Prop 1

mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

Is this funding for the bypass tunnels?
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
WB Staff
Posts: 12504
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Prop 1

Post by WB Staff »

Wolfeman
Posts: 802
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:53 pm
Location: Brentwood

Re: Prop 1

Post by Wolfeman »

mark poulson wrote:Is this funding for the bypass tunnels?

Mark,
With all things political the details are obfuscated in a bunch of legal speak.
But the short answer is 'Yes'.
Stewart Resnick will get all the water and he's pretty greedy, so whatever he gets he'll want more of it.
He'll grease the right wheels and the tunnels will be his water world.
- Wolfeman
"Don't take life too seriously. You're not getting out alive." Bugs Bunny
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

Wolfeman wrote:
mark poulson wrote:Is this funding for the bypass tunnels?

Mark,
With all things political the details are obfuscated in a bunch of legal speak.
But the short answer is 'Yes'.
Stewart Resnick will get all the water and he's pretty greedy, so whatever he gets he'll want more of it.
He'll grease the right wheels and the tunnels will be his water world.
- Wolfeman
I thought they had already begun const. on them. Does this mean we can still stop the tunnels with a NO vote on 1?
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

Where can I go to see where the money is actually going? I read the voter info pamphlet, and it just says water conservation, but no specifics.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

i fund this online, on http://www.peterates.com/props-1114.shtml

I read his entire breakdown of Prop. 1, and what it will do.
It ends with this:

"Finally, Prop 1 has $395 million for flood protection, primarily strengthening fragile levees in the Sacramento Delta. The Delta is the source of drinking water for over half of Californians; failed levees here could endanger that source. Prop 1 also prohibits any bond money from funding a Peripheral Canal or tunnel bypassing the Delta to send water southward. State or federal agencies could still build one, but not with funding from Prop 1."

So I am going to vote yes on Prop. 1. I hate the Tunnels, but I know we need the water infrastructure in Calif. to be repaired and improved.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
Robb R
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:34 pm

Re: Prop 1

Post by Robb R »

reading thru the ads and propaganda is confusing . I am in the same boat as others , I don't want to see
the tunnels . But somehow we need better support for water programs .
The Sites dam would be interesting , at least it's a method to store water in the "good years" and just maybe be a place to catch more bass . Imagine if they could build that project with fisherman in mind .
I just don't trust JERRY and his buddies --- don't always think they are telling us the truth when it comes to spending our tax money .
tight lines ,
Robb
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

Robb,
I'm with you, but, according to the breakdown I read, funding the tunnels with this money is specifically prohibited. Of course, they could just do a substitution with the already available funds, a switcheroo like they did with the lottery money. All that money was supposed to go to education, on top of existing funding, but the next year the legislature changed the law so they could take a dollar from regular school funding for every dollar the lottery provided.
But I don't want to not fund this other stuff, just in case they steal. I don't trust Jerry Brown, or the legislature, when it comes to the bypass tunnels and water for the water-intensive crops Stewart Resnick grows.
His story reads like a modern day China Town. He is a huge water monopolizer, and his buddies in the State Water District, back in 1994, gave away a public water source to him and his company.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/05 ... r-20140306

Pete Wilson was our governor, and neither he or the State legislators in office at that time had the State's best interest at heart when they signed off on the Monterey Agreement.

Arnold was right. We need more dams and storage reservoirs, to catch the excess runoff in wet years.
We also need to be able to recharge our aquifers during those wet years, and to have access to that water during the dry times.

I hope that now, with the internet and public scrutiny, all these bought-off politicians will finally have their feet held to the fire if they try to pull another fast one, but I do have my doubts. They have the money, thanks to private finance of public office, and money does talk.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
Robb R
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:34 pm

Re: Prop 1

Post by Robb R »

Mark ,
I agree , it's not supposed to be used for the tunnels ---but my guess is they will find a way
to do a switch . I have no problem with more dams.
I live in San Jose and way back in the late seventies (or it could have been early 80's) we had
a sales tax increase to bring BART to San Jose. The measure passed , they collected all the required money and BART never made it to San Jose. I never heard what they did with all the money ---but I can tell you now they are asking San Jose again for more taxes to bring BART to San Jose ----WTF ??
Fool me once , shame on you , fool me twice shame on me --- I love my country ,but I truly fear my government.
Tight lines ,
Robb
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

Robb,
I agree. The only thing worse than our government is every other form of govt. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Democracy requires the most work by the people, or it becomes a plutocracy, where money rules.
Why does that sound familiar?
Our legislators are great at spending our money, but not on spending it where it was meant to go!
My youngest is hoping to attend UC San Jose next semester, lord willin and the creek don't rise!
I hope they have good public transportation there, because I'm not letting her take my car to school with her!
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
Robb R
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:34 pm

Re: Prop 1

Post by Robb R »

Mark ,
If your youngest is going to San Jose State , there is lots of transportation around the school .
Depends on where she is living , on campus or off campus . My son went there on a baseball scholarship
so we are familiar with the campus and off campus area's .
If you have any questions about the area , don't hesitate to PM me and I will be glad to help .
Tight lines ,
Robb
gold fish
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:46 am

Re: Prop 1

Post by gold fish »

NO on 1.......... Just do it.......Dont ask why.......
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

Robb R wrote:Mark ,
If your youngest is going to San Jose State , there is lots of transportation around the school .
Depends on where she is living , on campus or off campus . My son went there on a baseball scholarship
so we are familiar with the campus and off campus area's .
If you have any questions about the area , don't hesitate to PM me and I will be glad to help .
Tight lines ,
Robb
Thanks Robb. I'll let you know if/when I get stumped! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

gold fish wrote:NO on 1.......... Just do it.......Dont ask why.......
With all due respect, asking why is the only way our democracy works. There's always a back story, and taking the time to read up and become informed it the duty of every registered voter.
Too many people "just do it" because someone tells them do. Too often it's the one with the most money doing the telling.
That's how we wound up with the lousy leadership we have in the legislature now.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
Andy Lippert
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 9:25 pm
Location: Granite Bay

Re: Prop 1

Post by Andy Lippert »

Odd that the Center For Biological Diversity is in opposition to Prop 1. Hard to believe my ideals would EVER be in line with those a$$ clowns.

