by Dan Bacher  

by Dan Bacher

Representatives of the No on the Water Bond Coalition slammed AB 2775, an alleged “fix” of the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, after the bill passed out of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee on June 22.

“AB 2775 is no fix at all,” said Tina Andolina of the Planning and Conservation League. “Tinkering around the edges won’t fix this bond. This measure does not truly address the problem that the bond will allow private companies to profit as taxpayers foot the bill. We will see water privatization on an even larger scale if the bond passes, and this bill does nothing to address the problem.”

AB 2775, sponsored by Senator Jared Huffman (D-Marin) and Senator Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), makes technical changes to the 2010 Water Bond, passed by the Legislature in November 2009 and scheduled to go to the voters in the November 2010 election.

Huffman and Cogdill, who rarely agree about anything with respect to water, coauthored this bill focusing on a “narrow point of consensus,” a “surgical change,” to quote Huffman.

The bill deletes Section 79749(b) that authorizes a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that owns and operates a surface storage reservoir partially funded with public bond funds to include private members with equity participation, according to Senator Cogdill’s office.

“By removing this provision, AB 2775 clarifies two issues,” according to Cogdill’s office. “First, Section 79749 (b) allows private partners with equity shares in surface storage reservoirs that are in part publicly funded. Removing this provision resolves potential confusion with other provisions in the 2010 Water Bond that require public funds be used only for public benefit. Second, deleting Section 79749(b) clarifies that JPAs should include public agency members.”

However, Deborah Davis of the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water emphasized that AB 2775 deals with none of the fundamental problems of the water bond.

“California is facing a crushing $19 billion budget deficit, $83.5 billion in long-term bond debt, and legislative gridlock, yet our politicians hatched this massive, fundamentally flawed, $11 billion water bond behind closed doors and loaded it up with billions of dollars in pork,” said Davis. “AB 2775 takes none of the pork out of the water bond and is nothing more than a minor cosmetic change to an ugly package.”

“Wonky policy tweaks cannot change the fact that this bond asks the taxpayers to come up with an extra billion dollars a year in the middle of a massive recession to pay for projects that would do little, if anything, to increase the state’s supply of clean and reliable water,” added Jim Metropulos of the Sierra Club California.

Senator Lois Wolk, who cast the lone no vote against the bill, described the bill as “lipstick on a pig.” She voted against the amendment she believes it makes the bond more palatable. “This won’t eliminate the possibility of gaming the system,” she stated.

The bill has an urgency clause, but Jane Wagner-Tyack of Restore the Delta asked, “Why the urgency?”

“In a deeply flawed water bond, the joint powers provision is one of the deepest flaws,” she stated. “Organizations opposing the water bond have noted that this provision would open the gate for more entities like the Kern Water Bank, where private investors profit from public infrastructure investments. The legislature wants to get it out of the water bond before the Secretary of State prepares the measure for the November ballot.”

She emphasized that the “real problem” is with Section 6252 of the Government Code, which allows mutual water companies to enter into joint powers agreements with public agencies.

“For example, Westside Mutual Water Company is the entity that allows Stewart Resnick to control the Kern Water Bank,” Wagner-Tyack explained. “Removing the reference to nongovernmental partners from the bond won’t eliminate mutual water companies or change the Government Code.”

AB 2775 will require a 2/3 vote of the legislature and requires fiscal committee review, according to Wagner-Tyack.

Opponents of the water bond believe that it is part and parcel of an effort to build a peripheral canal to facilitate water exports to corporate agribusiness and southern California water districts. The peripheral canal/tunnel is estimated to cost anywhere from $23 billion to $53.8 billion at a time that the state is in its greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

No on the Water Bond is sponsored by a coalition of consumer, environmental, fishing, farming, tribal and ethnic organizations opposed to the water bond that will be on the statewide ballot in November. Coalition members include the Sierra Club California, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Friends of the River, Food and Water Watch, the Planning and Conservation League, and Restore the Delta.

For more information, go to www.nowaterbond.com or www.restorethedelta.org.

by Dan Bacher 

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, in an announcement from Restore the Delta on June 21, asked the question: “What would you do with $800 million per year?” 

That’s the amount it will cost Californians every year to pay the principal and interest on the $11.14 billion water bond. The bond, known as the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 by its proponents, was part of the controversial water package that emerged from the special Legislative Session called by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last fall. 

