Water, Water everywhere...
On November 4th our state legislature approved an $11.1 billion water bond.
That $11 billion water bond, approved by the Legislature, will be placed on the November 2010 ballot for your voter approval. In an effort to let everyone know what they will be asked to decide upon, I contacted our assemblymen for Lake Elsinore and asked how they voted.
Below is the response I received from Assemblyman Jeffries regarding the most recent Water Bond Deal. I did not receive a written response from our other assemblyman, Brian Nestande, but I did speak with him on the phone. He stated he voted for all portions of the bill as he felt this was the only chance to make significant changes.
From Assemblyman Jeffries...
I was appointed several months ago to serve on the bi-partisan water negotiating conference committee for the Assembly and Senate. From the very first meeting we were hit with an onslaught of hard-line partisan bill (policy) proposals that were very hostile to farmers and southern California. After several months it became evident that the only way to make progress was for the Republicans and Hispanic Democrats to work together. In general terms both groups had common needs and common values (helping farmers, helping small business, helping working families, creating jobs). As a result the two groups were able to do what has not been done in the legislature for the past 20 years or so and take what started as really hard-line environmental water bills and significantly amend the policy proposals and water bond to the level of "good" or at least "acceptable" (depends on your perspective) for farmers and water users (which also includes some important fixes for the deteriorating Delta).
I _*supported*_: the water bond (SB-2) and the governance-lite policy (SB-1).
SB-2: The Water Bond will now go the voters to decide. On the positive side it contains important funding for long and near-term water projects in our region and it helps to indirectly facilitate the eventual construction of a new canal around the Delta in an effort to improve the long term delivery of water to farmers and southern California. On the negative side it contains funding for projects that most of us would agree are not critically important for California's statewide water solutions.
SB-1 (Governance) will facilitate administrative oversight of future Delta related projects and management. (Note, this policy bill originally started with the empowerment of a heavy-handed hard-line environmental council that was basically charged with "killing" any hopes building new facilities to get water to farmers and southern California).
I _*opposed*_: the water conservation (SB-7), Ground water monitoring (SB-6), and water enforcement (SB-8).
SB-7: Because of their political power - Los Angeles and the Bay area were exempted from the 20% water conservation requirements contained in this bill - however the rest of the state must still meet this requirement.
SB-6: This bill is the first step towards inserting state regulators into the management of local ground water. The state can't manage what it has now.
SB-8 (formally AB-900) was "okay" - until it was amended to fund and hire 25 state "water police" employees.
That $11 billion water bond, approved by the Legislature, will be placed on the November 2010 ballot for your voter approval. In an effort to let everyone know what they will be asked to decide upon, I contacted our assemblymen for Lake Elsinore and asked how they voted.
Below is the response I received from Assemblyman Jeffries regarding the most recent Water Bond Deal. I did not receive a written response from our other assemblyman, Brian Nestande, but I did speak with him on the phone. He stated he voted for all portions of the bill as he felt this was the only chance to make significant changes.
From Assemblyman Jeffries...
I was appointed several months ago to serve on the bi-partisan water negotiating conference committee for the Assembly and Senate. From the very first meeting we were hit with an onslaught of hard-line partisan bill (policy) proposals that were very hostile to farmers and southern California. After several months it became evident that the only way to make progress was for the Republicans and Hispanic Democrats to work together. In general terms both groups had common needs and common values (helping farmers, helping small business, helping working families, creating jobs). As a result the two groups were able to do what has not been done in the legislature for the past 20 years or so and take what started as really hard-line environmental water bills and significantly amend the policy proposals and water bond to the level of "good" or at least "acceptable" (depends on your perspective) for farmers and water users (which also includes some important fixes for the deteriorating Delta).
I _*supported*_: the water bond (SB-2) and the governance-lite policy (SB-1).
SB-2: The Water Bond will now go the voters to decide. On the positive side it contains important funding for long and near-term water projects in our region and it helps to indirectly facilitate the eventual construction of a new canal around the Delta in an effort to improve the long term delivery of water to farmers and southern California. On the negative side it contains funding for projects that most of us would agree are not critically important for California's statewide water solutions.
SB-1 (Governance) will facilitate administrative oversight of future Delta related projects and management. (Note, this policy bill originally started with the empowerment of a heavy-handed hard-line environmental council that was basically charged with "killing" any hopes building new facilities to get water to farmers and southern California).
I _*opposed*_: the water conservation (SB-7), Ground water monitoring (SB-6), and water enforcement (SB-8).
SB-7: Because of their political power - Los Angeles and the Bay area were exempted from the 20% water conservation requirements contained in this bill - however the rest of the state must still meet this requirement.
SB-6: This bill is the first step towards inserting state regulators into the management of local ground water. The state can't manage what it has now.
SB-8 (formally AB-900) was "okay" - until it was amended to fund and hire 25 state "water police" employees.
posted by Melissa Melendez at
12:40 AM
3 Comments:
This is very confusing and doesn't really explain what it all means to us that are now on strict water use limits in the Lake Elsinore and surrounding areas. Also what happened to the money that the President sent to this area because of the drought that we are in? The money from the Government was allocated to this area before we went on mandatory water rations, but the mention of the money from the Government did not become public until after the rates were increased and the water rations in place???
If it sounds confusing, or even frustrating - it's because it is! Each local provider (water district or city) across the State has been enacting conservation efforts that help them meet the reduced supplies. The reduced supplies are a result of back to back drought years, environmental laws (protecting fish and critters), significant population growth with few water facilities being built to meet the growth, and judicial activism (judges who decided to interpret various laws in strong favor of protecting critters).
The newly proposed water bond and certain policies are intended to facilitate and fund new statewide and regional water and eco-system projects. If the voters approve the Bond next November, our Local water providers will apply for state grants to build projects that will give us the most bang for our buck. Other larger regional and state level water agencies would then be able to begin the (long) process of planning, designing and building large scale projects that will ultimately benefit our Local water providers.
Regarding federal funds - I don't recall any specific "federal" funding that was provided to either of the Lake Elsinore water providers.
Who cares about the water, when is buckley going to resign?
Post a Comment
<< Home