 10 that shows green jobs in California growing more than three times faster than overall state employment. During this time of economic recession and high unemployment in California, it makes sense for our legislative leaders to focus on the job sector that's growing relatively rapidly.
33% Renewable Portfolio Standard (Sen. Joe Simitian): This measure requires both public and private energy providers to procure 33 percent of California’s electricity from renewable resources (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) by 2020.
Streamlined Siting for Renewable Energy Projects (Assembly Member V. Manuel Pérez): This measure reduces red tape, expediting the siting and construction of renewable energy projects throughout California.
Career Technical Education (Senator Darrell Steinberg): This measure aligns high school curriculum with high-demand jobs in emerging markets. Grant funding would be provided to high schools for delivering the skills and knowledge students need for successful employment in clean energy field. Such curriculum restructuring will also encourage students to stay in school because they’ll know they’re gaining real-world skills from their studies.
Economic Incentives to Increase Energy Efficiency (Assembly Member Nancy Skinner): This bill would use a portion of state ratepayer funds to provide loan guarantees for residents and small business owners investing in energy efficiency and renewable technologies on homes and commercial property. Reducing loan risk also reduces loan interest rates, increasing demand for energy improvements which in turn increases production and the jobs that come with it.
In the comments to this post, stevefromsacto mentioned that Tom Berryhill (R-Central Valley) said that the budget deficit was not "their" (meaning Republicans) problem. So, no reason to do anything that would endanger them in electorally of course.
Well, funny thing about that. Berryhill also happens to be one of two GOP committee chairs. the one member of the GOP Senate minority with a chairmanship. Or, well he used to be anyway:
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg has penned a letter asking Rules Committee members to approve handing off the Oakdale Republican's gavel to newly elected Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres.
"Each member of the California State Senate represents nearly one million people and we have a duty, regardless of party or philosophy, to actively engage in the serious work necessary to address the challenges confronting California," Steinberg wrote in the letter.(Capitol Alert)
I guess that shoe leather is mighty tasty. Check the letter from Steinberg over the flip.
While it isn't likely that the Legislature will be able to come up with the 2/3, Steinberg is hoping to wait out Gov. Schwarzenegger:
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg will try to reverse Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's line-item budget vetoes when the next legislative session begins in December, according to his spokeswoman, Alicia Trost. ...
Steinberg's strategy does not rely on overriding the line-item vetoes, which would take a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Instead, it seems that Steinberg intends to ask Democrats to reauthorize spending for the programs slashed by the governor.
It's unclear to what extent Steinberg's plan relies upon passage of Proposition 25, which would reduce the state's budget requirement of a supermajority vote to a majority vote. Even without passage of Proposition 25, lawmakers could appropriate funds for education on a majority vote - including the $256 million in child care funds that Schwarzenegger vetoed.(SacBee)
Schwarzenegger went behind the back of the Legislature and blue penciled cuts that he knew the Democrats could not abide. Now we need to ensure that Brown wins, but one hopes that he would be amenable to these programs.
Sen. President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg has come out on the growing "boycott Arizona" movement:
California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said today he has asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to work with him to review all state contracts with Arizona and possibly break them because of Arizona's new immigration police law.
"That bill is a gross civil-rights violation. We hope it will be overturned by the courts quickly," said the Sacramento Democrat, who sent a letter to Schwarzenegger today.
**** *** ****
"It's a civil-rights issue whenever you set somebody aside because of the color of their skin or where they come from," said Steinberg, who is a lawyer. "And that applies to both legal immigrants, citizens and undocumented immigrants. I mean, how do you define reasonable suspicion? There's only one way under that law. And it's somebody who looks Mexican. Period."(Sac Bee)
Yesterday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors came out for a similar boycott Arizona resolution, as did City Attorney Dennis Herrera. Today, Janice Hahn introduced a resolution at the LA City Council.