Speculation about bait-and-switch tactics when the verbiage explicitly prohibits funding for the peripheral canal--is unfounded.

I began as a "no," but the CBD's support of "no" made me second guess that decision--and I still need to read considerably more before casting my vote--I suggest you do the same.

Andrew
User avatar
Marc
Posts: 1035
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:08 pm
Location: Steilacoom, WA
Contact:

Re: Prop 1

Post by Marc »

Educating ourselves on the issues and making informed decisions is the only hope we have at improving our lifestyle and providing our children with hope for their future.

It is no accident that Prop 1 forbids use of the money to be used in any way to divert water from the Delta. The language expressly forbids this.

The other notable point about Prop 1 is that unlike similar past bills, there is no pork added to this bill. Nobody is getting their pet project approved by supporting Prop 1. This is a clean bill, that has no hidden agenda. Isn't this what we all want from government?

What Prop 1 will do is make money available to fix some of our water problems. California in whole, but especially Northern California, needs more water storage. If there was adequate storage in northern California, then there is less competition for the Delta water. I cannot understand why anyone concerned about the Delta would be against Prop 1. I can't understand why anyone concerned there will be clean water available for drinking and for fireflow would be against Prop 1.

Creating reservoirs and other source development projects benefits all, and provides additional recreational opportunities like fishing. Voting no on Prop 1 accomplishes nothing of value. That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
www.RangerBoats.com
www.Evinrude.com
www.QuickDropsWeights.com
www.Yamamoto.Baits.com
www.Lamiglas.com
www.Gamakatsu.com
www.LuckyCraft.com
www.Lowrance.com
www.TransducerShieldandSaver.com
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

Marc,
I agree. It looks like a step in the right direction, and I'm voting yes.
It's a shame that our State Government and the San Joaquin Valley water districts have treated the Delta so badly with the way they are trying to ram the Bypass Tunnels everyone's throats that now we're suspicious of any water improvement bills that are proposed.
Confidence in government is the most important key to good democracy, and it's earned by serving the people of the state, no special interests.
Our State Govt. hasn't earned, first with the Bullet Train, and now with the Bypass Tunnels.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
TonyM
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:13 pm

Re: Prop 1

Post by TonyM »

Bobby Barrack is as knowledgeable on water issues facing the Delta as anyone I know. Bobby says not only "No," but "Hell No" on Prop 1.

Check out this link:
http://www.noonprop1.org/news-media-releases/

I'm voting "No" on Prop 1. If you care about the future of the Delta, help spread the word.
User avatar
Marc
Posts: 1035
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:08 pm
Location: Steilacoom, WA
Contact:

Re: Prop 1

Post by Marc »

OK, I checked out the link and saw nothing of factual use to support any reason to vote no on Prop 1. This website had factual errors in its claims that are easily verified just by reading Prop 1 (such as the cost, and asserting it contains pork).

The site basically makes claims with no evidence to support its claims. Exactly how will Prop 1 ruin the fisheries of the Delta? Delta fisheries are dependent upon water remaining in the Delta; nothing in Prop 1 takes water from the Delta, and in fact, does just the opposite by funding water storage projects in Northern California (and Southern) so that in fact less water needs to be diverted from the Delta. Build more reservoirs to store more water for all to use, and there is less need to export water from the Delta. Build projects that conserve water and there will be more for all uses.

What that site does illustrate is plenty of reason for all to be concerned; just look at the list of organizations that support a no vote on Prop 1. First of all the list is pretty small compared to the list of supporters (actually that is a gross understatement). Secondly, with support from the Center of Biological Diversity do you really feel comfortable that the site is a good reason to vote No?

We live in a great country with the freedom to vote as we please, and to form our own opinion. I hope nobody votes for or against something just because myself or anyone else says so...instead I hope we all invest some time to get informed and make a reasoned decision. Thank you for sharing that website link.
www.RangerBoats.com
www.Evinrude.com
www.QuickDropsWeights.com
www.Yamamoto.Baits.com
www.Lamiglas.com
www.Gamakatsu.com
www.LuckyCraft.com
www.Lowrance.com
www.TransducerShieldandSaver.com
TonyM
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:13 pm

Re: Prop 1

Post by TonyM »

I don't trust Jerry Brown, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer or the billionaire farmers who support Prop 1 to do the right thing for the Delta. To each their own.

http://www.noonprop1.org/wp-content/upl ... Prop-1.pdf
Andy Lippert
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 9:25 pm
Location: Granite Bay

Re: Prop 1

Post by Andy Lippert »

TonyM wrote:I don't trust Jerry Brown, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer or the billionaire farmers who support Prop 1 to do the right thing for the Delta. To each their own.

http://www.noonprop1.org/wp-content/upl ... Prop-1.pdf
But you trust the Center for Biological diversity, who has consistently tried to end fishing/hunting as we know it in this state and country? :shock:

Yes on 1 has bi-partisan support, along with the support of Ducks Unlimited. Facts are facts, and nothing in the bill implicitly or explicitly asserts that the Delta would be affected in any way but in a positive manner by the passing of this prop.

