In spite of overwhelming opposition from environmentalists, fishermen, family farmers, elected officials and the majority of Californians, the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) on Thursday, May 16 unanimously adopted what it described as a "comprehensive management plan" for the Delta.
The Council also certified the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), despite opposition to the report from every single person who spoke during the public comment period, ranging from Delta farmers to a representative of the Metropolitan Water District. In addition, the Council adopted regulations that will implement the policies of the Delta Plan.
"State law told us to develop a legally enforceable Delta Plan that will guide state and local agency actions on water use and the Delta environment," said Delta Stewardship Council Chair Phil Isenberg, who previously served as Chair of the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called "marine protected areas" on the Central Coast, as well as Chair of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, which recommended the construction of a peripheral canal or tunnels.
"We will now be able to focus on implementing the policies and recommendations that will help achieve the State's coequal goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem while protecting the unique values of the Delta as an evolving place," Isenberg claimed.
A press release from the DSC revealed how the Delta Plan is intimately tied to the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels. (http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/13-0516%20Council%20Adopts%20final%20Delta%20Plan.pdf)
"The Delta Plan is California's plan for the Delta and is intended to be a single enforceable blueprint that requires and encourages sustainable actions now, and lays a strong foundation for future projects and programs that will improve statewide water supply reliability, provide a vibrant and healthy ecosystem, and preserve, protect and enhance the rural, agricultural and recreational characteristics of the Delta. The Plan will eventually include the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) when the BDCP is completed and successfully permitted," the release stated.
Delta advocates, who held a protest featuring the "Death of the Delta" coffin at the Radisson Hotel in West Sacramento before the meeting, disagreed strongly with Isenberg's contention that the plan would protect, restore and enhancing the Delta ecosystem "while protecting the unique values of the Delta as an evolving place." They said the flawed plan would "drain the Delta and doom salmon and other Pacific fisheries."
Delta plan perpetuates unsustainable status quo
Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, began his presentation at both the rally and in the public comment period at the meeting by stating, "Good morning, welcome to the resumption of California's water wars."
"The Delta Plan fails to comply with the law, and perpetuates an unsustainable status quo that enriches a few powerful water brokers at the expense of reliable water supplies and healthy fisheries," said Jennings. "It is a classic shell game to benefit special interests and, if implemented, would represent a death sentence for one of the world's great estuaries."
"The Council has squandered a marvelous and unique opportunity," emphasized Jennings. "Because the Council failed to identify and analyze the root causes of California's water crisis - over-appropriation, unreasonable use, failure to balance the public trust - the Delta Plan and EIR largely recommends that agencies should continue to do the same things that created the crisis in the first place. The Plan and EIR ignore history and are predicated on an artificial reality. They're little more than omelets of half-truth and distortion to justify predetermined conclusions."
Referring to the failed Cal-Fed process designed to meet the "co-equal goals" of water supply and ecosystem restoration, Jennings said, "Instead of vision, we have a warmed over CalFed Lite!"
"Instead of perpetuating the destructive water export policies, the Delta Plan should be focused on developing regional water solutions that reduce reliance on the Delta," said Wendy Stokes, a Delta farmer and chair of Restore the Delta. "The Delta Stewardship Council has abandoned the path of sustainable water policies to help endorse the Peripheral Tunnels. Agriculture will not be able to afford this expensive water. The majority of the $60 billion cost will be paid by the families of Southern California through their higher water bills."
Water "reliability" - code for more water
Nick Di Croce, co-facilitator of the California Environmental Water Caucus, and board member of the California Water Impact Network, said that while the stated purpose of the Delta Plan is to provide water "reliability" for Southern California users, "reliability,' in this case, is "code for more water."
"The delta cannot be saved, and its ecological crisis cannot be addressed, by taking out more water," said Di Croce. "The real crisis for the delta is that state and federal agencies have committed to deliver five times more water than is available; these unrealistic commitments need to be revised."
Stockton City Councilmember Kathy Miller, representing the Delta Coalition, blasted the Delta Stewardship Council and the Brown Administration for failing to conduct an analysis to determine how much water is available for export.
"Until this water availability analysis is done, there is no way to know how much water is available for export," she said. "The Delta Plan nevertheless endorses building huge Peripheral Tunnels. This places the cart before the horse."
She also criticized the Council for not addressing the dire economic impacts of the tunnels on the city of Stockton, a community where the population of people living in poverty has risen 56 percent in the past decade. "We need an open hand, not a closed fist," she said. "We need policies that enhance jobs creation and capital investment."
The Delta plan's true purpose: get around biological opinions
The tunnel opponents said the true purpose of the Delta Plan is to get around the court "biological opinions" that restrict water exports in order to protect Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, green sturgeon and the southern resident population of killer whales (orcas), which forage on Sacramento River Chinook salmon, from extinction.
"The courts have found that water exporters have threatened the very survival of several fish species. Now, instead of reducing water exports, the Delta Plan endorses simply moving the point of export to a different spot in the Delta," said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta.
Independent scientists have found that the removal of more Delta flows through the Peripheral Tunnels would hasten the extinction of Sacramento River winter Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish species. "Yet, that is what the Delta Plan endorses," said Jennings.
Jennings concluded, "We have urged the Council to analyze and incorporate the findings of the legislatively mandated flow reports by the Water Board and Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Delta Protection Commission's Economic Sustainability Plan. Following an extensive proceeding involving agencies, academia and non-governmental organizations, the Water Board concluded that a substantial increase in Delta outflow and a return to a more natural hydrograph were necessary to protect public trust resources. The Delta Plan EIR didn't even consider that report as a major source of information."
Dick Pool, Secretary of the Golden Gate Salmon Association, criticized the failure of the plan to address the recovery needs of Central Valley salmon.
"The salmon cannot be restored with only habitat changes in the Delta," said Pool. "There is a large body of science including the state and federal agencies that recognize that only a combination of both upriver habitat and Delta actions can restore the salmon populations. Delta operations, specifically the pumps in the South Delta, with their strong impact on upstream water movements and reservoir operations, severely impact the survival of juvenile salmon above the Delta. The Delta Plan fails to address these issues."
Salad Bowl Science
Nicky Suard, owner of Snug Harbor Resorts in Walnut Grove on the Delta, summed up the lack of credible science in the Delta Plan and the EIR when she described it as "Salad Bowl Science," where the plan officials "pick and choose" the science to justify their pre-determined goals.
"Don't pass this plan," Suard urged the Council. "It will destroy the Delta and everything in it."
In her written comments to the Council, Carolee Krieger, President of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), shredded the Final Delta Plan.
"We find the Final Delta Plan utterly deficient," said Krieger. "It is nothing more than a continuation of the policy that has destroyed the largest estuary on the west coast of the continental United States and instigated the state's water wars. As such, it is not a solution to our water crisis, but a disastrous adherence to the status quo."
"It speaks to special interests, not the public interest," she stated. "It has been an unconscionable waste of taxpayer money, in that it sedulously avoids any course of action that would lead to the pragmatic and equitable distribution of our water while simultaneously protecting the Delta."
The pleas of Suard, Krieger and everybody who spoke against the plan and EIR's adoption fell on deaf ears.
As was the case in the parallel Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, Delta Vision and Bay Delta Conservation Plan "collaborative" processes, the goal was to present a façade of an open and transparent process where the "input" of the "stakeholders" was considered when the outcome of the process, the privatization of the public trust, was predetermined by state officials and corporate interests.
