https://calwatchdog.com/2009/12/31/443/ Wed, 25 Mar 2015 06:23:44 +0000 hourly 1 https://calwatchdog.com/2009/12/31/443/#comment-39 Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:57:30 +0000 http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=443#comment-39 Sam:
What is to prevent yet another environmental lawsuit on, say, the proposed Sites Reservoir? Nothing that I know of. Then we would be back to square zero.
WL

]]> https://calwatchdog.com/2009/12/31/443/#comment-38 Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:14:54 +0000 http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=443#comment-38 Good article as far as it goes; accurately points out that in a “bass-ackwards” fashion the politicos allocated lots of money and then left it to others to find deserving projects. The article fails to point out that $3 billion of that allocation is for storage projects and that the folks who will decide who gets the $3 billion is the California Water Commission. The “who”? The California Water Commission has been defunct, moribund and without any validly appointed members for many, many years. But Water Code sections 150 etc. says the Governor gets to appoint all 9 members of the Water Commission. Is this good government? One unpopular termed out Governor gets to appoint the people who will decide how $3 billion of taxpayer money is spent on water projects that, in reality, ought to be paid for by those who will get the benefits from the projects? And if you answer that some of the benefits are “public benefits” (i.e. environmental benefits) then why don’t the politicos in the Legislature have the courage to retain to themselves the authority to ultimately decide what is a public benefit and where the money should go? Answer: Because they are cowards.

]]> https://calwatchdog.com/2009/12/31/443/#comment-37 Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:50:13 +0000 http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=443#comment-37 Great article. Interesting, from looking at a summary of the water bill package one could see that it was loaded with pork and political favors, but this reveals it as a cover for a full power grab. All the more reason to defeat it.

]]>