|
More NewsA CSPA EditorialAB 1806 and AB 2175, How the committee votes fell: Both bills saved by bay area and south state senatorsby Jerry Neuburger It's hard to believe that not a single Republican senator would be in favor of restoring California's fisheries, especially in the face of the catastrophic collapse of the Sacramento system Chinook salmon populations. It's hard to believe that not a single Republican senator would favor water conservation in a state where water is as precious as gold and we are (by the governor's proclamation!) in a drought year. Especially when you consider the counties that some of these senators represent. You would expect that senators from the north state where the salmon migration takes place, where the commercial fishermen live and work, where the recreational fisherman ply the valley waters, you would expect that these senators would vote yes. However, that was not the case for two senators. Senators Cox and Aannestad shamefully voted against AB 1806. You would expect that senators from the south state, especially those representing agricultural interests in the desert counties would cave in to the pressures of big ag'. But again, that was not the case. Senator Dean Florez voted YES, for California's fisheries. You would expect that the senators representing the areas where much of our water comes from, the Sierras and the north state; and where the water passes through on its way to the ocean would be leaders in the drive for water conservation. But again, that was not the case. Senators Cox and Aannestad voted NO when it came to conserving California's water. You would expect that the senators representing areas where water was scarce, where there is a constant battle to meet water demands, where restrictions have an impact on quality of life, you would expect these senators to vote no for a bill with extensive water conservation measures. But again, that was not the case. Senators Torlakson, Cedillo, Corbett, Flores, Kuehl, Oropeza, Ridley-Thomas, Simitian and Yee voted YES when it came to conserving California's water. If you asked those who voted NO on AB 1806 and AB 2175 why they voted that way they would probably shrug their shoulders and say, "Party politics." Party politics! This isn't the Old Soviet Union comrades! It's not about the party, it's about the people! Your loyalty is to the people in your district, the citizens of California, the trust of California's natural resources, not a "party." Finally, I owe an apology (and a thank you) to the southland senators that voted for this bill. In my 60 years as a northern Californian, I had always believed there was a conspiracy of those representing the south state, greedily coveting the assets of the north state. I can see I was very, very wrong. By the way for those who might believe I have some political bias in the writing of this article, I've been a registered Republican for over 35 years. Voting NO on AB 1806 and AB 2175
Voting YES on AB 1806 and AB 2175
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||