By Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes and Mark Schlosberg

For the past two years, water issues have dominated political debate in Sacramento and throughout the state, however there is one water bill on the Governor’s desk that we should all be able to agree on – AB 301 (Fuentes).

AB 301 would give Californians the right to know how much of their communities’ water is being bottled for sale and where that bottled water comes from. With water scarcity being a top concern, this modest bill is an important step towards better managing our water.

Currently in California, there are over 100 bottled water facilities, some operating in parched areas of the state including Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. About half of water that is bottled comes from municipal sources at the same time that companies then sell essentially the same product we get from our tap back to us for up to a thousand times the cost.

In other areas of California, bottlers seek water from springs that are critical to the health of the local environment including creeks and lakes. Overdrawing on these resources can impact the entire community and the environment. In either case, the community has the right to know how water is being used in order to properly manage community resources.

AB 301 passed the legislature and is supported by over 30 organizations throughout the state. The only opposition on record comes, ironically, from the state’s Department of Public Health, the agency that would be responsible for facilitating the disclosure of this information.  However, the Public Health Department opposition is unfounded.

First, the DPH claims that the program costs money, but what DPH seems to be ignoring is that not only would this bill carry an insignificant cost, but the entire cost would be covered out of existing fees in the Food Safety Fund. While the overall state budget is severely in the red, there is currently a multimillion-dollar surplus in that fund and the water fees portion has a $500,000 surplus, over 10 times the estimated cost of this modest bill.

Second, the DPH argues vetoing the bill is necessary to protect confidential business information of the bottlers. Putting aside the significant question of why the public health department is arguing against consumer’s right to know how community water resources are used, not a single private bottler has gone on record opposing AB 301. If the bottled water industry does not object to this legislation, why is the DPH bending over backwards to stop it from becoming law? Shouldn’t the DPH be working to protect public health and consumers instead?

Nationally, bottled water consumption has been declining over the past couple of years and for good reason. The bottled water industry uses excessive amounts of water in production and creates billions of petroleum-based plastic bottles, the vast majority of which are not recycled but discarded and end up on our landfills, lakes, rivers, and oceans. It also promotes a product that is a great consumer rip-off, costing up to a thousand times more than tap water for essentially the same product.

With all these impacts, Californian’s should at least have the right to know how much water is being bottled and which communities are being impacted. Last session, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed similar legislation claiming he did not have time to review it in light of the budget impasse. This year he has a chance to lead.

While there is much debate over the future direction of California water policy, AB 301 will only encourage making California’s water use as efficient and responsible as possible. We urge Governor Schwarzenegger to side with California’s communities and sign AB 301.

Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes represents the 39th District in Los Angeles County and Mark Schlosberg is the national organizing director for the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch (www.foodandwaterwatch.org)

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.

In this situation, I can’t really blame Jim Costa, he’s under immense pressure from his constituents to get more water to the Valley.  Yet, that doesn’t make this any less morally or scientifically wrong:

Once the meeting began, Rep. Jim Costa of Fresno got the first opportunity to speak as a witness before the panel. Costa, a conservative Democrat, told the panel the fish protections have harmed his constituents and are based on “flawed science.”

“The social and economic devastation has been real, and awful,” Costa said.(SacBee)

The economic devestation predates the current drought by well over twenty years.  The Central Valley has been economically devestated for years.  The fact is that what was built in the Central Valley was always unsustainable. We can only pump so much groundwater, build so much storage, and divert so much water from the Delta before we have to look at what we are doing there.  For most of recent geologic history, the Central Valley was a near desert, becoming arable in big rain years only.  Yet, we built

This is not to say that the land cannot be used productively.  It’s just that we need to thoroughly examine what is being grown where and attempt to create a land management system that allows farmers and labor in the Central Valley to thrive without destroying the environment at the same time.  This is possible, and in theory, it is part of the task of the Delta environmental review that kicked off yesterday.

Now, given how the water legislation came about, wildlife advocates and other environmentalists have a reason to be skeptical. But, the review will be worth keeping an eye on as it proceeds further.