A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment
October 10, 2007
1. Top Items
Voters might face dueling water bonds; With differing visions blocking passage of lawmakers' own ballot proposals, they may put the initiative process to work instead - Los Angeles Times
Dueling water proposals may be headed to Nov. '08 vote; DEMOCRATIC PLAN WON'T BE PLACED ON FEBRUARY BALLOT -
Dems' water plan rejected; Without a deal by Monday, there won't be a bond vote in February - Sacramento
Senate rejects $6.8 billion water bond proposal -
Time running out on governor's ambitious legislative agenda - San Francisco Chronicle
Democrats' water bond fails to get two-thirds vote to pass Senate - Associated Press
Editorial:
Editorial: Special session is anything but -
Voters might face dueling water bonds; With differing visions blocking passage of lawmakers' own ballot proposals, they may put the initiative process to work instead
By Nancy Vogel, staff writer
Two water bond proposals -- a dam-heavy version backed by Republicans and a dam-neutral version backed by Democrats -- each fell to defeat in the Legislature this week, prompting advocates of the bills to look to the initiative process.
The result could be dueling water bonds on the June or November ballots next year, although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers of both parties expressed hope Tuesday that a compromise could be reached in the next few days, in time for the Legislature to act to put a water bond on the Feb. 5 ballot.
"I think in the end we can come together on this," said Schwarzenegger in a
Schwarzenegger and Republican lawmakers seek a $9.1-billion bond that would invest up to $5.1 billion in three new or expanded reservoirs in Glenn, Colusa and
Democrats call the proposal an unprecedented and unwarranted investment of taxpayer dollars in dam projects. They argue that the farmers or cities that use whatever additional water the dams capture should pay construction costs.
The Democrats, who dominate the Legislature, rejected the governor's measure Monday in the Senate Natural Resources Committee.
"We're prepared to do what we have to do to save the most vulnerable of our state," said Fresno Mayor Alan Autry. Poor, largely
A separate $6.8-billion water bond proposal backed by Democrats on Tuesday failed to get a single Republican vote -- four were needed -- to pass the full Senate.
The bill's author, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland), vowed to launch a signature-gathering campaign to qualify the proposal for the ballot as an initiative. His measure would divvy money among regions for groundwater cleanup, conservation, desalination and other projects but also allow up to $2 billion to be used for reservoir construction or expansion.
Perata argued that his bond would stretch water supplies twice as far as the Republican proposal at a lower cost to taxpayers.
With the state's major reservoirs low, a second dry winter looming and federal endangered fish protections curtailing how much water Southern California can pump from the state's hydraulic hub south of
"You can't make that same argument about dams," he said.
Though Perata said he would file paperwork with the attorney general today to launch an initiative, he also said he was willing to boost the amount of money in his proposal for dams and called on the governor to kick-start negotiations.
"Candidly, if the governor got us together and said. . . here's how far apart we are, and how could we make sure we bridge that gap," Perata said, "I think it could happen." #
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-water10oct10,1,5078435.story?coll=la-headlines-california
Dueling water proposals may be headed to Nov. '08 vote; DEMOCRATIC PLAN WON'T BE PLACED ON FEBRUARY BALLOT
By Steven Harmon, staff writer
In what essentially spelled an end to the special session on water storage, the Senate, on a 23-12 vote, fell four votes shy of the required two-thirds vote to put a $6.8 billion Democratic proposal on the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot - with no Republicans voting for it.
That means the debate will now be aimed at the November 2008 ballot, when most voters will be preoccupied with the presidential general election.
And, instead of an up or down choice on the ballot, voters will hear competing appeals: a $9.1 billion Republican proposal to build two dams and expand Los Vaqueros Reservoir in
'Dueling initiatives'
Senate leader Don Perata, D-Oakland, vowed to lead an effort to gather enough signatures to place his Democratic proposal on the November, 2008 ballot, saying he would submit his bill, SB 2XX, to the Attorney General's Office today to get a title and summary description.
