Jerry Brown, the California Attorney General and Democratic candidate for Governor, refused to take a position on the peripheral canal/tunnel and the $11.14 billion water bond in an interview with the Sacramento Bee Editorial Board, "Brown: Whitman's plans help the rich," published on September 25.
This is very alarming, considering that Brown supported the initiative in 1982 to build the canal, a measure that was overwhelming defeated by the state's voters. Brown and Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for Governor, are in a dead heat in the race, according to the latest Field Poll.
"Brown also said he would make resolving the state's water crisis a top priority, although he didn't indicate whether he supported an $11 billion bond to fund water infrastructure that may go before voters," according to the Bee (http://www.sacbee.com)
"It is just formidable," Brown told the Bee about the water issue. "I'm not going to put this on a back burner. While I'm working at the budget in the daytime, I'll be studying the peripheral canal at nighttime."
The Legislature and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, due to their fear that the unpopular water bond would be defeated by the voters on November 2, recently voted to delay the bond until November 2012. The fact that this measure has been postponed until the 2012 ballot makes it even more imperative that Brown adopts a position against the water bond, a virtual festival of park.
In regards to overall water and fishery issues, the environmental solutions that Brown lists on this website (http://www.jerrybrown.org) are very vague about what he would do for collapsing California fish populations.
"Fish populations in California, including salmon, steelhead and trout, are in serious trouble," he states.
He then offers the following broad, generic "solutions" to address the crisis of parks and wildlife areas and fish populations in the state:
"Assure funding to maintain existing parks and wildlife areas.
Protect vulnerable species and habitat through conservation agreements and enforcement of state resource protection laws.
Take reasonable steps to ensure a healthier habitat for California's unique fish species by limiting sediment and other runoff entering streams, replacing culverts that impede fish passage with salmon-friendly pipes, and working with local ranchers to fence off cattle from sensitive streams."
These "solutions" show that Brown either hasn't studied these issues carefully or is afraid to advocate more specific solutions in an apparent effort to avoid alienating campaign donors or potential voters.
Some fish advocates fear that Brown may be reluctant to take a position on the canal/tunnel and water bond because Stewart Resnick, the Beverly Hills agribusiness tycoon who owns 120,000 acres of farmland in Kern County, is a big contributor to the Brown campaign. Resnick is a strong supporter of the water bond and peripheral canal and a relentless opponent of the federal biological opinions protecting imperiled salmon and smelt. On November 11, 2009, Resnick and his wife, Lynda, the co-owner of the giant Paramount Farms and Roll Corporation, wrote four checks totalling $50,000 for the Brown campaign.
To date, the Brown campaign has refused to respond to my questions about the peripheral canal, water bond, restoration efforts for endangered salmon, Delta smelt and other species, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initative.
Republican Candidate Meg Whitman hasn't responded yet to my questions either, but she has been very vocal in her positions in support of the water bond and peripheral canal and has strongly opposed Delta pumping restrictions to protect endangered Delta smelt and chinook salmon since she began her campaign.
Whitman has adopted a strong position in support of the water bond and peripheral canal, even though she conceded at a speech in San Diego in February that "there is probably $2 to $3 billion in unnecessary expenses in that bill."
"If we don't pass this water bill and we go back to the drawing board on negotiations, we will be having the same conversation five years from now, 10 years from now," Whitman told the San Diego Union-Tribune on February 26. "The farmers won't be better off, and we will not have a stable water supply for L.A. County, San Diego, Orange County."
Whitman's Website (http://www.megwhitman.com), reporting on her visit to Fresno on May 29, 2009, proclaimed, "As governor, she said she would stick with her conviction that saving jobs takes precedence and would use emergency powers to order more pumping from the Delta. In the longer term, she supports more above- and below-ground storage facilities and the construction of a peripheral canal in addition to conservation efforts."
Whitman has also completely sided with corporate agribusiness - and against working men and women in the fishing industry devastated by the Central Valley salmon population collapse - in supporting increased pumping out of the Delta. On May 26, 2010, she issued a statement prairsing Federal Court Judge Oliver Wanger's decision to temporarily lift the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta pumping restrictions protecting endangered salmon Central Valley populations.
"I am encouraged by the Federal Court's decision earlier this week that ruled to temporarily lift the pumping restrictions in order to increase water deliveries to the Central Valley," said Whitman. "This is just a start. We need a comprehensive solution and strong leadership to really fix California's water crisis."
While Brown refuses to take a stand on key water issues including the water bond, peripheral canal and salmon restoration, we at least know where Whitman stands. She is allied completely with corporate agribusiness interests and southern California water agencies who are doing everything they can to pressure the state of California to build a huge canal/tunnel, export more water from the Delta and push collapsing populations of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon and other species over the abyss of extinction.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on August 10 signed Assembly Bill 1265 (Caballero and Jeffries), a measure that would delay the controversial $11.14 billion water bond until November 2012.
Schwarzenegger signed the bill to delay Proposition 18 the day after it passed through the Assembly on a 54-22 vote - the bare minimum required for a two-thirds vote. The Senate approved the measure on a 27-7 vote earlier that day.
In contrast with usual plethora of press releases, photos and video clips that the Governor's Office sends to media outlets whenever he signs a bill, the bill signing was only indicated by a terse announcement from his office that AB 1265 and a companion measure, AB 1260 (Fuller) had been signed. AB 1260 specifies that the newly-appointed members of the California Water Commission, the panel charged with allocating funding for surface storage projects if the bond is approved by voters, are to serve a four-year term expiring in May 2014.
The lack of support by Californians for Schwarzenegger's water bond spurred the Legislature to delay this measure, so there wasn't really any way that the Governor and his publicists could spin this as a "victory." Bond opponents, who campaigned for the outright repeal of the bond, still consider the delay a huge victory for environmental justice, imperiled Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations and all Californians.
"In the end, the push to postpone the bond to 2012 passed by the smallest of margins," said Elanor Starmer of Food and Water Watch, who described the vote as a situation of "when a loss is still a victory."
"It's not what bond opponents wanted," Starmer stated. "Ideally, the legislature would have seen the light and scrapped it altogether, or let the voters pull the plug this November so we could get to work on better approaches."
However, she noted that despite the passage of a bill that keeps the bond alive for another two years, "bond opponents should claim victory."
"The pro-bond lobby, which includes deep-pocketed construction, developer and agribusiness interests, wanted to see the bond passed this year," she stated. "Passing it was a priority for the Schwarzenegger administration; the governor's PAC, Schwarzenegger's California Dream Team, funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pro-bond campaign."
Dave Cogdill, a cosponsor of the bill, and other bond proponents lauded the passage of AB 1265.
"At the end of last year, the Legislature made history by approving the first major investment in our water infrastructure in almost half a century," claimed Cogdill, who authored the legislation initially authorizing the bond for voter approval. "Mindful of the current economic slowdown, I support the move to give voters more time to understand this critical investment and give the state's economy more time to rebound."
"We know the decision to move the bond to the November 2012 ballot was a difficult one, but we applaud legislative leaders for working together to guide this through the process and set a new date to place this important measure before the voters," echoed Paul Kelley, president of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA).
Bond opponents blasted the bond for funding the infrastructure needed to build the peripheral canal and new dams. Due to overwhelming opposition to the bond by fishing groups, environmentalists, Indian Tribes, labor unions, family farmers and Delta residents, the Governor will leave office without setting in place the infrastructure for the canal that he has so relentlessly campaigned for over the past three years.
A bi-partisan coalition of legislators worked hard to prevent AB 1265 from passing, knowing that the water bond "would not get better with time," according to the No on 18 Campaign. Assemblymember Jared Huffman, who led the charge in the Assembly to pass last year's water package, was a vocal opponent of now delaying the bond.
Legislators of both parties, including the entire Delta delegation of Democrats Mariko Yamada and Joan Buchanan and Republican Bill Berryhill, joined Huffman in the Assembly. Twenty-two assembly members stood firm with the many environmental, fishing, tribal, labor and consumer groups opposing AB 1265.
In the Senate, Senator Lois Wolk of Davis, another Delta legislator, rallied the Democrats who had opposed the bond last year. Senators Corbett, DeSaulnier, Hancock, Para, Leno and Yee joined with Republican George Runner in opposing AB 1265.
The No on Proposition 18 legislative co-chairs, Senator Lois Wolk (D) and Assemblymember Bill Berryhill (R), portrayed the delay as a victory and vowed to defeat the bond two years from now.
"While we may have (narrowly) lost the fight to keep the bond on this ballot, we must remember that they're moving it in the first place because of the hard work and dedication of everyone on this team," said Assemblymember Bill Berryhill (R - Ceres). "This is a victory for us. As long as we use the next two years to continue to work together and educate people on this bond, I know we can defeat it just as soundly two years from now."
"I welcome the action taken to remove the bond from the 2010 ballot, although simply postponing it to 2012 has done nothing to address my concerns or the concerns of the voters," said Senator Lois Wolk (D - Davis). "It is still bloated with unnecessary pork and still fails to address the most important water issue in the state, the unsustainable over-reliance on the Delta for our water supply."
"I intend to get to work with other legislators and water policy advocates on a smart water financing plan that focuses on reducing our reliance on the Delta. A plan that is in touch with our times and recognizes our fiscal realities, not a lobbyist driven wish-list that saddles our children and grandchildren with more and more debt," said Wolk.
Representatives of environmental, fishing and tribal groups agreed with Wolk and Berryhill.
"We heard a laundry list of reasons why the bond is bad for California during the legislative debate on AB 1265," said Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta. "Yet the legislature voted to keep the measure afloat for another two years. The problems with the bond will only grow more glaring with time."
Voter disapproval of the bond has been strong since its razor-thin passage in November 2009 in during a special session called by Schwarzenegger. Faced with certain defeat by the voters in November, Schwarzenegger and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg decided to postpone the bond for two years.
"The existing bond should have been withdrawn permanently, not delayed," said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. "In 2012, we need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a bond measure that will foster water conservation, water reuse and ground water management and provide permanent protection for the Delta and fish."
Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu (McCloud River) Tribe, was disappointed by the Legislature's refusal to repeal the bond at a time that California is in its greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
"We're looking at a massive deficit in the state, with services being cut left and right, and the legislators are still pushing this massive log up a road that leads nowhere," said Franco. "They're blocking all traffic to all of the good things that they could be doing, such as promoting water use efficiency programs and making sure that we have sufficient water in the rivers for the salmon and other fish that we are trying to bring back."
The work by the broad coalition that organized against the bond and peripheral canal kept the Water Bond from being passed this year but it isn't over yet. The Governor and his collaborators will continue to push his schemes to build the canal and new dams through his Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process and the Delta Stewardship Council.
The peripheral canal, backed by Governor Schwarzenegger, corporate agribusiness, and southern California water agencies, is likely to lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whale populations. The canal/tunnel would cost an estimated $23 billion to $53.8 billion, according to economist Steven Kasower.
Opponents of the water bond include a broad array of environmental, fishing, tribal, consumer, family farming, labor and family farming groups.
Organizations opposing the bond include the California Teachers Association, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Sea Urchin Commission, Clean Water Action, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Friends of the River, Food and Water Watch, Inter-Tribal Water Commission of California, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the Delta, Sierra Club California, United Farmworkers Union, Winnemem Wintu Tribe and many others.
By Elanor Starmer, Food & Water Watch Western Region Director
On Monday night, the California legislature voted on a proposal to postpone Proposition 18, the $11 billion water bond, to the 2012 ballot. For bond opponents, there were moments of celebration, as when Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-Santa Rosa), a bond supporter last year, spoke in favor of pulling the bond from the ballot indefinitely. There were also moments of frustration, as when bond opponent Sandre Swanson (D- Alameda/Oakland) flipped his vote last minute and opted to keep the bond afloat for another two years.
In the end, the push to postpone the bond to 2012 passed by the smallest of margins. It's not what bond opponents wanted. Ideally, the legislature would have seen the light and scrapped it altogether, or let the voters pull the plug this November so we could get to work on better approaches.
But despite the passage of a bill that keeps the bond alive for another two years, bond opponents should claim victory.
The pro-bond lobby, which includes deep-pocketed construction, developer and agribusiness interests, wanted to see the bond passed this year. Passing it was a priority for the Schwarzenegger administration; the governor's PAC, Schwarzenegger's California Dream Team, funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pro-bond campaign. Our recent study found hundreds of thousands of additional dollars flowing to the campaign from the agribusiness industry and construction associations.
But faced by strong opposition from a voting public increasingly fed up with Sacramento's misguided priorities, bond supporters started backpedaling last month. Schwarzenegger called for the bond to be postponed to 2012, when he hoped it would have a better chance of passing. He and other supporters were quoted in the press as saying that the bond was untenable this year given the state's poor economic condition.
In effect, they admitted that we can't afford the bond -- now or ever. Because as much as we can all hope for a miraculous economic turnaround in the next two years, a $22 billion hit to the General Fund is still $22 billion less the state will have available to fund education, healthcare, public safety and other essential services, regardless of when the blow falls.
And why should we endure such a hit even in the best of economic times? Historically, major water infrastructure projects in California have been governed by a "beneficiary pays" principle -- the interests that will benefit from the investment should foot the bill. The passage of this bond would change that. Our study showed that the bond would shift the burden of paying for new dams, desalination plants, and other projects -- some of which can be owned and operated by private companies -- squarely to ordinary Californians, even though they are not the projects' main beneficiaries.
And given the growing trend of profit-loaded water sales from wealthy landowners to urban water users, consumers would risk paying again in the form of higher water rates if we passed a bond that funneled yet more water to the same powerful interests.
There were many factors behind the decision of the pro-bond lobby to push for postponement, including other ballot measures that were drawing resources away from their campaign. But many media sources also noted "organized opposition to the bond" as one rationale behind the Governor's decision to ask for postponement. For that reason, Prop 18 opponents have cause to celebrate.
The bond is still in play. Pro-bond interests have retreated to the huddle, dreaming up new ways to convince voters to hand over control over their water. They may come back to the fight with more money and political bravado, but Californians are smart and don't like being double-crossed. We're prepared for the long fight.
Consumer group outlines who's paying for pro-water bond campaign and the surprising winners-and losers-behind the massive $11 billion bond
SAN FRANCISCO - Developers, agribusiness and construction interests would benefit from the water bond on this fall's ballot, while public services-such as education and public health programs-could suffer, according to a new analysis from consumer organization Food & Water Watch.
As California's legislators return to Sacramento this week to decide the fate of Proposition 18, an $11 billion water bond that the governor hopes to postpone to the 2012 ballot, the group today released an independent analysis detailing the funders of the pro-bond campaign and the interests that stand to benefit from the most expensive water bond in the state's history. The fact sheet, Who's Behind the Bond?, can be downloaded here: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.o...
"Proposition 18 is being sold as a solution that will benefit all Californians, but over half of the contributions to the Alliance for Clean Water and New Jobs, the main political action committee behind the bond, come from agribusiness, construction and development interests," said Elanor Starmer, Western Region Director for Food & Water Watch. "The bond provides more money for these interests, which have mismanaged our water in the past."
The bond would cost the state's General Fund an estimated $800 million a year, enough to fund 13,000 teachers' salaries or a quarter of the University of California's state funding each year, according to the report. But while taxpayers would likely see cuts to these and other essential services if the bond passed, they would not be the main beneficiaries of bond-funded projects.
