A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment
October 16, 2007
1. Top Items
Lawmakers miss deadline on water bond, but there may be more time - Associated Press
Editorial: Dueling ballot measures poor way to set water policy - Contra Costa Times
Lawmakers miss deadline on water bond, but there may be more time
Associated Press – 10/15/07
By Samantha Young, staff writer
Unable to agree on a far-reaching
But that doesn't mean they're out of time.
Republicans and Democrats could give themselves another month to settle their differences about whether to build more dams and put a water bond on the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot, secretary of state spokeswoman Nicole Winger said.
"If the governor and the Legislature choose to spend extra money it would cost to do a supplemental ballot, the secretary of state would be happy to do the analysis," Winger said.
Winger could not say how much it would cost to print the additional voter guides that would be required for a supplemental ballot. The deadline for the regular election guide was Tuesday in order to meet printing deadlines, Winger said.
Aaron McLear, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's spokesman, said the parties continue to negotiate.
"We're still moving forward to get this on the Feb. 5 ballot," he said.
Schwarzenegger called a special session of the Legislature to focus on water issues and is asking lawmakers to approve two new dams and expand a third as a way to bolster
Lawmakers have tangled over new dams for decades.
Earlier this month, Democrats rejected two Schwarzenegger proposals they said gave too much money to dams. They favor conservation, underground storage and programs that help local water agencies build water recycling plants.
Democrats also want more money to restore native wildlife and water quality in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, citing court-ordered limits on the amount of water than can be pumped to an estimated 25 million Californians through the delta.
"It's important to remember the delta is in crisis. Bond funds that are already in existence need to be spent wisely," said Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis.
Absent a deal, both sides have threatened dueling water bonds on the November 2008 ballot. #
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/10/15/state/n162331D97.DTL&type=politics
Editorial: Dueling ballot measures poor way to set water policy
Contra Costa Times – 10/14/07
THE BALLOT INITIATIVE can be a useful tool for voters to directly set public policy. In the past few decades, initiatives have been used extensively, often to make the most significant changes in state government when the Legislature has been unwilling or unable to act.
However, the initiative process is hardly the best way to decide complex issues that require extensive study, deliberation and compromise. Such is the case with making long-term decisions on one of the most perplexing issues in this state: water resource management.
Yet,
The governor and Senate leader agree that
Schwarzenegger wants to place a $9.1 billion bond measure on the Feb. 5 ballot. It would fund two proposed dams -- at Sites Reservoir in
An unspecified amount would go toward expanding Los Vaqueros. It also adds $1.9 billion for Delta restoration.
Perata has a less ambitious $6.8 billion water proposal, which calls for smaller-scale local dam projects, and relies more on underground aquifers. His measure also seeks funds for Delta protection and environmental restoration.
The governor believes that more above-ground reservoirs are essential as
Perata says he thinks that conservation and smaller local dams paid for mostly by local interests will provide enough water for
Schwarzenegger and Perata both make some good arguments. We support Perata's view that agribusinesses should pay the full rate for the water they use and that there should be greater conservation efforts.
The governor's proposal would have local water districts and users pay for half the cost of the dams and the state would pay the rest. That seems fair, but only if half the water is used for a public purpose such as environmental protection and emergency supplies.
We disagree with Perata that large dams will not be needed in the future. They are the only way to store large volumes of water that would be needed in a prolonged drought.
Most important, large reservoirs, along with aquifers, are essential to maintain adequate flows of fresh water to protect fish and maintain healthy ecosystems.
That is why it is so dismaying that some people who call themselves environmentalists oppose any new dams, regardless of their location. Reservoirs, if planned and situated properly, can be valuable environmental assets.
The governor and Perata are not so far apart that a compromise is out of the question. As we suggested, perhaps a legislative review of any new dam could be included in a single measure, along with assurances that water users, especially agribusinesses, will pay the full cost.
While large bond issues must go on the statewide ballot, decisions on how to spend the money should be made in
What is likely to happen is the loss of both ballot initiatives in November 2008 as voters become confused, frustrated and angered by costly dueling negative campaigns. Then, perhaps, a compromise might be attempted.
But why waste time and money, not to mention an increase in partisan acrimony? The governor and legislative leaders should drop their plans for dueling ballot initiatives and try to work out a compromise, if not for the February ballot, then perhaps for the June statewide primary or the November 2008 general election. #
http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_7184606?nclick_check=1
####
No comments:
Post a Comment