See, it's not always the best business to tell a whole group of people that they aren't welcome in your state. It's not even about immigration status, because there is, quite frankly, no way that this doesn't make "Driving while brown" a new offense in the state. If Arnold had any real courage, he'd sit down with Steinberg, and really put the pinch to Arizona.
March 19, 2010
The Kern County Taxpayers Association is pleased to endorse SCA 19 (Desaulnier) which embodies the non-partisan reform principles crafted by California Forward to overhaul our state's budget process and empower local governments to work together and better plan for the future of the people they serve.
As one of the leading authorities on the state budget, you know how urgently we need this legislation to give California the modern tools it needs to make best use of taxpayer dollars, set firm priorities for programs and pass responsible budgets on time.
California Forward's reform principles are based on proven practices that businesses and other states have used to improve decision-making, deliver better results and improve public confidence in their government.
Like most Californians, we are justly proud of our great state, a state that has always led the way, in technology, protecting the environment and providing our citizens with a quality of life that is second to none.
The fiscal crises we've faced in recent years have put California's leadership in jeopardy. The status quo simply isn't working. The California Forward plan offers a way to make real and lasting reform that will help restore our state to its leading role in the world and help Californians achieve and thrive in the global economy.
With dueling letters flying back and forth (here's Sen. Steinberg's), it is clear that there is a lot of work left to be done on the budget. In fact, Steinberg is saying that they are at a "mini-impasse" now:
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, suggested Tuesday that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger bears blame for budget inaction after the governor rejected the most significant parts of a budget package Democrats have sent him in recent weeks.
The Republican governor on Monday told legislative leaders that he would veto a gas-tax swap that would have cut about $1 billion from the state's $19.9 billion deficit through June 2011, saying that he wanted a bill that would have cut gas taxes by 5 cents per gallon.
*** *** *** ***
The Democratic Senate leader declared the situation a "mini impasse," though he was confident that lawmakers and the governor would be able to resolve their budget disagreements. In particular, Steinberg said, lawmakers would seek to send Schwarzenegger another bill that helps "short sale" home sellers, perhaps without the corporate penalty provisions if need be. (SacBee)
I recommend you read the full Steinberg letter for additional context, but long story short, they're trying to do a swap of gas taxes for fees. Trouble is, that when other states tried doing a similar move, they ended up losing revenue and the oil companies ended up taking the additional money.
There are a few points of agreement that should be able to get some budget "solutions," but there is still a long way to go to chisel down that $20B deficit.
Boston MA - The four members of California's legislative leadership who in 2009 led a bi-partisan effort in a bid to close the state's devastating budget deficit have been named this year's recipients of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award™.
Dave Cogdill, California State Senator and former Senate Republican Leader; Mike Villines, California State Assembly Member and former Assembly Republican Leader; Darrell Steinberg, California State Senator and Democratic Senate President pro Tem; and Karen Bass, California State Assembly Member, and former Democratic Speaker of the Assembly, were chosen in recognition of the political courage each demonstrated in standing up to the extraordinary constituent and party pressure they faced while working with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to address California's severe financial crisis. (Press Release)
Look, I don't want to take anything away from the enormous difficulties that these four faced in political terms. Cogdill and Villines were villified by leading voices on their own side (ie...John and Ken heads on a pike), while Bass and Steinberg were never going to get those votes. As for the Democratic leaders, well, Democrats are in a really tough position with the supermajority constraints. It looks like they are working to do something
I suppose much of this is for history to answer. But I will say this as somebody who worked to oppose Prop 1A personally and professionally, the February deal that was rejected on May 19 last year, we are still on the same road to shock doctrining that we were on in January 2009. Nothing has changed on that front.
So, courage? Perhaps, if you mean courage in that, courage to keep the lights on sort of way. But if we are to truly build a sustainable future for California, the heaping amounts of courage that will be required from our leaders will make this look like tiny in comparison. In San Francisco terms, they had to jaywalk on Front Street. We need leaders willing to crawl over Highway 101 in rush hour. Blindfolded. On one leg.
