You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2010.
On Tuesday, the United Farm Workers (UFW) stated that they will oppose the water bond since it will subsidize the agricultural industry for decades to come at the expense of education, health care and farmworkers’ safety. Most of all, they are appalled that the Governor and the Legislature’s expensive corporate agricultural water handout will be paid by California’s taxpayers and their children.
As reported in San Francisco Chronicle UFW stated, “The $800 million per year in annual bond payments required under the new water bond is more than California spends on health care for farmworkers and their children, more that the entire worker-safety budget, more than on farmworker housing, more than on pesticide regulations and food safety. In fact, it’s more than all those things added together.”
Ironically the Governor and the Legislature often cite farmworkers as the demographic to reap the greatest benefits from the November 2010 Water Bond. The United Farm Workers are the latest addition to a growing populace rallying against the bond. A poll released last week showed that the majority of California voters oppose the $11.1 billion bond.
The federal jobs bill passed off the Senate floor this week without the contentious rider proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which would have weakened endangered species protections in the Delta. Feinstein’s rider was slammed by the media over the last couple of weeks, but it also sparked the release of crucial information from state agencies and universities that has debunked a media myth propagated by the corporate agricultural industry.
As a result of Feinstein’s proposed amendment, the media was able to clear up the misperception that California’s agricultural jobs and productivity have tanked because of recent Delta pumping restrictions.
Data from the California Employment Development Department does not reflect the claims that water restrictions and drought have lead to job loss in the Central Valley. In fact, it shows that farm jobs have barely been affected, losing less than 0.5% jobs from 2008 to 2009.
In regards to the pumping curtailment’s effects on productivity, the LA Times recently wrote, “Growers of major crops such as rice and processing tomatoes enjoyed a bumper year in 2009. Grape production was down slightly, but still among the highest on record. And although photographs of farmers bulldozing their almond groves for lack of water were a media favorite, California had more acres of bearing almond trees last year than ever.”
We hope that with these new facts brought to light, Senator Feinstein will abandon her attempts to undermine endangered species protections, and California can focus on finding real solutions to the water and employment challenges facing our state.
Over 300 attendees participated in the 2010 PCL and PCLF Environmental Legislative Symposium in January bringing together a diverse array of attendees from the State Legislature, state agencies, businesses, conservation community, and law and planning firms. We were pleased to meet the many new faces in the crowd and were delighted have more than 40 university and high school students attend!
The 34 speakers and two keynotes were exceptional, and the topics were extremely informative and timely. Whether you were able to attend or not, one of the post-event services we provide is access to the information presented at the event. PCL has posted all of the available presentations and handouts that we received permission to include in the event proceedings.
To download handouts and presentations, go to the 2010 Symposium Proceedings page.
Opponents, including the Planning and Conservation League, of the $11.1 billion water bond that will appear on the November ballot seized on remarks Thursday by gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, who conceded that the bond is chock full of “unnecessary expenses.”
“Meg Whitman is right on one thing,” said Jennifer Clary, Water Policy Analyst at Clean Water Action and a member of the No on the Water Bond campaign. “The water bond has billions of dollars in pork and unwise expenditures built in. Those billions in extras reflect horse-trading to get votes for the bond, not to address California’s legitimate water needs.”
Whitman spoke Thursday in San Diego, and said of the bond, “There is probably $2 to $3 billion in unnecessary expenses in that bill.” Nonetheless, she supported the bond measure, implying that it would be too difficult to renegotiate the bond in Sacramento.
Tina Andolina, Legislative Director for the Planning and Conservation League, and also a member of the No on the Water Bond campaign, said, “Using Meg Whitman’s figures for the pork in this bond, the actual cost to taxpayers will be double that: $4 billion to $6 billion, after interest payments. The hit on the general fund would be $200 million or more each year, just for the pork she’s identified.”
Andolina continued, “With California strapped for cash and facing massive cuts to education, health, and public safety, we can’t afford to fritter away billions of dollars just to ratify the bad deals cut last year.”
The water bond was placed on the November ballot by the Legislature and Governor last October. In the late stages of negotiations, the size of the bond grew consistently, reaching $11.14 billion at the end. Typically, the actual cost to taxpayers with principal and interest payments considered is double the size of the bond.
Estimates already suggest that debt service on the full bond will reach $800 million per year from the state general fund.
The No on the Water Bond campaign released poll results last week showing that 55% of likely voters currently oppose the bond, while just 34% support it.
