Posted on 11/20/2007 11:24:52 AM PST by NormsRevenge
A long-stalled attempt to place an unprecedented water bond before California voters on Feb. 5 is making new progress, with a proposed $10 billion plan that would include money for both groundwater and surface storage. A final agreement could be reached by the end of this week, with floor votes in the Senate and Assembly by next week.
If approved by voters, the bond would be nearly double the size of the water quality bond that voters authorized last year, about $5.4 billion. That bond was part of a larger infrastructure improvement package approved by voters to overhaul California's aging freeways, improve transit and freight corridors, provide money for local water projects, beef up levees and other projects.
Negotiations involving legislative leaders and others were held through the weekend and continued this week. Senate Leader Don Perata, who is taking the lead in the discussions, sources say, and he has been meeting with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on the issue. The governor apparently is supportive of the proposal, although he has not yet signed off on it. There was no immediate comment from the governor's office.
The Republican governor earlier rejected a water proposal authored by Perata, but negotiations resumed after partisans in the debate over whether to build new dams could not reach a compromise. The dispute over dam construction has been at the center of the debate over a comprehensive water program.
But Capitol sources say the outlines of a compromise have been reached, involving at least two key pieces that earlier were stumbling blocks.
First, there was tentative agreement to provide at least $2.5 billion for both surface and groundwater storage. The money, with matching funds, could be used to build, revamp or expand reservoirs, as well as develop new or expand existing groundwater storage. In the negotiations, environmentalists backed off their position opposing surface storage, while dam proponents accepted more groundwater storage.
Second, there was a consensus that a critical piece of the financing scheme in the original proposal, a "continuous appropriation" that would allow top state water officials to approve financing without legislative approval, was removed.
The proposal also includes competitive language for builders and contractors, requires water districts to demonstrate a public benefit to obtain bond money.
The Special Session debate over California's water system is zeroing on the governor's revised proposal for the construction of some $10 billion worth of new dams and reservoir expansion, and a payment scheme that would lock in funding for the projects in perpetuity, say some parties to the negotiations. Thus far, there are no signs of an agreement.
But the governor has already shown his support of spending major money on water. In September, added some $3.5 billion to his original proposal, pushing the state's end of the tab to more than $9 billion.
The governor's plan, which drew support from U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, includes $1 billion for conservation and local water projects and nearly $2 billion for Delta restoration. The biggest piece, $5.1 billion, would go for three projects: two new dams and the expansion of the 100,000-acre-foot Los Vaqueros Reservoir northeast of San Francisco. Under the governor's plan, the reservoir could be expanded up to 275,000 acre-feet at a cost of $600 million to $800 million. The funding, which comes from voter-approved bonds, limits the state's cost to 50 percent of the projects, which means the total cost of the projects is double the amount listed in the legislation.
The new round of negotiations apparently include the Los Vaqueros project, but it was unclear how much dam construction would be authorized. State water officials had recommended all of the projects nearly a decade ago, but the funding was never developed.
That figure 10 bill keeps coming up. It is also the annual services to illegals from the Cal budget. I’ll not vote for any bond until these services stop.
The environmentalist and liberal nuts in this state will eventually cost Kalifornia more than just a few bad debts.
The short answer is... NO!!!
I actually voted yes on some (not all) of the infrastructure bonds last time — the ones, briefly stated, that Tom McClintock agreed with. As to this new set of bond proposals, I’ll wait to hear from those better able than I to decode the gobbledegook. (As ever, my default vote for things I can’t understand is no.)
Way to go!!!
Another NO vote coming up.
SUPER!!! Now do some recruiting, please...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.