The Legislature has fewer than 100 days to pass a new water bond bill into law so that voters will have a bond to vote on in November. Our state has not passed a water bond since 2006, and funding from that bond will ostensibly run out by next year. The Legislature has voted twice to postpone a statewide vote on a 2009 water bond deal that has been deemed unpassable because it is an $11.14 billion pork-barrel measure that was cobbled together in the dead of night in the backrooms of the Capitol.
It’s clear that the public does not want the politics or the pork that has been the foundation of past bond negotiations. They want a water bond that will pay for projects that can maintain and supply clean and affordable water while protecting our coasts, rivers and watersheds. Funding for projects should be allocated by using fair and reasonable regional criteria.
However, time is of the essence. By law, the Legislature and the governor must pass a new bond by June 26 to replace the earmark-laden 2009 bond deal that is on the November ballot. Stakeholders and legislators have been meeting for more than nine months on various issues that are addressed in various Water Bond proposals.
Several water bond proposals have been proposed by legislators.
Last Tuesday, the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee voted 7-2 to approve an $8-billion bond measure drafted by Assemblymember Rendon to fund water quality, conservation and water storage projects. AM Rendon agreed to some changes, but opposed the idea of having the bond allocate funds to specific agencies including nine regional conservancies, warning such earmarking might be seen by voters as favoring some groups. However, Sen. Fran Pavley, the chairwoman of the panel, said allocating the money to specific agencies will make the program more effective and the bill was changed to include the allocation to specific agencies.
Senator Lois Wolk has expressed concerns that leaving the allocation of much of the money up to the governor's administration could result in some of it going to support Governor Brown's controversial tunnels project to divert water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
Senator Wolk's bill, which has been supported by Contra Costa County, SB 848, would provide a $6.825-billion bond measure, including funds earmarked for nine conservancy agencies. There are major differences between the Rendon and Wolk measures. Rendon’s would provide $2.5 billion for water storage projects to be allocated by the state. Wolk is proposing $1.025 billion for water storage.
Senator Anthony Cannella has his own, $9.2-billion bond measure proposal, and opposed Rendon's bill, saying it does not provide enough money for water storage.Both bills have additional committee hearings scheduled, and negotiations will continue.
Recent polling information suggests that the public support for a water bond is increasing as drought concerns grow. Voters are far more likely to approve a water bond on the November ballot if lawmakers shrink its size, according to a new survey<http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=1091> that also found nine out of every 10 Californians say they have taken steps to conserve as the drought drags on. U-T San Diego article<http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/mar/26/poll-ppic-water-brown-marijuana-rail/>; Capital Public radio report<http://www.capradio.org/20812>;PPIC report<http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_314MBS.pdf>
|