After much research, I will be voting in favor of it as well.
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

TonyM wrote:I don't trust Jerry Brown, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer or the billionaire farmers who support Prop 1 to do the right thing for the Delta. To each their own.

http://www.noonprop1.org/wp-content/upl ... Prop-1.pdf
Just because we've all been screwed over by the Bypass Tunnel and it's supporters, I don't think that justifies me voting no on every water infrastructure improvement bond.
I love Derek Jeter, but I still hate the Yankees.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
TonyM
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:13 pm

Re: Prop 1

Post by TonyM »

Jerry Brown's not dumb. Maybe other things…but not dumb. I can't believe he's changed his tune or that he doesn't somehow consider this a building block for his future tunnel plans. I'm out of my element debating politics, but I aint buying' it.

I wouldn't say anything has bipartisan support until the majority has spoken. If it passes, I hope I'm wrong.
Wolfeman
Posts: 802
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:53 pm
Location: Brentwood

Re: Prop 1

Post by Wolfeman »

mark poulson wrote:i fund this online, on http://www.peterates.com/props-1114.shtml

I read his entire breakdown of Prop. 1, and what it will do.
It ends with this:

"Finally, Prop 1 has $395 million for flood protection, primarily strengthening fragile levees in the Sacramento Delta. The Delta is the source of drinking water for over half of Californians; failed levees here could endanger that source. Prop 1 also prohibits any bond money from funding a Peripheral Canal or tunnel bypassing the Delta to send water southward. State or federal agencies could still build one, but not with funding from Prop 1."

So I am going to vote yes on Prop. 1. I hate the Tunnels, but I know we need the water infrastructure in Calif. to be repaired and improved.
Mark,
I know the guy behind peterates.com. Used to work with him many years ago. Always provides a detailed, unbiased evaluation of the props.
But I don't trust Jerry and his clonies. DaFi is the 'federal agencies' person who also wants to build the tunnels for her buddy Stewie.
- Wolfeman
"Don't take life too seriously. You're not getting out alive." Bugs Bunny
Wolfeman
Posts: 802
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:53 pm
Location: Brentwood

Re: Prop 1

Post by Wolfeman »

Okay, I need some info.
Prop 1 will build more dams and reservoirs to store water.
But don't we already have several of those? Oroville, Shasta, New Melones, etc.
All of them are damned near empty.
The 'new' dams are going to be different how?
What NorCal rivers don't have any dams yet?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
- Wolfeman
"Don't take life too seriously. You're not getting out alive." Bugs Bunny
briansII
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: Prop 1

Post by briansII »

Here's some reading from fishermen against prop 1.

http://calsport.org/news/?s=prop+1

https://www.facebook.com/NoProp1

http://www.noonprop1.org/news-media-releases/

There's a lot more, but this will get you started.

briansII
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

briansII wrote:Here's some reading from fishermen against prop 1.

http://calsport.org/news/?s=prop+1

https://www.facebook.com/NoProp1

http://www.noonprop1.org/news-media-releases/

There's a lot more, but this will get you started.

briansII
Brian,
I read them all. They are all opinion, but don't really give an actual breakdown of what Prop. 1 does.
I see there is opposition to dam building and enhancing. If we don't have more storage, we'll continue to lose whatever excess we do have in wet years. I understand trying to protect rivers, but we have already altered the ecosystem, and we're not going anywhere soon, so I think we need to try and make this place liveable for us right now.
There is a coalition of good people, well meaning people, opposed to Prop. 1. I just don't think it is the sweetheart deal for Stewart Resnick that they think it is.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
Jeff C.
Posts: 560
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:03 pm

Re: Prop 1

Post by Jeff C. »

briansII wrote:Here's some reading from fishermen against prop 1.

http://calsport.org/news/?s=prop+1

https://www.facebook.com/NoProp1

http://www.noonprop1.org/news-media-releases/

There's a lot more, but this will get you started.

briansII
Those links don't even mention what's in Prop 1. All they are trying to do is scare you without providing any hard facts on the measure.

Here is a nonpartisan analysis of what is actually in the proposition:

http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2014/prop-1-110414.aspx
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

That's a good resource. Here's the part that affects the Bypass Tunnels:

How Projects Would Be Selected. The measure includes several provisions that would affect how specific projects are chosen to receive bond funds. The California Water Commission—an existing state planning and regulatory agency—would choose which water storage projects would be funded with the $2.7 billion provided in the bond for that use. The Commission would not have to go through the state budget process to spend these funds. For all other funding provided in the measure, the Legislature generally would allocate money annually to state agencies in the state budget process. While the Legislature could provide state agencies with some direction on what types of projects or programs could be chosen, the measure states that the Legislature cannot allocate funding to specific projects. Instead, state agencies would choose the projects. In addition, none of the funding in the measure can be used to build a canal or tunnel to move water around the Delta.