Food & Water Watch examined campaign finance reports and other documents to determine who contributed to the pro-bond PAC directly and indirectly through other PACs, such as Schwarzenegger's California Dream Team.
The group then investigated several primary beneficiaries of the water bond based on the text of the bill and other documents. Some beneficiaries, such as powerful Central Valley corporate farms and The Westlands Water District, are well known. Other less obvious beneficiaries include Warren Buffet, large construction companies like Japan-based Obayashi Corp., and companies in the business of privatizing water resources like American Water Company and Poseidon Resources.
The analysis concludes that these interests, not the general public, are the main beneficiaries of the water bond, although the cost of the bond would be borne by all taxpayers.
With polls showing lagging support for the bond, Governor Schwarzenegger asked the legislature last month to delay the measure until the 2012 ballot. Any adjustment to Prop 18, including postponement, requires a two-thirds majority vote in the legislature. The legislature has until around Aug. 20, when ballots will be printed, to postpone or remove the measure from the ballot.
"Our report shows that the bond does not benefit the taxpayers who would foot the bill for these projects," said Food & Water Watch's Starmer. "In the interest of all Californians, legislators should take this opportunity to repeal the bond and start anew, not postpone it."
Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.
Governor Schwarzenegger isn't the only celebrity weighing in on California's water future. He may be promoting Proposition 18, a massive $11 billion water bond to help big agribusiness at the expense of essential services (see our Terminator video), but most of Californians know the water bond is all wet.
With Prop 18 sagging poll numbers, the Governor and legislative leaders are trying to move the measure until 2012. We asked a few of our friends in Hollywood what they thought of the water bond and the prospect postponing it for two years. They all had the same reaction - they spit in disgust - and we captured it all on video!
Coined by its backers as the Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act, the only thing the $11 billion water bond is guaranteed to do is increase the state's $19 billion deficit leading to deeper cuts in education, healthcare, public safety and
state park funding, build new dams, and lay the ground work for a peripheral
canal around the San Joaquin River Delta. In reality, it should be named the Expensive, Dubious and Deceptive Corporate Subsidy Act.
To highlight the need to scrap rather than delay the water bond, Food & Water Watch teamed up with creative geniuses Nancy Hower and John Lehr who put together this clever spot featuring well known television personalities. The ad features David DeLuise from Wizards of Waverly Place, Anna Belknap of CSI: NY, Kelli Williams from Lie
to Me and formerly on The Practice, and Justine Bateman, best known for Family
Ties.
"We love Food & Water Watch so much, we happily wiped our celebrities' spit off the plexi-glass protecting the camera," said Lehr. "We support keeping water publicly owned, pure, accessible and drinkable...straight from the tap. Proposition 18 is a massive waste of money and won't help California's future water needs."
"I love water," said David DeLuise. "Without it I would smell funny and be thirsty and I might die."
While the ad makes a serious point, it also had side benefits for some of the actors. Said Kelli Williams, "I have never in my life drunk that much water in one sitting. I was marvelously hydrated."
The spot is part of the No on 18 campaign to scrap the water bond rather than have it delayed until 2012. To take action and get involved, go to www.nowaterbond.com/spit. Help spread the word by sharing the video. Together we can work to stop this bond, and get back to work on real solutions to California's water future.
A Field poll released last week on California's November ballot measures turned up an interesting finding: Proposition 18, the $11 billion water bond, is backed by Democrats and self-identified liberals by a margin of greater than two to one.
Guess these voters hadn't checked the endorsement list. Backers of the bond include major agribusiness industry associations, Southern California developers, and Meg Whitman. In contrast, opponents of the bond include the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, Food & Water Watch, California Teachers Association and many others. State legislators Tom Ammiano, Mark Leno and Leland Yee also oppose it.
The passage of the water bond, which was part of a massive package of water bills debated by the legislature in November, is a top priority for Governor Schwarzenegger - to the point where he has suggested moving it to the 2012 ballot if its prospects look too meek this year.
But the bond's name - the "Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Act of 2010" - and the meager amounts of money included in it for projects that Bay Area progressives support have complicated things. Bond proponents like to emphasize that the bond will fund conservation, local water projects, and wildlife habitat restoration.
Never mind that funding for those laudable efforts is insufficient at best, may never materialize given the state's poor credit rating, and will only be available after billions of dollars are paid out for projects like the construction of more dams, a 19th Century approach to managing water that is anything but progressive.
The bulk of the bond's funding would continue the status quo of water policy in California, policy that has led to the overuse and abuse of our water resources.
Statewide, wells serving more than 2 million Californians have been shown to have elevated levels of nitrate, a contaminant from fertilizer and animal manure that can cause oxygen depletion in babies. One of the dams vying for funding from the bond would funnel three-quarters of its water to agribusinesses responsible for this kind of contamination - and would require no change in how these companies manage the water.
The bond would do nothing to reduce water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which effectively means that the decline of Pacific Coast salmon populations will continue unchecked. The next time a pro-bond spokesperson mentions how many jobs will be created if the bond is passed (to the joy of all those out-of-work dam builders?), consider the tradeoffs we will see in our fishing communities on the coast.
There is little in the bond that could be considered a public benefit. Only about 2% of bond funding is guaranteed for conservation efforts, and only 1% is slated for disadvantaged communities that shoulder some of the state's worst water problems. The beneficiaries of the bond will overwhelmingly be agribusinesses and Southern California developers that support the Governor, to whom the bulk of our state's water will continue to flow.
But unlike past bonds that require the beneficiaries of the projects to pay for them, this bond sends the bill to Main Street. Prop 18 is what's called a general obligation bond, meaning that debt repayment comes from the state's General Fund. This is the same fund that pays for essential public services like higher education, healthcare and home care, police and fire services, and state parks.
Those of us who have not been living under a rock are aware that these services can hardly afford more cuts. Debt repayment on the water bond will cost the state $800 million a year for 30 years - enough to insure 900,000 children under the Healthy Families program for four years, or employ 12,000 teachers.
In the past, the Bay Area has supported water bonds for a good reason: They have provided, on average, a much greater share of funding for projects like drinking water quality improvement, assistance for disadvantaged communities, and local water projects.
But not all bonds are created equal. Supporting Prop 18 will require us to pay out billions for projects that will not benefit us before we see any money for projects that could. And the budgetary impact will gut important programs that improve our social safety net and quality of life.
Bay Area legislators overwhelmingly opposed the bond when it came before them for a vote last November. Now, with the Governor's announcement that he will seek to postpone the bond to the 2012 ballot, our legislators have an important opportunity. If and when the bond is reconsidered, they should vote to repeal it completely, not simply delay the pain for another two years. (Check out this video for some amusing fodder on why the bond should be scrapped, not postponed.)
The silver lining in last week's Field Poll was the finding that most respondents had not heard of the bond before they were asked about it. Let's hope that progressive voters across the state take the time to find out the truth about the bond before they see it on their ballots. More information is available at nowaterbond.com.
Elanor Starmer is the Western Region Director of Food & Water Watch (www.foodandwaterwatch.org), a consumer advocacy group in San Francisco, and part of the statewide coalition to oppose Proposition 18.
If nothing else, Governor Schwarzenegger has given us the gift of the endless parody. Even before he was the Governator, we enjoyed snickering at his larger than life caricature. His performance as Governor, however, has been far from funny. Ratcheting up a $19 Billion deficit while pushing public safety professionals out of their jobs, laying off teachers, slashing health and social services, and kicking family farmers where it hurts most has been a real tear-jerker.
To curb the tears with laughter, Food & Water Watch has compiled a simultaneously funny and sad montage of Arnold's most memorable film moments to accentuate the devastating consequences that the $11 Billion Water Bond would have on California.
