Walton Family Foundation gave $9.2 million to NGOs backing water bond

Walton Family Foundation gave $9.2 million to NGOs backing water bond

by Dan Bacher

An analysis of environmental grants that the Walton Family Foundation gave to conservation organizations in 2013 reveals that NGOs supporting Proposition 1, the water bond on California's November 4 ballot, received $9,234,866 in grants while opponents of the controversial measure received none.

The Walton Family Foundation is governed by the descendants of Sam and Helen Walton, the founders of retail giant Walmart.

“The Walton Family Foundation continues a philanthropic vision begun by Walmart founders Sam and Helen Walton,” according to the Foundation website. “Across diverse areas of giving that include education reform, freshwater and marine conservation and community and economic development, Walton family members carry forward the timeless Walton value of creating opportunity so that individuals and communities can live better in today’s world.”

Supporters of the water bond getting money from the Walton Family Foundation in 2013 include the Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society (the parent organization of Audubon California, a bond backer), Trout Unlimited, American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife and Ducks Unlimited. The Foundation lists their environmental contributions in three categories: freshwater conservation, marine conservation and other conservation grants. (http://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/2013-environment-grants)

The Nature Conservancy received a total of $5,482,699 from the Walton Family Foundation in 2013. This includes $1,545,963 for freshwater conservation on the Colorado River, $1,437,986 for freshwater conservation on the Mississippi River. $475,000 for marine conservation, and $2,023,750 for other conservation grants.

National Audubon Society, the parent organization of Audubon California, received $2,570,767, including $312,100 for freshwater conservation on the Colorado River, $2,058,667 for freshwater conservation on the Mississippi River and $200,000 for marine conservation.

Trout Unlimited was awarded $610,650 for freshwater conservation on the Colorado River.

American Rivers received $424,400 for freshwater conservation on the Colorado River.

Defenders of Wildlife got $100,058 for freshwater conservation on the Mississippi River.

Finally, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. received $46,292 for freshwater conservation on the Mississippi River from the Walton Family Foundation.

On the other side, opponents of the water bond include the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Striped Bass Association, California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), Center for Biological Diversity, Central Delta Water Agency, Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton, Factory Farm Awareness Coalition, Friends of the River, Food and Water Watch, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Restore the Delta, San Francisco Crab Boat Association, Sherman Island Duck Hunters Association, Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermens’ Association, Save the American Association , South Delta Water Agency, Southern California Watershed Alliance and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe.

Guess how much money the Walton Family donated to these organizations in 2013? Zero.

Zeke Grader, Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, said, “It is highly troubling to see the impact that Walmart and a few big foundations are having on the conservation of our resources, as well as the protection of our artisanal and traditional fisheries including tribal fisheries.”

The Walton Family Foundation is known for dumping millions of dollars every year into corporate environmental NGOs, including the Environmental Defense Fund, Conservation International, Nature Conservancy and the Ocean Conservancy, that promote the privatization of the oceans through "catch shares," questionable "marine protected areas" and other projects.

For more information about the Walton Family Foundation and the environmental NGOs that it funds, go to: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/29/walmarting-the-rivers-and-oceans/

Save the American River Association (SARA): Why you should vote NO on Proposition 1:

• Prop. 1 does nothing to address drought relief in the near future.

• Prop. 1 adds $7.12 billion to California's debt, debt that will cost taxpayers $14.4 billion when the principal and interest is paid.

• Prop. 1 dedicates only 13% of its funding for conservation, stormwater capture and treatment, and recycling.

• Prop. 1 allocates $2.7 billion for three dams that would increase the state's water supply by only 1%. The money would flow under the provision that allows "continuous funding," meaning there would be no legislative oversight. A number of dam projects that had been abandoned because of low water yield or would not be cost-effective are now being revived.

• When the State Water Project was approved in 1960, it provided that beneficiaries of water projects -- not taxpayers statewide -- would pay for new projects. Prop. 1 reverses that principle. Taxpayers would pay the lion's share of new projects. Taxpayers, for example, would pay 73% of the cost of the proposed Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River while the beneficiaries -- agribusiness and the City of Fresno -- would pay most of the balance.

• Prop. 1 requires taxpayers to buy water the public already owns to protect fish. It's a retread of programs in force for years that allow speculators to reap huge profits by selling the public's water back to the public. And it will have the additional impact of making more water available to export from the Delta.

• Prop. 1 does nothing to address factors that have worsened the water crisis in California during the current drought: the overdrafting of major reservoirs in Northern California, inequitable distribution of limited water supplies and the failure to balance the Public Trust.

• Prop. 1 contains $1.5 billion for "conservancies" without any language governing how the money is to be spent. Nothing would prevent the conservancies from spending the money on projects that have no impact on water supplies such as bike trails or administrative costs. Critics are calling it "pork."

• Promoters of Prop. 1 note that about 6.9% of the bond will spent to provide safe drinking water and clean water programs to disadvantaged communities. That long overdue initiative should have been presented to the voters years ago as a stand-alone proposition. It is shameful that California government has never addressed the water problems of disadvantaged communities.

There are more reasons to vote NO ON PROP. 1. As Bill Jennings of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance has said, Prop. 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."

For more information about the water bond including arguments pro and con, go to: http://www.cavotes.org/vote/election/2014/november/4/ballot-measure/proposition-1/more or http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1,_Water_Bond_(2014)