Here's the plan -

[David Lee]

You vote for my water package OR ELSE I'll VETO every bill on the table .

http://www.kcra.com/politics/21518272/detail.html?treets=sac&tml=sac_break&ts=T&tmi=sac_break_1_08230111042009

Tell me this isn't CRIMINAL - ???

David

[Scott V]

Taken from the post:

"Legislators want to require California cities to use 20 percent less water by 2020, although large urban areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco would not have to meet such a high threshold because per-capita water use is lower than in other parts of the state."


That is bul*sh*t, everyone one should have to reduce water use.

Sorry for the inappropriate language but that statement has really got me pissed off.

[Darian]

Still haven't seen all of the details (that's where the Devil's lurking) but before we all jump off the bridge and create back spasms from knee jerk reactions, let's consider that this outcome was inevitable and has been coming for a long time. It's unrealistic to think that water will not flow to the San Joaquin and to major cities in the south and the bay area. They simply aren't going to undue what has already been done. :|

I'm a lot more upset by the cost of the project and the proposed method of funding. $11 Billion is a bunch of money and selling bonds to raise money requires a market that'll buy them. This state has one of the lowest credit ratings in the nation and that will require us (you/me :paranoid: ) to repay those bonds at very high interest rates to attract buyers. Currently, debt service (interest payments on past bond issues) is approaching 50% of all expenditures from the General Fund of this state. That doesn't leave much for anything else. Needless to say, when your income is not enough to cover current outflow, you're bankrupt. Unfortunately, the state can't file Bankruptcy so that means you and I, and all of our decendents, are going to be paying for this for a long time. Maybe under federal court supervision. :rolleyes:

Here's a suggestion, let's impose the payments on those who will benefit from this water project most in the form of sales/user fees (similar to Sales/Use Taxes). That way, the growers, who receive somewhere near 85% of all water pumped south, and those selling excess water allocations would pay the heaviest fees for the system.... :cool: The fees could be set at a reasonable rate (but in proportion to level of use) so as to spread the cost and not create negative incentives. This would furnish needed revenues for service of the bonded debt without the need to raise Income and/or Sales/Use Taxes on individuals. No bonds required under this proposal. :cool: :cool:

[Scott V]

Just got this out of the Recordnet a San Joaquin paper I believe:

Hours after California legislators reached what they called an historic agreement on water, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told a crowd of Stockton business people at an electric vehicle plant grand opening that “we’re going to fix the Delta and to build a canal around the Delta.”

“That was great news,” Schwarzenegger said of the legislation’s passage after a long night of political wrangling.

It was one of his most direct comments to date about the canal, which is not popular in San Joaquin County. Surprised and displeased was Douglass Wilhoit, CEO of the Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce.

“There’s a right time and a right place for everything,” Wilhoit said after the ceremony. “The right time to celebrate EVI (Electric Vehicles International) was today, not to address the very faulty and incomplete water legislation which we fear does not go far enough to protect and restore the Delta.”

Southern California would have been a more appropriate location to laud plans for a peripheral canal, Wilhoit said.

“I assumed he was going to talk about EVI, green jobs and the environment,” he said. “I’m disappointed.”

Schwarzenegger did not take questions from the media after the ceremony.

The legislation passed this week does not explicitly call for a canal, which would run through the east side of the Delta not far from where this afternoon’s event was held.

But it does create a new Delta council which would have a say in whether a canal is ultimately built. Four of the seven council members would be appointed by the governor.

Read Thursday’s Record for more on this story by staff writer Alex Breitler.

[Darian]

Yep!!! He's trying to set up his political legacy.... :roll:

[Mr T]

Seems more and more the polticos just do what special interest wants and we have no say in the matter.

Depressing really.

[Darian]

Tristan,.... Why doncha you tell, us how you really feel....:question: :lol: I do feel your pain but I'm in a state of resignation about this. :-|

As if to twist the blade a bit, I read that included in the package is a provision for an "earmark" of $10 million to be allocated to a favorite project of Darrel Steinberg. That project would only benefit students in the Sacramento area. Yet the cost of that funding would be repaid by all state taxpayers.... What has this to do with water issues :question: Absolutely nothing. :mad:

I'm curious what happens to the proposed commission if issuance of the bonds is not approved??? Does the commission still perform or do we have an unfunded cost. If the commission continues to exist, what is the source of their authority to act???

Well, nothing's chiseled in stone, yet. The major hurdles to overcome are gaining approval of the bond issue in a general election if it ever comes to that, finding a market to sell the bonds if approved and years of project development and implementation. All of which will be the subject of years of litigation. :nod: