Proposed Water Bond....

[Darian]

Ok,.... The CA legislature, having nothing else to do :p , have taken up a debate over how to revise a bond issue appearing on the November 2014 ballot. There're no less than four bills in the hopper; two from the Assembly and 2 from the Senate. The only one I've read so far is SB 848, author: Wolk. This bill is a conglomeration of items including $3.0 billion for new storage and $250 million for removal of Klamath Dams. All you Steelheaders out there, don't get your hopes up yet. This bill didn't pass committee muster. However, it did cause the beginning of negotiations to come up with a replacement for the bond issue previously approved for appearance on the ballot.

Lots of stuff going on in the background on this. First, Gov Brown wants the price tag reduced as the perception is that the public will reject the ballot measure and it will become a referendum on approval of the BDCP overall. Second, any outcome must include incentives to "sell" the public on gaining approval of the bond issuance (e.g. removal of the Klamath Dams and other pork), appropriation of unexpended amounts from prior bond issues and Delta Restoration (tho limited funding will be provided).

Here's a link to the Senate Committee analysis:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_848_cfa_20140623_133617_sen_floor.html

[SeanO]

I hope there is a place to vote "no new storage"!

The fish can't take anymore withdrawals!

Best,


Ok,.... The CA legislature, having nothing else to do :p , have taken up a debate over how to revise a bond issue appearing on the November 2014 ballot. There're no less than four bills in the hopper; two from the Assembly and 2 from the Senate. The only one I've read so far is SB 848, author: Wolk. This bill is a conglomeration of items including $3.0 billion for new storage and $250 million for removal of Klamath Dams. All you Steelheaders out there, don't get your hopes up yet. This bill didn't pass committee muster. However, it did cause the beginning of negotiations to come up with a replacement for the bond issue previously approved for appearance on the ballot.

Lots of stuff going on in the background on this. First, Gov Brown wants the price tag reduced as the perception is that the public will reject the ballot measure and it will become a referendum on approval of the BDCP overall. Second, any outcome must include incentives to "sell" the public on gaining approval of the bond issuance (e.g. removal of the Klamath Dams and other pork), appropriation of unexpended amounts from prior bond issues and Delta Restoration (tho limited funding will be provided).

Here's a link to the Senate Committee analysis:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_848_cfa_20140623_133617_sen_floor.html

[Darian]

This situation is really difficult deal with.... Since DWR will fund the tunnels in a separate, in-house issuance of bonds supposedly guaranteed by the beneficiaries of diversion/conveyance, the BDCP tunnels will most likely be funded regardless of whether issuance of general obligation bonds is approved or not. If we vote "no" on whatever version of this bond issuance appears on the ballot, Delta Restoration will be jeopardized or may not occur at all.

On the other hand, voting "yes" on the general obligation bonds may fund a whole bunch of pork and a downsized effort at Delta restoration. If it follows current direction, the pork will undoubtedly include construction of additional storage for surface water in the form of modified dams and new reservoirs. If litigation isn't successful, we may end up accepting some unsavory political compromises. :confused:

Of course, I've been railing for sometime against government reliance on funding thru issuance of bonds as service on the underlying debt is eating up a large share of annual revenues that could be used to solve some of our current problems or pay down the current level of bonded indebtedness.... :(