"Nothing in the California Forward plan makes it easier to raise taxes or fees. The plan keeps the two-thirds vote requirement to raise taxes, and prevents lawmakers from replacing a tax with a fee to dramatically increase revenue. There's no doubt in my mind that if the California Forward plan had been in effect years ago, our state would be in far better financial shape," said Tom McKernan, California Forward's Republican co-chair.
"The California Forward plan would introduce a key reform to our budget process - performance-based budgeting. That means the Governor, the Legislature and every state agency would have to determine what taxpayers are getting for their money, and how they could do a better job. Many states and local governments have used this practice to balance their budgets and get better results. Why should California get left out?" said former State Senator Bruce McPherson (R-Monterey).
Robert mentioned the looming teacher layoffs, but there will be some layoffs that will be coming down the pike right away.
In low-key votes, lawmakers slashed nearly $1 billion from the state's prison system, chiefly from inmates' medical care, and approved a $540 million reduction in state workers' paychecks. The state Senate had approved those measures last week, and on Monday the Assembly passed them on party-line votes. (SJ Merc)
In this series of votes, the Assembly didn't look at the Amazon.com tax nor the plan to change the way the gas tax works.
What it did do, slashing prison health care funding, is perhaps without controversy in the Legislature, but the federal courts might look at this slightly differently. Further cuts to the salaries of state workers, who have already seen cuts due to the furloughs, will increase the strain of many workers who are just struggling to keep their heads above water.
Given that Sen. Steinberg has already said that he wouldn't seek broad tax increases, it appears that cuts are going to be the name of the game. And Arnold doesn't even want to look at simple majority tax/fee exchanges. While the stimulus from DC appears to be doing some good, the biggest of the 50 Little Hoovers is right here in Sacramento.
Well, it's about time somebody gets me! I need my 8 hours! And frankly, so do our legislators. Frankly, I've had enough of these photos of legislators passed out in their chairs.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg pledged Wednesday that the Legislature would no longer hold marathon all-night sessions to get its work done. Such sessions were commonplace last year, as lawmakers snored and slept on the Legislature's floor, bills were passed at all hours of the night and the state became fodder for late-night comedy shows. (LA Times)
There really is no need for this. They have plenty of time to make these decisions, but instead the Republicans and the Governor like to play these games of brinksmanship. And frankly, the 2/3 rule makes it a powerful play. While I respect Steinberg's intention to quit it with the overnighters, I'm not putting away the No-Doz quite yet.
And anyway, I've gotten quite good at Bejeweled and Farmville while watching those marathons on the Cal-Channel.
State Senate President Darrell Steinberg has announced that the Senate Rules Committee will not hold a hearing on CPUC Commissioner Rachelle Chong before the end of the year - effectively killing her confirmation. For low-income residents and consumers, this is wonderful news. Chong used her position at the CPUC to sponsor an AT&T-backed proposal to de-regulate the state's Universal Lifeline program - which would have meant thousands of Californians losing basic telephone service. The Central City SRO Collaborative spent months turning out tenants against this proposal (with invaluable help from TURN), and Chong paid a heavy price for it by losing her job. An Astroturf campaign by Verizon and AT&T wasn't enough to save her, and the message it sends to the CPUC is - "Don't mess with Lifeline!"
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, back in July:
The 2/3 requirement that we have in this state. I know it's a tired old saw. But when you really think about, that is the cause of so much of the dysfunction in the legislature. you have a minority party that obviously worked in tandem with the governor that cost the state 6-7 billion dollars tonight for no good reason. To somehow improve your negotiating position. It is without question the most irresponsible act that I have seen in my 15 years of public service...I hope that the significance will truly capture enough attention that the people will decide it is time to change the system that allows the minority to essentially rule the day. That's not just the Senate Republicans, it was the Governor too, who was apparently out to prove a point. And he proved a point.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, today:
State Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) released a statement expressing "grave doubts" about the choice. Maldonado needs the approval of the Democratic-dominated Legislature to take the post.