"I'm told there will be dueling initiatives," Perata said at a press luncheon before the Senate met Tuesday. "I'll take that challenge. I'll put this body of work on the ballot against one that uses half its money on cement bunkers benefiting God knows who."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger continued to insist Tuesday that he could work out a deal with Democrats, but proponents of dam construction, which is popular not only with Republicans but also some Democrats in the agriculturally important
"It seems that way - we'll definitely have to do our own initiative," said Victor Lopez, the Democratic mayor of Orange Cove, a
The governor's plan proposes two dams - at Sites Reservoir in
Voters just approved $9.5 billion for two flood-control and water-quality bonds in November 2006, after approving one for $3.4 billion in 2002 and another measure for $1.9 billion in 2000. None of that money, however, was specifically set aside for dam construction.
Republicans had hoped to tap into a sense of urgency after a federal judge ruled Aug. 31 that water supplies to the rest of the state from the delta should be curtailed to protect endangered fish.
The environmentally fragile delta, which supplies two-thirds of the state's water, funnels
Differences 'clear cut'
"The debate will depend on the weather," said Sen. David Cogdill, R-Fresno, the author of the Republican bill that failed to pass out of committee Monday. "If we have another dry year, people's attention will be focused and they'll be anxious to cast a vote.
The differences are very clear cut. People understand the value of surface water storage reservoirs and realize that's the only way you get through dry years like this."
Democrats say the Republicans' plan is merely looking for a way to line the pockets of their agribusiness allies. The Republican proposal would have the state pay up to half the cost of the dams, while local interests - water districts and businesses - would pay the rest. Democrats would provide a fund for dams, but would allocate them to local projects - paid for mostly by local interests.
"What we've proposed is cheaper, faster and has twice the amount of water and requires private interests to pay rather than subsidies paid by taxpayers," Perata said. "That's a case I can make clearly to voters of this state. You can't make the same argument about dams.
"If big agribusiness benefits, I don't mind that. But they should pay for their own water. We should pay only for the public portion of the benefit," Perata said.
Environmental groups said they are confident they can slug it out with a Schwarzenegger proposal.
"If the dam proponents want to run over the cliff and not get anything," said Steve Evans, conservation director at the Friends of the River, "that's their business."
Lopez, the Orange Cove mayor and co-chair of the California Latino Water Coalition, said he rejects the notion that building dams would only benefit agribusiness.
"We're talking about the economy of
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_7134586
Dems' water plan rejected; Without a deal by Monday, there won't be a bond vote in February
Sacramento
By E.J. Schultz, staff writer
A Democratic water bond proposal was defeated in the state Senate on Tuesday, likely killing any chance of getting a bond measure on the February ballot.
As expected, Republicans opposed the $6.8 billion measure, which failed 23-12, four votes short.
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata said he will now try to get a measure on the November 2008 ballot by gathering voter signatures instead of going through the Legislature.
"Today we're finished. We'll take the next step," he said before the vote at an appearance before the Sacramento Press Club as it became clear his plan would not draw Republican votes.
Republicans are considering their own signature-gathering drive, raising the possibility that voters would be faced with two ballot measures.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is pushing a $9.1 billion plan, held out hope for a last-minute legislative compromise.
"I think it is always important to realize that there is a lot of Kabuki going on this building," he said at a news conference. "We just see things a little differently, but I think in the end we can come together on this."
The Republican governor a month ago called a special session to solve the state's water woes. Problems include polluted aquifers, the deteriorating Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and predicted water supply shortages. But a partisan fight over dams has stifled attempts at compromise.
The governor and Republican lawmakers say state-funded dams are the only way to significantly boost the state's water supplies. Democrats favor groundwater storage, recycling and conservation.
Schwarzenegger's plan, written by Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, earmarks $5.1 billion for two new dams -- including one near Fresno -- and one expanded dam. The state would pay for up to 50 percent of the projects, with local users paying the rest.
