A hot rumor around Sacramento lately has been the status and fate of the water bond, now known as Prop 18 on this November’s state ballot. The realities of the economy and state budget wreck have finally hit home to Sacramento decision makers that an $11 Billion measure may not fly with voters this year. Many don’t see how we will make the $900 million per year payments…or that they’re getting value for those payments. Today, the Governor, bond proponents, and others including Sen. Darrell Steinberg seem to now publicly agree that this isn’t the year.
As the legislature placed it on the ballot, the legislature can move to pull it. This isn’t unprecedented with bonds, as the High Speed Rail bond was delayed a couple times during my years in the Assembly having been scheduled to be on the ballot and then pushed back for fear that voters would reject it in ’04 or ’06, as I recall. [Why it passed in ’08 is still beyond me but I digress]
One silver lining is that pushing it back to ’12 saves the state from debt it cannot now afford and gives legislators time to review, revamp and pare the bond down to being truly a water supply increasing measure that would help our economic infrastructure. [Instead of including $250,000,000 to remove dams in the far north that produce existing green hydro power] As it is, voters from both ends of the spectrum will find much to dislike and the measure would very likely be doomed, especially this year. In my view, it needed much more in certain dollars for real storage and much less for the usual enviro projects common to the last 6 "water bonds".
It’s unfortunate so much time has been lost and so much previous bond spending has not built more lakes for our state. This measure constructed as is, is scaring voters away from the good, some new water supply spending…because of the bad, all the spending that isn’t new water for Californians. We should see the legislature soon moving toward an urgency bill or extraordinary session bill to push Prop 18/Water Bond off until 2012. This is a wakeup call to the legislature to get it right for 2012. Maybe then it will be "new and improved".
June 30th, 2010 at 12:00 am
If this fails to get on the ballot, it will be an example of the Governor not having the confidence to trust his own instincts.
On something this big, unless you think the economy will never come back, you can’t back away from approving such a necessary bond. It is actually cheaper to get the project done now than it will be later.
As for the project itself, it will have the effect of lowering water bills dramatically in Southern California where most of our businesses are located and because of that will help the states economy dramatically.
A lot of Northern Californian’s think this is about LA residents wanting to sit around by their swimming pools and just waste water, so I am not sure it will pass, but it certainly is overdue to appear on the ballot and there is nothing to gain by postponing the measure except that the Governor gets a political win by avoiding a controversy. JMO!
July 1st, 2010 at 12:00 am
Thank you for the info Doug.
The Siskiyou County Republican Central Committee with unanimous consent opposes the water bond.
Many up here in Siskiyou County oppose it. As you mentioned, the bond wastes $250 million to destroy 4 dams.
All of us in the north state know that they provide flood protection, hydropower for 70,000 homes and holds 60,000 acre feet of water storage that is a senior water right for the Shasta Valley farmers in Siskiyou County.
The California Republican Party County Chairmans’ Association at the Fall 2009 CA GOP convention as well as previously the North Division CA Republican Women composed of 37 Northern California Counties both passed resolutions opposing the tearing down of these said dams.
They doomed the water bond in Siskiyou County when they included the money for dam removal. And probably lost support in other areas of the north state and the whole state as well.
We’re glad they are re-thinking the bond.