Steinberg cited the $2-million cost of the special election that would be required to fill Maldonado's Senate seat, suggesting the money could be better spent scaling back recent fee hikes at state colleges and universities.
The Senate leader, under pressure to keep the post open for Democrats running for lieutenant governor themselves in next year's election, also suggested he would like to see the job left vacant.
"It may be both fiscally and politically prudent to permit the people to make their own selection for this statewide office next year and avoid the expense of a costly special election," his statement said.
Once again, we see that the State Senate is unwilling to actually do what it takes to overcome the 2/3rds rule that has crippled our state. Instead of seizing a golden opportunity to win one of the two seats we need to get a 2/3rds majority, Steinberg prefers to help coddle a fellow Democratic Senator's unwillingness to face Maldonado in a general election.
Steinberg and other Senators are starting to put out the talking points to defend their weakness. But none of them hold water. The election to replace Maldonado here in SD-15 can be combined with the June primary, saving money. But even if it weren't combined, the $2 million or so is statistically negligible when compared to the billions of dollars in cuts Steinberg is apparently willing to accept by refusing to take the chance to win a 2/3rds majority next year (along with the race to replace Jeff Denham in SD-12, a district with a D+12 registration advantage).
Additionally, voters themselves are going to have the chance to pick the next Lt. Gov., and confirming Maldonado will not change that fact, as Steinberg implies. If Steinberg believes Maldonado is a formidable candidate in the GOP primary or in the general election, he is badly misreading the political landscape.
Capitol Democrats said there was a more calculated political reason for not wanting to let Maldonado go. Democrats were humbled by this year's election results in New Jersey and Virginia, and fear that 2010 could be a bad Democratic year. In addition, a low turn-out special election may make it tougher for a Democrat to win the 15th Senate District seat currently held by Maldonado.
Democrats have a slight 41-35 percent registration advantage in the district. Nearly 20 percent of the district's voters are decline to state. The district has been home to moderate Republicans like Bruce McPherson, and overwhelming voted for Schwarzenegger over Phil Angelides in 2006 - 61 percent - 34 percent. But in 2004, John Kerry narrowly carried the district over George W. Bush - 52 percent - 46 percent.
What the article doesn't note is that Obama carried the seat by 20 points last year. And if it is turnout they're concerned about, a candidate like John Laird will have no problem generating enthusiasm from progressives and Democrats across the state, who will gladly spend a late spring here on the Central Coast to put a good progressive in the State Senate.
More damning is the basic philosophy behind this "gee, winning the 15th is gonna be hard" nonsense. If Democrats are scared of winning a seat where they hold a 6 point registration advantage, a seat Obama won by 20 points, then they really have a serious problem providing the leadership this state needs.
Next year we'll hear Democratic legislators exhorting us to help them in other Assembly and Senate races, saying that we have to help them win 2/3rds. But by refusing to actually go for 2/3rds when given the chance, they're showing the California Democratic base that the Senate is fundamentally unserious about restoring majority rule.
The only conclusion one can draw from this is that Senate Democrats don't actually care about the 2/3rds rule. That they prefer the status quo to having to actually take the opportunities they are given and take a winnable seat, or to set up a hated rival (Maldonado) to spectacularly fail when he can't get elected Lt. Gov. next year.
UPDATE: The Courage Campaign, where I work as Public Policy Director, released this statement today on the Maldonado appointment:
"The best thing we can do right now is to remove Sen. Abel Maldonado from a position of importance where he can do great damage, the California State Senate, and place him in an irrelevant post, the Lt. Governor's office," said Rick Jacobs, Chair of the 700,000-member Courage Campaign. "For once, we agree with the Governor - Abel Maldonado should be demoted to Lt. Governor."