So none of the money can be used to build a canal or tunnel to move water around the Delta. That is pretty clear.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
jerrysfishing
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:35 pm
Location: SACRAMENTO - ELK GROVE CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by jerrysfishing »

When you "CLEARLY" don't know what Prop 1 will do then vote NO.
Wolfeman
Posts: 802
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:53 pm
Location: Brentwood

Re: Prop 1

Post by Wolfeman »

mark poulson wrote:That's a good resource. Here's the part that affects the Bypass Tunnels:

How Projects Would Be Selected. The measure includes several provisions that would affect how specific projects are chosen to receive bond funds. The California Water Commission—an existing state planning and regulatory agency—would choose which water storage projects would be funded with the $2.7 billion provided in the bond for that use. The Commission would not have to go through the state budget process to spend these funds. For all other funding provided in the measure, the Legislature generally would allocate money annually to state agencies in the state budget process. While the Legislature could provide state agencies with some direction on what types of projects or programs could be chosen, the measure states that the Legislature cannot allocate funding to specific projects. Instead, state agencies would choose the projects. In addition, none of the funding in the measure can be used to build a canal or tunnel to move water around the Delta.

So none of the money can be used to build a canal or tunnel to move water around the Delta. That is pretty clear.
Yep. Mark. That's what it says. So none of the Prop 1 money will got to building the tunnels.
A buddy of mine thinks that this whole thing is a 'diversion'.
I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, so here's mine.
They get us to agree to Prop 1, and then Diane starts her push to the federal government that Prop 1 won't suffice and we need to build the tunnels in order to augment Prop 1 because we've already built dams on all the rivers.

My problem with Prop 1 is the lack of details.
Where are the dams going to be built ? I asked in a previous post, what rivers in the state would be dammed? Didn't get any response from that because no one has said where the dams will be built.
In the north we have dammed Shasta, Mokelumne (Pardee and Comanche), Feather (Oroville), Stanislaus (New Melones and Tulloch), Tuolumne (Don Pedro), etc.
My point is that we've already built dams on most of the lakes in the northern and central part of CA. Most of them, I might add are 'dam' near empty (pun intended).
So, the objective of Prop 1 is to build dams so the Central Valley farmers will have water.
I ask again...Where will these dams be built?
Name me a river in North or Central CA that doesn't already have a dam. I'm sure there must be some, but I'm not smart enough to figure out which ones.

Prop 1 will pass, it's a slam dunk. Even big tobacco companies have contributed to getting it passed (Jerry Brown will accept contributions from anyone)
I'm looking forward to the 'details', which will only come after the politicians on the Water Commission gets all those billions. Then it's 'water to highest bidder'. Business as usual.

Think I'll go fish the Bay while there's still some water in it. :lol:
- Wolfeman
"Don't take life too seriously. You're not getting out alive." Bugs Bunny
Oldschool
Posts: 1508
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:29 am

Re: Prop 1

Post by Oldschool »

Very difficult to forecast with any accuracy where prop funds end up. The props are written to win votes, all anyone can do is look where the money that supports or opposes the props come from and trust your instincts.
If anyone wanted to build a new dam in California today the environmental impact study alone would take years, meanwhile the money's gets deverted into the general fund. Sounds good to build more water storage, when or if that happens will it be set aside for recreational use?
Over 80% of the water being transported south goes to agriculture.......big business in CA, very powerful lobby!
Tom
User avatar
fish_food
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:36 am

Re: Prop 1

Post by fish_food »

By Dan Bacher of The Fish Sniffer...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/0 ... a-politics

• Prop. 1 does nothing to address drought relief in the near future.

• Prop. 1 adds $7.12 billion to California's debt, debt that will cost taxpayers $14.4 when the principal and interest is paid.

• Prop. 1 dedicates only 13% of its funding for conservation, stormwater capture and treatment, and recycling.

• Prop. 1 allocates $2.7 billion for three dams that would increase the state's water supply by only 1%. The money would flow under the provision that allows "continuous funding," meaning there would be no legislative oversight. A number of dam projects that had been abandoned because of low water yield or would not be cost-effective are now being revived.

• When the State Water Project was approved in 1960, it provided that beneficiaries of water projects -- not taxpayers statewide -- would pay for new projects. Prop. 1 reverses that principle. Taxpayers would pay the lion's share of new projects. Taxpayers, for example, would pay 73% of the cost of the proposed Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River while the beneficiaries -- agribiz and the City of Fresno -- would pay most of the balance.

• Prop. 1 requires taxpayers to buy water the public already owns to protect fish. It's a retread of programs in force for years that allow speculators who reap huge profits by selling the public's water back to the public. And it will have the additional impact of making more water available to export from The Delta.

• Prop. 1 does nothing to address factors that have worsened the water crisis in California during the current drought: the overdrafting of major reservoirs in Northern California, inequitable distribution of limited water supplies and the failure to balance the Public Trust.

• Prop. 1 contains $1.5 billion for "conservancies" without any language governing how the money is to be spent. Nothing would prevent the conservancies from spending the money on projects that have no impact on water supplies such as bike trails or administrative costs. Critics are calling it "pork."

• Promoters of Prop. 1 note that about 6.9% of the bond will spent to provide safe drinking water and clean water programs to disadvantaged communities. That long overdue initiative should have been presented to the voters years ago as a standalone proposition. It is shameful that California government has never addressed the water problems of disadvantaged communities.
User avatar
Marc
Posts: 1035
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:08 pm
Location: Steilacoom, WA
Contact:

Re: Prop 1

Post by Marc »

We can all spend days stating our opinions about what Prop 1 will do or won't do. What should be evident to everyone is that there isn't enough water in California to support its people, its economy, or its agriculture.

It should also be evident that food isn't something that just magically appears in supermarkets. California produces much of the agriculture and meat in this country. If you knew how much water it takes to produce crops, dairy products, or meat you wiould be doing everything possible to insure there was plenty of water.

