Package calls for more conservation, less storage

by Brian Leubitz

For better or worse, Jerry Brown’s water bond from yesterday is still the leading candidate to replace what is tentatively scheduled to be on the ballot as Prop 43. But a coalition, mainly culled from the environmental community, has another plan:

The coalition has identified priority projects that would improve water security for all Californians, ensure fiscal responsibility in allocating bond funds and eliminate the special interest investments that are driving up costs in the bond proposals put forward to date.

The proposal corrects two major deficiencies in other proposals, including the governor’s just-released bond outline. First, it requires accountability and competitiveness for use of taxpayers’ funds. In contrast, one-third of the governor’s proposal would be handed over to unaccountable political appointees for distribution.

Second, the coalition proposal is truly neutral on the big tunnels that would remove water from the San Francisco Bay Delta. It does not include taxpayer subsidies proposed by the governor to buy water that would be diverted from rivers and streams to special interests.

Friends of the River, the League of Women Voters of California, Planning and Conservation League and Sierra Club California worked together to draft the alternative bond outline. The coalition’s plan ensures that residents in all parts of the state would benefit proportionally from the bond. It addresses water quality and water availability in both urban and agricultural communities.

Now, the big stumbling block of any deal would be to get the couple of Republican votes to replace Prop 43. That is easier said than done, with Republicans wanting more money (in the $3B range) spent on storage than even the Governor is requesting ($2B-ish). This plan calls for $1B in storage, with a much heavier emphasis on conservation.

Clearly, we need to do a lot more to conserve though, as we just got news that the odds of a good soak this winter coming from a strong El Niño have been reduced from a previous 80% estimate down to 65%:

The latest long-term forecast shows the chances of a wet El Niño weather pattern bringing drought relief to California starting this fall has decreased to about 65%, and if it does arrive it will probably be weaker than originally expected.

If an El Niño does develop, it should emerge by October and peak during late fall and early winter, according to the Climate Prediction Center and the International Research Institute for Climate and Society. (LA Times)

This latest worrying sign will not do anything to make Republicans support an even lower water storage number, but many of the ideas proposed in this package are worthy of a lot more discussion. Check out the full package over the flip.

The Near-Term Clean Water and Drought Response Act of 2014

$6 billion

This provides a framework for a rational bond measure that is responsive to fiscal constraints and addresses real needs with near-term solutions. It draws upon the best elements put forward in legislation proposed earlier this year in the Senate and the Assembly.

Clean and Safe Drinking Water — $1 billion

·         $400M to SWRCB for safe drinking water projects

·         $400M for wastewater treatment

·         $200M for public health emergency actions and drought response

·         Priority to disadvantaged communities

Regional Self-Sufficiency — $1.5 billion

·         $500M for water conservation and efficiency, both urban and agricultural

·         $500M for storm water and dry weather runoff capture and use

·         $500M for water recycling

Watershed Protection and Water Quality — $1.1 billion

·         $350M to State Conservancies, including $100M to the Delta Conservancy, for watershed protection, restoration, and water quality projects on public and NGO-owned lands or other projects approved by the local Board of Supervisors

·         $200M for watershed protection and restoration activities in watersheds outside of State Conservancy coverage

·         $50M for urban streams

·         $500M for state obligations, including Klamath, San Joaquin, Salton Sea, and wildlife refuges

·         Watershed funding may not be used to buy water or for inter-basin transfers

Water Supply Reliability — $2.4 billion

·         $900M for groundwater cleanup

·         $100M for sustainable groundwater management planning

·         $400M for Delta levees meeting the PL84-99 standard

·         $1B for competitive surface and ground storage projects, with Legislative appropriation

###

Water bond still faces tunnel stumbling block

by Brian Leubitz

There is little disagreement that our water infrastructure needs some work. Across party lines and the north-south divide, there is a consensus that we need to invest in our water system. The amount of the bond package is still in dispute, but those are minor disagreements.