Unsurprisingly, the bond is unpopular with voters across the state. Seeing the writing on the wall, Schwarzenegger and his cronies -- who represent the interest of corporate backers -- have asked the legislature to move Prop 18 to the 2012 ballot. Why? So they can spend more money trying to hoodwink the public into believing constructing more dams, putting a down payment on a peripheral canal, and giving corporate interests more control of our water supply is in everyone's best interest. Is this Arnold's way of taunting us with his infamous phrase, "I'll be back" long after he rolls his Hummer out of Sacramento? NOOOOO!
This is our chance to play Terminator and say "hasta la vista, baby" to the water bond. Watch the video. Share it with your friends. Send a strong message to your legislators that the water bond should be sent to the scrapyard to be replaced by solid, equitable water policies that benefit all Californians.
Fearing the overwhelming opposition to his $11.14 water bond (Proposition 18), Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today said he will work with the Legislature to postpone the controversial initiative until 2012 to "avoid jeopardizing its passage."
"After reviewing the agenda for this year, I believe our focus should be on the budget -- solving the deficit, reforming out of control pension costs and fixing our broken budget system," said Schwarzenegger. "It's critical that the water bond pass, as it will improve California's economic growth, environmental sustainability and water supply for future generations."
Schwarzenegger noted that there are precedents for legislators delaying bond measures that they placed on the ballot. For example, state leaders in May 2004 passed a bill to delay voting on the high-speed rail bond until November 2006. They later delayed the vote again until November 2008, when it eventually passed as Proposition 1A.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), who collaborated with Schwarzenegger to pass the water policy-bond package through the special legislative session last November without the input of fishermen, Delta farmers, California Indian Tribes, environmental justice communities and the majority of environmental groups, supported the Governor's call to postpone the bond.
"Given the challenges currently facing California, I agree with the governor the water bond should be postponed,'' Steinberg said.
The coalition working for the passage Proposition 18, the Alliance for Clean Water and Jobs, also agreed that the bond should be delayed until 2012.
"The water bond represents a truly comprehensive solution to fix the problems in the Delta, increase conservation and recycling, and expand the availability and quality of water supplies in every region of the state," said Jim Earp, co-chair of the alliance.
"We're confident that when presented to voters, they will approve the measure," Earp claimed. "However, in light of the economic situation, we agree with the Governor and legislative leaders that the best timing for the water bond is in 2012. We support postponing the bond to 2012."
Opponents of the water bond had mixed reactions to the Governor's announcement, ranging from wanting to keep the bond on the ballot so it is roundly defeated to asking for the complete scrapping of the bond.
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta, said she hopes that the bond will stay on the ballot so Californians can decisively vote it down - just like they did with the peripheral canal in 1982.
"The Governor led the campaign to create this bond, so he owns it," said Barrigan-Parrilla. "We hope the Legislature continues to support the bond as they did in November. Let California voters decide - we are confident that the voters will vote against the bond."
"The Governor started this fight and we would like to finish it," she emphasized.
"We call on the Legislature to scrap this $11 billion bond and start over," said Jim Metropulos of Sierra Club California. "Even if it is delayed to a future ballot it will continue to be a bad back room deal, hatched in the dark of the night and loaded up with billions of dollars in pork projects to buy off votes."
"Even if it is delayed to a future ballot, it will still mean billions more dollars in debt for our State," Metropulos added. "Even if it is delayed to a future ballot, it will not address the key points needed to fix our water infrastructure or create sustainable water policy. Moving the initiative to another election will not lessen our opposition!"
"The legislature is considering pulling Proposition 18 off of the ballot because of a lack of support," said Elanor Starmer, Western Region Director with Food & Water Watch, a consumer advocacy group that is part of the No on Proposition 18 coalition. "The problem is not the timing of the initiative, but the package itself. Californians will reject this massive bond regardless of when it appears on a ballot because it benefits corporate interests, not Californians."
The Governor's statement was preceded just a few hours by the No on the Water Bond's announcement that the California Teachers Association (CTA) State Council voted during its June meeting to oppose Proposition 18.
"We can't afford an $11 billion water bond," said David Sanchez, President of CTA. "With an already outrageous budget deficit, California can't afford an additional $1 billion every year, taking even more money away from our students, our schools and other essential services."
Proposition 18, the so-called Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, would end up costing the state of California $22 billion once the interest is factored in.
The $11.14 billion water bond is part and parcel of the campaign by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and corporate agribusiness to build a peripheral canal and new dams, according to bond opponents. The canal is likely to result in the extinction of Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales populations. The peripheral canal/tunnel would cost $23 billion to $53.8 billion at a time when California has slashed the budgets for teachers, game wardens, state parks and health care for children.
No on the Water Bond (Proposition 18) is sponsored by a coalition of consumer, education, environmental, fishing, farming, tribal, labor and social justice organizations opposed to the water bond.
Proposition 18 opponents include the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the River, Inter-Tribal Water Commission, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the Delta, Sierra Club California, United Farmworkers Union and Winnemem Wintu Tribe.
Supporters of Proposition 18 include the Association of California Water Agencies, California Chamber of Commerce, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Western Growers Association and Westlands Water District. Two environmental NGOs, the Nature Conservancy California and Audubon California, back the bond.
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, in an announcement from Restore the Delta on June 21, asked the question: "What would you do with $800 million per year?"
That's the amount it will cost Californians every year to pay the principal and interest on the $11.14 billion water bond. The bond, known as the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 by its proponents, was part of the controversial water package that emerged from the special Legislative Session called by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last fall.
"With $800 million, California could rehire 12,000 teachers that were laid off this spring," Barrigan-Parrilla stated. "We could pay for four years of the Healthy Families program, which insures 900,000 children in California."
Do you remember those state parks that Schwarzenegger threatened to close last year? "We could run them for 57 years," she said.
"Or we could pay for one year of principal and interest on the Water Bond to set the stage for building a peripheral canal through the Delta and to give corporate agribusiness, private water companies and developers more control of our water. All at the expense of Delta family farmers and Delta fisheries," Barrigan-Parrilla explained.
Restore the Delta is part of a statewide campaign that includes the Sierra Club, Friends of the River, Food and Water Watch, Clean Water Action, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and many other groups. The No on the Water Bond coalition is "working against big money and big power" to defeat the Water Bond in November, said Barrigan-Parrilla.
The Water Commission of the Inter-Tribal Council of California (ITCC) is also urging people to vote "no" on the water bond on November 2. The Commission pinpoints three reasons for voting no on the water bond: "1. The water bond was written without Tribal inclusion; 2. Language excludes 'Tribes' from eligibility criteria; and 3. Tribes Water Rights will be excluded again through this conveyance."
Arturo Rodriguez, president of the United Farmworkers Union (UFW), also strongly opposes the water bond, contending that it further subsidizes corporate agribusiness.
"The water bond that was recently approved by our lawmakers will give agricultural companies billions more in subsidized water," said Rodiguez in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle on February 23 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/22/ED7U1BUUH3.DTL). "The state treasurer has asked the right question: Why aren't these giant ag industry operators paying for their water like everyone else?"
Water bond supporters try to portray it as a "vital measure" that will restore the Delta while providing water to California's increasing population.
"It's time to act now to begin fixing our water system before it's too late," said Jim Earp, executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs and chair of the Alliance for Clean Water and Jobs, the committee in support of the water bond. "The water bond will invest in the repairs we need to safeguard water supplies, to upgrade water infrastructure, to clean up contamination, and to restore the Delta so we can protect this vital resource for wildlife, people and businesses."
However, Barrigan-Parrilla and other water bond opponents say the pro-bond campaign is a "con" job.
"Bond supporters are trying to make the water bond sound like a good idea, but don't be deceived: It's a con," said Barrigan-Parrilla, Restore the Delta's campaign director. "Backed by the Governor, developers, and wealthy agribusinesses, the bond would build more dams and allow private interests to control more of our water."
