Jon Fleischman

Jon is the elected Vice Chairman, South of the California Republican Party.

FR BlogScan

What is the latest on CA's political blog sites?

Go to FR BlogScan

Authors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doug LaMalfa
North California
(bio) (email)
 

Jill Buck
San Francisco Bay Area
(bio) (email)
 

Jennifer Nelson
San Francisco Bay Area
(bio) (email)
 

Bill Whalen
San Francisco Bay Area
(bio) (email)
 

Tab Berg
Northern California
(bio) (email)
 

Cassandra Pye
Sacramento County
(bio) (email)
 

Tom Ross
Northern California
(bio) (email)
 

 

 

Brandon Powers
Los Angeles County
(bio) (email)
 

Mike Spence
Los Angeles County
(bio) (email)
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barry Jantz
San Diego County
(bio) (email)
 

Syndicate this site

Blog/commentary:  

Search by Date

September

FR BlogScan

What is the latest on CA's political blog sites?

Go to FR BlogScan

Tips and Leads

Send our authors tips and leads via e-mail, or send an anonymous tip if you prefer.

The Bear Flag League


Proud Member of
the Bear Flag League
Today is actually: 201009021550Today is: 201009021450

FlashReport Weblog on California Politics

 
 

Senator Denham On Gov's Signing Water Bond: "It's A Dam Shame"

 

by Jon Fleischman - Publisher (bio) (email)(print)

 
11-9-2009 3:03 pm
Senator Jeff Denham, who cast his vote against the $11 billion dollar bond and regulatory package that has been billed as a "comprehensive solution" to our state's water infrastructure needs, just sent this over...

IT'S A DAM SHAME
Senator Jeff Denham

It's a dam shame that the water package doesn't address the current crisis of breadlines and devastating unemployment.  It's a dam shame the water bond does nothing to guarantee water for next year so that farmers can plant crops and put people back to work. 
 
It's a dam shame that we have one shot to get a water bond passed while the state is focused on this issue, but what we got is a bloated $11.14 billion bond instead of a straightforward $3 billion surface water storage bond.
 
It's a dam shame that the state could be issuing IOUs come Christmas and voters will likely reject the "Christmas tree" water bond as the state faces a $20 billion-plus deficit next year.
 
The four bills and one bond measure that comprise the water package don't really address the biggest cause of the water crisis:  a lack of facilities (dams and reservoirs) to store all the rain and snow melt that California receives during wet winter and spring seasons, so we will have that water for the needs of people, agriculture and commerce during the dry summer and fall seasons.
 
What this water package does do is: 
  • Dole out billions of your tax dollars to increase the budgets and spending of dozens and dozens of existing state and local agencies -  many of them environmentally oriented agencies engaged in activities that won't produce any new surface water storage facilities and won't make even one new drop of water available;
  • Create (or expand) massive government bureaucracies with lofty sounding names such as the Delta Protection Commission, the Delta Conservancy, the Delta Stewardship Council, the Delta Independent Science Board and the Delta Watermaster; and
  • Establish a confusing and complex set of new regulations dealing with water monitoring, water conservation and water rights by basically gutting local control and putting the decisions (including the authority to issue fines and take away water rights) in the hands of statewide bureaucrats.
What the water package doesn't do is actually require that any money ever be spent towards building a dam at Temperance Flat (in Madera and Fresno counties) or a reservoir at Sites (in Colusa County).  At least one of these two water facilities needs to be constructed to produce any real tangible surface water storage for California, yet neither of these is even mentioned in the water bond.
 
The $3 billion 'set aside' for water storage in the bond might be spent for water storage or then again it might not.  A surface water project proposal (such as Temperance Flat or Sites) will have to get through a complex set of subjective criteria and requirements to perhaps become eligible for consideration of funding by an inactive state agency called the California Water Commission (CWC).
 
The CWC was first established in 1913 to rule on water rights in California.  Under the law, its members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate.  However, for the last few years, the CWC has no members, no website and no office.  It is a phantom agency.
 
What this means is that we have no idea who will be on the CWC when and if the bond part of the water package is approved by the voters.  Will the CWC have members on it appointed by current Governor Schwarzenegger by then?  Will the new Governor who is elected next year come in and fire anyone there and appoint new people to the CWC?
 
(A little scary history is in order here.  In 1975, the young Secretary of State, Jerry Brown, was sworn in as governor of California.  Sixteen years of solid and consistent building and improvement of California's highway systems by the previous two Governors - Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan - quickly came to a halt.  In 1976, Governor Jerry Brown appointed his UC Berkeley classmate, Andriana Gianturco, as Director of Caltrans.  Under his orders, and contrary to state law, the directives of the Legislature and the will of the People, she slammed the brakes on virtually all freeway construction for the next several years.  Our state's infrastructure has never caught up since.)
 
It's not hard to imagine a future governor appointing people to the California Water Commission with explicit instructions to not approve spending any of the $3 billion in the bond on dams or reservoirs.  By not explicitly naming dams or reservoirs in the bond, the Legislature has left many loopholes open for dam opponents to block and stall the spending of the $3 billion on a dam.  Further, the bond language allows the Legislature, by a 2/3rds vote, to go back and 'redirect' that money if it is not being used for a dam or reservoir, to some other use.
 
Something else to think about: the four regulatory measures in the water package will go into effect whether or not the water bond is approved by the voters next year.  Nothing like getting struck with the stick while never getting to enjoy the carrot.  This extortion attempt could backfire on the water package apologists as voters showed last year they won't be blackmailed.
 
While the water package will be a boon to those favoring the needs of fish over people, it will be paid for by all of us (and our children and grandchildren) for years to come and will do very little to actually help California's overall water situation, and that's a dam shame.
Bookmark and Share

Comments

There are no comments.

Post a Comment





Not Registered Yet? Click Here

Forgot your Password? Click Here

Want to update your settings? Click Here

You must have a MyFlashReport Account to Comment.

Advertising Info

Download Macromedia Flash