| More NewsCSPA NewsDo You Vote? Then this is important!AB 1806; who voted yes and who voted no, the backers and those who opposedBy Jerry Neuburger While its passing is cause for celebration and it contains some important provisions protecting fish in emergency situations, it falls far short of its initial goal of providing millions of dollars for fisheries restoration as mitigation for the damage done by the pumping process of the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project. Since the bill was initiated in the Assembly by Lois Wolk, chair of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, assembly members were the first to vote on the bill's passage. CSPA asked supporters to write legislators encouraging the bill's passage. The vote split on party lines with almost all Democrats voting yes and the Republicans voting no. The recorded vote, 43-36, was; AYES: Beall, Berg, Brownley, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeSaulnier, Dymally, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fuentes, Furutani, Hancock, Hayashi, Hernandez, Huffman, Jones, Karnette, Krekorian, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Lieu, Ma, Mendoza, Mullin, Nava, Nunez, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Solorio, Swanson, Torrico, Wolk, Bass NOES: Adams, Aghazarian, Anderson, Arambula, Benoit, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Carter, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Garcia, Garrick, Horton, Houston, Huff, Jeffries, Keene, La Malfa, Maze, Nakanishi, Niello, Parra, Plescia, Runner, Silva, Smyth, Spitzer, Strickland, Tran, Villines, Walters NO VOTE RECORDED: Soto Once the bill reached the Senate the going became much rougher. The major water agency lobbyists started prowling the halls, misrepresenting large portions of the bill and spreading rumors that the bill's passage would mean drastic reductions of the availability of water for the southland. Even so, the bill passed through the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, thanks to the efforts of the committee's chair, Senator Steinberg, and through the Senate Appropriations Committee, thanks to the efforts of that committee's chair, Senator Torlakson. However, the bill's luck ran out on the Senate floor. Not a single Republican voted for the bill. They were joined by six Democrats, four from the south state and two noted for being pro-business. AYES: Wiggins, Migden, Machado, Steinberg, Torlakson, Yee, Peralta, Corbett, Simitian, Alquist, Scott, Cedillo, Kuehl, Romero, Ridley-Thomas, Lowenthal, Oropeza, Kehoe NOES: Ducheny, Padilla, McLeod, Calderon, Florez, Correa, Cox, Aanestad, Denham, Cogdill, Maldonado, Runner, Ashburn, McClintock, Margett, Dutton, Ackerman, Battin, Wyland, Harman, Hollingsworth NO VOTE RECORDED: Vincent Senator Florez had initially voted for the bill but, when it was obvious that the bill would be defeated, changed his vote to "NO." Senator Torlakson, seeing the bill's defeat imminent, pulled the bill and asked for a re-vote at a later date. The bill was amended and stripped of its "offending" passages and then returned to the floor. With the mitigation elements removed, it was assumed that the bill would pass, 40-0 but that was not the case. Even with the bill stripped to the bare bones and focused solely on fish rescue, a minority of senators voted against it, all Republicans. Their reasons are unfathomable since the bill's financial impact is negligible. It appears that they REALLY are no friends of fishermen when you look at the organizations backing the bill and those groups opposed, all connected with the water lobby. NOES: Aanestad, Margett, Ackerman, McClintock, Ashburn, Runner, Hollingsworth, Wyland ABSTAINING: Battin, Cedillo, Vincent The bill was backed by virtually every fishing organization in the state. The list on the Senate website is a who's who of the fishing community and represents tens of thousands of California anglers. The backers were: American Sportfishing Association If the advocates could be equated with the who's who of the fishing community, then the opposition, a list of the most powerful water districts in the state, could definitely be billed as the powerbrokers of the state's water. Although the fishing groups represented the wishes of the voters, the water agencies had the dollars, the same dollars that pour into legislator's coffers during election campaigns. The list of water agencies that opposed the original bill follows; Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||