“With $800 million, California could rehire 12,000 teachers that were laid off this spring,” Barrigan-Parrilla stated. “We could pay for four years of the Healthy Families program, which insures 900,000 children in California.” 

Do you remember those state parks that Schwarzenegger threatened to close last year? “We could run them for 57 years,” she said. 

“Or we could pay for one year of principal and interest on the Water Bond to set the stage for building a peripheral canal through the Delta and to give corporate agribusiness, private water companies and developers more control of our water. All at the expense of Delta family farmers and Delta fisheries,” Barrigan-Parrilla explained. 

Restore the Delta is part of a statewide campaign that includes the Sierra Club, Friends of the River, Food and Water Watch, Clean Water Action, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and many other groups. The No on the Water Bond coalition is “working against big money and big power” to defeat the Water Bond in November, said Barrigan-Parrilla. 

The Water Commission of the Inter-Tribal Council of California (ITCC) is also urging people to vote “no” on the water bond on November 2. The Commission pinpoints three reasons for voting no on the water bond: “1. The water bond was written without Tribal inclusion; 2. Language excludes ‘Tribes’ from eligibility criteria; and 3. Tribes Water Rights will be excluded again through this conveyance.” 

Arturo Rodriguez, president of the United Farmworkers Union (UFW), also strongly opposes the water bond, contending that it further subsidizes corporate agribusiness. 

“The water bond that was recently approved by our lawmakers will give agricultural companies billions more in subsidized water,” said Rodiguez in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle on February 23 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/22/ED7U1BUUH3.DTL). “The state treasurer has asked the right question: Why aren’t these giant ag industry operators paying for their water like everyone else?” 

Water bond supporters try to portray it as a “vital measure” that will restore the Delta while providing water to California’s increasing population. 

“It’s time to act now to begin fixing our water system before it’s too late,” said Jim Earp, executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs and chair of the Alliance for Clean Water and Jobs, the committee in support of the water bond. “The water bond will invest in the repairs we need to safeguard water supplies, to upgrade water infrastructure, to clean up contamination, and to restore the Delta so we can protect this vital resource for wildlife, people and businesses.” 

However, Barrigan-Parrilla and other water bond opponents say the pro-bond campaign is a “con” job. 

“Bond supporters are trying to make the water bond sound like a good idea, but don’t be deceived: It’s a con,” said Barrigan-Parrilla, Restore the Delta’s campaign director. “Backed by the Governor, developers, and wealthy agribusinesses, the bond would build more dams and allow private interests to control more of our water.” 

She added, “Projects in the bond that we support, like conservation, will not be funded for years if ever. We must oppose this bond and work for better water policies that truly benefit the public.” 

I agree. There are a lot of good things that California could do with $800 million a year, such as restoring salmon and other fish populations. In fact, I can’t think of much worse things to do with $800 million per year than building more dams and bailing out corporate agribusiness. 

Don’t be fooled by the water bond’s backers, who include Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein, San Joaquin Valley agribusiness, southern California water agencies. 

Don’t be conned by support of the bond by the Nature Conservancy and Audubon California, who provide the “environmental” cover for this water grab by agribusiness and southern California developers. 

By signing up for the coalition’s action alert list, you’ll learn about ways to get involved, see the new social media tools and viral videos the campaign is producing, and learn more about this disastrous bond. 

Join the campaign and tell your friends. Join the coalition’s people-powered campaign to defeat the bond! Go to: http://www.nowaterbond.com.

Below is Beth Warner’s article in the Eureka Times-Standard, followed by my response:

www.times-standard.com/othervoices/ci_15332824

Clarification of the Marine Life Protection Act

by Beth Warner

June 19, 2010

Most people have heard of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) in one way

or another, but there seems to be some confusion as to what is fact or

fiction. As someone that has been involved-working alongside other community

members from every walk of life to build a marine protected area plan that

will work for our community — I wanted to provide a brief overview of what

has happened thus far in California and on the North Coast.

The MLPA is making California a world leader in ocean protection by creating

a network of marine protected areas that spans the entire state. The

protected areas are being put into place one region at a time to allow local

people to weigh in. After three years of study and negotiations, the design

and mapping work is done from Alder Creek south to the border with Mexico.