But the one big stumbling block are the twin tunnels that Gov. Brown wants to build to bring water to Southern California from the Delta. The administration released a report on the potential job gains from the project:

The study’s author, Dave Sunding, a UC Berkeley agricultural and resource economist, predicts that construction of what is called the Bay-Delta Conservation Project would create an average of about 15,500 jobs a year over a decade of construction and habitat restoration. Once built, the project to make water supplies more reliable would spur an additional estimated 19,600 jobs a year over 50 years, he said.

“In the short, medium and long range, the Bay Delta Conservation would provide economic benefits to California,” said Nancy Vogel, spokeswoman for the Department of Water Resources. “The plan is essentially an insurance policy against species extinction and inadequate water supplies.” (LA Times)

To call these figures controversial is a big understatement. The job figures are being called highly speculative, on both construction and the long-term prospects. The tunnels, which were rejected by the voters during Brown’s first stint as governor in the 80s, are back again with the same controversy. Like then, the questions of drought are still very much present. If our current drought continues, or another, more vicious dry spell hits, there simply won’t be any water there.

Sen. Lois Wolk, who represents much of the Delta has been trying to move past this issue, and is taking the right tack. She is working hard to get a water bond on the ballot without any sort of authorization for the tunnels. And in the NBCLA clip below the fold, this is what Sen. Steinberg is endorsing, and warning against a bond that includes them.

The tunnels are a big conversation of their own, and tying the bond up with that political melee could backfire at the ballot. But with the deadline for the ballot getting closer, we should have a resolution soon.

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.

# # #

by Elanor Starmer‚ Jul. 12‚ 2010

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.

Cross posted from California Greening.

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.

More below the line.  

Let me call your attention to two things that happened today. One is the fact that the California League of Conservation Voters sent a floor alert to the members of the California Assembly giving strong support to the Steinberg proposal.  In this, they join three other environmental organizations that have already taken this position: Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and the Nature Conservancy.  Each of the latter has strong ties to corporate funding and seem to be taking the corporate position.  There is strong evidence that staff for Natural Resources Defense Council have been meeting behind closed doors with the water districts who have the most to gain were the the Steinberg legislation legislation enacted.

Dan Bacher, Ed. Fishsniffer magazine, has harsh words for the CLCV.

NRDC, Environmental Defense, the Nature Conservancy and now the California League of Conservation Voters are giving “green” cover to policies that will lead to the death of the Delta and the extinction of Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations. We must expose these corporate greenwashers for the frauds that they are!

On the other side of this issue are the Sierra Club, Planning and Conservation League, Environmental Justice,Clean Water Action, Green LA, Heal the Bay, Restore the Delta and others. Together, they have fashioned the basis of a new plan, one that is both equitable and sustainable, but it is not what the legislature is delivering.

Today, Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, weighed in on the controversy at Huffington Post.

Indeed, it’s fair to say that Sacramento is in deep denial of a fundamental reality. California’s landscapes, forests, farmlands, and cities must now be managed primarily to meet the biggest challenge of the 21st century: an adequate, secure, clean, and safe  water supply for urgent human and environmental needs. Water is precious. We need to stop wasting it.

The legislature met today in special session, supposedly to pass legislation that would provide new governance for the Delta and to authorize putting a new bond issue on the 2010 ballot.  The governance creates new bureaucracies rather than rationalizing the existing ones and then gives the new boards and councils no enforcement authority and no funding.  The bonds themselves are a give away to major water users, moving $billions of cost from the actual beneficiaries of new water conveyance… once called a peripheral canal… to the taxpayers.  I am sure that the residents of Eureka or Monterey have no interest in paying for a handout to corporate agriculture.

Handout: that is what you call selling water at around $75 / acre ft. for agriculture when the going rate is over $200 / acre ft and the cost of desalination water can be as high as $1000 / acre foot.   And on top to that, the bond would have the taxpayers fund any and all environmental mitigation that a new canal would require.  Gimme a break.

They say that water flows to toward money.  There can not be any better example of this than what is happening in Sacramento this week.

Behind all of the smoke and mirrors, the legislature is doing nothing to rationalize California’s mixed up system of water right where Government has issued permits for some 5 to 8 times the amount of water that we get in a normal year.  It is time for someone to pull aside the curtain and reveal the Wizard in his shambles.