Perata's plan would allow local water agencies to bid on $2 billion of state money for water-supply projects. Both plans include money for Delta repairs. If two measures go to the ballot, the fight will likely pit environmentalists -- who oppose dams -- against business and farm groups.
Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, said the battle should be avoided at all costs, because both measures would likely fail.
"The probability of success with competing measures is very low," he said. "The public gets confused, and they vote no."
Quinn's group has spoken out in support of the governor's plan. But one of its largest members, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, has lined up behind Perata's plan.
Quinn said meetings were still taking place and a legislative compromise is still possible.
Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines of
"We're still trying to get something put together," Villines said in an interview. "But it is becoming clearer and clearer that ... Democrats are not prepared to have a rational conversation on water storage as a component of a comprehensive fix."
Democrats, in the Senate floor debate, pointed out that the money in Perata's plan could be used for dams, as long as such projects win out over other alternatives.
Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, urged Republicans to "allow competition to determine what gets the government dollars." #
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/423967.html
Senate rejects $6.8 billion water bond proposal
By Timm Herdt, staff writer
The rejection of Perata's proposal came one day after Senate Democrats turned down a competing $9 billion bond measure sought by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The twin defeats scuttled any hope of placing a water bond before voters in February.
Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders of both parties say there is an urgent need to spend money on the state's water system after a federal judge's order in August that pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta be cut back by about 30 percent.
In addition, state reservoirs are well below capacity after a dry year, and experts predict a permanent reduction in the Sierra snowpack as a result of global warming.
Reacting to shortages, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California announced this week it would cut back deliveries to agricultural customers by 30 percent next year.
In
He said only about 5 percent of the water Calleguas receives from Metropolitan goes to
Contrary to published reports,
"Our rates are pretty much set through 2008," he said.
The bond proposals from Schwarzenegger and Perata each sought to make available billions of dollars for restoring the delta and encouraging local projects to increase water supplies.
The difference is that Schwarzenegger sought funding for about 3 million acre-feet of new water storage through the construction of two new dams and the expansion of a third.
Perata's plan did not specifically set aside money for dams, although local districts could have used state money to help finance dam construction.
"It doesn't go far enough," said Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Fresno, of Perata's plan. "It doesn't solve our problem."
Perata said that circulating petitions to place his bond proposal on the ballot might result in lawmakers being more willing to compromise early next year in order to stop the initiative from going forward.
Schwarzenegger said he is optimistic an agreement can be reached in the Legislature next year.
"I think in the end we can come together on this." #
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/oct/10/senate-rejects-68-billion-water-bond-proposal/
Time running out on governor's ambitious legislative agenda
San Francisco Chronicle – 10/10/07
By Tom Chorneau, staff writer
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ambitious plans to overhaul
The governor unveiled a revised health care plan that included leasing the state lottery to a private company to help pay for expanding coverage to uninsured residents and give a tax break to low- and middle-class families.
But the proposed changes drew only a passive response from Democratic leaders, while consumer and labor groups said the plan does not do enough to protect the working poor from escalating costs.
Meanwhile, senators failed to compromise on a multibillion-dollar bond measure for building new dams, restoring the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and funding conservation and recycling programs.
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, said he was done negotiating on water issues and was ready to take his own $6.8 billion water plan to the ballot next year.
But Schwarzenegger, in his characteristic optimism, said he is not giving up on either issue despite the time crunch.
"I think it's important to understand that there's a lot of kabuki that goes on in this building," Schwarzenegger said at an afternoon news conference, referring to the political theater of the Capitol.
The governor called the special session last month, saying that he and legislative leaders from both parties were close to agreement on both water and health care. But in recent days, the lines have hardened on both sides and on both issues.
Most of the money in the governor's $9 billion water bond would be set aside for building new dams, with a small percentage used for alternative strategies such as water conservation and recycling. Democrats say big reservoirs may not be the best way to store and deliver water given climate changes, and they want more money for alternative programs.