She added, "Projects in the bond that we support, like conservation, will not be funded for years if ever. We must oppose this bond and work for better water policies that truly benefit the public."
I agree. There are a lot of good things that California could do with $800 million a year, such as restoring salmon and other fish populations. In fact, I can't think of much worse things to do with $800 million per year than building more dams and bailing out corporate agribusiness.
Don't be fooled by the water bond's backers, who include Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein, San Joaquin Valley agribusiness, southern California water agencies.
Don't be conned by support of the bond by the Nature Conservancy and Audubon California, who provide the "environmental" cover for this water grab by agribusiness and southern California developers.
By signing up for the coalition's action alert list, you'll learn about ways to get involved, see the new social media tools and viral videos the campaign is producing, and learn more about this disastrous bond.
Join the campaign and tell your friends. Join the coalition's people-powered campaign to defeat the bond! Go to: http://www.nowaterbond.com.
The Water Commission of the Inter-Tribal Council of California (ITCC), in a powerfully worded statement, is urging people to vote "No" on the $11.14 water bond on the November ballot.
The water bond/water policy package, pushed through the Legislature by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg last November, creates a clear path to the construction of a peripheral canal and new dams. California Indian Tribes, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, Delta farmers, environmental justice communities and the vast majority of environmental groups were completely excluded from the back door negotiations that led to the passage of the water package.
The Inter-Tribal Water Commission pinpoints three reasons for voting no on the water bond: "1. The water bond was written without Tribal inclusion; 2. Language excludes 'Tribes' from eligibility criteria; and 3. Tribes Water Rights will be excluded again through this conveyance."
"The Department of Water Resources and their private contractors believe that 'No Indians' have ever lived in the Delta, which now they are testing for the new canal," the Commission states. "They are not following Section 106 or CEQA requirements in including Tribal participation."
"Construction for existing and new proposed dams and reservoirs will entitle private ownership to individuals that can afford to buy those senior rights," the Commission continues. "Tribes will not have the opportunity to secure bond water money to develop access to water strategies, address lack of sustained water for fish and forestry, traditional cultural uses, potable water, etc."
The statement also points out how the proposed peripheral canal will "destroy tribal villages and burial sites;" will raise the cost of residential and tribal business water rights and rates; and will "further the privatization" of public trust waters, "again leaving out tribal water rights."
"The federal and state governments have not lived up to the original Central Valley Project (CVP) agreements to Tribes to this date. If the water bond passes, it will FOREVER eliminate Native programs funded through the state," the Commission concludes.
I applaud the Commission for issuing this strong statement against the water bond. We must challenge the politics of exclusion, as exemplified in the water bond and the campaign by the Governor and corporate agribusiness to build a peripheral canal and new dams, and defeat the water bond at the ballot box in November.
The Commission joins a diverse group of political leaders, environmental and consumer groups, ethnic and tribal organizations and fishing groups in urging Californians to vote no on the Water Bond.
The water bond will help create the infrastructure to build a peripheral canal and new dams. Canal opponents believe that the "new conveyance" is likely to lead to the extinction of Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales. The canal/tunnel will cost an estimated $23 billion to $53.8 billion water bond at a time when California is in its greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
"The peripheral canal is a big, stupid idea that doesn't make any sense from a tribal environmental perspective," said Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu (McCloud River) Tribe. "Building a canal to save the Delta is like a doctor inserting an arterial bypass from your shoulder to your hand- it will cause your elbow to die just like taking water out of the Delta through a peripheral canal will cause the Delta to die."
Statewide environmental and consumer organizations opposing the bond include Sierra Club California, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Clean Water Action, California Coastkeeper Alliance, California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), Planning and Conservation League, Desal Response Group and Food and Water Watch.
Local and regional environmental organizations in opposition include Butte Environmental Council, Friends of the River, Restore the Delta, Sacramento Audobon Society, Sierra Nevada Alliance, Southern California Watershed Alliance, Urban Semillas, Cultivating Sustainable Communities, The Downstream Coalition, Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch and Friends of the Trinity River.
Ethnic and tribal associations opposing the bond include Hispanics for Political Action, La Raza Centro Legal and Winnemem Wintu Tribe. Fishing and recreational organizations in opposition include the California Fisheries Network, Half Moon Bay Fishermen's Association Salmon Water Now, San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association, Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermens' Association and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.
Expect more organizations to declare their opposition to the water bond as the November election draws closer.
For more information about the Inter-Tribal Water Commission, contact: Randy Yonemura, honortraditions [at] mail.com, or Atta P. Stevenson, wtalker101 [at] yahoo.com.
Below is the complete statement from the Inter-Tribal Water Commission:
"NO" on Water Bond
The Inter-Tribal Water Commission recommends voting "NO" on the California "Water Bond" on the November ballot.
Why?
1. The water bond was written without Tribal inclusion.
2. Language excludes "Tribes" from eligibility criteria.
3. Tribes Water Rights will be excluded again through this conveyance.
Construction for existing and new proposed dams and reservoirs will entitle private ownership to individuals that can afford to buy those senior rights. Tribes will not have the opportunity to secure bond water money to develop access to water strategies, address lack of sustained water for fish and forestry, traditional cultural uses, potable water, etc.
The new proposed canal will destroy Tribal villages and burial sites.
The Department of Water Resources and their private contractors believe that "No Indians" have ever lived in the Delta, which now they are testing for the new canal. They are not following Section 106 or CEQA requirements in including Tribal participation.
The water bond will raise the cost of residential and Tribal business water rates in California. The passage will further the privatization of federal, state and local government waters, again leaving out Tribal Water Rights!
Tribes are left out of the environmental process, as they are now, which includes Floodsafe, thereby excluding water for wild salmon.
The federal and state governments have not lived up to the original Central Valley Project (CVP) agreements to Tribes to this date.
The stranglehold of junior water rights handlers as Westland and Metropolitan Water Districts will be elevated to senior water rights. Again, this excludes Tribal Water Rights.
If the water bond passes it will FOREVER eliminate Native programs funded through the state.
Democrat Jerry Brown, the California Attorney General and former two-term Governor, and Republican Meg Whitman will face off this November in what is expected to be one of the most contentious and expensive elections for Governor in California history.
Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, set the combative tone for the gubernatorial race when he said that the results of Tuesday night's primaries "set in motion a battle for the soul of California."
"It's Main Street vs. Wall Street, with the winner having an opportunity to shape California's future for decades to come," said Pulaski. "After months of obscene campaign spending, billionaire CEO Meg Whitman will use her seemingly unlimited fortune to try to stage a hostile takeover of our state. She's made it clear that, if elected, she plans to bring a Wall Street agenda to California."
Pulaski then contrasted Whitman's "Wall Street" orientation with the "Main Street" values of Brown.
"The contrast between the candidates couldn't be starker," said Pulaski. "Jerry Brown shares the Main Street values that built this state's economy into a global powerhouse and expanded our middle class. Brown has a spent a lifetime fighting for working families. He presided over the creation of nearly 2 million jobs as Governor (http://www.calaborfed.org).
Whitman has spent $71 million for her primary campaign, while Jerry Brown has spent a little over $27.5 million, according to campaign expense reports released on May 28.
Although Brown and Whitman have taken contrasting positions on an array of issues, it is unclear where Brown stands on the $11.14 billion water bond on the November 2 ballot and the campaign by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, corporate agribusiness and southern California water agencies to build a peripheral canal and new dams.
The water bond, known as the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 by its supporters, was part of the controversial water package that emerged from the special Legislative Session called by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last fall.
On his website (http://www.jerrybrown.org) in his press releases and public appearances, Brown has to date taken no position on the water bond or peripheral canal. My attempts as a reporter to find out what Brown's position is on this controversial water battle have been met with silence by his campaign office.