Council refused to conduct necessary analyses
Restore the Delta, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the Environmental Water Caucus and the Delta Coalition said they had implored the Council to undertake a series of necessary analyses because the responsible agencies have refused to conduct them. These include:
• A water availability analysis essential for addressing over appropriation and separating real water from paper water and the legal rights to it.
• A benefit/cost analysis indispensable for maximizing the use of limited resources for the greatest good for all Californians.
• A public trust analysis crucial for ensuring that the common property rights of all Californian's are protected and balanced against those of special interests.
• A beneficial use assessment addressing the extent that consumptive water is wasted and unreasonably used.
In his negotiations with the Legislature, perhaps Gov. Brown would prefer to bargain over less money and pocket any extra revenues that fall into the general fund over the course of the fiscal year. But alas, the LAO thinks that the bigger sum should be in discussion:
Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor projected state revenues Friday that are $3.2 billion higher than those projected by Gov. Jerry Brown this week in his revised budget proposal.
The difference translates into $400 million for the current fiscal year and $2.8 billion for the year that begins in July. The projection sets up a potential battle between Brown and fellow Democrats in the Legislature. who want to spend more than he proposes.
Both Brown and Taylor urge fiscal restraint, however, because revenue projections are largely dependent upon economic factors ranging from employment to housing prices. Both also agree that the bulk of the money will go to schools under state law.(SacBee)
Taylor is generally in favor of taking the cautious approach, so that's no surprise. But acknowledging the extra cash will surely mean that the fight is more intense from legislators that are looking to restore funding for some of the state's programs. Social services, the judiciary, higher education and other interests are competing with the Prop 98 K-14 funding guarantee, and the fight will be typically intense. This LAO report will only add intensity.
Abel Maldonado Wildly Misses Mark in His Criticism of the Prison Realignment Policy
by Brian Leubitz
By any estimation, Governor Brown is in a tough spot politically and managerially with the issues surrounding the prisons. As Attorney General, he fought the federal courts on capacity and healthcare standards. As Governor, he's been forced to actually implement the reduction of population by those judges. And he's been fighting it all the way.
But, in realignment, he probably struck on the path of least resistance to state prison population. It allows a significant reduction in population without actually setting all of the prisoners free. But that's not what Abel Maldonado sees.
Maldonado, flanked by Fontana Mayor Acquanetta Warren and Erin Runnion, whose daughter Samantha was kidnapped and murdered in a high-publicized 2002 crime, argued in favor of an as-yet-unwritten ballot measure that would repeal A.B. 109, the law creating the state's realignment policy, which Maldonado referred to as "early release."
"The legislature and more importantly, the governor, won't fix early release," said Maldonado, a former lieutenant governor and legislator who represented communities in Santa Barbara County.(Daily Bulletin)
Abel Maldonado simply sees it as "early release" and plans on running some sort of initiative to address the issue. How it will address the issue while maintaining compliance with the federal rulings is anybody's guess. It's hard to see the ToughOnCrime act to be anything other than posturing for the 2014 race for governor. And he's searching for Willie Horton. Desperately. Calitics diarist smoker1 pointed that out last week.
This week, Abel Maldonado held a news conference announcing a statewide effort to repeal the realignment program. Proof of the dangers of realignment: the heinous murder of Mary Beth Blaskey. Jerome Anthony Rogers has been arrested and charged with the murder. Rogers, 57, has a lengthy criminal record, but was last in prison in 2003.
Got it? The last time he was in prison was 2003 and Maldonado is using this case as an example of how realignment is failing. Realignment came last year, not 10 years ago. Why would Maldonado use a case that has nothing to do with realignment to promote an effort to repeal realignment? Because there is no such case within the realignment universe.
The thing about the California prison system is that there is a lot of shades of gray. Way more than 50, it turns out. There are some hardened criminals, some murderers, some rapists and the like, that will probably never be rehabilitated to the point that we'll want them on the streets. However, the total number in that category are a minuscule portion of an enormous system. The recidivism rate in our system was hovering around 70% for a while, dipping down to 65% in 2012. But considering that the national level is below 45%, there is still a ways to go.
But much of that increased rate is about parole violations. Increasing parole flexibility and working with former prisoners to increase the percentage of better outcomes could go a long way to reducing some of that recidivism. Some of that has already been happening in a few counties, but there is a lot more work to be done.
Realignment itself laid a heavy burden on counties, and this is where the changes haven't really been as successful as we would like. They were supposed to get reimbursed for much of that burden, and while they will see additional revenues from the state to pay for the increased expenditures, it seems unlikely that they will ever be made truly whole. However, Brown knows what he's doing. Counties should be held more directly responsible for the prison population. Allowing prosecutors to simply lock away a criminal and forget about them has a perverse effect on the extreme overcapacity at state prisons.
The entire law enforcement community has begun a process of working to improve efficiency. As prisons have passed higher education spending, this is a conversation long overdue. But these changes can't come overnight. But we can't allow our prison budget to overwhelm the general fund, and we can't build our way out of the prison crisis. We need to reduce the prison population, and that is done through hard work, funding education, including Brown's effort to increase resources for disadvantaged students, and reducing the population of reoffenders.
Maldonado wants to simply revert back to the failed ToughOnCrime policies because that just might be an issue that scares voters. It's simplistic and cynical.
May revised budget assumes smaller surplus this FY, lowers estimates for next year
by Brian Leubitz
Well, the CalChannel stream is leaving something to be desired, but seems to have rebounded to some sense of consistency at the end after Gov. Brown was replaced by Ana Matosantos at the dais.
But, here is the big, headline takeaway: The administration doesn't think the surplus is really $4.5 billion, and it thinks it is money that was pushed forward for tax purposes. And that money is going to education.
The budget Brown proposes will assume revenue in the current fiscal year only $2.8 billion ahead of expectations, with revenue next fiscal year down $1.8 billion from Brown's January estimate, the sources said.
The proposed budget will include a $1.1 billion reserve. It would increase funding for Brown's effort to overhaul California's educational finance system by $240 million. In his education proposal, Brown will also propose $1 billion to implement English, math and other subject guidelines known as the Common Core Standards.(SacBee)
According to Matosantos, the additional funds dedicated for education are 103% of the surplus. Because previous budgets "borrowed" from previous Prop 98 requirements, the administration had very little choice as to where the money would end up. However, that he continues to plan to focus it on English learners and socioeconomic status is quite the source of controversy.
Brown's revised budget still includes his plan from January to revamp education funding, directing more money to low-income schools and giving districts more control over how to spend the state's money. The plan he released Tuesday would boost the money under local control by $240 million, to a total of $1.9 billion.
When fully implemented, it's projected that the new local-control funding formula will spend 80 cents of every dollar on base grants for every district; 16 cents in supplemental funding for every English learner, student from a low-income family, or foster child in a district; and four cents for those districts with a particularly high concentration of these students.
The concentration funds are only a small part of the total dollars, the governor's office says, but are vital to districts facing the biggest challenges. The May revision also strengthens the proposal's accountability measures to make sure the targeted, at-risk students benefit from the money. (Josh Richman / BANG)
There is still a sizable group within the Legislature who would prefer to simply dish out the additional funds to the schools. And school districts. And teachers. But, negotiations on the issue are still active, and given that the decision will be made entirely by Democrats, some sort of deal will be worked out with the Legislature and the Governor. It is hard to argue that some of our poorest schools don't need a bit of extra resources. But all schools will get at least some additional money under the May revised budget, and schools with additional needs will simply get a boost.
