California Gov. Jerry Brown this week extended the deadline to place a different — and what he termed “acceptable” — water bond measure on the Nov. 4 ballot.
“Today’s legislative action provides additional time to get an acceptable water bond — one that’s affordable and considers the needs of all Californians,” Brown said Monday.
His proposal, released late Sunday, is for a water bond of about $7 billion to replace an $11 billion bond that has already qualified for the ballot.
The measure was expected to be debated on the state Senate floor Wednesday starting at 2 p.m. The debate can be followed at Cal Channel.
Supporters of the new measure — including state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, who represents Benicia — said it would improve water storage and clean contaminated groundwater, and perhaps most importantly have a better chance of passage than the current bond measure.
Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg has called the new proposal a compromise and “an excellent framework for a bond.”
The bond measure itself would be for $6.995 billion. Brown agreed to earmark another $200 million from previously approved bonds, raising the amount the state would dedicate to water projects to $7.195 billion.
The deal wasn’t done Tuesday afternoon for the revised measure to be put on the ballot; legislative support wasn’t assured.
“Some polls say it’s too close and opposition would kill it,” Mayor Elizabeth Patterson said Tuesday.
Patterson said she neither endorsed nor opposed the measure, adding that she understood the issues that led others to take positions on one side or the other.
She said the new measure would provide money for the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project, but that worries some Northern California communities that have been hit so hard by the severe, statewide drought that they have been trucking water in, and where in some cases residents have no choice but to buy bottled water.
Lake Mendocino in particular was measured at just 3.29 percent of its water supply capacity on Sunday.
While the new bond proposal would expand storage, such as in reservoirs that allow Californians recreational use of the water, Patterson said that type of storage leads to “a tremendous amount of evaporation,” even if those manmade lakes would let the State Water Project capture large volumes of water it could store above the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta system.
She said the state has the opportunity to put water in ground storage to reduce loss through evaporation, but that’s not addressed with this bond the way it was in an earlier proposal by Wolk.
In a statement released Tuesday, Wolk endorsed the water bond revision contained in Senate Bill 866, which she and Steinberg have introduced.
“I am pleased to report we have reached agreement with the governor and legislative leaders to important amendments, resulting in a proposed bond that will be good for the Delta region and the entire state — one I can support,” Wolk said.
“We fought hard to ensure that all projects conducted in the Delta by the Department of Fish and Wildlife will require coordination and consultation with the Delta counties or cities where the project is proposed.”
In addition, she said, the bond would earmark no money for the construction of water conveyance tunnels that Brown has long advocated, and would be neutral on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, in which Brown proposed those tunnels.
“We also won recognition and first-time-ever funding of $50 million for the Delta Conservancy, including their ability to fund important agriculture sustainability projects in the Delta,” Wolk said. “All told, it’s a good deal for the Delta and Northern California.”
She called Brown’s latest proposal “a lean bond” that focuses on California’s immediate water needs — drought relief, groundwater cleanup, water recycling, regional water projects, drinking water cleanup, watershed improvements and storage.
“I especially appreciate the support I have received in these negotiations from my partners in the Delta Counties Coalition who have stood solidly behind me and for the Delta during this five-year-long effort,” Wolk said.
As for how the proposed water bond might affect Benicia, Patterson said there was no certainty the measure would pass. However, she added, “We need to be planning ready” in case voters approve the bond.
“There is money to pay for planning and environmental clearance, especially for wastewater treatment,” she said. Money also would be spent on addressing sea level rise, she added.
If the bond passes, it would help communities develop ways to take treated wastewater and use it for irrigating parks, commercial areas and along highways.
Other funds would be used on rainwater capture and storage in such devices as above-ground cisterns for later use in irrigation; and stormwater capture, such as the kind done in San Francisco and Portland, Ore., cisterns in streets. That water is used for firefighting, landscape watering and other uses.
Not only would these methods save water, Patterson said, they would help cities meet stormwater discharge reduction goals.
“All of this is possible,” she said. “We have to be ready.”
Benicia could use money to update its 2004 study of wastewater treatment, which could prepare the city for future projects. “It’s a straightforward project,” she said.
However, she fears that other areas, such as Los Angeles, might get the bulk of the funds. Money also would be aimed at helping low-income and disadvantaged communities, she said, and since it would be awarded on a competitive basis, Benicia wouldn’t be assured of getting a cut.
After all, the city would be competing against communities that are struggling to get water to their residents, who have had to rely on bottled water just to have enough to drink.
Money also would be available to joint powers authorities, such as the one for the Sites Reservoir in Colusa County. “Is there a statewide benefit?” she asked, suggesting a fee-based or buy-in option could work just as well.
Patterson said the bond could be important, especially in addressing “the tremendous backlog of water infrastructure needs,” perhaps through a revolving fund.
“It meets some needs, but not others,” she summarized.
Should the bond fail, “it almost doesn’t matter” to Benicia, she said. That’s because water agencies throughout the state have been urged to become self-sufficient.
However, failure of the bond could hurt the Solano County Water Agency, since it could use the money to relocate the North Bay Aqueduct. “That will put an extra burden on Solano,” she said.
But Patterson pointed out that the bond is a general obligation bond, which worries those who say its purpose is specifically for operations and maintenance.
She said some have hoped conversations would start about whether the same public goods fee that has been put on energy could be applied to water, or if State Water Project contractors would pay for projects that benefit them.
It’s an issue that “stirs the blood,” Patterson said.
Leave a Reply