 |
|
Just Say “No” To The Water Bond Save California Rivers From Destructive Dams Save California From Bankruptcy *AB 1265 - Passes, Governor expected to sign, will delay water bond to November 2012.
Friends of the River opposes the $11.14 billion water bond approved by the Legislature in November 2009. This general obligation (GO) bond will likely be placed on the November 2010 general election ballot for voter approval. Friends of the River believes that the water bond is the single greatest threat to California rivers in more than a decade. Approval of the bond by the voters will reinvigorate a new era of big dam building and river destruction in California and exacerbate the state’s already dire fiscal situation. Friends of the River opposes the water bond for the following reasons: More Dams – California already has 1,400 dams that block, drown, and divert our rivers. If approved by the voters, more than $4 billion would be available in the water bond to study, design, and construct new and enlarged dams that threaten several California rivers, including the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Mokelumne, Bear, and Merced. New and enlarged dams are the least effective and most expensive water options available. State bond funding for dams will leverage additional local, regional, and federal funds, making these projects much more feasible. Peripheral Canal – The bond provides $1.5 billion for Delta “restoration” directly linked to the Peripheral Canal. Water importers, not the public, should be responsible for the cost to restore the Delta ecosystem degraded by water exports. State Subsidies – The bond provides huge state subsidies for local water projects and strategies that should be funded by local ratepayers. Public subsidies hide the real cost of water waste and facilities (particularly dams), thus reducing financial incentives to avoid waste and choose less costly and environmentally destructive options. Increasing state subsidies for local projects with GO bonds is unsustainable in the long run (see below). Privatization – A provision in the water bond allows public bond funding to go to private entities, which may operate and own new dams made possible by bond financing. Passage of the water bond will shift public water and money to private entities that will then sell water for a profit. State Debt – The State Treasurer and Legislative Analyst believe that California has reached its capacity to borrow more money through the sale of GO bonds. The annual debt service for already approved GO bonds will soon reach 10% of annual state revenues. Approval of the water bond will increase the state’s debt and result in further cuts in state public safety, education, health, and environmental programs that have already been cut to the bone. This already dire fiscal situation will only get worse, with a projected $20 billion deficit for 2010. Pork – The bond includes millions of dollars for specific local projects without consideration of state priorities, simply because the support of the local state legislator was needed to pass the bond. Although the water bond provides funding for water strategies such as conservation, recycling, reclamation, and watershed restoration, that we typically support, Friends of the River strongly believes that the negatives of the water bond outweigh the positives. Any solution to California’s water needs must be financially and environmentally sustainable. The water bond is not financially or environmentally sustainable. Yet another bad dam deal: The proposed water bond provides several ways to fund the construction of new or expanded dams in California. Local, regional, and federal cost sharing will leverage the state funds provided by the water bond, making construction of multi-billion dam projects much more feasible. The agencies proposing the dam projects (including DWR, the Bureau of Reclamation, and local water districts) are free to define public benefits, project purposes (drought relief, regional water supply reliability, and/or statewide water system improvement), and economically distressed regions. It is quite likely that the projects will be touted as providing multiple public benefits, meeting multiple water needs, and assisting economically distressed regions with little or no guarantee that public benefits will actually be provided, water needs met, or economics improved. Water bond provisions that fund dams include: Chapter 5 – Drought Relief: $190 million in this section is available for planning, design, and construction of local and regional drought relief projects, including local and regional surface water storage projects that provide emergency water supplies and water supply reliability in drought conditions. A 50% cost share from non-state sources is required, with a possible reduction or waiver for disadvantaged and economically distressed communities. Chapter 6 – Water Supply Reliability: $1.05 billion in this section is available via competitive grants for IRWMP projects, including local and regional surface water storage projects. A 50% “local” cost share is required, with a possible reduction or waiver for disadvantaged and economically distressed communities. Chapter 8 – Statewide Water System Operational Improvement: $3 billion in this section is available for surface water storage projects that improve operation of the state water system and provide “ecosystem improvements” and other public benefits. Surface water storage projects eligible for funding include projects identified in the CALFED ROD (including the Temperance Flat Dam and Shasta reservoir expansion), as well as other local and regional surface storage projects that improve the operation of water systems in the state and provide public benefits. The public benefits cost share for these projects is 50%, which means that 50% of the costs would come from other sources. Joint powers authorities (JPAs) that may include local water districts and governments, as