You can see the full May revised budget over the flip or at this link. Photo credit: Randy Bayne, 2010.
Now, I'll probably we watching this live online, but in case you can't, I'll make a few comments tomorrow. However, before we get the details of where the Governor is looking, a few points.
First, the so-called surplus is looking like it might end up in the $4.5 billion range. However, before we get any plans on how we can spend it, Prop 98's educational funding guarantees get precedence. We have already "borrowed" from Prop 98 guaranteed money, and much of that will have to be paid back to the schools. Not exactly the end of the world (in fact, more money for schools is a very, very good thing), but it leaves less flexibility than perhaps the Governor would prefer.
The Governor would like to leave much of that money as some sort of rainy day fund, but other interests are clamoring for the restoration of some of the worst cuts from the past few years. The judiciary has been especially hard hit, and social services budget are minuscule compared to the past. If the governor is going to be able to save some of that money, he'll have to negotiate some sort of compromise with the teachers and education advocates while also holding off on some of the critical spending priorities we are facing.
We'll get a lot more details when the May revised budget comes out tomorrow...
Governor remarks about construction failures that "shit happens"
by Brian Leubitz
The new eastern span of the Bay Bridge has been a long time in coming. It's been due for replacement since the Loma Prieta earthquake way back in 1989, and since then there has been much discussion about visual aesthetics, "landmark" status, cost and even some chatter about just getting it done. The bridge was set to open in August, but that may get bumped because of some faulty welds. Gov. Brown was waxing philosophical about the issue.
"Don't know if it's a setback. I mean, look, shit happens."
"There are very professional engineers that are looking
at this thing, and when they're ready to give us their report, I think the public will be satisfied," he said.
Three dozen cracked bolts -- discovered by Caltrans bridge engineers in mid-March -- on the new bridge's single tower suspension span could throw a wrench into those plans. Administration officials may be forced to delay the opening of the new span of the Bay Bridge -- in the works since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake -- depending on the results of a study to be released Wednesday. (Steve Harmon / BANG)
Shit. It Does Happen. However, for the time being Brown, who had a lot to do with the planning as Mayor of Oakland, is looking forward to a big party to go along with the opening. We'll find out more later today about whether it will go off as smoothly as he would like it.
Gov. Brown, in this go-round as governor, has hardly been spending willy-nilly. Now he says that he has another reason:
"It doesn't look like the people who are in charge are going to do what it takes to really slow down this climate change, so we're going to have to adapt, and adapting is going to be very, very expensive," Brown said. "That's another reason why we have to maintain some budget discipline."
Brown, who has urged lawmakers of his own party to resist spending despite the state's improving revenue outlook, said weather is "becoming more intense" as a result of climate change and will "cost a lot of money and a lot of lives."(SacBee)
Now, I actually find this pretty persuasive. Climate change will hit California particularly hard. Drought and fires will be increasingly common. Our fertile Central Valley will not be so fertile when we have no water for what is basically a semi-arid climate. Snowpacks will cease to become good water reserves as they melt too early in the season. In short, Gov. Brown was probably underselling the costs of adaptation to climate change.
That is not to say that we shouldn't be continuing to work to slow climate change. We need to rethink our fossil fuel usage, and how we are assisting in that dependence. (Ahem...for starters: fracking and LNG pipeline) And yes, planning for budgeting long-term to address the changes inherent in catastrophic climate change should be part of the overall adaptation process. That being said, it would be interesting to see how money is being specifically directed towards that planning.
On April 25, five Congressional Democrats called for a top Brown Administration official's immediate resignation after Natural Resources Deputy Director Jerry Meral made a controversial statement that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels is not about restoring the Bay Delta ecosystem.
Responding to the Northern California Representatives, a Natural Resources Agency spokesman defended Meral and dismissed calls for his resignation.
A joint statement from Representatives George Miller, Mike Thompson, Jerry McNerney, Doris Matsui and Anna Eshoo said, "Despite repeated Administration assurances to the contrary, Deputy Director Meral acknowledged in a meeting with Northern California stakeholders last week that 'BDCP is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved.'"
"Meral's statement, if accurately reported, suggests the Brown Administration intends to explicitly violate the established statutory co-equal goals of ecosystem restoration in the Bay-Delta and water reliability throughout the state," according to the Representatives' statement. "This fuels speculation that the Administration's plan, if unchanged, will devastate the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and the communities that rely on it, a concern that Northern California Lawmakers and other stakeholders have voiced throughout the process."
"Director Meral's comments suggest the Brown Administration has violated the public trust," said U.S. Rep. George Miller (CA-11). "He needs to be held accountable for that. And now the Administration needs to be forthcoming as to whether they intend to honor their stated goal to restore the region's already struggling habitat, or whether this is simply a water grab which will drive the Bay-Delta to ruin. Based on his comments, Deputy Director Meral should resign immediately."
Meral made his controversial comments while speaking with Tom Stokely of the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) in a private conversation after a meeting with Northern California Indian Tribes on Monday, April 15, according to Restore the Delta's "Delta Flows" newsletter (http://www.restorethedelta.org/or-is-it-the-point/)
"I was flabbergasted because that's not what we've been told by politicians and state officials," said Stokely after the conversation. "I was surprised at his candor because I've always known that BDCP is not about restoring the Delta."
"It's therefore ironic that the Brown administration is calling this a Bay Delta Conservation Plan," emphasized Stokely. "You can keep the same acronym, but in reality it's the Bay Delta CONVEYANCE Plan. It is and always has been about moving water, not saving the Delta."
"Now if Governor Brown and State officials would just stop pretending it's a habitat plan to save fish when speaking with the press," according to Restore the Delta (RTD).
"We did not put the statement out for publicity gain or just to try to embarrass somebody," Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, RTD Executive Director, who witnessed Meral make the comment. "The reason we let this statement out was to show the true intent of the tunnels project," which she said is to increase pumping Delta water south.
Both Stokely and Barrigan-Parrilla said Meral had been speaking about his concern that a "mega-flood" could inundate the Central Valley someday, as it did in 1861-62, when Meral made his statement.
A spokesman for the Natural Resources Agency, headed by Secretary John Laird, told the LA Times the remarks were "taken out of context" and that there are no plans calling for Meral's resignation.
"The administration remains deeply committed to maintaining a healthy Delta ecosystem," said agency spokesman Richard Stapler. "In fact, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan invests $7.5 billion 'to preserve and restore the region.'" (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/political/la-me-pc-jerry-brown-water-jerry-meral-congress-water-bay-delta-20130426,0,6241643.story)
The Governor's Office has not yet responded to my request for a response to the Representatives' call for the Deputy Director's resignation.
Besides Miller, other Congressional Representatives blasted Meral for claiming that "BDCP is not about, and has never been about saving the Delta. The Delta cannot be saved."
"While I find the statement made by Dr. Meral to be on its face extremely disappointing, the larger issue I have is with the way the State of California has led the BDCP effort in general," said U.S. Rep. Doris O. Matsui (CA-6). "Despite repeated requests from northern California to have a real role in development of the plan we have continued to be shut out of the process. A project in our backyard of this magnitude simply cannot be done without northern California interests at the table."