I work in the drinking water industry, an industry that is a victim of its own success. You turn the faucet handle, and you never doubt that water will come out. Unfortunately it isn't that easy. There isn't enough water stored or sourced in northern or southern California. This drought should have made this clear to all of us. It doesn't matter what anyone wants to use the water for...there isn't enough.

There are rivers that can be dammed, and there are rivers with dams that can add additional dams. Dams can be made higher to increase reservoir capacity. Now that water levels are low, existing reservoirs can be dug deeper to hold more water. We can store water underground in replenishment basins. We can build desalination plants which are more and more economical due to technology advances that reduce electrical costs. All of these projects can keep the water running from our faucets. All are critical to life.

But they take money, and since our water is owned by the public, the public should pay. All of these projects can be funded in part or whole by Prop 1, which is really only a drop in the bucket. Had we not built Shasta, Oroville, DVL, and many other reservoirs, we wouldn't be living here to discuss this.

There are more projects I won't even mention that can help, but I have already voted by absentee ballot, and now I can go fishing DVL tomorrow in good conscience. The one job our government should be doing is protecting the public; water infrastructure is arguably the most important as water is life!

Voting no on Prop 1 will not solve the problem. If anyone has a better plan, let's hear it, because doing nothing is no longer an option to keep water coming from our faucets.

Sorry if this sounds harsh; I prefer to write about fishing and biology (I used to work as a fisheries biologist), but I would hate to sit by saying nothing in the face of an historic drought that if nothing else is teaching us to pay attention. OK, I am done.
www.RangerBoats.com
www.Evinrude.com
www.QuickDropsWeights.com
www.Yamamoto.Baits.com
www.Lamiglas.com
www.Gamakatsu.com
www.LuckyCraft.com
www.Lowrance.com
www.TransducerShieldandSaver.com
User avatar
fish_food
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:36 am

Re: Prop 1

Post by fish_food »

Marc wrote:It should also be evident that food isn't something that just magically appears in supermarkets. California produces much of the agriculture and meat in this country. If you knew how much water it takes to produce crops, dairy products, or meat you wiould be doing everything possible to insure there was plenty of water.
The largest consumer of water exported from Northern CA is Central Valley agribusiness. Eighty percent of our water is given away to agribusiness. Much of what they grow is water-intensive permanent crops exported overseas--it's not the feel good "feeding America/breadbasket of the country" business that their lobby brainwashes most of the public with. Irrigating the desert via massive reservoir/infrastructure projects such as the Central Valley Project and State Water Project were indeed marvels of technology but that was the past--we no longer have enough public water to give away to the likes of the Resnicks, et al.
There isn't enough water stored or sourced in northern or southern California. This drought should have made this clear to all of us. It doesn't matter what anyone wants to use the water for...there isn't enough.
It's no secret that agribusiness interests (Westlands Water District, Kern Water Bank, etc) are over-allocated water in backroom deals. The same interests who are over-allocated public water (a gift of public funds) are the same interests supporting Prop 1.
There are rivers that can be dammed, and there are rivers with dams that can add additional dams. Dams can be made higher to increase reservoir capacity. Now that water levels are low, existing reservoirs can be dug deeper to hold more water. We can store water underground in replenishment basins. We can build desalination plants which are more and more economical due to technology advances that reduce electrical costs. All of these projects can keep the water running from our faucets. All are critical to life.

But they take money, and since our water is owned by the public, the public should pay. All of these projects can be funded in part or whole by Prop 1, which is really only a drop in the bucket. Had we not built Shasta, Oroville, DVL, and many other reservoirs, we wouldn't be living here to discuss this.
The parties who stand to benefit most, corporate agribusiness and the water banks, want the public to shoulder the cost of new reservoirs and the Delta tunnel project. They were the ones who pushed for and benefited the most from the Central Valley Project (the construction of Shasta, Oroville, Folsom, etc and the associated conveyance system to transport the aforementioned reservoirs' water to the Central Valley farms)--they *reneged* on paying their agreed upon share and they still owe the taxpayers millions of dollars.
The one job our government should be doing is protecting the public; water infrastructure is arguably the most important as water is life!
The government isn't protecting the public--the government is favoring corporate agribusiness by over-allocating public water, water that we really can't afford to give away. Especially during one of the most severe droughts in California history.
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

fish_food said,"The government isn't protecting the public--the government is favoring corporate agribusiness by over-allocating public water, water that we really can't afford to give away. Especially during one of the most severe droughts in California history."

Don't look for that to change any time soon.
Thanks to GH and GW (and Slick Willy and Ralph Nader), we have a Supreme Court that says corporations have free speech rights in the form of political contributions, so they now own the political system legally. Before, it was back room payoffs, but now they do it out in the open.
One dollar, one vote is not democracy.
It's time for public financing of public office. Let the people of the U.S. fund it's elections, not the corporations.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
User avatar
fish_food
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:36 am

Re: Prop 1

Post by fish_food »

Yes, Mark Poulson. And don't forget that the public water (a public resource that we all own) that's over-allocated to corporate agribusiness in backroom agreements, is then:

1. Used to irrigate permanent, water-intensive crops and orchards being grown in the desert. On land that is nearing the end its useful life. That ag land is also subsiding at an alarming rate because the aquifers are being pumped dry with no oversight. We're giving away public water to the Resnicks and the like to grow almonds and other crops for export to China.

