Yeah, I know the plural is crises, but crisii just sounded better. Anyway, looking back over the last few months, it is hard to see anything other than the fits and starts in response to one crisis or another. And the media seems to pick up these issues and drop them just as quickly. It’s not hard to see why we simply drift from one issue to another without the regular legislative process that is really quite valuable.
We had the budget crisis, and then another budget crisis, and then all eyes were moved on over to the prison crisis. And now it seems that the prison crisis is over, because all I’m seeing is the urgency to pass water legislation.
“We do have a 5 p.m. deadline for signing a conference report. We have until Friday midnight (the deadline for the legislative recess) to potentially complete the whole package,” Steinberg said at a Labor Day hearing in the Capitol.
Some Republicans on the committee were concerned that majority Democrats intended to ram through a water package by crafting it piecemeal, rather than as a comprehensive policy-finance plan requiring bipartisan support.
“We are mindful of the logistics,” Steinberg told Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Fresno, the ranking GOP water expert in the Senate, who wondered whether a final water package would be truly bipartisan. (Capitol Weekly 9/8/09)
First, the parallels to the national health care fight are frankly rather annoying. Why do we need a bipartisan bill? Democrats have large majorities in both houses, and frankly, the California electorate has given them a mandate. If we are going to be forced to bring along the Republicans, why not the “Utopian Manifesto” party (PDF)). Yes, I understand that the Republicans actually have some votes in the Legislature, but we can’t impose these supermajority requirements where we don’t have them. It’s a pain enough when we are forced to deal with them, why add additional ones?
If the Republicans don’t like it, well, they should try to win enough elections to be the majority in one house or another so they can get a real say. Otherwise, I suppose they’ll just go back to the refuge of scoundrels in the California Constitution: the super majority requirements.
But beyond that, why is this all being done in the last week? Is this really the best way to produce quality legislation? At some point are we going to actually engage the public in these discussions rather than rushing to get something, anything, to the Governor’s desk by the deadline?
I understand the need for this legislation, but this is a really big deal. This will impact how many people can live in the state, whether there will be viable agriculture in the state, and how we deal with climate change. Big decisions are best handled through a regular process not some herky jerky hurry up and wait mess. It just breeds some other crisis somewhere down the line when it turns out we overlooked some significant policy detail.
Let’s try solving some problems the old-fashioned way some time, think how retro that would be.
The supermajority requirement is the problem here (again). To put a water bond on the ballot, that’s what you need. Hence the conference committee and the inclusion of Republicans every step of the way.
This really isn’t a rushed effort. These bills have all been hanging around the Legislature all year, and for some cases, years. What’s different this year is that there’s a push to actually make a decision instead of letting it linger.
Steve’s correct. There’s been multiple hearings, studies, et al. The Delta Vision process was authorized by a 2006 Sen. Kuehl bill. They came back with some recommendations. At the beginning of the year my boss, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass formed bipartisan and bicameral working groups to hash out what a comprehensive plan could look like. The reason why the Republicans are involved is because any plan will need some dollars attached. Hence the two-thirds requirement. – Jim Evans, Communications Director, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg.
I’m sorry for sounding ignorant on this. Normally I’d be looking very carefully at the idea of more dams as a solution to the water crisis, but lately I’ve been very busy with a national project. As I understand it, 4 dams (new and enlargement of existing dams) are being proposed but they’re deliberately being left out of the the bill? Since when are more dams being seen as the solution to anything?