Brown signed the original legislation that authorized the original peripheral canal bond in 1982, but voters overwhelmingly defeated the canal at the ballot box that November.
On the other hand, Meg Whitman has adopted a strong position in support of the water bond and peripheral canal, even though she conceded at a speech in San Diego in February that "there is probably $2 to $3 billion in unnecessary expenses in that bill."
"If we don't pass this water bill and we go back to the drawing board on negotiations, we will be having the same conversation five years from now, 10 years from now," Whitman told the San Diego Union-Tribune on February 26. "The farmers won't be better off, and we will not have a stable water supply for L.A. County, San Diego, Orange County."
Whitman's Website (http://www.megwhitman.com), reporting on her visit to Fresno on May 29, 2009, proclaimed, "As governor, she said she would stick with her conviction that saving jobs takes precedence and would use emergency powers to order more pumping from the Delta. In the longer term, she supports more above- and below-ground storage facilities and the construction of a peripheral canal in addition to conservation efforts."
Whitman also sided completely with corporate agribusiness on May 26, 2010 in praising Federal Court Judge Oliver Wanger's decision to temporarily lift the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta pumping restrictions protecting endangered salmon Central Valley populations.
"I am encouraged by the Federal Court's decision earlier this week that ruled to temporarily lift the pumping restrictions in order to increase water deliveries to the Central Valley," said Whitman. "This is just a start. We need a comprehensive solution and strong leadership to really fix California's water crisis."
Laura Wells (http://www.laurawells.org), who won the Green Party's primary for Governor, does not specifically advocate for or against the peripheral canal and the water bond in her water policy platform. Instead, she said, "The legislature should re-work the 2010 Water Bond and improve it by revising the priorities, re-considering regional impacts, stripping out the special interests, and then re-submit it for public approval."
She also emphasized, "Planning for a sustainable water future for California requires that all interested parties have a seat at the table and come to a consensus as to what priorities will prevail and how they will be administered. Legislating solutions for the Delta water without involving those who live and work there will never accomplish this."
Political leaders from diverse political perspectives and a broad coalition of fishing, environmental justice, conservation and labor groups have rallied in opposition to the water bond.
"This is a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle with 19th century solutions for 21st century problems," said Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) at a press conference of water bond opponents in May. "It would be fiscal madness to approve the largest water bond in California history at the same time that California is in the midst of a financial crisis."
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, (R-Irvine), criticized the bond as spending billions on projects with "little or no connection to California's water supply." DeVore said that while California needs to increase its water supply, this bond spends more on nonessential projects than it does on water supply and the Delta combined.
"If the state urgently needs to increase our water supply and fix the Delta, why is it that less than half of the $11 billion bond will be used for those purposes?" DeVore asked. "In the last days of bond negotiations, pork projects were added at a rate of $100 million an hour. Tax dollars spent by this bond could go towards a golf course in Los Angeles, water taxis and bike trails in Lake Tahoe and horse trails along the San Joaquin River."
Public support is clearly against the water bond and canal. A poll released by the No on the Water Bond campaign in February showed voter opposition to the bond at high levels.
Fifty-five percent of registered and likely voters said they'd vote "no" when read the title and summary of the measure written by the Legislature. Only 34% in the survey conducted by Tulchin Research statewide supported the controversial bond.
With such broad opposition to the water bond and peripheral canal building across the state, many believe that it's time for Jerry Brown to take a stand against the bond and canal - and in support of restoration of Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations. Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish populations have declined to record low levels under the Schwarzenegger adminstration, the result of a number of factors led by record water exports out of the Delta.
Some fish advocates fear that Stewart Resnick, the Beverly Hills agribusiness tycoon who owns 115,000 acres of farmland in Kern County, may exert pressure on Brown to support the water bond and peripheral canal and oppose the federal biological opinions protecting imperiled salmon and smelt. On November 11, 2009, Resnick and his wife, Lynda, the co-owner of the giant Paramount Farms and Roll Corporation, wrote four checks totalling $50,000 for the Brown campaign.
On June 9, Brown proposed that he and Whitman hold 10 joint town hall appearances around the state to "discuss job creation, schools and the state's budget mess and to answer questions from voters."
"Partisan bickering and attack-dog politics have created an awful mess in Sacramento, and I think Meg and I now have an opportunity to change the tenor of politics in California by conducting a responsible campaign that shows the politicians that there is a better way to do business," Brown told a news conference. "I'm inviting Meg Whitman to join with me to run a campaign that will put the focus on town halls where each of us in an unscripted manner will discuss our positions and answer questions."
If Whitman agrees to participate in these joint town hall appearances, it would be a good time for fish and environmental justice advocates to pin both Brown and Whitman down on their positions on the water bond, peripheral canal, new dams and fishery restoration in California.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor who has presided over the collapse of the California economy and Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations, used his state of the state address Wednesday to push his insane campaign to build a peripheral canal and more dams.
He gushed about the passage of the legislative package that clears the path for a peripheral canal, new dams and the destruction of the California Delta as one of his major "accomplishments" in 2009, just a day after a Department of Fish and Game survey revealed that the Delta smelt population has declined to a new record low.
"For decades this state was in a literal war over water, with old and deep divisions, Northern California versus the Southern California, Democrats versus Republicans, farmers versus environmentalists, businesses versus labor and the list goes on and on," he claimed. "But we here in this room made history with the most comprehensive water package in nearly half a century. We brought all the stakeholders together and by working together, we got it done."
This is an absolute lie. Rather than bringing "all of the stakeholders" together as Schwarzenegger contends, the vast majority of "stakeholders" were completely excluded from the negotiations to craft the water legislation in an elitist and unjust process. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Schwarzenegger refused to include the input and concerns of Delta Legislators, California Indian Tribes, fishermen, Delta farmers, farmworkers and environmental justice communities in the development of the legislation.
The overwhelming majority of environmental organizations in California were also excluded from the process. However, corporate environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and Nature Conservancy engaged in backroom negotiations with Westlands Water District, the Metropolitan Water District and legislative leaders to come up with a deal that will indebt generations of Californians to come and most likely result in the extinction of Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, and southern resident killer whales.
Schwarzenegger exhorted the gathered legislators and political hacks to campaign for the water bond in a display of bi-partisan unity. "And now we must work very hard so that we pass the $11 billion in water bonds that will be on the ballot this November. And Democrats and Republicans will have to travel up and down the state to educate the people of California why those bonds are so important," he claimed.
Then Schwarzenegger made a curious leap in logic, claiming that a plan that will indebt generations of Californians and destroy California fisheries will actually be an "investment" in the future! The future that Schwarzenegger envisions is apparently one of rampant development, unrestrained, unsustainable growth, the destruction of coastal and inland fisheries and the continuing delivery of water to drainage-impaired, toxic soil on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to keep corporate growers and water marketers making huge profits off institutionalized poverty.
"Because some people say 'how can we afford these bonds in the current economic climate?'" the Governor said. "I say, how can we not?
Schwarzenegger portrayed a false scenario of imminent disaster unless the water bond is passed by the voters. "It is the law that you cannot build a school or that you cannot build a factory or that you cannot build an office building or a housing development without identifying first a source of water," he claimed. "As a result, huge projects with thousands of jobs have been put on hold. Our economy cannot grow without water. Our population cannot live without water. It is our state's lifeblood."
"Now is exactly the time to invest in it, so that when Californians turn on that faucet there is safe and reliable and clean water coming out that tap and not just five years from now but 30, 40 and 50 years from now. That is so important," said Schwarzenegger, concluding the water bond section of his address.
What is Schwarzenegger thinking? This is the same Governor that has slashed the budgets for state parks, health care for children, teachers, firefighters and game wardens? How can he possibly support the development of new infrastructure when the budget ax has fallen so hard on the state's essential services?