U.S. Rep. Jerry McNerney (CA-9) said, "The Brown Administration continues to fail the Delta and its residents. We all share a desire to improve the Delta and ensure that the families, farmers, and small business owners in this region are made a part of the process. Director Meral's statement that the Delta will inevitably be destroyed is unacceptable. There must be accountability, and Delta residents need to know if the Governor is committed to restoring the region. I stand willing and eager to work with the administration to address these needs, but only if they are forthright in their efforts."
"Deputy Director Meral's statement is contrary to everything he and his colleagues have told us in the past," said U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-5). "If BDCP is not about restoring the Delta, then it's all about shipping water to the south at the expense of our farming families, fishing families, wildlife and the environment. Meral and his friends are trying to rob families of their water and livelihoods. We deserve to have someone committed to protecting the Delta."
U.S. Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) stated, "For Deputy Director Meral to utter the shocking statement that 'the Delta cannot be saved' makes him eligible for Former Deputy Director of Natural Resources. The Brown Administration's plan for the Bay Delta needs to be reversed from more water for Southern California to saving the Delta. Period."
Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, quipped that Meral's claim that the "Delta cannot be saved" was "clearly a statement of someone waiting for imminent rapture so it doesn't matter what happens to the Delta."
"We've gone from earthquakes, to ark storms, to we can't save it anyway - it doesn't matter," said Jennings. "Meral's statement is not surprising because nothing that the BDCP has put forth is a credible plan to protect the estuary. Of course the Delta can't be saved if the BDCP is going to take all of the water and ship it south for cotton, pomegramates and pistachios."
In other BDCP news, Restore the Delta said the Brown Administration "appears to have canceled" a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis of its BDCP proposal for Peripheral Tunnels to export Sacramento San Joaquin/San Francisco BayDelta water, mainly to benefit unsustainable mega-farms on the west side of the Central Valley.
"The decision to hide the total costs from public scrutiny once again reveals how the Brown Administration is continuing to doctor up the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a fatally flawed plan, in order to sell it as something that it's not to Californians," according to a news release from RTD.
RTD Executive Director Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla (http://www.restorethedelta.org) said, "In refusing to conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the Peripheral Tunnels, the Brown Administration is not following the guidelines established by its own agencies. In its rush to build a project that would exterminate salmon runs, destroy sustainable family farms and saddle taxpayers with tens of billions in debt, mainly to benefit a small number of huge corporate agribusinesses on the west side of the Central Valley, the Administration has yet to complete a valid cost-benefit analysis of its Tunnels and seriously examine a no-tunnels solution."
"It's little wonder the Brown Administration is backing away from a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. The only one done to date showed the benefits were $7 billion short of the costs," Barrigan-Parrilla added.
The news that April revenues are higher than expected is unambiguous good news. However, this being budget news, there are always caveats. First, the bottom line:
California's tax revenues began 2013 stronger than expected and will end the all-important month of April some $3.5 billion ahead of Gov. Jerry Brown's assumptions.(John Myers / News10)
Given the past decade, you can't help but smile upon those numbers. However, Gov. Brown has already said that he isn't keen to spend any of the excess quite yet. First of all, much of that money will be automatically diverted to make up for funds cut out of Prop 98 K12 education guarantees. And there is still speculation that a lot of the money was one-time bonuses given out by businesses before the Prop 30 tax increases took hold.
There are sure to be debates in the Legislature about providing additional funding for some of the very worthy programs that were slashed over the last few years. However, don't expect Gov. Brown to go along with most of that additional spending, as he has already indicated that he'd prefer to save any excess revenue.
All that being said, it is certainly refreshing to be in the situation of discussing excess revenue than our tired budget slashing debates of past years.
New PPIC poll show support for additional local control
by Brian Leubitz
The PPIC poll, besides taking the standard poll numbers for the governor and Legislature, focuses on an issue at each release. This month, they take a look at what we know of our education system, and what we can do to improve it. But first, you can see from the graph that Gov. Brown is down slightly from his 51% peak in January, but still hovering in a pretty solid position. Without any recognizable challenger on the horizon, these are numbers that should carry him to an easy re-election. However, the political types always prefer to see the approval number above 50%, but there just aren't any California politicians that really have any numbers that are better now.
The legislature also peaked in January, when they almost reached parity with their disapproval numbers (41-42). They continue a dive back to their normal numbers, this time at 31-53. January's highs are probably not all that surprising, given the freshly balanced budget that was emerging at the beginning of the year due to the passage of Prop 30. And then, as we tend to not trust our politicians in California, no news is bad news and numbers trend down. But without the major crises that we faced a few years back with our budget, perhaps the new normal on those numbers is higher now.
Moving on to education, we get something of a mixed bag. First of all, few Californians know just how much are schools are being starved of resources. Only 36% knew that we were near the bottom of the fifty states in per pupil spending. On the flip side, more survey respondents (47%) knew that California ranks below average for test results.
But what of those test results? How valuable are they really? Well, here is how Californians see the value of testing:
When asked how confident they are that standardized tests accurately indicate a student's progress and abilities, about half of Californians say they are very (11%) or somewhat (42%) confident, while 44 percent are not too confident (27%) or not at all confident (17%). Californians were more confident about testing in April 2006 than they are today (63% vs. 53%). Californians are more likely to say that students in their communities get the right amount of testing in elementary and middle school schools (40%) and high school (39%) than they are to say that students get too much testing (24% elementary and middle school, 21% high school) or not enough (29% elementary and middle school, 31% high school).
To be completely honest, I'm not sure what you are supposed to make of those numbers. Apparently we do too much, but too little, but exactly the right amount of testing.
And that is not where the contradictions end. We like our local schools, but every other school isn't so great. Perhaps that is a result of a real desire for additional local control. In fact, 78% of respondents said that they would support additional local control of the school districts.
Finally, and most importantly for the Governor, large majorities (71%) also favor his plan to increase funding more rapidly for schools with higher percentages of English language learners and low-income students, with 74% believing that system will improve the results.
Clearly there is a much larger discussion still to come about school funding over the next few months.
The Brown administration Wednesday unveiled three additional chapters of the preliminary draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels, including chapters on ecological effects, implementation, and governance.
The document release drew fire from Delta and fish advocates, who said the ecological "effects analysis" was nothing more than a "rationale for conveyance."
California Secretary for Natural Resources John Laird, who presided over record fish kills and water exports at the South Delta pumping facilities in 2011 and the fast-tracking of the privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act Initiative to create oil industry-backed "marine protected areas," claimed that the effects analysis was based on "science."
"At the beginning of the Brown administration, we made a long-term commitment to let science drive the Bay Delta Conservation Plan," claimed Laird. "Today, with the public unveiling of the effects analysis, we make that a reality. Science has and will continue to drive a holistic resolution securing our water supply and substantially restoring the Delta's lost habitat."
"This project relies on 40 years of scientific study of the Delta's ecosystem," echoed California Department of Water Resources Director Mark Cowin. "It aims to change the way we divert water from the Delta to better protect fish, and it ties future water deliveries to the health of the Delta's fish and wildlife populations."
The draft chapters released Wednesday describe the anticipated ecological effects and proposed governance structure of the BDCP. "The 50-year plan seeks the recovery of native fish and wildlife species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta while also stabilizing water deliveries for 25 million Californians and three million acres of farmland," according to a news release from the agency.
