CA
Dan Bacher: Legislature Delays Schwarzenegger Water Bond Until 2012
Author: Dan Bacher
Published on Aug 11, 2010 - 6:17:27 AM

Aug. 10, 2010 - The California Senate and Assembly on August 9 passed Assembly Bill 1265, a measure that would delay the controversial water bond, Proposition 18, until November 2012.

The $11.14 billion measure, coauthored by Senator Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto) and Assemblywoman Anna Caballero (D-Salinas), will move next to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk for his signature.

The water bond, a virtual festival of pork, funds the infrastructure to build an environmentally destructive and enormously expensive peripheral canal and new dams. The delay in the bond means that the massive campaign by fishermen, environmentalists, Delta farmers, California Indian Tribes and labor unions has succeeded in preventing Schwarzenegger from putting in place the infrastructure for the canal, estimated to cost $23 billion to $53.8 billion, before he leaves office.

"At the end of last year, the Legislature made history by approving the first major investment in our water infrastructure in almost half a century," claimed Cogdill, who authored the legislation initially authorizing the bond for voter approval. "Mindful of the current economic slowdown, I support the move to give voters more time to understand this critical investment and give the state's economy more time to rebound."

Assemblymember Mariko Yamada (D-Davis), the only member on the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee representing a major portion of the primary zone of the Delta, voted "no" on AB 1265 in the committee and on the Assembly Floor.

"Proposition 18 should not be delayed, it should be repealed," said Assemblymember Yamada. "The same issues that we faced before – unrelated projects, excessive debt burden and minimal Delta representation in discussions – have not changed."

"AB 1265 delays implementation of a water infrastructure funding solution that was sold as being so urgent, passage could not wait a few months in order to have a more carefully crafted piece of legislation. Now the same majority who put this bond on the ballot wants to wait another two years, without any promise of revision," she explained.

She also voted no on AB 1260, "a precedent setting measure that ensures the legacy of the current governor without a clear purpose as to why."

Members of the No on Proposition 18 Coalition said they agreed with legislators who admitted that the $11.14 billion water bond is immensely unpopular with voters, but they did not expect support to improve by 2012.

"We heard a laundry list of reasons why the bond is bad for California during the legislative debate on AB 1265," said Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta. "Yet the legislature voted to keep the measure afloat for another two years. The problems with the bond will only grow more glaring with time."

"Voters want the right solutions to California's water problems now, not the wrong solutions two years from now," stated Tina Andolina of the Planning and Conservation League. "The passage of A.B. 1265 just delays any progress on meaningful water solutions by keeping this disastrous bond on life support."

Voter disapproval of the bond has been strong since its razor-thin passage in November 2009 in during a special session called by Schwarzenegger. In a classic example of elitism and institutional racism, fishermen, Indian Tribes, Delta farmers, Delta legislators and environmental justice communities were completely excluded from the back room deals that led to the passage of the water policy/water bond package last year.

The opposition to the bond was so fierce that Governor Schwarzenegger, in an admission of defeat in his campaign to build a peripheral canal and new dams, appealed to the legislature to delay it to the 2012 ballot.

Andolina said that many liberal and progressive voters opposed the bond's focus on dam construction while conservation, drinking water improvements, and other critical projects went under-funded. Many conservatives opposed the bond due to its fiscal impact - an estimated $22 billion over 30 years.

"The bond's $22 billion price tag will still be $22 billion in two years," Jim Metropulos of the Sierra Club emphasized. "Meanwhile, we have billions of dollars for water projects that have been approved by voters but are still unspent. Voters know that it's unfair for special interests to be coming to the legislature for more money out of taxpayers' pockets."

"Now or two years from now - it doesn't matter," summed up Jennifer Clary of Clean Water Action. "The bond won't be supported by voters because it is the wrong approach."

Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu (McCloud River) Tribe, was disappointed by the Legislature's refusal to repeal the bond at a time that California is in its greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

"We're looking at a massive deficit in the state, with services being cut left and right, and the legislators are still pushing this massive log up a road that leads nowhere," said Franco. "They're blocking all traffic to all of the good things that they could be doing, such as promoting water use efficiency programs and making sure that we have sufficient water in the rivers for the salmon and other fish that we are trying to bring back. We see all these programs going away to keep feeding a big pig that is sucking all of the energy from everything."

Franco noted that he was very happy to see that Assembly Member Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) spoke out in opposition to AB 1265.

Agribusiness interests used the delay in the bond as a chance to promote the postponed measure, touting the co-equal goals of water supply and ecoystem "restoration" that are enshrined in the bond.

"California's water future is dependent on fixing an aging infrastructure that will provide a reliable supply of water to farmers and 25 million Californians while restoring the environmental health of the Delta," said Mike Wade, executive director of the Farm Water Coalition. "California's water future is dependent on fixing an aging infrastructure that will provide a reliable supply of water to farmers and 25 million Californians while restoring the environmental health of the Delta."

It's disappointing news that the bond was delayed for two years, rather than being repealed. However, the move by corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans to delay the bond demonstrates how unpopular the bond is with all Californians. Schwarzenegger and his collaborators in the Legislature were so afraid of the bond going down in flames this November that they had to launch a last minute campaign to postpone the vote.

This defeat for the Governor's plans to build his peripheral canal as a monument to his enornous ego and "manhood" was only possible because of the huge coalition of fishing groups, California Indian Tribes, Delta farmers, environmental organizations, labor unions and consumer groups that united to stop the bond.

I applaud the Legislators on both sides of the political aisle who opposed AB 1265. These include Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) and Assembly Members Jared Huffman (D- San Rafael), Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego), Mariko Yamada (D-Davis), Alyson Huber (D-El Dorado Hills), Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks), Bill Berryhill (R-Modesto) and Chuck Devore (R-Irvine).

Opponents of Proposition 18 include the California Teachers Association, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Sea Urchin Commission, Clean Water Action, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Friends of the River, Food and Water Watch, Inter-Tribal Water Commission of California, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the Delta, Sierra Club California, United Farmworkers Union, Winnemem Wintu Tribe and many others.

For more information, go to: http://www.VoteNoOn18.org.

© Copyright YubaNet.com