Legislature passes first water storage bond in 50 years  

Legislature passes first water storage bond in 50 years   


brown signing water bondWith the drought still drying up the state, the California Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown Wednesday poured out a $7.5 billion water bond that includes $2.7 billion for water storage. If voters give their approval this November, this will be the first bond in 50 years to include water storage.

The storage is significant because, from 1971 to 2014, California voters passed 21 water bonds totaling $35.9 billion without any water storage. Paraphrasing poet Samuel T. Coleridge, California had “bonds, bonds, water bonds, but not a drop of water to drink.”

The new bond passed in the Assembly by a vote of 77 to 2 and in the state Senate by 37 to 0.  Legislators in the Assembly broke into applause after the vote.

Said Republican Leader Bob Huff of Brea, “It was real critical to get a bond that actually helped fund two reservoirs.  We’ve had a lot of bonds in the last 15 years that haven’t had any storage, so we finally have a water bond that has water in it.”

Added Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego:

“In this bond we make the biggest investment in water storage in decades. We make a major investment in ensuring clean, sustainable groundwater, and we make a major investment in our rivers, streams, and watersheds that will help with our water needs, and provide important environmental benefits as well.  With this bond we harness innovative technology, we anticipate the challenges that future droughts may pose, and we create jobs.”

First look

The new water bond is Assembly Bill 1471. Here’s a first look at its contents:

  • The $7.12 billion bond will replace the $11.1 billion Proposition 43 bond approved for the ballot in 2010 but, but delayed by the Legislature that year and in 2012 because there was little chance voters would approve it during tough economic times.
  • $425 million in existing water bond funding will be folded into the new bond. That will run the total of the bond, if it’s approved, to $7.5 billion.
  • $2.7 billion will be allocated for “surface water and groundwater” storage projects.
  • It creates a nine-member California Water Council to be appointed by the governor to oversee the selection of sites for new dams and reservoirs.
  • Annual principal and interest payments on the bond “would equate to about $490 million” from the general fund. That could become a major factor during the next recession as the new bond payments would have to come from cuts in other programs, or tax increases.
  • The new bond does not contain the $250 million in funding in Section 79757 of the 2010 Water bond to remove five dams along the Klamath River that flows from Oregon into California.

Restore the Delta opposed water for the Delta

Opposition includes Restore the Delta, which objected to the bond because it was not “tunnel neutral.” The group opposes Brown’s plan to build two tunnels under the Delta to keep separate ocean water from inland (unsalty) water.

Restore the Delta also didn’t like that the bond would provide $200 million for the Wildlife Conservation Board to buy water from willing sellers for the benefit of migratory birds and wildlife refuges.  But Restore the Delta believes the same water to be bought for wildlife eventually could be pumped through the proposed Twin Tunnels.

Said Restore the Delta Executive Director Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, “It contains false protections for the Delta, and we call upon legislators, especially those representing the Delta, to vote against it. We are not fooled, and this bond will become a referendum for the tunnels. That is not going to advance the water solutions we need.”

All that remains to be seen is if the voters can gulp down a $7.5 billion water bond with water storage in it for the first time in almost 50 years.


Write a comment
  1. ECK
    ECK 15 August, 2014, 19:45

    OK, a 7.5 billion bond. 2.7 for storage projects. Great! We sorely need more water storage as we’re flooded with immigrants – illegal and otherwise. And, OK, another .3 or so for conservation. So where’s the other 4.5 billion (60%) gonna go? I’m not voting for this until I see where exactly this is to be spent. On BS I suspect.

    Reply this comment
  2. thetruth
    thetruth 17 August, 2014, 08:02

    Eck, Check out Dino Cortopasssi most recent purchased opinions “Liar, Liar” in various newspapers, available online.
    He is 77, a successful businessman, trying to warn people about the BS in Cal gov’t. The latest addresses water bond sleight of hand.

    Reply this comment
  3. Bill - San Jose
    Bill - San Jose 18 August, 2014, 20:54

    The storage is significant because ……


    I hate when something so obvious is addressed as a new thought to the needs of this state by those who are supposed to represent us.

    Power and water. It’s an easy combo to absorb, feelin’ me?

    // and I agree with ECK on the way this gets spent before I give it a yes vote //

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Tags assigned to this article:
Jerry Brownwater bondWayne LusvardiAB1471

Related Articles

Supremes nearly laugh L.A. storm water case out of court

Dec. 5, 2012 By Wayne Lusvardi On Tuesday, Nov. 4, the U.S. Supreme Court came close to almost laughing out

Who’s running the Delta Stewardship Council?

By KATY GRIMES With the five major component bills of the 2009 water package representing a massive undertaking for the

When heroes become bureaucrats

JULY 26, 2011 This article first appeared in City Journal. By STEVEN GREENHUT On Memorial Day, a suicidal man waded