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.  

Dear Friend:

As you may know, we are strong supporters of John Russo for State
Assembly.  We know that John is the person we need in Sacramento.  We also know John personally and he has been a passionate, outspoken champion for our kids
and for our neighborhoods for nearly 20 years.

The Russo for Assembly campaign is going well.  John has done 75 House
Parties and has knocked on more than one thousand doors.  The campaign is
ready for the final push.  In fact, the Russo campaign has gone so well
that John’s opponents have resorted to distorting John’s record.  WE NEED
YOUR HELP to get the truth out about these mailicious distortions
because, without a response, many people will believe the lies.

Sandre Swanson’s supporters have made two claims against John.  One, that
in 1997 John supported a huge City Council pay increase; and, two, that
in 1997 John supported taking money away from the Kids First program.
Both of these claims are false.

Here are the facts:

1)  At no time during his nearly twelve years of excellent public service
has John ever made a discretionary vote to raise his own salary.  To the
contrary, when the City Council did have power over its own salaries,
John voted against two pay raises and refused to take a raise when he
lost on those motions.(Please see the attached Oakland Tribune column for
the real story.)  As City Attorney, John has no authority over his own
salary and, therefore, had no role in setting the City Attorney’s salary.
The City Attorney salary is determined by the City Charter.
Ironically, given the Swanson’s campaign’ lies, John Russo is the only
elected official in the East Bay to take a voluntary pay cut.  During the
Oakland budget crisis in 2002-03, John took a voluntary paycut that cost
him over $10,000.  He did this to encourage others in the City to give a
little so as to save jobs.  Unfortunatley, not one other City official or
employee followed his generous lead.

2)  John never voted to take money out of the calculated amount for
Kids First set aside.  The calculation was based upon the Charter and the
interpretation of the Charter by the City Attorney’s office and City
Staff. John was not the City Attorney at that time. The irony here is
that John was one of only 3 Councilmembers who supported the 1996
initiative creating the Kids First set aside.  And as City Attorney, John
issued opinions regarding the Kids First calculation that corrected the
earlier interpretation and has resulted in an additional  $1.67 Million
Dollars for the Kids First program. (Please go to the City Attorney’s
website and look under “Notable Cases” to find the truth for yourself.)

So here’s the situation:  Sandre Swanson’s friends from the Sacramento
PACs waited until the last minute and misrepresented John’s position on
two controversial measures.  They then use these distortions to suggest
John is greedy.  This is outrageous.  We need to stop them.  Here’s how:

TAKE THIS E-MAIL AND SEND IT TO EVERYONE ON YOUR E-MAIL LIST!  There is
great power in people who have the truth.  We have a chance here to say
no to negative and misleading campaigns right at our fingertips.  All we
have to do is let our friends know what is really going on.

Thanks for your time, and don’t forget to vote for John Russo for
Assembly.

Howard Neal, former President, Friends of Oakland Parks and Recreation
C.J. Hirschfield, Executive Director, Children’s Fairyland*

(*Children’s Fairyland name is used here for identification purposes only)