The AP has a story about the fact that Arnold's Prop 49 is breaking a hole in the budget. Arnold, for his part, is pretty adamant that he won't gut it. Because, you know, it's part of his legacy. I guess it's only okay to mess up Darrell Steinberg's legacy by repealing the mental health measure.
The problem here is still one of framing. Solutions now seem to be completely limited to cuts, those who support additional revenue appear to have completely lost:
With California facing another mammoth budget deficit, the state's nonpartisan legislative analyst says voters should reconsider some of the billions of dollars tied up in ballot measures they have approved in recent years.
Among the suggestions from Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor is an after-school measure that costs $550 million a year and helped launch Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's political career. It is one of many programs contributing to the "autopilot spending" that the Republican governor and fiscal watchdogs often complain about because the plans were approved by voters without specific funding sources. (AP 11/20/09
The seriously messed up part of this: nobody can envision the world both Steinberg's Prop 63, the millionaire's tax for mental health, and Schwarzenegger's Prop 49 could a) both live in harmony and b) have stable revenue sources.
Both mental health and after school programs are important, but so is K12 and higher education, so is IHSS, and so is infrastructure. We must always balance one interest against another, but it has gotten to the point that we are starving our primary goals. We are cannibalizing programs that should exist to feed other programs that should exist.
We are only punishing ourselves. We must find new sources of revenue.
After an all night session, the California Legislature on November 4 passed a water package including an $11.1 billion bond that provides a clear path to the construction of the peripheral canal and more dams. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger then signed the bills that he described as "an historic legislative package to reform and rebuild California's water system" during a series of press conferences and highly choreographed photo opportunities over the past week.
While Schwarzenegger and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg lauded the package for being an "historic compromise," Delta legislators, fishermen and Indian Tribes slammed the legislation for leading to the destruction of the Delta, its farms and its fish.
"Water is the lifeblood of everything we do in California," said Schwarzenegger. "Without clean, reliable water, we cannot build, we cannot farm, we cannot grow and we cannot prosper. That is why I am so proud that the legislature, Democrats and Republicans, came together and tackled one of the most complicated issues in our state's history. This comprehensive water package is an historic achievement."
Schwarzenegger praised the efforts of his Democratic collaborator, Darrell Steinberg, to push the water policy and bond package through the legislature. "He has been a tireless leader, a relentless advocate for the environment and a true statesman," said Steinberg.
Senator Steinberg claimed the legislation enacts "landmark improvements to the environment and investments in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta - the heart of California's water supply system - to ensure the restoration of the Delta's fragile ecosystem while enhancing water reliability for all Californians."
"Over the last several decades, numerous efforts to comprehensively address the state's water problems have consistently failed," Steinberg gushed. "But the Senate this week rose to the occasion, overcoming enormous regional, philosophical, and political obstacles to forge an historic, bipartisan compromise."
On October 11, Schwarzenegger issued a proclamation calling for the legislature to meet in an extraordinary session to address California's water crisis, in effect strong arming the legislature to pass the water package that he wanted.
While the Legislature approved the water policy and bond measures, they killed a bill by Assemblywoman Alsyon Huber that would prohibit the construction of a peripheral canal around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta without a full fiscal analysis and a vote of the state legislature.
"I offered up a simple bill, a common sense approach," Huber stated. "Unfortunately, my bill was killed without a hearing." She vowed that she will resubmit this bill so it will have a full debate.
"I opposed the water package because it creates a new layer of bureaucrats who will make decisions on water that will impact the communities I represent, without allowing us to have a voice, " she emphasized. "I opposed the bond, especially because of the billions in pork for LA. This dead of night pork giveaway is exactly why voters give us low marks."
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta, agreed with Huber's assessment. "The package lost any semblance of rational debate and turned into a pork festival with the water bond ballooning to over $11 billion dollars. With our state already facing a massive debt and more red ink on the horizon, how can we afford this?"
