Water bond deal reached

Water bond deal reached

brown water bondWriting Wednesday afternoon, a deal just was reached among Gov. Jerry Brown and Democratic and Republican leaders in the Legislature on a water bond for the November ballot, costing $7.5 billion. It would replace Proposition 43, the $11.1 billion bond currently in place. The Bee reported:

Negotiations continued late into Tuesday night after Republicans rejected a $7.2 billion measure containing $2.5 billion for storage. That amount has since risen to $2.7 billion, enough to convince Republicans who have insisted on enough money to construct dams and reservoirs allowing California to withstand withering droughts like the one currently afflicting the state.

“Yes, there’s a deal,” said Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar.

As Wayne Lusvardi reported earlier this week on CalWatchDog.com, it takes at least $3 billion to build decent storage. So $2.7 billion is a “close enough for government work” moment.

And above whatever is spent on storage, the rest of what’s in the bond, as in Prop. 43 and the other (now defunct) proposals, is pork.

Which raises a question: Why not trim down the project to $3 billion for storage and build it just from the general fund? These projects take years to get going. So how about $500 million a year from the general fund for six years, the money taken by cutting waste in a budget that is $108 billion for fiscal 2014-15, and will be even higher in future years? Surely, 0.5 percent waste could be found, and cut.

But that’s not how California does things. Instead, the bond, whatever the amount is, and assuming voters pass it, will be paid down over 30 years. With interest, that means the total cost will be double the actual construction costs.

That’s why I call bonds “delayed tax increases.” Remember all those bonds voters passed a decade ago — for water (not storage), stem-cell research, schools? When the bill came due, taxes were raised $7 billion with Proposition 30 in 2012.

Finally, why not use this as an opportunity to privatize the entire water system? The new companies that run it would raise private capital to fund system upgrades — while also cutting overall rates because the private sector is far more efficient than the government sector.

The current water system is a kind of soggy DMV — politicized, inefficient, expensive.

Put Google and Apple in charge of the water system, and see rates paid by consumers drop as fast as computing costs.

9 comments

Write a comment
  1. Irv
    Irv 14 August, 2014, 10:46

    ===IF THIS WATER DEAL DOES NOT INCLUDE SHUTTING DOWN ALL THE WATER WASTING SOLAR ARRAYS THAT USE WATER FOR COOLING OR CLEANING==THEN IT IS NOT A GOOD DEAL=== EVERY WASTEFUL USE OF WATER MUST BE CURTAILED FIRST===SOLAR IS WASTING MILLIONS IF NOT BILLIONS OF GALLONS OF WATER EACH DAY==MONTH===YEAR===THE SOLAR INDUSTRY IS DOING NOTHING BUT COSTING US MONEY WE NEED NOT SPEND BESIDES DESTROYING OUR AIR, SOIL AND THE PRECIOUS WATER WE HAVE FOR LIVING===STOP IT===

    Reply this comment
  2. SoCalSteve
    SoCalSteve 14 August, 2014, 11:02

    Right, Irv, let’s use that water for important things, like watering lawns and fracking.

    Reply this comment
    • Irv
      Irv 14 August, 2014, 11:38

      YOU KNOW WHAT STEVE===PEOPLE WITH THOUGHTS LIKE YOURS IS WHY THIS STATE AND THIS COUNTRY IS IN SO MUCH TROUBLE===YOU ARE ALLOWED YOUR OPINION===BUT MAKE SURE YOUR COMMENTS ARE ACCURATE BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR PIE HOLE===ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS TODAY IS MISINFORMATION—PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE UNFORTUNATELY DRASTICALLY MISINFORMED===YOU LISTEN TO POLITICIANS=== ENVIRONMENTALIST ===SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS WITHOUT CHECKING THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION THEY ARE USING===ABOUT FRACKING===YES===YES===YES=== NOTE:THE EARTHS PLATES ARE MOVING ALL THE TIME===NOTHING WE CAN DO IS GOING TO PREVENT THAT===AND IF YOU OR ANY OF THE DON’T WANT TO FRACK PEOPLE BELIEVE WE CAN MOVE THE EARTHS PLATES=== WELL=== THERE’S A ROOM WITH A VIEW READY FOR YOU===DO THE RESEARCH ON YOUR OWN WITHOUT LISTENING TO OTHERS==THEN MAKE YOUR COMMENTS BUT NOT UNTIL YOU ARE COMPLETELY SURE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING=== ALSO ==YES WATER THE FLOWERS== SACRAMENTO IS WHY NOT US===AND FOR SOLAR===SOLAR IS===AS I SAID==WILL BE THE DESTRUCTION OF THIS PLANET=== WATER USE===WASTE HEAT===ELECTRIC GRID DESTROYING===BACK-UPS SYSTEMS===CHEMICALS===DISPOSAL OF TOXIC INDUSTRIAL WASTE AND OLD MODULES===NEED I GO ON==I CAN FOR A LONG TIME===OPEN YOUR EYES AND YOU CAN SEE==TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF===WAKE UP STEVE BEFORE IT IS TO LATE===OH BY THE WAY==EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID AND MORE WILL BE AVAILABLE ON MY WEB SITE IN REPORT FOR===FOR A FEE OF COURSE===SOON SUPPORTED WITH AGE OLD DATA=== 1tickedpapa.com ===THE SITE WILL BE UP AND RUNNING IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE===I INVITE PEOPLE LIKE YOU TO VISIT AND COMMENT ON THE DATA I USE===LOVE IT CAUSE IN 99.99999% OF THE TIME THE DATA YOU USE TO SUPPORT YOUR OPINION ABOUT ALL THINGS GREEN CAN BE DESTROYED WITH REAL DATA===HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY STEVE===THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS===I WILL NOT TAKE THEM TO HEART IF YOU DON’T MIND===

      Reply this comment
      • SoCalSteve
        SoCalSteve 14 August, 2014, 11:55

        If everything on your web site is in ALL CAPS, I doubt many people will read it, let alone pay for it. You do know that all caps online means you are shouting, right? Thank you for your comments, but I make it a practice to tune out people who shout.

