More News

Random Thoughts on Bonds, Dams and Legislative Insanity

by Bill Jennings, Executive Director, CSPA

September 6, 2009 -- When Senate pro Tem Darrell Steinberg blatantly stacked the deck in picking the members of the joint Conference Committee to consider the package of water bills that propose to “reform” California's water system, the writing was on the wall.

Steinberg excluded all Delta area representatives because he couldn't trust them to vote against Delta interests, including fisheries.  Six legislators from the Los Angles area were selected, as were four from the San Joaquin Valley.  Four legislators from Northern California were picked but two of them (Huffman and Steinberg) fervently support the package giving Governor Schwarzenegger the power to appoint the majority of a Council that will have the power to authorize and fund a peripheral canal.

So we have ten legislators from areas that would benefit from a peripheral canal and expedited delivery of water exported from northern California.  And we have four representatives from the north state (of which two support the bills).  Twelve to two, with no Delta representation - get it!

So we shouldn't be surprised that, having opened Pandora's box, water bonds and new dams would issue forth.   Two Valley representatives, Senator Cogdill of Modesto and Assemblywoman Caballero of Salinas, immediately introduced bond proposals totaling $12.4 billion and $11.6 billion, respectively.  Both bonds provide a bonanza or freebies for water agencies and special interests, including billions for new dams.  Of course taxpayers and ratepayers are expected to pick up the tab.

California is suffering massive and endemic budgetary deficits and is rapidly slashing funding for routine governmental and essential public safety services, education, and safety-net medical care for the young, old and mentally ill.  And Steinberg's carefully selected paragons of fiscal responsibility are proposing new bond measures to build low-yield high environmental impact dams and water projects that would provide more subsidized water to grow subsidized crops in the desert that require subsidized drainage control of toxic wastes.  And this extravagant gift to special interests would be at the expense of fiscal sanity, fisheries, the environment, Delta farmers, and communities of the estuary. 

The debit service of either of these bonds would bring total bond debit service to 9% of the state's general budget.  Bond proposals to build new dams during the present budgetary crisis can only be described as fiscally irresponsible, morally outrageous and bereft of common sense.

But, as the old saying goes: your enemies will do as expected but watch out for your “friends.”