Tweet
Between unions, special interests, environmentalist lawsuits, eminent domain to steal land, and the real lack of money, the just passed water bill may never even make it pass the voters next November. Why? Because California finally seem fed up with earmarks, bribes and promises. The cost alone will kill education programs, health care and public safety projects.
"But the deal likely will do little to solve the states immediate water challenges, and some of the long-term solutions in the bills bring as many questions as answers.
The biggest uncertainty is the fate of the bond that voters will take up in November 2010. More than double the size of the largest water bond in state history, the measure includes money for new storage, underground water banking, water recycling, regional projects and environmental upgrades in the delta.
Opposition is likely to come from some fiscal conservatives who say the proposal is laden with nonessential spending and unions, who fear the borrowing will rob money from other programs. Some environmental groups also are expected to fight it, including the Sierra Club, which opposes dams.
At its peak, the bond would cost the state up to $809.3 million in annual debt service, assuming a 30-year payment schedule, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office."
Costs are high just for a promise. What do you think? It would be cheaper to hirer a couple of engineers and open the water pumps--regardless of what it does to the delta smelt.
More...
"But the deal likely will do little to solve the states immediate water challenges, and some of the long-term solutions in the bills bring as many questions as answers.
The biggest uncertainty is the fate of the bond that voters will take up in November 2010. More than double the size of the largest water bond in state history, the measure includes money for new storage, underground water banking, water recycling, regional projects and environmental upgrades in the delta.
Opposition is likely to come from some fiscal conservatives who say the proposal is laden with nonessential spending and unions, who fear the borrowing will rob money from other programs. Some environmental groups also are expected to fight it, including the Sierra Club, which opposes dams.
At its peak, the bond would cost the state up to $809.3 million in annual debt service, assuming a 30-year payment schedule, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office."
Costs are high just for a promise. What do you think? It would be cheaper to hirer a couple of engineers and open the water pumps--regardless of what it does to the delta smelt.
More...