This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Watch Congressmen Doug LaMalfa and John Garamendi in a Sites Reservoir press conference


“We need an integrated fi nanc- ing plan for water in California,” said Debbie Davis with Gov. Jerry Brown’s Offi ce of Planning and Research, at the PPIC conference.


A crucial area of attention is groundwater management, which suc- ceeds in some areas but is woefully non- existent in others. A growing consensus says that urgent action is needed to prevent a looming disaster – an effort that requires fi nancial resources. In an April 3 blog post, the University of California, Davis Center for Watershed Sciences said that “adequate funding will be essential to effective reform” and that while “state dollars might provide some incentives, local entities must have suffi cient authority and fl ex- ibility to raise the funds needed to carry out sustainable basin-wide manage- ment.”


L to R, Reps. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, and Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, are carrying legislation that would kick-start the Sites Reservoir project, which has been studied for about 20 years.


State investment is a key aspect of California water management, and an array of bond proposals are vying to replace the oft-tabled $11 billion bond scheduled for the November ballot. General revenue bonds were prevalent in the early 2000s, totaling some $20 billion for water supply, water quality and ecosystem projects. Bond passage came to a virtual standstill the past decade, meaning that as much or more of the state’s general fund money goes toward servicing the bond debt than


what the remaining bond money pro- vides for projects.


“There is a payday due and that’s part of the thinking about options for the future,” Hanak said. PPIC’s report notes that “since the early 2000s, the state has worked to fi ll some of the gap with general obliga- tion bond funds, to the tune of about $1 billion annually … but these funds … are running out, and California will need a broader mix of funding to pay for the state water system.”


Bonds are enveloped in controver- sy as their contents are often pilloried as pork-fi lled giveaways. Crafting a policy for new storage, and the public vs. private fi nancing aspect, is inevita- bly part of the struggle to get a bill to the governor’s desk.


Longtime observers believe it is time for California to pay as it goes regarding water project fi nancing. “Our reliance on bonds has to decline,” said Lester Snow, executive director of the California Water Foundation, at the PPIC conference. He noted that it’s “almost impossible” to fi nd fi nancing for projects that have “holistic benefi t” such as stormwater cleanup and habitat restoration.


Spending money on water means expanding the correlation between investment and benefi t, something panelists discussed April 4 at the California Water Policy Conference at Claremont McKenna College. “One of the things we talked about is having those who receive water out of a forested headwater, that if you con- sider the threats of catastrophic fi re to that very system, in some way, as part of that agency’s planning, it might be a good start to make the connection,” said Dave Eggerton, general manager of the El Dorado County Water Agency, who spoke at the conference. “Not that you are making a decision that you are automatically going to fund the projects upstream, but just to start thinking about it, recognizing the fact that you have a lot at stake in upstream areas from which your water fl ows.” Agencies such as the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water


6 Western Water


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15