Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders, in an abrupt about-face, said Tuesday they will seek to pull the $11 billion water bond measure from November s ballot and instead put it before voters in 2012.

The proposition, known as the Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act, has come under increasing criticism because of its cost, the inclusion of nearly $2 billion in earmarks that opponents call pork, and a provision that would allow private corporations to own and operate taxpayer-built reservoirs and other water-storage projects. The Legislature took steps last week to remove that provision from the bond.

Schwarzenegger and other leaders at the state Capitol have said the bond is urgently needed to ensure that California has sufficient water for the state s residents. Schwarzenegger even proposed spending $1.8 billion from the bond, contingent on its passage, in next year s budget.

$19 billion deficit

In announcing his support for a delay, Schwarzenegger said he wants to focus his attention on California s $19 billion budget deficit, along with pension and budgetary reforms.

"It s critical that the water bond pass, as it will improve California s economic growth, environmental sustainability and water supply for future generations," he said. "For that reason, I will work with the Legislature to postpone the bond to 2012 and avoid jeopardizing its passage."

Administration officials said discussions about a delay began a few weeks ago, as the bond was increasingly being used as leverage by interest groups in budget negotiations. The powerful California Teachers Association recently announced opposition to the measure, saying it would have too much of a negative impact on the general fund.

The bond is widely viewed as a tough sell to voters because of the bad economy and the state s deficit. At least one poll showed voters are likely to reject the bond. Additionally, Schwarzenegger probably will spend much of his time and political capital fighting another ballot measure, one that would repeal AB32, the state s landmark greenhouse gas reduction law.

State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said he backs the governor s call for a delay.

"Given the challenges currently facing California, I agree that the water bond should be postponed," Steinberg said in a statement.

Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, has worked for four years to pass a bond to overhaul the state s water infrastructure, and said waiting would give the economy more time to recover and help ease voter concerns about the cost, which would be about $22 billion, including interest.

"While I believe we must immediately invest in our water future, timing is everything, and I m willing to wait to bolster voter understanding of this critical measure," said Cogdill, who is not seeking re-election this fall.

Pulling a bond measure from the ballot and delaying it until another election is not unprecedented. The Legislature held the $9.95 billion bond proposal for high-speed rail in both 2004 and 2006. Voters eventually approved it on the 2008 ballot.

Postponing the bond measure will require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, however, and that could prove politically challenging because opponents may not want to take any votes that would show support. Also, leaving it on the ballot could ensure its defeat.

It s just pork

Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, an outspoken opponent of the bond and a co-chair of the effort to defeat it, called the effort to postpone the bond measure an "interesting problem."

She said the bond is "not going to get better with age. It s not fine wine - it s just pork." Hundreds of millions of dollars in the bond measure would pay for projects that have little or nothing to do with increasing California s supply of clean and reliable water.

While postponing the proposal "certainly is a recognition that it is fiscally irresponsible, I think we need to repeal and start over," Wolk said, adding later, "I won t vote to postpone this bond. We should repeal it."

Assemblyman Bill Berryhill, R-Ceres (Stanislaus County), the other co-chair of the effort to fight the bond, said he, too, would not support a delay.

While the Legislature could postpone the bond measure, the package of legislation passed in November that deals with issues like water conservation and creating a plan to revive the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta are unaffected. However, some projects in the delta and elsewhere that would be funded by the bond would be delayed.

By Adam Ashton
aashton@modbee.com

Lawmakers from the Northern San Joaquin Valley aren t signing on to a resolution that would encourage an economic boycott of Arizona products and services because of the state s anti-illegal immigration law.

 

Read more:

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/24/2848184/state-leaders-no-economic-boycott.html#ixzz0sMCKY1GC

By Jason Campbell
Reporter
jcampbell@mantecabulletin.com
209-249-3544

2010-06-18 18:32:00 PDT Sacramento, CA 95814, United States — (06-18) 18:32 PDT Sacramento, Calif. (AP) --

California lawmakers will consider altering an $11.1 billion water bond on the November ballot in an effort to deflect criticism that private corporations stand to benefit.

At issue is a provision in the bond that opponents say could allow private companies to partially own, operate and profit from water projects built with public money.

Sabrina Lockhart, a spokeswoman for Republican state Sen. Dave Cogdill, said Friday the Legislature wants to make "crystal clear" that public money can be used only for the public s benefit.

The bill, AB2775, would ensure that bond money for dams, reservoirs and water banks only go to joint power authorities made up of public agencies. It is scheduled to be heard Tuesday by the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

Lawmakers placed the bond on the November ballot as part of a legislative package intended to overhaul how Californians store, use and transport water. If it passes, a now-defunct California Water Commission appointed by the governor will be given full authority to allocate $3 billion in funds to storage projects.

As it is currently written, some of that money could go to a Joint Powers Authority that has private members to oversee a dam or other storage project. One example might be the Kern Water Bank, once owned by the state but now controlled by Paramont Farms, which is owned by Hollywood billionaire Stuart Resnick.

Defenders of the provision argue that private companies, which would be called upon to match state bond dollars on water projects, are essential to ensuring dams ultimately get built in California.

"If private entities can t be a part of the JPA managing the reservoir, they are a lot less inclined to invest in the storage project," Assemblyman Bill Berryhill, R-Ceres, said in a statement. "That s like a company asking investors to give them money for a start-up but not allowing them to be shareholders."

Berryhill, who opposed the bond, urged lawmakers to instead revamp the measure and eliminate billions of dollars of pork that they inserted in the final days to win the needed support in the Legislature.

Jim Metropulos, an advocate at Sierra Club California, said the proposed joint powers authority fix would not buy his organization s support of such a costly bond as the state struggles with its finances.

"The $11.1 billion bond is the largest bond ever going before voters at a time of budget deficits," Metropulos said.

Full Story:  articles.sfgate.com/2010-06-18/news/21917485_1_water-projects-costly-bond-storage-project