The widely contested project proposes to divert a large proportion of the Sacramento River's flow into 35-mile long two tunnels beneath the Sacramento-San River Joaquin Delta. The water would be diverted at three massive new intakes proposed near Courtland in the North Delta.
Restore the Delta (RTD), a coalition opposed to the Brown regime's rush to construct massive peripheral tunnels to take millions of acre-feet of water from the Delta, said the revised BDCP proposal for the tunnels "pretends you can restore the Delta by draining it."
Delta advocates, including fishermen, tribal leaders, family farmers, grassroots environmentalists and numerous elected officials, believe the tunnel plan is a corporate water grab by agribusiness, oil companies and Southern California water agencies - with the "habitat restoration" in the plan added as an afterthought by state officials to green wash the destruction of the largest estuary on the West Coast.
"Between 2000 and 2011, more than 130,000,000 fish were 'salvaged' in the massive state and federal pumps diverting water to corporate agribusiness, oil companies and southern California developers," said Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA). (http://www.restorethedelta.org/restore-the-delta/cspa-bdcp-fish-screens-revised/)
"Recent studies have shown that 5 to 10 times more fish are killed than salvaged, so the actual number of fish lost could be 1.3 billion or higher," Jennings stated. "The massive diversion of water under the Brown administration resulted in 2011's 'salvage' of nearly 9 million Sacramento splittail and over 2 million other fish."
"Now, the Brown Administration magically declares that the peripheral tunnels will end this wholesale destruction. But there is no evidence to support this wild claim. The peripheral tunnels will destroy our fisheries," said Jennings.
Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta, exposed the ridiculousness of Brown administration claims that massive diversion tunnels will "save" fish.
"The Brown Administration is trying to save the fish by removing them from the water," said Barrigan-Parrilla. "The proposed peripheral tunnels would have disastrous effects on the fish populations of the Delta, yet the Brown sdministration dubs the tunnels a 'conservation measure.' That is ludicrous and shows the entire BDCP is set up to approve draining the Delta,"
Countering Laird and Cowin's wild claims that the BDCP is based on "science," Restore the Delta agreed with the National Academy Science's 2012 judgment that the effects analysis is still "nothing more than a rationale for a conveyance."
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) identified fresh water flow as a critical variable affecting the health of the Delta. "Statistical evidence and models suggest that both flows (amount of fresh water) and flow paths (route through the Delta) are critical to population abundance of many species in the Bay-Delta." (page 105).
Restoring the Delta and fish populations requires that "exports of all types will necessarily need to be limited in dry years," the NAS panel concluded.
"The peripheral tunnels are incompatible with restoring the Delta and fish populations," Barrigan-Parrilla emphasized. "Water contractors can't prove that moving the point of diversion would help threatened fish species. The BDCP's own February analysis showed that the amount of water they want to take would doom the species they intend to save, including Delta smelt."
Tunnels would let less water flow into Delta, increasing pollution
Jane Wagner-Tyack, policy analyst for Restore the Delta, pointed out that the tunnels would divert Sacramento River water away from the Delta, leaving a larger percentage of polluted water flowing into the Delta from the San Joaquin River, designated as an impaired water body by the State Water Resources Control Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
"The project would let less water flow into the Delta and would concentrate and increase the residence time of Delta pollution," noted Wagner-Tyack. "Because the Bay-Delta estuary contains several important fish species, including salmon and steelhead, the negative effects on the Delta that the project could create would have a devastating impact on these fish species and associated fishing and recreational jobs."
"The Brown administration's latest attempt to justify its peripheral tunnels adds another to three previous failed Effects Analysis studies, which were savagely trashed by the National Science Academy as "nothing more than a rationale for a conveyance," Wagner-Tyack continued.
She said the BDCP is leaving out the '$9 billion' ecosystem cost that will also be largely paid for by water ratepayers, through their taxes.
"They should say the plan also depends on $9 billion in ecosystem costs paid for with tax dollars, crowding out investments in local schools, health and welfare programs, or requiring a general tax increase," said Wagner-Tyack. "Divide that $9 billion by roughly 40 million Californians and you get $225 per capita, about $700 per household."
Inexplicably, the BDCP is not considering alternatives for meeting the " coequal goals" of ecosystem restoration and water supply. These proposals include the Environmental Water Caucus Plan, endorsed by dozens of environmental organizations, that could be evaluated.
Rather than "save" imperiled Delta fish populations, the BDCP will spread the carnage of Central Valley Chinook salmon, steelhead and other fish north to the Sacramento River while the massive fish kills at the state and federal water pumps in the South Delta will continue.
"Make no mistake," emphasized Caleen Sisk, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. "The peripheral tunnels will destroy river ecosystems, destroy fisheries and sentence us to a future where clean water is a luxury rather than a right."
Restore the Delta is encouraging people to attend a public meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 4, 2013 to discuss BDCP Chapters 4-7. The meeting will be held at the Red Lion Woodlake Conf. Center, 500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento from 12-6 p.m.
Project staff will be available to review Chapter 1-7 materials and discuss comments and questions beginning at 12 p.m. and continuing until 6 p.m. The presentation portion of the meeting will run from 1-5 p.m.
The meeting will be available via live video webcast and conference call.
Peripheral tunnel water could help expand fracking
As Laird and Cowin continue to promote the destruction of the Delta through the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, Delta advocates are alarmed about the role the water planned for export in the peripheral tunnels could play in increased fracking in California. (http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/peripheral-tunnel-water-will-go-to-agribusiness-and-oil-companies/)
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the controversial, environmentally destructive process of injecting millions of gallons of water, sand and toxic chemicals underground at high pressure in order to release and extract oil or gas, according to Food and Water Watch.
The oil industry, represented by Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association and the former chair of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called "marine protected areas" in Southern California, is now pushing for increasing fracking for oil and natural gas in shale deposits in Kern County and coastal areas.
"The Westlands Water District and Kern County Water Agency import water for the biggest agribusinesses and oil fields in the Central Valley," explained Adam Scow, California Campaigns Director at Food & Water Watch. "Now they've gotten Governor Brown to approve a massive tunnels project to bring them even more water, which they will sell for an enormous profit. Even worse, much of this water will go to oil companies who will pollute our groundwater with fracking."
Gov. Jerry Brown didn't like the prison receivership when he was Attorney General and tried to get it closed up. And he sure doesn't like it any more from the Horseshoe. And he let the world know about said dislike ahead of a hearing to consider the future of the prison receivership.
"During the life of these lawsuits, the prison health care budget has gone from $700 million to $2 billion. ... That money is coming out of the university, it's coming out of child care. It's a situation you wouldn't dream anyone would want."
The governor's comments came as lawyers prepare for a battle in Sacramento federal court later this month over whether the state is providing a constitutional level of mental health and medical care for inmates. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 27 on California's motion to terminate oversight of mental health care by U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton.(SacBee)
The costs of prison health care is never going to return to that $700 million figure, but realignment may have helped somewhat with the high costs. And of course, working to rehabilitate additional low-level offenders and get them out of the system would be the most efficient way to reduce costs. Some of the programs associated with the prison realignment will also help there as we clear out some of the worst of the overcrowding.
But don't expect any easy solutions when it comes to our prisons.