The reason why Schwarzenegger, Steinberg and other corrupt politicians can campaign for the water bond and peripheral canal with a straight face is because they don't care about the vast majority of the residents of the state. They only care about keeping their corporate agribusiness campaign contributors such as Stewart Resnick, the owner of Paramount Farms, happy making millions and millions of dollars off marketing subsidized water back to the public and profiting from rural poverty in the San Joaquin Valley.
On the day before Schwarzenegger's address, the DFG posted the alarming results of the annual mid-water full trawl net survey on its website, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/pr... The annual "index," a relative measure of abundance, shows a continuing decline in the Delta's fish species.
The endangered Delta smelt declined to a new record low population level in 2009. The smelt, found only in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, is considered by scientists to an indicator species that demonstrates the health of the estuary.
The longfin smelt and young-of-the year striped bass both dropped to their second-lowest measures. The threadfin shad, an introduced bait fish species, also declined last fall.
The Pelagic Organism Decline (POD) Team, a group of federal and state scientists studying the fish collapse, has pinpointed increases and changes in water exports, increases in toxic chemicals and the proliferation of invasive species as the key factors behind the decline. This is no time for anybody to support Schwarzenegger's plan to export even more water out of the imperiled estuary by building more dams and the peripheral canal, since to do so would seal the doom of Delta smelt, longfin smelt, threadfin shad and striped bass populations, along with imperiled Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales.
For more information on why the water bond must be opposed by everybody who cares about California's future, I urge you to view Salmon Water Now!'s new 10-minute video, "The Water Pirates," (10 minutes), now available on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... or Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/8521134.
"The Water Pirates is the first of many videos that explain why it is critical to defeat the water bond that will be on California's November ballot," explained Bruce Tokars, the documentary's producer. "The $11.1 billion dollar measure is a pork-filled, naked power grab that will enrich a small group of wealthy powerful interests at the expense of an already bankrupt California - and that's just for starters. If it passes, it will kill the Delta and be the end for the biggest and most important estuary in North and South America, San Francisco Bay. We want the water bond to die!"
This is a new year, the beginning of new decade, and Bruce Tokars of Salmon Water Now! wants to kick off this year's campaign to defeat the construction of the peripheral canal, more dams and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's water bond with a new 10-minute video.
"The Water Pirates is the first of many videos that explain why it is critical to defeat the water bond that will be on California's November ballot," explained Tokars. "The $11.1 billion dollar measure is a pork-filled, naked power grab that will enrich a small group of wealthy powerful interests at the expense of an already bankrupt California - and that's just for starters. If it passes, it will kill The Delta and be the end for the biggest and most important estuary in North and South America, San Francisco Bay. We want the water bond to die."
This is Tokars' best video to date, in my opinion. It features great clips from old pirate and Frankenstein movies. These are interspersed with footage of corrupt politicians such as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who have pushed the water bond and the privatization of California water so that corporate privateers including "limousine liberal" Stewart Resnick can profit.
The video also compares President Dwight Eisenhower's warning about the emerging power of the military-industrial complex to the grip that corporate agribusiness and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California have on public trust water in California. In addition, Tokars interviews investigative journalist Lloyd Carter and others to shed light on the dark history of Westlands Water District and other wealthy water districts.
The message is clear: if we are to restore Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, striped bass, sturgeon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and southern resident killer whales, we must defeat the water bond in November!
"Stop the water pirates!" Tokars urges. "They are working hard to make publicly owned water their privately held asset. Watch and share this video. Vote NO on the water bond. Together, we can make what is wrong, right again."
The water bond, combined with the water policy package passed by the California Legislature in November, creates a clear path to the construction of the peripheral canal and Temperance Flats and Sites reservoirs. The canal will cost $23 billion to $53.8 billion to build at a time when California is in its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression - and the budgets for teachers, game wardens, health care for children and state parks have been slashed.
The push for a canal and more dams occurs at the same time that Governor Schwarzenegger is fast-tracking the corrupt Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) initiative, a privately-funded process that aims to kick fishermen, seaweed harvesters and California Indian Tribes off the ocean to pave the way for offshore oil rigs, wave energy projects and corporate aquaculture. While the water bond is a thinly-veiled move by corporate interests to privatize California water supplies and destroy California fisheries, the MLPA is a move by oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corporate interests that preside over the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force to privatize and "zone" public trust resources on the ocean.
For more information, contact Bruce Tokars: btokars [at] pacbell.net.
If you want to know more about what we should really be doing regarding water in California, you need to read Mato Ska here, here, here<>/a>, or here. I want to talk about the politics. That is beginning to splinter over more than North / South, Valley / Coast or even the widening gap between Democrats and Republicans.
With Democratic leadership eager to get a water deal done, the legislature appears set to vote tonight on two water bills, with Speaker Bass saying members will "make history today" by approving a package. The "policy" bills, focusing on Delta restoration and conservation, have been technically split from the big water bond, but there remain fundamental political linkages. And as the day wears on, more and more opposition to these bills, and ultimately to the entire process, emerges.
As things stand now, there will be a $10 billion bond to construct "dams, regional water projects, and ecosystem restoration", $3 billion of which goes to build dams at Temperance Flat and Sites, and to expand Los Vaqueros Dam near Livermore. Unlike every other water project in state history, these would be funded by taxpayers, and not solely by the users of these projects. They would also not be subject to separate legislative approval.
The policy bill includes the creation of a Delta Stewardship Council to help oversee the use of the Delta. A majority of its members would be appointed by the governor, and it would have the authority to approve the construction of a Peripheral Canal, subject to certain environmental thresholds that are currently unclear. As the Contra Costa Times explains, Westlands Water District - which has been driving this process by demanding to be allowed to cut in line ahead of other water users and to be subsidized to do so - is satisfied with the proposed language:
At the heart of the new policy is a framework for a canal to route water around the Delta, a prospect that Delta interests detest because it could curtail housing development, make it more difficult to farm and could harm water quality and fish by diverting a portion of the Sacramento River out of its natural watercourse.
The path to building a peripheral canal would be clearer and more certain, but it would also be more difficult. The bills would strictly require the canal's vehicle, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, to ensure its operation actually restores the Delta.
The provision has the support of the state's largest irrigation district but has split environmental groups.
The Westlands Water District supports the legislation because, despite its strict language, it provides "a clear path" to a new way to move water around the Delta.
"We're not certain we can meet (the requirements). We hope we can," said Ed Manning, a lobbyist for the Westlands Water District in the San Joaquin Valley, in testimony last week.
The policy bill also includes some statewide groundwater measuring standards, and mandates 20% conservation of water, statewide, by 2020.
Key environmental groups, labor unions, and other Californians are already taking sides. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) are embracing the deal, with CLCV doesn't think the deal is perfect but thinks it's good enough to support at this time. On the other side, the Sierra Club opposes the deal, and Carl Pope denounced the process in a HuffPo op-ed.
Water agencies are similarly split. NorCal water agencies now oppose the deal, though most SoCal agencies, led by the mammoth Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles, playing key roles in getting the deal done.
Of political significance, Artesia Democrat Tony Mendoza reports CTA is opposed to the water bond, likely to be joined by several other major labor unions who are rightly concerned about crowding out public services spending by adding to general fund debt service levels, with Treasurer Bill Lockyer warning 10% of the general fund could be going to service debt if the water bond is approved.
Not being in Sacramento, you should take my prognostications with a grain of salt (preferably salt from the western San Joaquin Valley, which has too much of it). But I would be surprised if this deal goes through. Unlike the budget, there's no looming threat of statewide fiscal meltdown. Failing to approve a water deal won't cause government to shut down, it won't cut off payments to schools and workers.
There is considerable political pressure to do a deal, but there is growing pressure to not do a deal. CTA's opposition is significant, and may give Democrats who might be inclined to back the deal some pause, especially those looking to move up to other elected offices in 2010.