2. Sold to utilities and not used for its intended purpose. The subsidized water allocated to agribusiness that's not used for their farming operations is sold at high, market pricing to municipal water utilities. Agribusiness makes obscene profit from the subsidized water we practically give them by selling it to utilities at a high rates.
Top'r
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:26 pm

Re: Prop 1

Post by Top'r »

Why is it that the State of California won't simply build a few De-salination plants to have an ENDLESS supply of water, and leave the Delta, and lakes alone?
User avatar
fish_food
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:36 am

Re: Prop 1

Post by fish_food »

Because desal plants require a lot of energy to run. At this point, the economics to run desal plants are what's keeping them from being built on a larger scale (the amount of money spent vs the volume of desalinated water you get in return). But still, the plants are being built--San Diego and Santa Barbara are two examples.
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

Top'r wrote:Why is it that the State of California won't simply build a few De-salination plants to have an ENDLESS supply of water, and leave the Delta, and lakes alone?
That makes sense. If the State makes the commitment to desalination as the future of coastal water supply, the private sector will jump on it, and they will be built.
We as a State have to decide if we're really going to have a say in our own future, or if we're just going to keep putting bandaids on problems and kicking the can down the road.
Building new storage capacity in the form of dams and reservoirs, and raising dams to increase capacity where possible, are the smart moves for making the best use of our snow pack and rainfall in wet years, assuming we ever have them again. We need water to recharge our underground aquifers, which can act as an emergency source, and can also supply local water needs.
Water needs to be acknowledged for what it is, a public resource, and needs to be reclaimed from the robber farmers who have been stealing it.
In short, we need an overarching water policy with the goal of providing a sustainable supply of fresh, clean water to all Californians, not just those who can pay the most.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
User avatar
DG
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: RSVL

Re: Prop 1

Post by DG »

I believe in the KISS deal so if Jerry Brown is fer it, I'm not.

Famous last words "no money will be used for anything else" Just ask Social Security, Medicare, the VA, Bart, Amtrak the Lottery and so many others about that!

A yes vote puts billions in someones pockets and it's not mine nor can I decide to who and where it goes!!!! or should I say steals it.
"And Jesus said unto them,come ye after me and I will make you become fishers of men"
<+}}}><
TonyM
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:13 pm

Re: Prop 1

Post by TonyM »

mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

If you bother to listen to the tape of what he actually said on the link that WB posted earlier in this thread, he said his over arching water policy would deal with the Delta, not Prop. 1.
No doubt he is in favor of, and pushing the Bypass Tunnels, but don't misquote him. That just make your arguments look bad.
I am opposed to the Bypass Tunnels. How can taking water away from the Delta save it?
They should use the Tunnel money to rebuild/reinforce the levees and make the Delta safe in a major earthquake.
But I am in favor of Prop. 1, because it deals with many of the other water needs of our State, and specifically excludes money for any kind of water conveyance, tunnel or canals, which takes water around the Delta.
I thought Arnie was a jerk, but he was right about our needing more storage.
The same goes for Prop. 1. Just because Jerry Brown is in bed with Stewart Resnick, that doesn't mean Prop. 1 is bad.
I love Derek Jeter, but I hate the Yankees.
I love Willie Mays, but I hate the Giants.
So, for me, it's possible to pick and choose.
And I won't vote against something just because Jerry Brown supports it.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
Robb R
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:34 pm

Re: Prop 1

Post by Robb R »

Marc,
Hate the Giants !!!
IMPOSSIBLE !!!
Robb
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

Robb R wrote:Marc,
Hate the Giants !!!
IMPOSSIBLE !!!
Robb
What can I say? I was playing little league when the Dodgers moved here from Brooklyn, and the Giants moved to SF.
We didn't have a T.V. back then, but my dad would let us listen to the games on the radio at dinner time. He was no sports fan, but when we did finally get a T.V., he'd watch the Dodgers, and call balls and strikes himself.
I still remember Marichal going after Roseboro with a bat. That sealed the deal for me.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
User avatar
fish_food
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:36 am

Re: Prop 1

Post by fish_food »

A very informative article on Westlands Water District.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california ... tml#page=1

Excerpt:

Amid California's Drought, a Bruising Battle for Cheap Water

In a state where three-quarters of the water use is by agriculture, powerful farm districts such as Westlands play an outsized role in the rough-and-tumble world of water politics.

Westlands and its wealthy farmers are exercising their considerable clout to maintain a flow of cheap water from the north despite a harsh truth. In all of California, there may be no worse place to practice the kind of industrial-scale irrigated agriculture that Westlands is famous for than the badly drained, salt-laden lands that make up roughly half the district.

Westlands has persevered for decades by battling other farmers for supplies, repeatedly suing the U.S. government and spending millions of dollars trying to roll back environmental restrictions on water deliveries — all while planting lucrative nut crops that can't survive a season without water.

Now it is a driving force behind the most ambitious water project proposed in California in decades, the $25-billion plan to send Sacramento River supplies south to Westlands and elsewhere through two giant water tunnels burrowed under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

The water would help Westlands for a time. But the expensive tunnels would merely delay the inevitable: The more Westlands is irrigated, the more its land will be ruined.

The district is roughly twice the size of Los Angeles, stretching like a crooked finger for some 70 miles along the San Joaquin Valley's sun-blasted west side.

Carved out of a region so parched it was long considered uninhabitable desert, Westlands was formed in 1952 by a group of landowners desperate for new water supplies.

They were pumping so much groundwater to irrigate crops that west-side fields were sinking like a partially baked cake. Well drillers were burrowing down more than 2,000 feet to reach steady flows. The cost of the deepest wells had hit $75,000.

