You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Water Bond’ tag.
With the beginning of the New Year, the Legislature reconvenes today to tackle California’s projected budget deficit of nearly $13 billion (through June 2013), 2011 legislation that was rolled over to the second year of this two-year legislative session, as well as new bills that will be introduced this session.
For environment protection, this means important 2011 bills like the banning of plastic grocery bags and polystyrene take-out containers, as well as requirements to force oil and gas firms to publicly list chemicals pumped into the ground during a drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”, will get a second chance in 2012.
While balancing the state budget and the potential fiscal impact of new legislation, the Legislature will also face critical decisions whether to repeal, delay or reduce the $11.14 billion water bond currently slated for the November ballot; whether or not more state parks should close and if so, which ones; and whether or not to appropriate more funds for California’s proposed $100 billion high speed rail system.
Complicating matters further, 2012 will be the first election year with independently redrawn and highly competitive district lines, as well as a Top 2 Open Primary System that allows voters to vote for any candidate (regardless of party affiliation) in each race during the primary, with the top two vote-getters then qualifying for the General Election. With so much uncertainty, some fear this may prevent the Legislature from passing meaningful legislation this session. Democratic leadership assures Californians that this is not true. Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez recently stated, “What you’ve seen over the last year is an ability for the Governor and the Legislature to come together and make very tough decisions – and I think you’re going to see more of the same.” With so many critical issues facing our state, it is PCL’s hope that the Speaker is correct in his assessment; and that when tackling these pressing matters, the Legislature acts deliberately, thoughtfully and transparently.
Regarding the $11.14 billion water bond currently slated for the November 2012 ballot, Governor Brown on Friday stated, “”We have to figure out a way to make it more politically acceptable”. In its current form, he said, “It won’t pass.”
By the November 2012 election, the bond language will be three years old. In this three year period our understanding of what is needed and how it can be financed will be further informed by several ongoing processes, including the Delta Plan and new information on conservation achievements and potential. Continuing the same outdated and unrealistic funding plan wastes an opportunity to determine whatCaliforniareally needs to better manage its water and who should pay for different water investments.
Many agree that the $11.14 billion water bond as written should not be placed on the ballot and the amount of new debt represented by the bond as it is currently written is unacceptable. Nor does PCL think we should continue to delay a bond decision, a possible outcome that will ensure an even more outdated and less relevant proposal will eventually be put in front of voters.
Governor Brown’s recent statement agrees with PCL’s recommendation to “Consider a smaller water bond when the economy improves”, first articulated in last year’s “8 Affordable Water Solutions for California.”
On Monday, just ahead of the Secretary of State’s deadline to send the Voter Information Guide to print, the legislature passed AB 1265 (Caballero and Jefferies) which delayed a vote on the water bond until the November 2012 election. In making a case for passing the measure, Assemblymember Caballero acknowledged that the bond was in trouble this November and that bond proponents needed more time to sell the measure.
Governor Schwarzenegger first asked the legislature to remove the water bond, which was Proposition 18, from the November ballot in June, citing the downed economy and the budget crisis. However, newspapers across the state quickly pointed out that timing was not the main obstacle confronting the measure. In fact, the bond’s contents and size are what the voters really opposed.
In both houses, the measure received the bare minimum number of votes needed to pass. In the Assembly, the bill was put up for a vote two times before finally getting the requisite number of votes at 9:30 PM.
A bi-partisan coalition of legislators worked hard to prevent AB 1265 from passing, knowing that the water bond would not get better with time. Assemblymember Jared Huffman, who led the charge in the assembly for last year’s water package, was a vocal opponent of now delaying the bond. In the assembly he was joined by a solid group legislators of both stripes including the entire Delta delegation of Democrats Mariko Yamada and Joan Buchanan and Republican Bill Berryhill. In all, 22 assembly members stood firm with the many environmental groups opposing AB 1265, including PCL, the Sierra Club, and Food and Water Watch.
In the senate, Senator Lois Wolk of Davis, another Delta legislator, rallied the Democrats who had stood fast against the bond last year. Senators Corbett, DeSaulnier, Hancock, Leno and Yee were joined by Republican George Runner in opposing AB 1265.
As the bill was being debated, there was much talk of the opportunity to spend some time over the next legislative session re-negotiating the bond with the hope of developing a proposal more palatable to the voters. With this water bond pulled from this November’s ballot, the legislature also has the opportunity to pursue other proposals for ensuring California has a safe and reliable water supply for all Californians and for our environment.
Leading California Democrats are joining environmentalists, consumer advocates and environmental justice groups in urging Democratic Party activists to oppose an $11 billion water bond slated for the November ballot. In a joint letter being distributed at this weekend’s convention of the California Democratic Party in Los Angeles, signatories call the bond measure “ill-timed, unaffordable [and] loaded with political pork.”
The bond does little to address our immediate water needs or to create a more sustainable water future. Instead, it funds outdated and environmentally destructive projects like massive new dams. This water bond was larded up with extras during behind-the-scenes deal-making, which ultimately made it the largest water bond ever placed on the ballot, at a time when our state is facing historic, crushing budget deficits.
Democratic leaders who signed the letter urging Democratic Party activists to reject this bond include: Former Attorney General John Van de Kamp, Senators Mark Leno (D), Lois Wolk (D), Leland Yee (D), former Senator Byron Sher (D), Assembly Members Tom Ammiano (D), Joan Buchanan (D), Noreen Evans (D), and environmental organizations throughout the California including the Sierra Club, the Planning and Conservation League and Food and Water Watch. For a full list of signatories please click here.