Abel Maldonado has had a rough go over the last few years. After getting appointed to Lt. Gov., he lost to Gavin Newsom for that job, and then lost to Lois Capps for a newly drawn Congressional seat.
Yet, he still represents something different for Republicans, which keeps people intrigued. He is a Latino and offers diversity that is otherwise absent from the GOP. But perhaps more than that, he has shown a flair for the dramatic moderate. Working with his fellow dramatic moderate, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, he swooped in several times to push the budget process forward. And so despite the recent losses, he gets plenty of coverage and attention.
All that makes him an intriguing candidate for the 2014 governor's race. What makes it more interesting for Maldonado is that he wouldn't have to make it through a Republican primary, a hurdle that might just be too high for a perceived moderate. The top-2 system would take care of that. Cue the whispers:
Saying he could "bring a different face" and a new Republican message to California, Maldonado told the Chronicle in an interview that he is strongly mulling the run against three term Democrat not only to strengthen the party, but also to encourage the kind of vibrant two-party political debate that makes for "a better state."
"I've been encouraged publicly, and privately," he said, to offer a challenge to Brown as the California Republican Party is in such dire straits that it appears the Democrat could easily sail to a fourth term without serious opposition.
"At this point in time, I'm seriously thinking about it," Maldonado said. "I think I need to decide sooner rather than later." (Carla Marinucci/SFGate)
Brown has one of the top two spots locked down, unless something seriously bizarre happens between now and next summer. The race for the second spot right now seems to be some third party candidates and Tim Donnelly, the minuteman leader and GOP Assemblyman who was recently cited for bringing a gun to an airport. In other words, the quest to the second spot is still wide open. Donnelly would surely draw some votes from the nativist set, but he really couldn't win a statewide election.
Brown, however, is quite popular after the success of Prop 30 and its temporary moratorium on the budget crisis. Maldonado carries a lot of baggage into any race at this point, but given the current field, he might just be the GOP's strongest candidate.
New funding scheme would give districts with high rates of English learners additional resources
by Brian Leubitz
The Department of Finance issued a report with a new funding scheme for K12 schools in the state, with bonuses going to schools with high percentages of English learners and low-income students. Both of these have been pri
The report has numbers for each school district in the state (there are a lot of them!) with old funding numbers and numbers after implementation.
There will certainly be a lot more discussion of these changes, but this is a good starting point on a way forward for school funding.
Brown admininistration officials used an announcement that water supplies from south Delta pumping facilities have been reduced significantly in early 2013 to protect Delta smelt as yet another opportunity to promote the construction of the controversial peripheral tunnels.
On February 8, further water restrictions were ordered as "take" of adult Delta smelt by the facilities approached the number allowed as "incidental" to project operations. Between Nov. 1, 2012 and Jan. 31, 2013, the pumping curtailment reduced deliveries from the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) to water districts in the Central Valley, Southern California, and San Francisco Bay Area by approximately 700,000 acre-feet - "enough to irrigate more than 200,000 acres of farmland or supply 1.4 million households for a year," according to Mark Cowin, Department of Water Resources Director.
"Even with restricted pumping, the number of Delta smelt salvaged at the federal and state water projects pumps reached 232 by Feb. 6, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that pumping should be curtailed even more significantly," according to Cowin. "The California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation -- operators of the CVP and SWP, respectively - are now conferring with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on measures to protect Delta smelt and provide for the water security of California."
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Regional Director Ren Lohoefener further explained the reasons for the pumping restrictions in a news release.
"The actions the Service are requesting were recommended by the joint federal-state Smelt Working Group and are intended to reduce the incidental take of delta smelt," said Lohoefner. ""The current water year has unfolded in a unique way and Reclamation and the Department of Water Resources have worked hard with the Service to find solutions during a difficult season. The agencies, including California Department of Fish and Wildlife, are closely monitoring the situation and are conferring on appropriate measures to protect delta smelt while ensuring the ongoing availability of water supplies for millions of Californians."
The Delta smelt, listed as "endangered" under the Endangered Species Act, is an indicator species found only in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The health of the smelt population demonstrates the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem - and protecting smelt is necessary to protecting Central Valley salmon, steelhead, Sacramento splittail, longfin smelt, striped bass, American shad, white sturgeon, green sturgeon and other fish species that use the estuary as a spawning ground, nursery, forage grounds and migratory corridor.
"The situation unfolding now in the Delta, in which both native fish and water supply reliability are compromised, is what multiple parties seek to address through the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)," Cowin claimed. "For the last six years, federal and state agencies, including the California Natural Resources Agency, have worked with water districts, environmental groups and other interested parties to craft this plan under the U.S. and California endangered species acts to restore the Delta ecosystem, stabilize water deliveries, and safeguard water supplies from a catastrophic flood and sea-level rise."
Cowin said the BDCP considers construction of new water intake structures along the Sacramento River, 35 miles north of the existing pumping plants in the south Delta. The proposal includes three separate intakes on the river, with a combined diversion capacity of 9,000 cubic feet per second. Twin tunnels would carry water beneath the Delta to the existing CVP and SWP pumps in the south Delta.
The BDCP also proposes to create at least 100,000 acres of wildlife habitat, including the tidal marsh and inundated floodplain.
Cowin claimed the "flexibility" provided under the operation of the BDCP's peripheral tunnels would have prevented these cutbacks on water to corporate agribusiness and water agencies.
"Modeling by the California Department of Water Resources shows that if such an alternative conveyance system had been in place this winter, the state and federal projects could have diverted approximately 700,000 acre-feet of additional water between Nov. 1, 2012 and Jan. 31, 2013 while still meeting all water quality and endangered species requirements," Cowin stated.
He noted that Delta smelt rarely move as far north in the Sacramento River as the proposed locations considered by the BDCP.
"This winter provides a case study in why we must find a better way to balance needs in the Delta," said Cowin. "The current plumbing configuration in the Delta serves neither people nor fish and wildlife well. Climate change will only increase the stress and conflict. California needs a rational discussion of the options presented by the BDCP, because to do nothing invites disaster."
"The current approach is untenable: It too often puts our native and imperiled fish species in the West Coast's largest estuary too close to the south Delta pumps," echoed California Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Charlton H. Bonham. "State and federal fishery agencies will continue to cast a critical eye on BDCP's specifics, but we are confident that in concept a new diversion point can reduce this conflict between a healthy estuary and water needs in our economy."
Both Bonham and Cowin told reporters that "state of the art" fish screens would be installed on the proposed intakes to stop the loss of Central Valley, salmon and other fish species.
Restore the Delta (RTD) criticized the latest episode in the Brown administration's campaign to construct peripheral tunnels to take millions of acre-feet of water from the Delta, mainly to benefit "mega-growers" on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The coalition pointed out the hypocrisy of the Brown administration saying it aims to "restore" the Delta when it has presided over record water exports out of the estuary.
"Time and time again, the best available Delta science has shown that Delta Smelt and other threatened fish species are on the brink of collapse due to too much water being taken out of the Delta," said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of RTD. "In the face of the threatened extinction of fish species, the Brown Administration has presided over record-high water exports."