well as private parties, are eligible for funding. JPAs are authorized to own, govern, manage, and operate surface water storage projects to advance the purposes of this chapter. These funds are continuously appropriated and not subject to any budget decisions by the Legislature or the Governor in response to changing financial conditions. Cost Sharing Will Leverage Bond Funding To Build New Dams The high cost of dams and the relatively limited total amount of funding in the water bond spread over several eligible projects will not necessarily limit the number of new or expanded dams funded by the bond. The bond’s cost sharing provisions will likely result in a mix of local, regional, state, and federal funding for new and expanded dams. Urban water districts and developers are particularly anxious to purchase new water supplies, which will provide a ready source of cost sharing. For example, the proposed Tejon Ranch development between Bakersfield and Los Angeles will include 26,000 new homes to be serviced with paper water from the State Water Project that simply will not be available unless new or expanded dams are constructed. In response to the drought and the perception that environmental lawsuits have restricted water supplies, Senator Feinstein and other key members of the California delegation will likely push Congress to approve significant federal cost sharing to build new and expanded dams in California. Friends of the River opposes the water bond because part of the measure would fund expensive and largely ineffective new and enlarged dams. Unlike previous water bonds, the taxpayers will be billed for costly and destructive dams, not those who directly receive and benefit from what little new water may be produced by the dams. In addition, the $11 billion bond will ultimately cost taxpayers $22 billion, increasing California’s debt and requiring additional budget cuts in public education, safety, and health services. Struggling with a $19 billion state deficit and political gridlock over the state budget, the Governor and legislative leaders have no choice but to try to delay a bond vote because the flawed measure appears doomed if it appears on the November ballot. Newspapers across the state have editorialized against the water bond, demanding that the Legislature repeal the measure and start over.
Poll Shows Voters Ready to Flush $11 Billion Water Bond in November A majority of California voters oppose the $11.14 billion water bond that the Legislature and the Governor have placed on the November ballot, according to a recent statewide poll conducted by Tulchin Research. Just one-third of likely voters (34%) support the water bond currently, while more than a majority of likely voters (55%) oppose it. That’s a very weak start for a bond measure, and some of the existing support is likely to drop off as a campaign against the bond ramps up later this year, in the view of opponents of the bond, who released the survey results today. Pollster Ben Tulchin, who conducted the survey in late January, 2010, called the results daunting. He noted that, “No statewide bond measure has ever won when a majority of voters opposed it at the outset.” Support was weak in the poll, even among those voting yes, with just 12% saying they would “definitely” vote yes and 4% saying they merely “leaned” in favor. In contrast, there was greater intensity on the "no" side, with a third of all voters polled (32%) saying they would “definitely” vote no. "This bond hands out billions of dollars in public funds to corporations and water districts that are fully capable of financing their own water facilities and programs,” said Steve Evans, Conservation Director of Friends of the River. “Voters see that it’s bad fiscal and water policy and this poll simply confirms our expectation that voters will reject the bond in November," he said. A number of prominent environmental, consumer, and environmental justice organizations have already joined the campaign opposing the bond, including the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, Planning and Conservation League, Friends of the River, Food & Water Watch, the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, the Winnemem Wintu tribe, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), Southern California Watershed Alliance, and Restore the Delta. The cross-tabulated results from the poll show opposition across party and geographic lines. No demographic group anywhere in the state offers majority support for the bond. Voters of all parties oppose it, as do voters in the northern and southern parts of the state and the Central Valley. The only region where bond support was nearly even with opposition was in the San Francisco Bay Area. Opponents note that the bond does not provide immediate funding to municipalities or conservation efforts. Low-income communities, many of which live with contaminated drinking water, would receive only a tiny fraction of total bond funds. In contrast, billions of public dollars could be used to subsidize large corporate interests, including agribusinesses, that will profit from the projects. More than $4 billion can be used to construct new dams, and as much as $1 billion can subsidize costly private desalination projects. Campaign members point out that money to finance the bond will come out of California’s general fund, which also funds education, healthcare, police and fire, and other essential services. The hit on the general fund would be enormous, as much as $800 million per year. Total debt repayment on the bond is expected to top $22 billion over 30 years.
For more information, contact Steve Evans, Conservation Director, Friends of the River, phone: (916) 442-3155 x221, email: sevans@friendsoftheriver.org. |
TAKE ACTION LEARN MORE FACT SHEETS Groups Opposing the Bond Sierra Club |
Copyright © 2010 by Friends Of The River. All rights reserved.
"Friends Of The River" and logo are Trademarks ® of Friends Of The River.