        Reply this comment
        • Irv
          Irv 14 August, 2014, 14:01

          ==Not shouting==making a very important point===I don’t shout at any one or anything===My 9 year old grand daughter told me last week that her opinion was correct because it was hers and hers alone==Same goes for you and ME==your opinion is correct and mine is also==However, my opinion is backed by solid undeniable data===

          Reply this comment
  3. Fred Mangels
    Fred Mangels 14 August, 2014, 11:13

    We also use water for conventional power generation. I’d say using it for solar isn’t all that different. We need water for any number of things, all of which might be considered legitimate. Even watering lawns provides jobs for the commercial gardeners. Water+energy= wealth.

    I’d say water storage, along with building infrastructure for recycling, is a legitimate use for a water bond.What’s not clear is how much pork remains in this one. Any trails being built with the money, or is it truly pork free?

    Reply this comment
    • Irv
      Irv 14 August, 2014, 14:57

      NOW===To address the water issue again you have brought up==Yes conventional power plants do use water for electricity manufacturing and O&M, but nothing more. A solar array needs water, in general,( unless they use dry cooling), to cool the turbine. But water must also be used to clean the modules or their performance will decline with dirt and dust on them. CPS and troughs are the same. Add all that up with the 4300 plus operating PV and CSP solar arrays in California and the 1400 plus being build that needs water especially potable water for construction and you are talking massive amounts of water. The real problem you did not address Steve===Almost all PV solar arrays, and that is the greatest number operating and being built in California now, need back-up systems for when the sun doesn’t shine or on cloudy days===So why in the world would we waste water cleaning and cooling these arrays only to have them shut down at night or on cloudy days??? The conventional systems keep pumping out electricity when the arrays aren’t working===This causes unnecessary and costly maintenance on the conventional power plant. Then if it is an old conventional plant it will pump more pollution out by ramping up and down to keep the weaker solar array going, than if it was allowed to just run===It is clear the masses are not knowledgeable about this only what the greenies, environmentalist and politicians have and are telling them===Just like Michael Mann and his bogus Global warming mess he got his butt in, sued for slander??and won, but the bogus information is still out there and being ignored!!Its just a bad situation all the way around. and unfortunately, no one put any rational or responsible thought into the existing renewable energy agenda===That my friend dates back to 1974 after the OPEC oil embargo that I remember as if it was yesterday===And, no my web site is not written in caps===and I really don’t care if anyone buys the booklets===They will be distributed to newspapers in the form of press releases etc.===So===it is their loss not knowing what is really happening with then existing renewable energy agenda===have a good day Steve===Oh, by the way==I do have a complete renewable energy agenda I am putting together that does not include solar, wind, nuke, coal, biomass or natural gas. Steve I am what you can call a 70 year old Laymen. Former Navy===college degree-a life of construction and building maintenance experience and in addition life experiences along with the rest===More Layman, those with life experiences, need to come forward and put their efforts into getting our country out of the energy rut we are in, and we are in one huge energy rut, and put their experiences and efforts to work on getting the country on the right efficient energy track===That’s why one tab on the web site is labeled Layman’s tab=== Can’t wait to get it up and going===I’m doing it all myself==ipage is the webmaster===It will be a little bit===Am working on it as fast as I can===Hope you and others visit it ===would like comments good or bad====I’m a big boy and old===

      Reply this comment
    • Irv
      Irv 14 August, 2014, 13:57

      Well, is that the same as the chemical superfunds that are plaguing California and other areas of the country with toxic industrial waste. Between 2007 and 2011 the solar industry in California alone produced 23 million tons of toxic waste. Is that good??? What are we suppose to do with the toxic waste?? Allow the industry to continue contaminating our water, soil and air??? Personally, I don’t think so!! Same with fracking. It is safe.Everything I have researched tells me fracking is safe. We both know there are companies that will push the limits to the hilt. Those companies must be held accountable but the solar industry must be held accountable for their toxic waste also. That figure I gave you is not taking into account the disposal of old, damaged, delaminated solar modules. That adds to the toxic waste that must be dealt with. As far as fracking goes(I would question the validity of that photo) being connected with fracking!!!. The opposition to fracking will do or say anything to get their point across. Is that photo legit??? Is that photo of waste produced by the well?? It has a liner in it so the company knows it is dangerous!! The liner stops the toxic fluid from spilling out.===Mammouth Mountain,CA geothermal complex comes to mind about fracking. The complex has been monitored for some thirty years without a problem. No water problems at all===I invite you to check it out. So there are good and bad on both sides.

      Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply


Tags assigned to this article:
Jerry BrownJohn Seilerwater bondWayne Lusvardi

Related Articles

California's High-Speed Railroading

MARCH 16 There’s not a lot of humor in California’s proposed high-speed rail project. It’s a massive undertaking, which will

Drought mostly over, govt. water takeover isn’t

It looks like the drought is receding, the U.S. Drought Monitor reported on Thursday: In summary, a wet December (to

Threat to vulnerable CA House Democrat comes, seemingly goes

Rep. Scott Peters, D-La Jolla, represents a wealthy district ranging from Coronado to Carmel Valley to rural estates in Rancho