The Brown administration presided over record water exports to corporate agribusiness and Southern California in 2011, resulting in the "salvage" of a record 9 million Sacramento splittail and over 2 million other fish including Central Valley salmon, steelhead, striped bass, largemouth bass, threadfin shad, white catfish and sturgeon. The state and federal pumping facilities exported 6,520,000 acre-feet in 2011 - 217,000 acre-feet more than the previous record of 6,303,000 acre-feet set in 2005.(http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/07/carnage-in-the-pumps)
Six Delta fish populations - Delta smelt, longfin smelt, threadfin shad, American shad, striped bass and Sacramento splittail - continue to plunge, as revealed by the results of the Department of Fish and Wildlife's fall midwater trawl survey. (http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/delta-122537-record-species.htm)
"Where was their deep concern for the Delta smelt, salmon and other species during the past two years? The Peripheral Tunnel proponents are proposing a new diversion for one purpose: get the Peripheral Tunnels built ASAP," she emphasized.
"For state officials to say that changing the diversion point is to protect Delta smelt, and not simply to provide more water for export, is disingenuous," said Barrigan-Parrilla. "The water-takers have failed for decades to install fish screens that work. Why would we believe their new Peripheral Tunnels would properly screen fish?"
She noted that the technology for the alleged "state of the art" fish screens to be placed at the new diversion point has not yet been developed.
"How can the Administration advocate that changing the diversion point with new intakes is the silver bullet to help Delta smelt, when they don't know if it will work? In addition, they don't know if fish can recover and survive when passing three large intakes," Barrigan-Parrilla.
She pointed out there are environmental laws that must be followed in changing any Delta diversion point. These laws include the state and federal Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, California Environmental Water Quality Act (CEQA), the Fish and Game Code and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, which mandated the doubling of anadromous fish populations, including Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, white and green sturgeon, Central Valley steellhead, striped bass and American shad by 2002.
"Officials cannot simply change the diversion point for Delta exports," said Barrigan-Parrilla. "They will have to move through processes with the State Water Resources Control Board, and show that this change will not have an adverse impact on Delta communities."
Meanwhile, the battle to stop the proposed Delta tunnels plumbing plan has a new footing in Southern California. The Southern California Watershed Alliance (SCWA), an organization headquartered in Santa Monica and committed to "bring reason, logic, and science" to the debate over water in California, produced television and web commercials to point people to their new web site, http://www.deltatunnelsboondog...
"It's simple, it's a boondoggle," said Conner Everts, SCWA Executive Director. "Southern California residents would get little water from the Delta Tunnels project - we only get 25% now and there is no new water- yet our water bills will skyrocket along with our taxes."
The Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA), responding to a Brown administration announcement that water supplies from South Delta pumping facilities have been cut significantly to protect Delta smelt, reminded the public and government officials that pumping restrictions are just as much about salmon as they are about Delta smelt.
As salmon go, so goes the water, the health of the Delta and salmon jobs up and down the state, according to GGSA (http://www.goldengatesalmonassociation.com).
"While the immediate reason water diversions are reduced in the delta is due to delta smelt being killed at the diversion pumps, the juvenile salmon are also out migrating through the delta now and are being killed by the pumps," said GGSA president Victor Gonella.
"We need natural delta flows to get our juvenile salmon safely to sea right now, especially since we're suffering from low rainfall. The federal government set up a careful system to balance the needs of our salmon and other wildlife against those who divert water from the delta. This system is working and must be respected," said Gonella.
In recent years, corporate agribusiness "Astroturf" groups and their political allies, such as talk show host Sean Hannity, have falsely portrayed the battle to restore Central Valley salmon and the Delta as a conflict between "a minnow" and "farmers" and "fish versus jobs."
In fact, Delta advocates point out that the conflict over Delta water is one between family farmers, sustainable fishermen and Indian Tribes working to restore salmon and other fish species to their historic abundance and corporate agribusiness interests seeking to divert more water to unsustainable, drainage impaired land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and to Southern California developers.
Currently, California's salmon industry is valued at $1.4 billion in economic activity annually and about half that much in economic activity and jobs again in Oregon, according to Gonella. The Sacramento River fall Chinook salmon run is the driver of salmon fisheries along the West Coast. The industry employs tens of thousands of people from Santa Barbara to northern Oregon.
"This is a huge economic bloc made up of commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen (fresh and salt water), fish processors, marinas, coastal communities, equipment manufacturers, the hotel and food industry, tribes, and the salmon fishing industry at large," said Gonella.
The Golden Gate Salmon Association is a coalition of salmon advocates that includes commercial and recreational salmon fisherman, businesses, restaurants, tribes, environmentalists, elected officials, families and communities that rely on salmon. Their mission is to "protect and restore California's largest salmon producing habitat comprised of the Central Valley river's that feed the Bay-Delta ecosystem and the communities that rely on salmon as a long-term, sustainable, commercial, recreational and cultural resource."
On February 8, further water restrictions were ordered as "incidental take" of adult Delta smelt by the facilities approached the number allowed by law. Between Nov. 1, 2012 and Jan. 31, 2013, the pumping curtailment reduced deliveries from the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) to water districts in the Central Valley, Southern California, and San Francisco Bay Area by approximately 700,000 acre-feet. This is "enough to irrigate more than 200,000 acres of farmland or supply 1.4 million households for a year," according to Mark Cowin, Department of Water Resources Director.
Even with restricted pumping, the number of Delta smelt salvaged at the federal and state water project pumps reached 232 by Feb. 6. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service then determined that pumping should be curtailed even more significantly. The California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation are now conferring with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on measures to protect Delta smelt.
The Delta smelt, listed as "endangered" under the Endangered Species Act, is an indicator species found only in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The health of the smelt population demonstrates the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem - and protecting smelt is necessary to protecting Central Valley salmon, steelhead, Sacramento splittail, longfin smelt, striped bass, American shad, white sturgeon, green sturgeon and other fish species that use the estuary as a spawning ground, nursery, forage grounds and migratory corridor.
Cowin and Chuck Bonham, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Director, used Tuesday's press conference about the pumping restrictions to promote the construction of controversial new water intake structures along the Sacramento River, 35 miles north of the existing pumping plants in the south Delta. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) tunnel proposal includes three separate intakes on the river, with a combined diversion capacity of 9,000 cubic feet per second. Twin peripheral tunnels would carry water beneath the Delta to the existing CVP and SWP pumps in the south Delta.
Cowin claimed the "flexibility" provided under the operation of the Bay peripheral tunnels would have prevented these cutbacks on water to corporate agribusiness and water agencies.
"This winter provides a case study in why we must find a better way to balance needs in the Delta," said Cowin. "The current plumbing configuration in the Delta serves neither people nor fish and wildlife well. Climate change will only increase the stress and conflict. California needs a rational discussion of the options presented by the BDCP, because to do nothing invites disaster."
Both Bonham and Cowin told reporters that "state of the art" fish screens would be installed on the proposed intakes to stop the loss of Central Valley, salmon and other fish species, although Delta and salmon advocates point out that the state and federal government and water contractors have failed to install state of the art fish screens on the existing pumping facilities in the South Delta, as was mandated by the CalFed program over a decade ago.
A broad coalition of family farmers, recreational and commercial fishermen, conservationists, environmental justice advocates and elected officials opposes the proposal to build the peripheral tunnels under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) because it would hasten the extinction of Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish species.
Restore the Delta (RTD) (http://www.restorethedelta.org) criticized the latest episode in the Brown administration's campaign to construct peripheral tunnels to take millions of acre-feet of water from the Delta, mainly to benefit "mega-growers" on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The coalition pointed out the hypocrisy of the Brown administration saying it aims to "restore" the Delta when it has presided over record water exports out of the estuary.
