Food and Water Watch and Statewide Coalition Oppose Water Bond

by Dan Bacher

The $11.14 billion water bond package that came out of the Special Legislative Session last November is on the November 2, 2010 ballot.

“As many of you already know, if this bond passes, it will reward poor water stewardship practices, as well as provide billions of dollars in funding for expanding or constructing new dams and other water storage projects that can have a seriously detrimental impact on California’s already suffering fish populations,” said Marie Logan of Food and Water Watch.

“We’re part of a statewide coalition working to defeat the water bond this fall, and we’re asking for your support,” said Logan. “We are partnering with other organizations that are members of SalmonAID, including Salmon Water Now and the Salmon Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen’s Association, on events opposing the water bond, and we need more groups to be involved.”

The coalition is seeking endorsements from any group that opposes the bond and Logan can send you an endorsement form if you’re interested or want to get more involved.

“We’re also actively working on building our volunteer corps to spread the word at events throughout the state, so if you are able to spread information about upcoming volunteer nights with your mailing lists, please do let me know,” stated Logan.

On May 13, Legislative leaders from both sides of the political aisle pledged their support of the campaign to defeat the water bond that was placed on the November 2 ballot by the Legislature and Governor.

“This is a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle with 19th century solutions for 21st century problems,” Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) said. “It would be fiscal madness to approve the largest water bond in California history at the same time that California is in the midst of a financial crisis.”

More than half, or 55%, of registered and likely voters said they’d vote “no” when read the title & summary of the measure written by the Legislature. Only 34% in the survey conducted by Tulchin Research statewide supported the bond.

For more information, contact Marie Logan at 415-293-9919 or mlogan [at] fwwatch.org to talk about ways that you or your organization can contribute. And be sure to check out http://www.nowaterbond.com for more information.



Below is a recent press release from the coalition:

Contact: Tina Andolina, (916) 313-4521, E-mail: tandolina [at] pcl.org

Bipartisan Legislators Join ‘No on Water Bond’ Campaign, Pledge to Help Defeat Costly, Misguided Measure

SACRAMENTO, May 13, 2010 – Legislative leaders from both sides of the aisle today pledged their support of the campaign to defeat the $11.14 billion water bond that has been placed on the November 2 ballot by the Legislature and Governor.

“You won’t see us agreeing on a lot of issues,” said Assembly Member Bill Berryhill (R-Ceres), a new co-chair of the No on the Water Bond Campaign. “But it’s easy for Republicans and Democrats to see big problems with this water bond.”

“We agree that this bond must be defeated this November,” Assembly Member Berryhill said. “And we will help this bipartisan, broad-based coalition work hard to make sure the bond goes down.”

Berryhill and fellow co-chair Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis) were joined by Assembly Member Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks), Assembly Member Joan Buchanan (D-Livermore) [also a co-chair], Assembly Member Ted Gaines (R-Roseville), Assembly Member Wesley Chesbro (D-North Coast) and others at the event today on the steps of the state capitol.

“This is a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle with 19th century solutions for 21st century problems,” Sen. Wolk said. “It would be fiscal madness to approve the largest water bond in California history at the same time that California is in the midst of a financial crisis.”

“Approval of this bond burdens our children with debt at the same time we are cutting their schools, colleges and universities,” Sen. Wolk said, “It’s unconscionable.”

The bipartisan legislators today officially joined a coalition that has been led mainly by environmental organizations, including Sierra Club California, the Planning and Conservation League, Friends of the River, Restore the Delta, the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water and Clean Water Action. Consumer advocacy group Food and Water Watch is also a sponsor of the campaign.

In addition to raising questions about the cost of the bond and the appropriateness of all the projects earmarked for funding, the coalition has objected on policy grounds to several issues in the bond.

They say it favors building destructive new dams, providing $3 billion in public funds for such projects. And they say that the fine print of the bond allows dams to be privatized after they’re built, enabling private interests to sell public water supplies at a profit.

Funds provided for “restoration” of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta appear, to most environmentalists, to be little more than preparatory steps for construction of a long-debated peripheral canal around the Delta.

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, (R-Irvine), criticized the bond as spending billions on projects with little or no connection to California’s water supply. DeVore said that while California needs to increase its water supply, this bond spends more on nonessential projects than it does on water supply and the Delta combined.

“If the state urgently needs to increase our water supply and fix the Delta, why is it that less than half of the $11 billion bond will be used for those purposes?” DeVore said. “In the last days of bond negotiations, pork projects were added at a rate of $100 million an hour. Tax dollars spent by this bond could go towards a golf course in Los Angeles, water taxis and bike trails in Lake Tahoe and horse trails along the San Joaquin River.”

A poll released by the No on the Water Bond campaign in February showed voter opposition to the bond at high levels.

More than half, or 55%, of registered and likely voters said they’d vote “no” when read the title & summary of the measure written by the Legislature. Only 34% statewide supported the bond. That survey was conducted by Tulchin Research (for more, please contact the campaign).