The politically connected growers decided their salvation would be to get Congress to extend the Central Valley Project, the huge federal irrigation system that serves California, to the west side. President Dwight Eisenhower signed authorizing legislation for the expansion in 1960, and major deliveries from the delta, more than 150 miles to the north, started spilling into district canals eight years later.

A public agency governed by landowners within its borders, Westlands has an annual budget of more than $100 million and 111 employees. It contracts with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for taxpayer-subsidized irrigation supplies, which it sells to growers.

The sheer size of that contract reflects agriculture's hold on California water supplies. The 600,000-acre, thinly populated irrigation district is entitled to more than 1.1-million acre feet of water annually — or roughly twice what the nearly 4 million residents of Los Angeles use in a year.

A half-century ago, boosters predicted that thousands of small family farms would blossom with the arrival of federal water. That vision never materialized. The few scruffy little towns within Westlands' borders struggle with chronically high unemployment and poverty.

Large tracts were broken up to meet federal acreage limits on the delivery of taxpayer-subsidized water, but the cropland was often spread among extended family members and their trusts. Though Westlands at various times has said it serves 600 or 700 farms, University of California researchers in 2011 found that there were 350 farm networks "grouped by common ownership."

Growers include some of the powerhouses of California agribusiness. Harris Farms Inc., Woolf Enterprises, Tanimura & Antle and other operations have made the district a highly efficient food factory that produces more than $1 billion of crops a year.

Even in this year of withering drought, the almond and pistachio trees and fields of melons, tomatoes and onions go on and on, broken only by an occasional cluster of farm buildings. With an unprecedented zero allocation of federal water, growers kept two-thirds of Westlands green by pumping groundwater and buying supplies from other districts.

In the complicated world of federal water deliveries, the west side of the San Joaquin Valley is among the first in line for cuts, whether due to drought or fish and wildlife protections that restrict deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Since 1993, Westlands has gotten its full water allotment only three times.

"They're taking our water … in the name of helping fish. It hasn't worked," Westlands Chief Deputy General Manager Jason Peltier lamented last year at a Los Angeles public forum.

Growers served by Westlands boast that they have adjusted to shrinking supplies by adopting highly efficient irrigation practices. But they are also planting more profitable, permanent crops, leaving farms increasingly vulnerable to water shortages. District records show that the amount of almond and pistachio acreage has jumped sevenfold in the last two decades.

"It's the lemmings rushing over the cliff," said Tom Zuckerman, an attorney, delta landowner and veteran of state water politics. "They're painting themselves into an increasingly small corner."

Westlands' strength comes via its political savvy. Peltier, who helped shape the Department of the Interior's water policy under President George W. Bush, is one of several former federal officials who fill out Westlands' well-paid management.

The district's general counsel, Craig Manson, served as an assistant U.S. Interior secretary under Bush. Before going to work for Westlands, Deputy General Manager Sue Ramos was an assistant regional director for the Reclamation Bureau.

Their boss, General Manager Tom Birmingham, who helped forge Westlands' aggressive reputation, declined to be interviewed for this article. In 2012, he was paid nearly $367,000, according to the state controller's office.

A few years ago Birmingham and former board president Jean Sagouspe stormed out of a Washington meeting with high-ranking U.S. Interior and state officials after complaining about the work of federal biologists who were critiquing the delta tunnel proposal. One person in attendance likened the incident to Nikita Khrushchev's shoe-thumping during a Cold War debate at the United Nations.

Last year, Westlands grower Mark Borba was forced to resign as chairman of a San Joaquin Valley hospital system after the Fresno Bee newspaper published an email exchange with Birmingham in which Borba referred to President Obama as "Blackie" and harangued Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and the Obama administration for not doing more to increase water deliveries.

Westlands' powerplays have periodically angered Feinstein, but she usually lends Birmingham and the board a sympathetic ear. In the email string, Birmingham assured Borba "that I have been working very closely with Senator Feinstein's office.... Senator Feinstein and her staff have been pushing Interior and Reclamation behind the scenes." This year Feinstein has been negotiating federal drought legislation that would, among other things, make it easier for Westlands to ship water through the delta that it has purchased from other districts.

In what critics complain is the latest example of the district's political influence, the Reclamation Bureau is proposing to let Westlands off the hook for $360 million it still owes U.S. taxpayers for construction of its portion of the Central Valley Project. The move would be part of a deal to resolve a lingering legal fight over the broad swath of the district that is badly drained and laced with salts.
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

No doubt those people are the problem. If they can be stopped, or made to release their stranglehold on public water, that would be good.
But Prop. 1 isn't about them, or the Bypass Tunnels.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
User avatar
fish_food
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:36 am

Re: Prop 1

Post by fish_food »

Prop 1 is more of a backdoor subsidy for the BDCP's tunnel component. The proposition is just one phase of an overall strategy that eventually leads to construction of the tunnels.

https://www.turlockcitynews.com/news/it ... water-bond

"...The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), under the umbrella of the California Department of Water Resources, was unveiled in 2013, but it has been in the works since 2006. The plan is composed of 22 conservation measures designed to 1.) Restore the Delta ecosystem and 2.) Provide a reliable source of water to the south. The BDCP’s Conservation Measure 1 is the construction of two massive underground tunnels that will take water from the Sacramento River to the Aqueduct. The $24.7 billion plan just underwent an environmental impact review and is being revised after public comment was gathered. Tunnel construction is tentatively scheduled for 2017.