Our North Coast region is the final stretch.

Thus far, the North Coast has had many community meetings with commercial

and recreational fishermen, tribal citizens, environmentalists, consumptive

divers, kayak fishermen, oyster farmers, kelp harvesters and many others.

With so many interests represented at the table, it is hard work to find

solutions everyone can agree on, but we can all agree the health of the

ocean is essential to our way of life and economy.

The community meetings yielded various marine protected area plans, which

were then reviewed by a group of scientists. The marine protected areas we

create here on the North Coast will have to meet some important standards:

first, they must stand up to the scientific guidelines, which are designed

to help maximize environmental gains; and second, they need to take into

account potential economic impacts on the fisheries from each port in the

region. The community maps and assessments are publicly available on the

Department of Fish and Game website.

Community-nominated members of what is called the Regional Stakeholder Group

now have the maps and their associated evaluations. Their job is to create a

final plan (or series of plans) that represents our shared interests as a

region. Over the next several months, they will work to map out protections

that balance the needs of different user groups and marine life — all while

meeting scientific guidelines and minimizing socio-economic impacts.

At the end of the year, these maps –or a single map if the stakeholders can

conclusively agree — will be reviewed by the Fish and Game Commission and a

final network will go into the books.

As we work our way through this challenging process, it’s worth remembering

why we are doing it — we all want a healthy ocean that will provide for us

and our children.

The MLPA process relies heavily on public input. Collectively, the citizens

of the north coast region have the knowledge and ability to create a

scientifically robust plan that will keep us fishing far into the future.

The Stakeholders, Science Advisory Team (the scientists reviewing the maps)

and the Blue Ribbon Task Force (the group that reviews the final map designs

before DFG) meetings all are open for the public — and they need your

voice. There is a public meeting on July 7th at the Humboldt Bay Aquatic

Center in Eureka at 5 p.m. — the meeting encourages the public to attend as

this process thrives on public participation.

Please attend the meeting and support the efforts of your community members

in designing a legacy for California waters. All meeting agendas, schedules,

maps and evaluations are all available on the DFG website and meetings are

streamed online and can be found http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_n.asp.

You can also submit comments to the 34 members of the Regional Stakeholder

Group at MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov .

Beth Werner is the outreach and MLPA coordinator at Humboldt Baykeeper.

MLPA: The Privatization of Ocean Management

by Dan Bacher

June 20, 1010

Beth Werner, the outreach and MLPA coordinator at Humboldt Baykeeper, claims

in her article, “Most people have heard of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA)

in one way or another, but there seems to be some confusion as to what is fact or fiction.”

However, for people that have actually examined the implementation of the

MLPA Initiative since Governor Arnold Schwarzengger privatized the process

in 2004, there is no confusion “as to what is fact or fiction.”

The fact is that Schwarzenegger’s MLPA Initiative is a privately funded

process overseen by oil industry, marina development, real estate and other

corporate interests. Rather than truly protecting the ocean as the landmark

law originally intended to do, the MLPA Initiative under Schwarzenegger has

completely taken water pollution, habitat destruction, oil drilling, wave

energy projects and all other human uses of the ocean other than fishing and

seaweed harvesting off the table.

I have a series of questions to ask Werner and other proponents of

Schwarzenegger’s MLPA process.

Why does the MLPA engage in cultural genocide by banning the Kashia Pomo

Tribe from harvesting seaweed and shellfish off their sacred site, “Danaka,”

in Sonoma County?

Why has the Initiative shown no respect for tribal subsistence and

ceremonial rights? This is an overt violation of the American Indian

Religious Freedom Act and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

People. Article 32, Section 2, of the Declaration mandates “free prior and

informed consent” in consultation with the indigenous population affected by

a state action (http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp ).

Why did MLPA staff until recently violate the Bagley-Keene Act and the First

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by banning video and audio coverage of

the initiative’s work sessions?

Why do the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) and Science Advisory Team

continue to violate the California Public Records Act by refusing to respond

to numerous requests by Bob Fletcher, former DFG Deputy Director, for key

documents and records pertaining to the MLPA implementation process?

Why did the Governor and MLPA officials install an oil industry lobbyist, a

marina developer, a real estate executive and other corporate interests as

“marine guardians” to kick Indian Tribes, fishermen and seaweed harvesters,

the greatest defenders of the oceans, off the ocean?

