The biggest fight yet, for our fisheries, is now!

[Mike McKenzie]

If you fish in California and expect that your children and Grandchildren will be able to do the same, we all need to get to work and expose Propositon #1 on the Nov. State ballot for the Sham that is. If it passes we can eventually kiss our fisheries good bye!
Mike

From California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

Hi All: Attached and below is a press release on opposition by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) to the Proposition 1, Water Bond, that will be on the November's ballot. Also the link at the bottom of this post leads to CSPA's 14-point Statement of Opposition detailing reasons the Bond is deceptive, environmentally damaging, fiscally irresponsible and a bad choice for California. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact us. Thanks! Cheers!
Press Release
3 September 2014 For Immediate Release
Contact: Bill Jennings, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance: 209-464-5067; cell 209-938-9053; email, deltakeep@me.com; www.calsport.org

Water Bond: Insidious Threat to Delta and Central Valley Rivers Pork-filled gift basket to special interests won’t solve water problems

On 2 September 2014, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) released a 14-Point Statement of Opposition to Proposition 1 Water Bond, that will be on the November's ballot. After carefully reviewing the provisions of the Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014, CSPA has concluded that Proposition 1 represents a grave and insidious threat to core environmental values and principles buttressing protection for fisheries and the environment.
Among numerous reasons the water bond is bad for California is that Proposition 1 undermines: the public trust doctrine by purchasing water the public already owns, at inflated prices, to protect the public's rivers and environment; the principle of beneficiary pays by subsidizing projects that benefit special interests and the core principle that projects should be responsible for mitigating their adverse impacts. Furthermore, Proposition 1: paves the way for a new era of big dam building; is a pork-filled barrel of special interest subsidies, including BDCP; provides little near-term drought relief; eliminates public oversight; crowds out other critically needed investments in roads, schools and public health & safety; is fiscally irresponsible and sabotages efforts to meaningfully address California's continuing water crisis.
CSPA Executive Director Bill Jennings observed, "Proposition 1 is a poster-child of why California is in a water crisis; it enriches water speculators but accomplishes little in addressing the drought, solving California's long-term water needs, reducing reliance on the Delta or protecting our rivers and fisheries. When the pubic focuses a critical eye on Prop. 1, they'll realize that it's just another expensive pork-filled gift basket to special interests."
CSPA joins the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, San Francisco Crab Boat Association, Restore the Delta, Center for Biological Diversity, California Water Impact Network, Food & Water Watch, Southern California Watershed Alliance, South Delta Water Agency, Central Delta Water Agency, Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fisherman's Association and numerous other fishing, environmental, water and civic organizations in opposing Proposition 1.

More info here:
http://calsport.org/news/cspa-releases-14-point-analysisopposition-to-water-bond/

[Lew Riffle]

What? ....Cal Trout and TU are not on the opposing list? imagine that....what a litmus test for money grubbers! more of the same and job security for the prolongers. Let's focus on making water and not taking water. Get it...we don't have enough even in wet years to store it for the dry years. We drained Shasta to where it is now from full since 2010. The world moves on economic incentive and not on ideals. When is the Agriculture sector going to realize that selling them water is not going to be as profitiable as to residential users and the water agencies are not going to be their friend anymore becuase they got out legislated again? Soon as the resiviors get full the developers will be pushing to build more housing tracts and the way I see it this bill has that tract built into it. Sadly we can provide a better place for people to live than south of our borders because there is the economic incentive to build new housing for some to move up to and the void for others to fill making there way here giving us affordable labor. No solutions unless we can face the fact that this procees is far from sustainable and we start making and stop taking; but there is no econmic incentive to do such. At least we can stop the insanity by not voting for this bill despite the short sighted environmental concessions tangling from it that some say is a good thing....just sugar coating to a bitter pill. Lew Riffle

[Darian]

IMO, one of the primary reasons for voting this issue down is that the BDCP requires two or more additional bond issues in similar amounts to this one over the course of the project to complete same. According to a legislative committee analysis I read, recently, service on bonded indebtedness already amounts to $50 billion, annually. That's an eye popping amount of money. Is this really the time to add more??

The ballot proposition contains a lot of projects (pork) that really provides no "new water" and does very little to solve the problem of mismanagement and overallocation of water. According to info from the UC Merced Water Rights Report noted in the previous thread, water is over allocated by 5 times the amount of water available in any year. The report, also, illustrates problems in the process of regulating ground/surface water and shortcomings of SWRCB.

Additionally, the governor and DWR have raised the threat of repurposing funds raised under any bond issue (by repurposing unexpended funds from prior bond issues) to construct the tunnels or any other project not included in the proposition, regardless of language included that bars that outcome. Doesn't this seem a bit like expanding the "rainy day" surplus already included in the states General Fund without approval/authorization of the legislature? :confused:

[Reel Ventures on the Fly]

Thanks for sharing this Mike

[Lance Gray]

Mike,

Good stuff. We as anglers with our fly clubs need to get into the fight.

What's so funny about all this is that most of the folks that we are talking about are fly fishers. You would think they would understand?