So what does all this have to do with the 2014 water bond? In order for those tunnels to get built, several things have to happen. I liken it to moves in a chess game, in which checkmate is the tunnel’s groundbreaking.

Chess Move #1: Fund the BDCP tunnel construction
Californians have consistently voted against funding any type of peripheral bypass. In 1982 after Governor Jerry Brown and the legislature approved a peripheral canal, voters vetoed it in a statewide referendum. The water bond was pulled from the ballot in both 2010 and 2012; one of the key reasons was that the bond funding was tied to the twin tunnel construction. Today, under the BDCP the tunnels do not need voter approval or bond funding. Instead, construction will primarily be paid by those water agencies that will benefit from it (Kern County Water Board, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and Westlands Water District to name a few), partially through higher water rates. And the California Legislative Analyst’s Office just affirmed that districts could increase property taxes without voter approval to pay for the tunnels.

Chess Move #2: Fund non-tunnel measures in the BDCP.
In addition to the estimated $17 billion needed to build the twin tunnels, an additional $7 billion is needed for the other 21 conservation measures in the BDCP, which will restore wetlands and rebuild levees. The twin tunnels will not be built without these other conservation measures because they are designed in part to mitigate some of the negative impact the tunnels will have on the Delta. While the current water bond is described as “tunnel neutral,” meaning no bond money will go to the construction of the tunnels, it is not BDCP-neutral. The BDCP specifically identifies the 2014 Water Bond as a funding source, the conservation measures in the BDCP line up with proposed conservation measures in the Water Bond, and state officials have said that while 2/3 of the project cost will be paid for by water agencies, the remaining funding will come from Congress and the 2014 state water bond.

Chess Move #3: Address environmental concerns
Numerous federal and state agencies and laws exist to address concerns about the Delta. The BDCP must prove to these groups that the twin tunnels will improve, not harm, the Delta. One important issue is Delta water quality, salinity in particular. Picture the water in the Delta as a solution that is made from 2 sources of freshwater and 1 source of seawater. If a portion of the freshwater is removed, then logically the solution is going to be saltier. The BDCP and its recent EIR reported that its conservation measures (including the two tunnels) would not increase salinity significantly. However, the Environmental Protection Agency, conservation groups, and Delta cities vehemently challenge these findings; all contend that salinity is going to be an issue.

Chess Move #4: Require increased flows from the Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and Merced Rivers to counteract salinity caused by the twin tunnels.
One way to reduce the increased levels of salinity created by the twin tunnels is to increase the amount of water that flows from the San Joaquin River into the Delta. One BDCP cost-benefit noted that that the BDCP’s “Delta salinity analysis says there would be little to no impact on salinity in part due to BDCP requiring increased freshwater flows into the San Joaquin.”

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), which oversees water quality and allocation in California has already identified where that water will come from. It has its own Delta plan, the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan (Delta Plan for short). The current update to the plan calls for the rivers that feed into the San Joaquin (the Tuolumne, Merced, and Stanislaus) to increase flows 35%, with the maximum possibility of 60%, between the months of February and June. The goal: to improve the Delta salinity levels.

The BDCP and the Water Board Delta Plan are not operating in isolation, but in coordination. The twin tunnels need Water Board approval. The BDCP states, “The BDCP, when finalized, will be consistent with and included in, the Delta Plan.” Correspondence from the Water Board to the BDCP proposes that the BDCP incorporate increased flows from south of the Delta (i.e. the San Joaquin River and its tributaries).

I believe that to meet its environmental requirements, the BDCP will need increased flows from San Joaquin tributaries. And those are flows that I can’t support. A 35% increase in flow equates to approximately 500,000 acre feet of Tuolumne River water sent to the ocean each year; 500,000 acre feet is what all farmers in TID use for irrigation in an entire year. Water flows of 60% equal about 1.2 million acre feet of water. A 60% increase would decimate TID farming.

SUMMARY
In summary, I cannot in good faith support a water bond that is tied to the BDCP. Once funding is achieved via the 2014 water bond, the BDCP focus will shift to mitigating any negative impact of the tunnels, and increased flows from the Tuolumne River is one such mitigation. I can’t support the water bond without an absolute guarantee that TID water rights will not be the pawn that gives the governor “checkmate,” the construction of the two twin tunnels that will complete his father’s vision for the State Water Project.
"
mark poulson
Posts: 10372
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 4:16 am
Location: Antioch, CA

Re: Prop 1

Post by mark poulson »

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I agree that there are some behind the door shenanigans going on regarding the Bypass Tunnels. How they ever got approved is a crime.
But the improvements funded by Prop. 1, if taken alone, are all good.
So the fight is to stop the Tunnels, and the EPA is our best hope now.
I think they're smart enough to recognize that robbing Peter to pay Paul, by pulling more water from other sources and creating potential adverse conditions there, is just a shell game.
Attitude plus effort equal success
CLEAN AND DRY
User avatar
fish_food
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:36 am

Re: Prop 1

Post by fish_food »

mark poulson wrote:I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I agree that there are some behind the door shenanigans going on regarding the Bypass Tunnels. How they ever got approved is a crime.
But the improvements funded by Prop. 1, if taken alone, are all good.
So the fight is to stop the Tunnels, and the EPA is our best hope now.
I think they're smart enough to recognize that robbing Peter to pay Paul, by pulling more water from other sources and creating potential adverse conditions there, is just a shell game.
Yes, we can agree to disagree. Our opinions on big ag and their efforts to fully privatize public water do overlap however--we agree on the bigger picture.
Post Reply