Why is Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum

Association, allowed to make decisions as the chair of the BRTF for the

South Coast and as a member of the BRTF for the North Coast, panels that are

supposedly designed to “protect” the ocean, when she has called for new oil

drilling off the California coast?

Why does the initiative discard the results of any scientists who disagree

with the MLPA’ pre-ordained conclusions? These include the peer reviewed

study by Dr. Ray Hilborn, Dr. Boris Worm and 18 other scientists, featured

in Science magazine in July 2009, that concluded that the California current

had the lowest rate of fishery exploitation of any place studied on the

planet.

Why do MLPA staff and the California Fish and Game Commission refuse to hear

the pleas of the representatives of the California Fish and Game Wardens

Association, who oppose the creation of any new MPAs until they have enough

funding for wardens to patrol existing reserves?

Finally, why is a private corporation, the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund

Foundation, being allowed to privatize ocean resource management in

California through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the DFG?

Werner proclaims, “As we work our way through this challenging process, it’s

worth remembering why we are doing it — we all want a healthy ocean that

will provide for us and our children.”

How can you possibly conclude that a privately funded initiative filled with

so many confllcts of interest and violations of state, federal and

international laws will result in a “healthy ocean ocean that will provide

for us and our children?”

Dan Bacher is the editor of the Fish Sniffer magazine, www.fishsniffer.com.

Paper Water: And Other Sordid Tales (35:46)

Paper Water is a video from Salmon Water Now about the sordid things happening in California’s water world. It is about four corners of darkness that a handful of wealthy and powerful individuals and agribusiness corporations would rather not be talked about.

The subjects of this video are: Beverley Hills billionaire “farmer” Stewart Resnick, the Kern Water Bank, the Monterey Plus Amendments, and the powerful Westlands Water District. Any one of these stories is alarming. Taken together as a whole, it is easy to see why wild California King salmon are on the edge of extinction and why California taxpayers and water rate payers in southern California are being screwed.

Stewart Resnick

Beverley Hills billionaire “farmer” Stewart Resnick is well known for his generous gift giving. He has given millions of dollars for hospitals, art museums, education and research that benefit many. But less well known are his donations to state and national politicians. This segment of Paper Water documents his political donations, his connections to powerful politicians, and his need for unlimited irrigation water to keep his Paramount Farms business productive. It was Mr. Resnick who demanded that the National Academy of Science re-review the work of Federal scientists that resulted in pumping restrictions of Delta water in order to protect salmon and other species from going extinct. He did not agree with those protection plans so he pushed Senator Diane Feinstein to have the Obama administration review the validity of the plans. That cost taxpayers $750,000 only to be told that the protection plan was “scientifically justified.” Mr. Resnick is a very wealthy and powerful player in the struggle over California Water and as you will see in this video, his name keeps popping up.

Kern Water Bank

The story of the Kern Water Bank is important because it started as a taxpayer-funded project to store water underground so it could be made available in times of scarcity to those who needed it. But the State ended up walking away from the project and handed it over to the Kern Water Agency who immediately gave ownership of it to the Kern Water Bank Authority, an entity made up of water districts and Paramount Farms, owned by Stewart Resnick. Mr. Resnick is the major owner and beneficiary of this former State-owned water bank and it has made him even richer and more powerful.

Monterey Plus Amendments

In 1994 the state contractors that deliver water to cities and agriculture met secretly in Monterey to re-write the rules of water delivery. They wanted to change the rules that protected urban areas in times of drought. This is a very difficult subject to understand but the bottom line is that the original 1960 rules were thrown out so that big agriculture and big real estate developers could have their way with a public trust resource, water. And here again, the name of Paramount Farms and Stewart Resnick comes into the story.

Westlands Water District

Without a doubt, the Westlands Water District is the most powerful and loudest voice in the battle over water use. This segment of Paper Water looks at who the players are in Westlands and what we believe is their ultimate endgame. Their continuing demands for more and more water have put salmon on the bring of extinction. But, for what? They will tell you they need the water to irrigate crops, which is true. But the land they grow those crops in is toxic, desert soil that will eventually become totally unsuitable for agriculture. They know that but water rights are more valuable than the crops they grow so they continue to demand water that is critical for recovering salmon. 

