UPDATED
State Sen. Dave Cogdill, the Modesto Republican, played a crucial role in representing San Joaquin Valley water and farming interests in the historic water legislation passed this morning by the Legislature. He kept the negotiators' attention on the need for a bond to pay for storage facilities, including dams and water banks. That's no small thing in the legislative talks, with so many political divisions involving water.
This is part of what Cogdill had to say after the package of bills was passed:
"Today's historic agreement is the most significant step that the state has taken in decades to invest in its crumbling water infrastructure. Nothing is more important to the state's economic prosperity than ensuring that we have water to meet California's needs now and into the future. With this plan, we can improve the state's water supply and protect the environment, without destroying our economy. ... This agreement also delivers on the expectation that California taxpayers have for lawmakers to put aside partisan differences to achieve common sense solutions that benefit the entire state."
State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, also is praised for his work on the water package in this Bakersfield Californian editorial.
Here are other quotes on the water package from Fresno-area politicians:
-- Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin:
"This is an historic step that is profoundly important to the future of Fresno, the San Joaquin Valley and the entire state of California. Our region and our state simply could not succeed if we didn't address our water infrastructure challenges. This action should serve as a real turning point in making sure that we have water to meet our needs, both now and in the future. Our Valley legislators deserve our strong praise for continuing to push this complex and contentious issue forward. I also want to particularly commend Gov. Schwarzenegger for his commitment and leadership on this issue."
-- Fresno Council Member Henry T. Perea:
"I really believe that this has been a bipartisan effort to come up with the best possible water reform. When these bonds come before the voters next year I urge them to vote yes and help us start a new era of water management policy in California."
You know I really am becoming very suspicious of this whole fiasco. Without getting stuck in the details, I will just offer this: It seems to me there is a pattern in government which requires everyone to get a cut of the pie in every deal. The environmentalists are getting their cut and I would like to know up front now what that is. Yes we may get a dam or two, but who's reservoir will it be? Californians, The Federal Government, The Sierra Club, or Earth First? I heard a politician on the radio talk about the realities of doing business with the same weasels who have let this problem exacerbate until their own constituency was negatively affected before they would sign off on dams etc. One question in my mind is: Will the average taxpayer have recreational access to the water being stored, and to what reasonable or unreasonable degree? Will there be new roads open to vehicles heavier than a unicycle or a pair of roller blades? Will there be areas surrounding the water be open to hunting? They need to get this right, I hope they understand that. When I saw the name Schwarzenegger, I wondered how many condor like ideas are going to be implemented into this new paradise.
Where were his negotiating skills when trying to pass a budget? You have to make the grade everytime not just once. Psrdon me if I'm not so impressed.
While we "celebrate" the borrowing of another $11 million, ask yourself this question: with the State's budget already out of balance, when these bonds are sold, how is the State going to pay back the bondholders. Our bonded indebtedness is at it highest level in State history - 10% of our general fund is being used for bond payments.
We may need the water infrastructure, but we've passed four water bonds since 1998 - where did all that bond money go?
Will anyone in the press actually do their job and ask some probing questions here?
Not only do I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Mr. Der Manouel, but actually I agree with him a thousand times more since the the borrowing in question is of $11 billion (with a b).
I would sure like the reporters at the Bee to provide that information. So far we have only been urged to consider the Republican Party's culpability in the creation of this mess.
I agree with everything said above. I am concerned what may be hidden in the fine print as well as what has been set up to be later ruled on by the judicial system. I have concerns
that we can afford this given how many bonds are already on the books.
Mr. Boren this sounds like a job for your best investigative reporters. How about it?
Though, I too, agree with Mr. Michael Der Manouel, it is my believe that to pay back the bondholders is not on the legislators' mind. Because of term limits they are not around long enough. Their attitude adds up to BEHIND ME THE DELUGE (Luis XV of France) And that concludes another of my "bizarre" notions for "SEAMUS" to latch onto.
First thing I thought when I heard this(actually the first thing I think everytime I hear the word "Bond")...how are we going to pay for this(whether it may be good or bad)...how now brown cow?
Read the water package. The environmentalists are still in control. When the going gets tough the Liberal legislature and the "moderate republicans will bail like they did on the budget.
www.DownsizeCaNow.com