On health care, Democrats are concerned that the governor's plan to mandate all Californians have health insurance would be too costly for many residents.
Schwarzenegger's new plan would provide a tax credit that would be worth about $2,000 a year for a family of four earning up to $72,000 a year.
"We think we've taken a significant step toward increasing the affordability of health coverage for low- and middle-income Californians," said Amy Palmer, spokeswoman for the state Health and Human Services Agency.
But labor and consumer groups said the tax credit did not go far enough.
"He's leaving the middle class out in the cold," said Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. "He's offering some support for individuals making up to $35,000 a year, but if you make more than that, there's not support but you are still expected to go out and buy a policy in the individual market."
Another key change in the governor's plan would lease the state lottery to a private company and use the new revenue to help pay for expanded coverage. The governor's office expects the lottery could generate $2 billion a year for health care.
Schwarzenegger also introduced a sliding scale for determining the cost employers would be asked to pay for worker coverage.
Rather than requiring all employers to pay a 4 percent payroll tax, the governor wants contributions based on the size of a company's payroll. For example, a small firm with highly paid employees would pay more than a similar size company of low wage earners.
Both Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-
"I have been strongly committed to ensuring affordability, and I will be examining the governor's bill in that light, along with how it addresses prescription drugs for Californians and fair participation by employers," Núñez said in the statement.
Progress on water issues has become more problematic.
The governor and legislative leaders had wanted to put a bond measure to voters on the February ballot. The secretary of state has said that Tuesday is the deadline for measures to make the Feb. 5 election, although the Legislature could work longer if lawmakers want to pay for a supplemental ballot.
Perata said Tuesday that he is finished negotiating with Republican lawmakers after his newly revised $6.8 billion water plan failed to attract the two-thirds majority needed to qualify for the ballot. He said he would put his plan before voters in November 2008.
"This is too important to give up on," Perata said in a statement. "We've spent seven months crafting this bond, and the broad support behind it demonstrates the quality of this legislation. "We cannot ignore this problem."
Schwarzenegger said he is not convinced that the two sides still cannot come to an agreement that will make the February ballot.
"We are going to work together to get water storage on it (the ballot) no matter what - because there's a way of doing it," he said. "I never give up." #
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/10/BAO1SNBGD.DTL&hw=water&sn=005&sc=484
Democrats' water bond fails to get two-thirds vote to pass Senate
Associated Press – 10/9/07
By Samantha Young, staff writer
Republicans said the $6.8 billion bond by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata was inadequate because it did not require money to be spent on dams.
"We believe this bill does not go far enough," said Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto. "We need to be doing more."
Perata's bond would allow communities to compete for state grants to build their own dams, improve water efficiency, recycle water and store water underground. It also would have set aside money to strengthen levees and restore the troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which funnels drinking and irrigation water to much of
The Democrat-controlled Senate rejected the proposal 23-12, four votes short of the required two-thirds majority. No Republican voted for it.
Both sides said they would purse their own bonds on the November 2008 ballot if a special session on water policy fails to produce a compromise deal.
Perata said he would submit his bill as a proposed initiative Wednesday to the attorney general's office to begin the process of moving it to the ballot. But he also asked that his bond be reconsidered by the Senate, meaning it could be used as a vehicle for a possible compromise between Democrats, Republicans and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Republicans support a $9 billion bond proposed by Schwarzenegger that dedicates money to build two dams and expand a third, among other projects. The Senate defeated that plan Monday.
Water and health care reform are the issues Schwarzenegger asked the Legislature to address when he called a special session last month. So far, the sides have failed to reach a deal on either.
The governor wants lawmakers to upgrade the state's massive system of storing and delivering water as a hedge against drought and to deal with court-ordered limits on the amount of water that can be pumped from the delta beginning in December.
