Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

A Dam Deception: Schwarzenegger's Greenwashing Attempt All Wet

By Gary A. Patton
Executive Director
Planning and Conservation League

The Governor wants the Legislature to authorize a new bond issue for dam construction. In fact, he wants the people of the state to borrow more than $9 billion dollars, and to spend at least $5.6 billion dollars of that to build more dams. The measure would also provide funding for a Peripheral Canal or Peripheral Pipe.

While the Governor wants to spend big money on new, economically inefficient and environmentally destructive dam projects, he doesn't want the voters to know. Hidden in the text of the Governor's proposal is an unusual provision that would essentially repeal the normal procedures that ensure that voters receive an impartial ballot title and summary. Instead, the summary would emphasize "environmental restoration projects,"
even though the vast majority of the funding would be to construct dams!

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law...all ballots...shall have printed thereon and in a square thereof, exclusively, the words: 'Water Supply Reliability Bond Act of 2008' and in the same square under those words, the following in 8-point type: 'This act will provide financing for Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Sustainability, water supply reliability, and environmental restoration projects by authorizing a $9.085 billion dollar bond act.'"

Even the Governor seems to recognize that the voters would likely reject his plan to spend big money for more dams, if they knew what he was actually proposing. His attempt to employ disingenuous and deceptive advertising in connection with the proposed $9 billion dam-driven bond act reinforces the fact that this is NOT a good way to provide for the future water supply and water quality needs of the people of California.

Gary Patton is the Executive Director of the Planning and Conservation League, a statewide, nonprofit lobbying organization. For more than thirty years, PCL has fought to develop a body of environmental laws in California that is the best in the United States. PCL staff review virtually every environmental bill that comes before the California Legislature each year. It has testified in support or opposition of thousands of bills to strengthen California's environmental laws and fight off rollbacks of environmental protections.

Posted on September 21, 2007

Comments

The voters (and taxpayers) will be interested to know that the cheapest way to get them more water in through conservation. Money spent on conservation (think water-saving toilets and showers for one) is about 50 times more cost-effective than buidling a new dam. It will be our job to let voters know that if this measure is put on the ballot. Then there is the matter of the hypocritical Republican members of the Senate and Assembly who don't believe in global warming. But suddently they do when they they smell the possibility of pouring new concrete in our river valleys. They say we need new dams because of global warming!

I hope they will join our Governor and most of the Democrat legislators who have worked hard to find ways to combat global warming instead of clamoring for more fiscally irresponsible and environmentally damaging dams.

Posted by: Bill Allayaud, Director, Sierra Club California at September 21, 2007 05:57 PM

there has been a movement to require water meters on al residential housing in parts of California. This is good, but it truly only affects those family residences that are individually metered. In San Luis Obispo there was a mandate to apply penalty rates to "high use" water consumers. If we were to apply that same mandate and start charging apartment complexes, retail complexes, industrial centers and individual residences we would see a move to replace those water hungry devices still in use and a reduction as property owners see the billings go up. The other major issue is a rewrite of the statues that would void the "green lawn" mandate that is common in CC&R's. The idea is a regional water authority can and should be able to direct ALL water restriction guidelines.

Posted by: bill at September 24, 2007 11:31 AM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker