August 27, 2008 – For Immediate Release

Contact: Steve Evans, Friends of the River, mobile: (916) 708-3155, email: sevans [at] friendsoftheriver.org


Friends of the River Opposes “Compromise” Water Bond

Friends of the River today announced its opposition to new water bond legislation – AB8xx – touted by its authors as a compromise between various legislative factions that have been debating the merits, content, and amount of a water bond for more than two years.

“AB8xx may represent a political compromise,” stated Steve Evans, Conservation Director of Friends of the River, “But it is bad for California’s environment and it will be bad for the California taxpayer.”

The proposed $9.8 billion bond was introduced by Assemblymembers Jared Huffman, Anna Caballero, and Lois Wolk. Some California Legislators are demanding that a water bond be placed on the November ballot as a condition of their approval of the state’s long-delayed budget, which have driven rumors that there is a budget/water bond deal in the works.

“It’s never a good idea to push through controversial legislation that will require the taxpayers to borrow billions of dollars while the Legislature struggles with a multi-billion budget deficit in the last days of the session,” said Evans. “This almost always results in the generation of poor public policy,” he noted.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates the total cost of the $9.8 billion bond to be more than $19 billion over 30 years and will require an increased debt payment by the taxpayers of $700 million annually. The state already has an annual debt payment of nearly $12 billion.

The LAO’s findings prompted Evans to question why the Legislature is considering a multi-billion dollar water bond when the state is deeply in debt, approval of a budget is weeks overdue, the California economy is in recession, and California taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet.

In addition, Friends of the River criticized the AB8xx because it fails to adequately address California’s most pressing water needs. “This state has billions of dollars in unmet safe drinking water, waste water treatment, water conservation, and watershed restoration needs,” Evans stated. “And yet, this bond provides relatively paltry funding for these more pressing needs while proposing billions for dams that would only benefit a few.”

A major point of contention in this bond and previous iterations proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Dianne Feinstein is more than $3 billion in proposed funding for raising existing dams or constructing new ones. The bond creates an entirely new funding mechanism for dams in California. Previously, publicly constructed dams were funded through revenue bonds paid for by those who benefit from the water provided by the dams. According to Evans, AB8xx would provide general taxpayer support for dams from which the public will receive few if any benefits.

“The state’s own water plan shows that dams are the most costly and one of the least productive water strategies available,” said Evans.

The high cost of water from new dams was recently confirmed by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LACEDC). The LACEDC determined that augmenting southern California’s urban water supplies by building new dams is a “non-starter” because of financial and environmental reasons.

“The bottom line is that taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill for dams when California’s $100 billion dollar agribusiness industry can well afford to pay for the facilities on their own,” Evans said. “The ag industry has not offered to pay a cent for these costly and questionable projects,” he added.

“The Legislature should not approve this flawed water bond,” Evans concluded. “If it is placed on the statewide ballot, voters should resoundingly reject it.”


###