These are complicated stories. These are important stories. These are stories that deserve to be told, especially now in the run-up to the 2010 General Election which has voters deciding YES or NO on the $11.1 billion dollar water bond. We believe that any one of the four stories presented in this video make a compelling argument to vote NO on the water bond. If it passes, the forces of darkness shown in the video will continue to have their way. They will continue to ratchet up their demands for water regardless of the impact on California’s fragile ecosystems, and the State’s fiscal health.

Paper Water is a wake-up call. A call for balance and equitable distribution of water for cities, sustainable agriculture, and our natural ecosystems. A call for sanity and the end of personal and corporate wealth at the expense taxpayers and the environment.

Share this eye-opening video with your friends, family and co-workers because it is way past time for Salmon Water Now!

Watch on Vimeo from start to finish or in segments on YouTube:

Vimeo: http://www.vimeo.com/9183542

YouTube

Part 1; Stewart Resnick

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h8sAv0pQJU&hd=1

Part 2: Kern Water Bank

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9RwhIznZ6s&hd=1

Part 3: Monterey Plus Amendments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbzhpnkbtkA&hd=1

Part 4: Westlands Water District

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGqSj0E_5Mo&hd=1

by Dan Bacher

The Water Commission of the Inter-Tribal Council of California (ITCC), in a powerfully worded statement, is urging people to vote “No” on the $11.14 water bond on the November ballot.

The water bond/water policy package, pushed through the Legislature by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg last November, creates a clear path to the construction of a peripheral canal and new dams. California Indian Tribes, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, Delta farmers, environmental justice communities and the vast majority of environmental groups were completely excluded from the back door negotiations that led to the passage of the water package.

The Inter-Tribal Water Commission pinpoints three reasons for voting no on the water bond: “1. The water bond was written without Tribal inclusion; 2. Language excludes ‘Tribes’ from eligibility criteria; and 3. Tribes Water Rights will be excluded again through this conveyance.”

“The Department of Water Resources and their private contractors believe that ‘No Indians’ have ever lived in the Delta, which now they are testing for the new canal,” the Commission states. ”They are not following Section 106 or CEQA requirements in including Tribal participation.”

“Construction for existing and new proposed dams and reservoirs will entitle private ownership to individuals that can afford to buy those senior rights,” the Commission continues. “Tribes will not have the opportunity to secure bond water money to develop access to water strategies, address lack of sustained water for fish and forestry, traditional cultural uses, potable water, etc.”

The statement also points out how the proposed peripheral canal will “destroy tribal villages and burial sites;” will raise the cost of residential and tribal business water rights and rates; and will “further the privatization” of public trust waters, “again leaving out Tribal Water Rights.”

“The federal and state governments have not lived up to the original Central Valley Project (CVP) agreements to Tribes to this date. If the water bond passes, it will FOREVER eliminate Native programs funded through the state,” the Commission concludes.

I applaud the Commission for issuing this strong statement against the water bond. We must challenge the politics of exclusion, as exemplified in the water bond and the campaign by the Governor and corporate agribusiness to build a peripheral canal and new dams, and defeat the water bond at the ballot box in November.

The Commission joins a diverse group of political leaders, environmental and consumer groups, ethnic and tribal organizations and fishing groups in urging Californians to vote no on the Water Bond.

The water bond will help create the infrastructure to build a peripheral canal and new dams. Canal opponents believe that the “new conveyance” is likely to lead to the extinction of Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whales. The canal/tunnel will cost an estimated $23 billion to $53.8 billion water bond at a time when California is in its greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

“The peripheral canal is a big, stupid idea that doesn’t make any sense from a tribal environmental perspective,” said Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu (McCloud River) Tribe. “Building a canal to save the Delta is like a doctor inserting an arterial bypass from your shoulder to your hand– it will cause your elbow to die just like taking water out of the Delta through a peripheral canal will cause the Delta to die.”

Statewide environmental and consumer organizations opposing the bond include Sierra Club California, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Clean Water Action, California Coastkeeper Alliance, California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), Planning and Conservation League, Desal Response Group and Food and Water Watch.

Local and regional environmental organizations in opposition include Butte Environmental Council, Friends of the River, Restore the Delta, Sacramento Audobon Society, Sierra Nevada Alliance, Southern California Watershed Alliance, Urban Semillas, Cultivating Sustainable Communities, The Downstream Coalition, Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch and Friends of the Trinity River.