The "pork festival" bond measure includes $455 million for drought relief, $1.4 billion for regional water supply, $2.25 billion for Delta "sustainability, $3 billion for water storage , $1.7 billion for watershed conservation, $1 billion for groundwater and $1.25 billion for water recycling and water conservation.
The $1.7 allocated for watershed conservation includes $250 million for California's portion of funding to remove four dams on the Klamath, directly linking Klamath Dam removal to building the peripheral canal and Temperance Flat and Sites reservoirs.
Representatives of fishing groups were outraged by the passing and signing of the bills. "Today is a sad day for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary," said Roger Mammon, board member of Restore the Delta and the West Delta Chapter of the California Striped Bass Association, the day the bill passed. "The implications are unbelievable and could possibly lead to the worst ecological disaster to ever hit the United States."
The passage of the water package could not have taken place without the back room negotiations that large national environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and the Nature Conservancy, made with Westlands Water District, Metropolitan Water District, Steinberg and Schwarzenegger to craft the package.
Laura Harnish and Spreck Rosecrans of Environmental Defense, strong supporters of the water policy package, said "It is important to realize that the legislation does not authorize a peripheral canal."
However, the legislation sets up a Delta Stewardship Council of seven members, 4 of whom are appointed by the Governor. The Governor reaffirmed that he wants to build a peripheral canal at a press conference in Stockton the same day the package was passed, so you can be sure that he will make the canal's construction a priority for the council members he appoints. In addition, the water bond sets up the infrastructure that will be used in tandem with the canal.
The vast majority of environmental organizations lobbied against the water package. The water package was opposed by the Sierra Club California, Planning and Conservation League, Friends of the River, Butte Environmental Council, Restore the Delta, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), California Striped Bass Association, Clean Water Action, the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Center for Biological Diversity, Northern California River Watch, the Public Trust Alliance and the Environmental Protection Information Center.
Major unions including the California Teachers Association and SEIU, the five Delta counties and regional governments throughout the Sacramento region opposed the legislation also.
During the water package's development, the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) had insisted that any solution focus on reducing reliance on an already over-allocated Delta and require dedicated in-stream flows through the Delta and the San Francisco Bay for endangered and threatened fish populations.
"The package missed the mark on both fronts," said Charlotte Hodde, water policy coordinator for PCL. "Instead of guaranteeing the flows that species in the Delta need to recover, the package provides no regulatory assurance that the water will be there. Even the legislators' own staff analyzed this portion of the bill as unenforceable. This will only worsen the fishery collapse and may lead to even more restrictions on water supply exports from the Delta."
The plans by Schwarzenegger and Steinberg to build the canal in order to export more water from the Delta to agribusiness and southern California will be met by years of lawsuits, protests, direct action and other resistance by the communities impacted. When the $11 billion water bond goes to a vote by the taxpayers, I predict that it will be voted down just like the peripheral canal initiative was defeated in 1982.
"There is no way that when the state is cutting budgets for schools, fire departments, health care for children and other services that the voters are going to approve an $11 billion bond that will create a total ecological nightmare," said Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe at the California Tribal Water Summit that began just hours after the legislation passed. "The children of our tribe have suffered for seven generations and now our children for seven generations ahead will be paying for this if this measure is approved."
"We will continue to use every means possible to oppose this package which sets in motion the canal and allows an unelected body to make key decisions that will impact our Delta Communities, while we are left on the sidelines," Barrigan-Parilla concluded. "It's no wonder Californians have such a low opinion of their elected representatives."
For more information about the battle against the peripheral canal, go to www.restorethedelta.org.
With the LG spot vacant now, and Arnold Schwarzenegger making a trip to the Middle East, including a stop to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg is acting Governor. So, I'd thought I would go ahead and list a few ideas that he might want to try on for size. So, here we go:
Officially rename the Horseshoe the Hall of Muscles.
