No on Water Bond Coalition Reacts to Brown/Whitman Debate

No on Water Bond Coalition Reacts to Brown/Whitman Debate

by Dan Bacher

The No on the Water Bond Coalition on Friday reacted to the Brown versus Whitman Debate in Davis on Tuesday, September 28 by saying that "Meg Whitman’s love of Texas includes an embrace of the Texas sized pork in the water bond."

"In this week’s first debate between the candidates for governor, California’s water woes were featured prominently, as was the $11.14 billion water bond slated for the November 2012 ballot," according to Jim Metropulos, spokesman for Sierra Club California and the coalition. "He echoed the No on the Bond coalition’s call that all parties, including Delta voices, be brought to the table."

Jerry Brown stated that the central focus of any plan to build new water infrastructure should be based on the "beneficiary pays principles." The proposed November 2012 water bond, instead, dumps the cost of building new water infrastructure on all California taxpayers. "The two candidates were in stark contrast as they laid out their vision for solving California’s daunting water challenges," the coalition stated.

"As far as the peripheral canal, of course I in 1981 brought the Legislature together and had a peripheral canal bill that would have brought water to Southern California," said Brown. "Unfortunately, Northern California didn’t like that and there was a referendum and my proposal, even though it went through the Legislature, was voted down by the people. What that shows you, you’ve got to negotiate, you’ve got to bring in all parties."

"So here’s my proposal on the water," Brown stated. "The beneficiary has to pay, if they get the water, not the taxpayer…. If it’s for habitat protection or building the levees, that’s something the public ought to pay for."

Brown indicated that he was favorable to the idea of a canal; "conveyances that make sense."

"And I think if we increase our water recycling, if we work with local communities on groundwater management, do better there," he added. "If we make it easier for water transfers, and we build the conveyances that make sense, than I think we can deal with the water… one other thing you have to deal with safe drinking water. There are kids in the Central Valley with birth defects… Safe water, water conservation, the beneficiary pays, and the taxpayer then supports the general benefits that will accrue.”

Meg Whitman, on the other hand, again embraced the bloated water bond, this time clearly stating that the bond enabled a peripheral canal and new destructive dams. In previous statements Whitman also acknowledged the billions of dollars of pork projects that would be funded by this bond.

Whitman stated: “I was a proponent of the water bond that was just kicked to 2012 and I think that was wrong. I was a supporter of that bond…. It had all the elements, it had, above and below ground storage, it had an outline for the peripheral canal”

No on the Water Bond is a coalition of consumer, education, environmental, fishing, farming, tribal, community and social justice organizations opposed to the water bond that will be on the statewide ballot in November 2012.

Coalition members include the Sierra Club California, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Friends of the River, Food & Water Watch, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Planning and Conservation League, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Sea Urchin Commission, Southern California Watershed Alliance, Restore the Delta, Winnemem Wintu Tribe and Urban Semillas.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Legislative leaders, corporate agribusiness and southern California water agencies are pushing for the construction of a peripheral canal/tunnel and new dams. Delta advocates fear that the construction of a peripheral canal/tunnel would lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento splittail and other imperiled fish species.