"Time and time again, the best available Delta science has shown that Delta Smelt and other threatened fish species are on the brink of collapse due to too much water being taken out of the Delta," said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of RTD. "In the face of the threatened extinction of fish species, the Brown Administration has presided over record-high water exports."
The Brown administration presided over record water exports to corporate agribusiness and Southern California in 2011, resulting in the "salvage" of a record 9 million Sacramento splittail and over 2 million other fish including Central Valley salmon, steelhead, striped bass, largemouth bass, threadfin shad, white catfish and sturgeon. The state and federal pumping facilities exported 6,520,000 acre-feet in 2011 - 217,000 acre-feet more than the previous record of 6,303,000 acre-feet set in 2005.(http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/07/carnage-in-the-pumps)
Six Delta fish populations - Delta smelt, longfin smelt, threadfin shad, American shad, striped bass and Sacramento splittail - continue to plunge, as revealed by the results of the Department of Fish and Wildlife's fall midwater trawl survey. (http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/delta-122537-record-species.htm)
"Where was their deep concern for the Delta smelt, salmon and other species during the past two years? The Peripheral Tunnel proponents are proposing a new diversion for one purpose: get the Peripheral Tunnels built ASAP," she emphasized.
It is not often that I read something on the FlashReport that I can agree with in the general substance. But, while the article was intended to be a slap at Jerry Brown, the Reason Foundation's (a right-wing libertarian group) Adrian Moore, PhD, takes on corporate subsidies.
Proponents argue that while cases such as Solyndra are unfortunate, they are a necessary evil that must be tolerated since the benefits of governmental "investing" in certain technologies or industries will, in their view, someday outweigh the costs. I'd point out that the government rarely knows what is both certainly beneficial and inadequately funded by the market, but even worse is a lousy investor, giving to well connected companies, not those with the best business plan, and not caring if the investments pay off or not, only the newsbite when the check is written.
The Reason/Howard Jarvis study looks at specific corporation tax and sales and use tax credits, deductions and exemptions in order to evaluate whether they serve their purpose. The argument offered in support of such tax breaks is that they will improve the lives or livelihoods of certain classes of individuals, businesses or industries. But their costs are frequently ignored. While they may encourage business activity in a certain sector of the economy, this comes at an unseen cost, which is the business activity that would otherwise have taken place in other sectors of the economy. (FR)
These all fairly reasonable points here. Perhaps California does spend too much on corporate subsidies to lure jobs. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves whether the government should be subsidizing corporations at all.
But this should be part of a larger conversation that we should be having at every level of government. The most visible examples of these subsidies come in the context of sports, where teams are lured with free land, tax credits, and sometimes a brand new stadium with a pretty bow on top. But it isn't just sports where we see this. In a great series in the New York Times, Louise Story investigates the troubling growth in tax subsidies that are going to specific corporations, and how an entire cottage industry has grown up to game the system. (She also gave a very interesting interview to Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air.)
The fact of the matter is that yes, California does spend a fair chunk of change on corporate subsidies. The Times quotes a figure of $4.17 billion, or $112 per Californian. But if you look to the right, you'll see that our $112 per capita pails in comparison to other states. Especially some very heavily Republican states. Alaska spends nearly a thousand dollars per person! And Rick Perry has spurred the people of Texas to spend over $750 per person. This turns out to be real money:
The math on the new deal angers former Amazon workers, especially those who are still unemployed. For Texas to give up more than $250 million in tax revenues in exchange for 2,500 jobs amounts to about $100,000 per job. Most distribution workers are paid $20,000 to $30,000 a year. The rest benefits the company's bottom line, which generally increases executive bonuses and shareholder returns.(NYT)
This is the new math of corporate subsidies and job creation. And, unfortunately, California carries a special burden in this area. Film subsidies have been some of the hottest growth areas, garnering a full story in the Times. States and cities find it attractive to get a movie shot in their area, and so spread the cash around. Michigan, Louisiana, and pretty much every other state have tried to lure Hollywood away from, well, Hollywood. (Canada has also been aggressive in this area as well.)
The article is on FlashReport, so of course, it is rather unnecessarily partisan. It calls out Gov. Brown, and name checks Solyndra, and the film tax credit. Solyndra, of course, being the big cause celebre of conservatives for collapsing under the weight of cheap solar panels being dumped on US shores after having received federal loan guarantees. And this being California, conservatives like Dr. Moore get to blame the evil liberals in the legislature for all these ills.
But Dr. Moore is probably right that we shouldn't be spending so heavily providing cash to corporations. He and I clearly disagree about what should come of that money, lowering the corporate tax rate would fall significantly behind investing in education and other priorities, but that's a topic for another time. Unfortunately, we live in a competitive world, and our governments are competitive as well. In many ways, it is something of a mutual self-injury pact. Local governments compete against one another, and the individual citizen gets lost in the shuffle.
Clearly, we, as a nation, need to do a better job of monitoring this process. And we need to have a conversation about whether it is in our best interest for states and municipalities to compete in this manner. Dr. Moore (and the NYT's Louise Story) do us a favor by raising this issue. It deserves serious consideration, perhaps with a touch less of the absurdly misplaced partisan rancor, about how we government goes about the task of "job creation."
January PPIC poll shows majorities support current financial path
by Brian Leubitz
For years, we were told that the people wanted divided government. That we couldn't mess with the 2/3 requirements because they were somehow sacrosanct. But that little chart on the right tells us otherwise.
To be honest, I've always felt that PPIC was a little soft on the Legislature. I mean, could you really find one in four people that really approved of the legislature a few years ago? But since we ditched the 2/3 budget requirement, and Democrats were forced to deal with the disaster themeselves, we've moved on. The finger pointing had to stop, and for the most part it has. The Republicans, having lost on Prop 30, and lost even their marginal relevance by failing to garner a third of the legislative seats, are simply trying to get attention any way they can.
With everything that happened last year, Prop 30, and the grassroots field campaign around Prop 32, Brown is now in a better position than most thought he would be after inheriting Arnold Schwarzenegger's mess. Yet on the most toxic of issues, the budget, somehow he has built the consensus that many doubted he could create:
When read a brief description of the governor's overall plan, 69 percent of adults say they favor it and 22 percent are opposed. Across parties, 79 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of independents, and a slim majority of Republicans-51 percent-are in favor. Brown's 2013-14 budget, which projects a small surplus for the first time in many years, proposes increasing spending on K-12 schools, higher education, and health and human services, as well as paying down the state's debt and creating a reserve. Support was far lower for Brown's budget plan in January 2012 (50%).
Of course, with the budget, the devil is always in the details. And summaries, by definition, skimp on those. Yet, the fact remains that Jerry Brown, and his allies, have somehow charted a middle path that eluded Gov. Schwarzenegger.
On other issues, California support for gun control grew substantially after the tragedy in Newtown, CT. From March 2012 to this poll, the number of Californians supporting additional restrictions grew from 53% to 65%. There is a lot more data on gun control at the PPIC site, especially if you care to dig down into the cross-tabs.
While you're there, you can also see that the President also maintained his popularity here, with a 65% approval rating overall, and a broad other swath of data. Go check it out.
Brown looks long-term on impending climate crisis
New PPIC poll show support for additional local control
