Posted on 07/24/2008 8:57:37 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proclaimed a statewide drought in June and then urged passage of a $9.3 billion water bond, Democrats and environmental critics became suspicious.
They still are.
“Last year we did have record low rainfall, but whether or not there is a drought is somewhat debatable,” said the Sierra Club’s Jim Metropulos. “The governor calling it a drought--that carries no legal significance. It’s interesting he calls for a drought, and couple of weeks later, he calls for a water bond.”
The Republican governor proposes a $9.3 billion dollar water bond for the November ballot, arguing that passage of such a measure would alleviate water problems.
But Democrats and environmentalists say first things first: Stick to the original water bond measures voters approved two years ago.
The only way the measure could qualify for the ballot is if the Legislature puts it there. That would take a two-thirds vote from both legislative houses.
The governor’s water bond proposal for the 2008-09 budget, a joint bipartisan effort with U.S Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, includes $3.5 billion towards new water storage in projects such as underground water and possibly new dams, as well as $1.9 billion towards delta restoration.
“There is no question that California needs a long-term water management strategy,” said Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, the incoming Senate leader.
However, he qualifies earlier resources issued through the 2006 passing of Proposition 84 into consideration, in which California voters opted for $5.4 billion in water bonds.
“But first we must address our immediate needs – fixing the Delta’s fragile eco-system, our deteriorating levees and our stressed water supply. Californians approved billions of dollars in 2006 to fix these and other problems. We owe it to voters to put these funds to work now.”
Included within the original plans were $800 million specifically towards flood control projects, and 1.5 billion towards regional water management.
Senate Leader Don Perata, D-Oakland, issued a statement two weeks ago on the possibility of drafting a bond measure with Republicans and the governor, but similarly prioritized the fiscal alternatives of Proposition 84 before the proposal.
“This latest bond proposal shares many similarities to one I put up for a vote last September, before the state encountered its current fiscal crisis,” said Perata. “I am open to doing a water bond. First, however, the state should spend the bond money voters approved in 2006, and then, we must pass a responsible budget that can pay for the debt service on a new bond.”
The two Senators, along with Sen. Michael Machado, D-Linden, initially sent a letter to the governor this past February regarding concerns over a proposed comprehensive water policy within his Strategic Growth Plan.
“Shocked” to learn about plans to create an “’alternative delta conveyance system,’ i.e. The Peripheral Canal,” the letter says “launching a peripheral canal without addressing ecosystem, water quality, structure and governance simply enflames old sectional passions and suspicions.”
In his efforts to deflect the proposal from a party issue, to a “people’s issue” issue, the Governor made the appeal that “it should be an issue that is facing farmers and business people. Ordinary people, everybody is suffering when we have no water.”
Pressure is not only increasing on certain legislators to make negotiations and approve the measure for the November ballot from a trickle down method, but through grassroots organizations as well.
Twenty-five buses filled with 1,000 farm workers and their families left Fresno at about 6:30 a.m. Wednesday to rally at the Capitol, determined to bring more water resources for the San Joaquin Valley. In conjunction with The California Latino Water Coalition, the workers rally sought to march in support of Governor Schwarzenegger’s water bond proposals before they start to directly call legislators in the incoming weeks.
“Let us all work together and go send that message to the legislatures to come up with a water bill once and for all to fix our systems, we owe it to the people of California, “ the Governor appealed to the crowd.
Metropulos, senior advocate of Sierra Club California, however, is still not convinced that this will entirely benefit everyone statewide. “Something like a temperance dam will only supply farmers in large agriculture fields in the Central Valley. Only a few will benefit from this.”
“We’re not supportive, and we also believe in the fact that there are over $800 million dollars in previous bonds available, many from Proposition 84, 50, and IE. We also don’t support new dams or surface to be paid for by bonds; there is no short term or near term advantage on water supply reliability for California.
Using bonds is all fine and good, but this state has gone to the well so often and so many times of late, the well is perilously close to being dry.
As an outsider, it appears to me that the answer would be NO, based on my observations only.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Feinstein’s involved? Follow the money.
One need only look at this piece’s title and understand why many voters here could easily qualify for coverage as ‘battered voter’ syndrome sufferers.
Sac bee
Poll: More California voters hold positive image of Democrats than GOP
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1105432.html
The latest Field Poll shows that 54 percent of California voters hold a positive image of the Democratic party, while just 31 percent have a favorable view of the Republican party. In addition, likely voters were asked their pre-election party preferences for Congress in the fall election. That measure finds Democrats with a twenty-point advantage over the GOP, 48 percent to 28 percent.
Se the poll.
http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/07/23/17/0724rls.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The Stockholm Syndrome or battered spouse effect.
Oh they mean well. They don’t mean to hurt anyone.
Go figure ,, when the state bellies up, what they will say then? (why didn’t anyone warn us or do something?)
Stockholm Syndrome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.