The effects of a dry winter and interruptions to pumping from the delta are being felt throughout the state. On Monday, the agency that provides water to nearly 18 million
Before Tuesday's vote, Perata said it was possible a deal could be reached by Oct. 16, the deadline set by the secretary of state for placing a measure on the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot.
"It's really only about one thing. It's about dams," Perata said during a speech to the Sacramento Press Club.
Schwarzenegger agreed the debate about water was not over, despite the failure of separate Republican and Democratic plans this week.
"We just see things a little differently, but I think in the end we can come together on this," Schwarzenegger said during a Tuesday news conference. "All we want to add is storage. If we don't have storage, we're not going to solve the major problem." #
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7128791
Editorial:
It's starting to look as if the governor and the Legislature won't be able to fashion a compromise water bond to take to the voters this year. Instead, we will likely get two competing measures, one backed by the governor and the other the work of legislative Democrats.
That's about as surprising as the sun rising in the east.
The inability of our elected leaders to lead is becoming the sad refrain in the larger saga of
The state's water crisis is real. Growing population and the uncertainty of how global climate change will affect water supplies are exacerbated by
A federal judge has shut down pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. That threatens water supplies for thousands of acres of Valley farmlands and millions of residential consumers up and down the state.
The Metropolitan Water District in
And in
Democrats don't want new dams, which are included in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan. Republicans in the Legislature vow to stop any measure that doesn't include new dams.
So they'll do what they always do -- punt.
Any new bond measure would have to be passed by the state's voters. But a measure that had been fully debated and represented a serious and thoughtful compromise would stand a much better chance of passage.
Instead, we can expect competing measures that are both likely to fail. We'll be left with a growing water problem and no solutions.
That's how things are done in
If our elected leaders are simply going to kick everything to the voters to decide, why do we need them? Let's just shut down the Legislature and the governor's office and turn the state into a plebiscitary democracy, with decisions about governance dependent entirely on who's got the biggest budget for political ads.
And start stocking up on bottled water. #
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/160375.html
Editorial: Special session is anything but
The current special session of the California Legislature is proving to be just as "special" as its lackluster regular term. That could be disappointing, but instead, it's just something we all expected.
The special session was called to deal with the state's water issues and health care. The rival health care proposals have gone nowhere. A water plan moved to the state Senate floor Monday, where it is expected to die a quick death.
Legislative leaders and the governor seem to just be going through the motions, without any expectation of actually reaching a compromise. From the beginning, all the factions on both issues have been talking about going to the electorate with rival ballot propositions, and letting the voters make a decision that their representatives aren't able to accomplish.
What you can expect, on the November 2008 ballot, are two competing water bond measures. One will call for sale of about $7 billion in bonds, without any money for new dams. The other will be about $10 billion, with about half of it going toward three new dams, including Sites in
Neither one — as now written — will solve the problems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which is the most pressing water issue in the state.
On health care, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Tuesday proposed leasing the state lottery to a private firm to subsidize insurance for the poor. Its prospects are uncertain, because there are at least three other proposals in circulation, each with entrenched opposition. As a result, several of them are likely to on the ballot in one of the three elections scheduled next year.
So here's the question: Are you well enough informed to choose confidently between several highly technical, dueling, sweeping health care proposals? Do you have the time to research the alternatives, evaluate their implications and make an informed choice?
How about your neighbor? How about the guy down the street, the one who never waters his lawn? Do you feel comfortable letting him decide the future of health care in this state?
Well, that's likely what's going to happen, because legislators, with taxpayer-supported staff to help them make wise decisions, instead make decisions based on raw partisanship and to appease their particular special interests.
And when push comes to shove, they as a group can't make a decision at all.
We're paying those folks in
We suppose that question will probably make it to the ballot eventually too. And won't that be special. #
http://www.chicoer.com//ci_7134045?IADID=Search-www.chicoer.com-www.chicoer.com
####
No comments:
Post a Comment