Ethnic and tribal associations opposing the bond include Hispanics for Political Action, La Raza Centro Legal and Winnemem Wintu Tribe. Fishing and recreational organizations in opposition include the California Fisheries Network, Half Moon Bay Fishermen’s Association Salmon Water Now, San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association, Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermens’ Association and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.

Expect more organizations to declare their opposition to the water bond as the November election draws closer.

For more information about the Inter-Tribal Water Commission, contact: Randy Yonemura, honortraditions [at] mail.com, or Atta P. Stevenson, wtalker101 [at] yahoo.com. 

For more information about opposing the water bond, go to: http://www.nowaterbond.com.

Below is the complete statement from the Inter-Tribal Water Commission:

“NO” on Water Bond

The Inter-Tribal Water Commission recommends voting “NO” on the California “Water Bond” on the November ballot.

Why?

1. The water bond was written without Tribal inclusion.

2. Language excludes “Tribes” from eligibility criteria.

3. Tribes Water Rights will be excluded again through this conveyance.

Construction for existing and new proposed dams and reservoirs will entitle private ownership to individuals that can afford to buy those senior rights. Tribes will not have the opportunity to secure bond water money to develop access to water strategies, address lack of sustained water for fish and forestry, traditional cultural uses, potable water, etc.

The new proposed canal will destroy Tribal villages and burial sites.

The Department of Water Resources and their private contractors believe that “No Indians” have ever lived in the Delta, which now they are testing for the new canal. They are not following Section 106 or CEQA requirements in including Tribal participation.

The water bond will raise the cost of residential and Tribal business water rates in California. The passage will further the privatization of federal, state and local government waters, again leaving out Tribal Water Rights!

Tribes are left out of the environmental process, as they are now, which includes Floodsafe, thereby excluding water for wild salmon.

The federal and state governments have not lived up to the original Central Valley Project (CVP) agreements to Tribes to this date.

The stranglehold of junior water rights handlers as Westland and Metropolitan Water Districts will be elevated to senior water rights. Again, this excludes Tribal Water Rights.

If the water bond passes it will FOREVER eliminate Native programs funded through the state.

Inter-Tribal Water Commission

by Dan Bacher 

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 3 signed legislation by Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) to extend a cost-sharing program that helps many local levee agencies afford necessary maintenance and improvements to levees that protect lives, farmland, and drinking water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, according to a news release from Wolk’s office. 

“At a time when funding is hard to come by, this measure extends a successful program that helps to safeguard the Delta’s continuing role as the heart of the state’s water system, as fertile farmland, and a rich estuary ecosystem,” said Wolk, who also authored legislation in 2005 that extended the 75 percent cost-sharing formula until 2010. 

Wolk’s current legislation, Senate Bill 808, extends the state’s authorization to reimburse local agencies for up to 75 percent of levee maintenance and improvement costs. Without the bill, the state could not provide more than 50 percent reimbursement after July 1 of this year. 

Under the measure, the program’s authorization is extended until July 1, 2013, coinciding with the state’s deadline to reassess its plans and priorities for protecting the Delta and its outdated system of levees. 

“This legislation will help sustain Delta maintenance programs during this time of transition,” Wolk concluded. “Until the state develops and begins to implement its plans for the Delta, the Delta Levee Program must remain in place to help provide necessary levee maintenance and improvements that protect Delta levees and the communities living and working behind them.” 

SB 808 is supported by the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley, Central Valley Flood Control Association, North Delta Water Agency, Central Delta Water Agency, South Delta Water Agency, Regional Council of Rural Counties, Department of Water Resources, Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), California State Association of Counties (CSAC), Valley Ag Water Coalition, Contra Costa County Supervisors, Contra Costa Water District, County of Sacramento, and East Bay Municipal Utility District. 

The bill was signed at a time that Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein, corporate agribusiness and southern California water agencies are pushing to build a peripheral canal/canal around the Delta. Wolk, a strong defender of the Delta and its fish and people, is one of the most fervent opponents of the peripheral canal. 

Canal critics contend that the canal would seal the doom of collapsing populations of Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, striped bass and southern resident killer whales. The canal/tunnel is expected to cost an estimated $23 billion to $53.8 billion, according to Steven Kasower and Associates.