Finally, there is the question of the electorate. Any water bond has to go before voters in 2010, likely at the November election. I have a very difficult time seeing voters approving a $10 billion water bond, especially considering that the state's finances aren't likely to be in much better shape.
More importantly, the water bond will come with significant environmental and policy costs that other similar bonds haven't had. For example, I was a strong supporter of the Prop 1A bond last year that authorized $10 billion for high speed rail. But that essentially came with no costs and no downsides. HSR creates thousands of jobs, generating new tax revenue and saving people money on their travel costs without negative environmental impacts. In fact, high speed trains powered by renewable energy help provide cleaner air and mitigate against global warming.
That doesn't eliminate the financial questions, but it made HSR a far easier sell than a water bond that could produce major environmental damage. After all, the bonds to build a Peripheral Canal were rejected by voters at the 1982 election, for many of the same reasons as a 2010 bond might go down in flames as well.
Whether a deal gets done tonight or not, the torturous process, once again largely hidden from public view, that produced the deal is yet another sign of how broken our state government has become.
UPDATE by Robert: The Delta governing bill, SBX7 1, passes by a 29-5 vote. No roll call just yet. Sen. Steinberg's press secretary, Alicia Trost, counters claims on Twitter that this is a deal done in the dark:
Water pkg has had 9 months of public debate, 10 full public hearings. Cogdill bond bill has been around for 3 yrs.
Note the "X7" in the bill title. This is the seventh special session in the current legislature. Not exactly an argument for a part-time legislature, is it?!
...the Cogdill bond bill, SBX7 2, is currently under debate. Cogdill says we need this for when we have 50 million people in the state. Lois Wolk speaks against this, arguing we can't add the debt load to the general fund. Ironic to see Republicans calling for profligate spending - IOKIYAR! Or, It's OK If You Hired Sean Hannity To Whine On Your Behalf (IOKIYHSHTWOYB).
...Wolk says SEIU now opposes bond along with CTA, complains that Delta will have to pay into the mitigation fund - "like asking a crime victim to pay half the restitution. shame on you all."
...Maldonado speaks in favor, says we've been talking about this for 30 years, we need bipartisan solutions, we have to do this even if some people think it's unpopular, blah blah blah. Will Arnold pick him for Lt. Gov already and get him out of our hair? I can't stand having this guy represent us. Why exactly should your Central Coast constituents, Abel, have to pay to subsidize Westlands or let SoCal sprawl?
...Maldonado isn't talking about water, he's running for Controller and gunning for Central Valley votes. He's already decided that his Central Coast constituents can be tossed overboard for his own ambitions. And not for the first time.
...love watching GOP Sen. Benoit (Riverside County) almost trip over his contradictory wingnut talking points, justifying the now $9.9 billion water bond because of global warming "even though, uh, some of us, uh, might question that" (referring to global warming).
...Cogdill closes on the finances: "hope and pray" that in 5 years there is economic recovery and the money won't be an issue. I see that hope and prayer are what pass for Republican financial planning these days.
...$9.9 billion water bond squeaks by 28-8 (needs 2/3rds). Some Dem noes include Mark Leno, Mark DeSaulnier, Lois Wolk, Pat Wiggins. Didn't catch the full list.
...SBX7 7 up now, the water conservation bill, with some last-minute amendments. It would be great if this bill information was being updated in real-time for us out in the public. As far as I can tell, without having seen the recent amendments, this is a good bill.
...20% conservation by 2020 is totally doable, especially for urban users. No excuse for not doing so, no matter the specific problems with this water deal. Time for CA to stop wasting water. Too bad this is linked to a ridiculous water-wasting and Delta-killing deal.
...water conservation bill passes 25-13. On to the Assembly next. And I'm headed to sleep.
It may be hard to remember, but last fall the state had not one but two special sessions. The first, on health care, ended with the rejection of the flawed mandate proposal ABX1 1. The second, on water, appeared to have also ended in acrimony, as Republicans insisted on $3 billion for new dams that Democrats were unwilling to support.
PCL has recently gotten an Insider scoop that the California Chamber of Commerce is pressuring both U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to endorse its environmentally-devastating $11.69 billion water bond initiative.
The bond, which the Chamber hopes to place on the November 2008 ballot, is strongly opposed by environmental groups throughout California for its potential effects on the state's natural resources. The bond would:
--Include $3.5 billion explicitly for dam construction, plus billions more that could be used for dams on California rivers.
--Establish a dangerous new "water commission" empowered to fund and build a peripheral canal and divert massive amounts of water from the Sacramento River around the imperiled California Bay-Delta Estuary for large-scale corporate agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley and sprawl development in Southern California. (Over-pumping of water from the Delta during the past eight years has already contributed to the collapse of the Delta ecosystem, including plummeting salmon and other fish populations.)
--Eliminate public and legislative oversight and leave the fate of the Delta and Northern California rivers in the hands of politically appointed bureaucrats likely to have strong ties to special interests in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.
The Chamber's push is seen by many as an end-run around the Governor's own Delta Vision process, which has brought together stakeholders from the environmental, business, water, agricultural, and Delta communities.
That plan, which would eliminate badly needed oversight protections and saddle the state with $760 million a year in bond service costs, is bad enough. But over the weekend the PCL reported at the California Progress Report that bond supporters are now trying to do an end run around voters, as the state Department of Water Resources is now arguing that it is not bound by the 1982 rejection of the Peripheral Canal by voters:
According to a recent budget change proposal submitted to the state Legislature, DWR intends to start preparing to build a new "Alternative Delta Conveyance" facility, which would divert water directly from the Sacramento River before it enters the Delta, sending it directly to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California....
Under its proposal, DWR would revive studies and update construction plans that it abandoned in 1982 after voters overwhelmingly rejected its "Peripheral Canal" proposal in a statewide referendum due to fears that such a facility would result in more Northern California water exported to the ever-growing south state, and that the Delta would be left as a saltwater lake rather than a true estuary.
The budget request from DWR follows a recent letter sent to Assemblywoman Wolk (D-Davis) by DWR Director Lester Snow, stating that according to DWR's analysis, DWR has the authority to build a peripheral canal without legislative or voter approval.
California sits at a crossroads. We're there for many reasons, one of the most fundamental of which is water. 2007 has been a drought year here in California, and even though three Pacific storms are lined up to sock Northern California with rain, the fundamental problems of rising water usage, limited storage capacity, a stressed Delta, and climate change aren't going away with just a few October rains.
So how do California Republicans respond to the water crisis? The same way they responded to the budget crisis: demand their way, or no way at all. Today they refused to support Sen. Don Perata's water bond proposal, preventing this $6 billion package of Delta restoration and support for innovative, practical local water storage solutions from being submitted to voters on the February ballot.
At a press conference on Monday, Sen. Perata explained the Republicans' thinking on the matter. As quoted by Frank Russo:
This feels a lot like what we went through this summer with the budget when we had a seven week delay because we couldn't arrive at a conclusion. I don't know how to solve the dams or us approach. We've been working on that. Maybe we could come to some conclusion on that. But my Republican colleagues have said very clearly, 'It's our turn.' And by 'our turn' they mean to build dams.'
Republicans are willing to hold up the entire process because they feel "it's their turn." Forced to settle for only half the crippling cuts they demanded in the summer budget, they now insist that we break the state's borrowing capacity for a $9 billion dam package simply to assuage their bruised egos.
This is par for the course with contemporary Republicanism. Whether it's SCHIP, the war in Iraq, or California's water crisis, practical and affordable solutions are rejected in favor of irresponsible, financially reckless plans whose only benefit is to reward Republican ideology and its narrow base of supporters. Doesn't matter if the state, the country, or Iraq falls apart in the process.
