State Limits Funding to Destructive Dams
Support Green Candidates
NO on Proposition 3: A Bad Water Deal
Richmond Takes a Lead on Clean Buying
Work by environmental advocates and volunteers has helped curb a huge chunk of funding from a water bond from being directed to environmentally damaging projects.
The $7.5 billion bond, passed as Proposition 1 in 2014, included $2.7 billion that the California Water Commission was given responsibility for distributing for storage projects.
Sierra Club California opposed funding for new dams in that bond, and has worked with allies and volunteers over the last three years to influence the distribution process and prevent bond funds from being handed out to ill-conceived dams.
Last month the CWC completed its distribution process and while four dam projects received some funding, the amount given to the two projects we oppose is insufficient to get the projects off the ground.
In particular, we were worried about Sites Reservoir, which will have negative impacts on the Sacramento River and San Francisco Bay Delta, and Temperance Flat Dam, which will destroy the San Joaquin River Gorge.
During the regulation development process, we pushed hard to require climate change to be considered when applicants for funds were explaining how their projects work. We know that hydrology is changing towards more extremes, and that dams don’t perform as well in those conditions.
We also worked to make sure the process was open, while watching the CWC to make sure it followed the law, instead of bowing to political pressure to just give away money to dams.
The two projects we oppose, Sites and Temperance, did not do very well through the process. Sites received $816 million—only 16% of the projects massive $5.2 billion price tag. Similarly, Temperance only received $171 million, which is 7% of its total cost. It will be difficult for these projects to find all the funds they need, especially with continued opposition.
Additionally, several groundwater supply projects received funding. These projects are much smaller in size and cost, but will be able to store water over longer periods of time, and help move California’s agricultural sector towards sustainable use of water.
It is good news that we avoided the worst possible outcomes during this process—and that the process, not politics, determined the outcome. Environmental voices—including those of our members and volunteers who wrote to the CWC—were critical in making that happen.
The California Sierra Club Political Action Committee, which supports environmentally smart state legislative candidates, is holding its annual fundraiser on August 25 at 2 p.m. in Los Angeles.
Special hosts include Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Sierra Club Executive Director Mike Brune. Join the fun or support with an online donation. More info here: https://angeles.sierraclub.org/political_action/donatePAC.
NO on Proposition 3: A Bad Water Deal
By Katherine Garcia
The November ballot will include an irresponsible bond measure to fund water infrastructure projects: Proposition 3. Vote NO.
Sierra Club California opposes the nearly $8.9 billion bond because it could directly harm the environment.
The proposition could open new funding pathways for ill-conceived dams that we have opposed and create incentives that harm threatened and endangered species.
The bond would shift money away from critical environmental investments and upland habitat conservation. Specifically, it would raid cap-and-trade funds and divert the money to unspecified water projects. This would weaken programs that lower emissions and improve air quality and public health for millions of Californians.
Prop 3 undercuts “beneficiary pays”, the principle that local water agencies are solely responsible for water supply project repairs. The bond would rob taxpayer dollars to cover repairs even though the existing law states taxpayers are not liable.
The proposition specifies that the Friant Water Authority would receive $750 million for repairs, reconstruction and enlargement of nearby canals. The overpumping of aquifers caused the groundwater subsidence that damaged Friant-Kern Canal. Essentially taxpayers from across California would pay to fix the Central Valley canal that isn’t even their water source. This makes no sense.
If California passes Prop 3 it would add $430 million to the state’s annual debt just to pay off the bond over 40 years. Looking ahead, it’s critical that the state only pay for those projects that have substantial public benefit, such as a permanent solution to safe drinking water for everyone.
The authors of Prop 3 have taken a “pay-to-play” strategy--meaning they have added wasteful items to attract rich investors who will ultimately profit from the bond at the taxpayers’ expense.
Unlike other environmental bonds passed by voters, it continuously appropriates all the funds. There will be no annual budgeting from the legislature. This eliminates required oversight by elected officials to ensure that the state can afford the spending and that it complies with the bond’s stated priorities.
Californians can do better. Instead of this corporate giveaway, we must address long-term water issues through a public process.
The bottom line is that Prop 3 will benefit billionaires, not Californians. Vote NO this November. For more information, visit NoProp3CA.com.
On July 17, the City of Richmond became the first municipality to publicly back implementation of California's new Buy Clean Act.
The City Council voted unanimously to adopt a resolution in support of State efforts to implement the Buy Clean California Act. The resolution also directs City of Richmond staff to deliver a report at the September 25, 2018 council meeting about how the city can implement similar sustainable purchasing policies.
Purchasing power is one of the most effective tools we as consumers have to influence pollution reduction. How we spend our dollars and the products we purchase matter.
We can choose to buy goods and services at a lesser price, but this oftentimes comes at a greater cost to the environment and our health. “Money talks”, and what we spend our money on speaks volumes about ourselves and our values.
The Buy Clean California Act aligns our tax dollar expenditures with our environmental goals. Signed into law last year, it requires state agencies to purchase certain construction materials from manufacturers that have reduced their greenhouse gas pollution during the production process.
It is the country’s first law that addresses greenhouse gas emissions within a state’s supply chain for construction materials, effectively closing a key the “carbon loophole”.
If you would like your tax dollars to support cleaner procurement when your city or county is constructing bridges, roads and buildings, follow Richmond’s lead and join the Buy Clean Campaign!
Follow Us:
  |
Thank you for being a part of our work! Consider making it monthly. You may securely donate online or by sending a check to Sierra Club California at 909 12th Street, Suite 202, Sacramento, CA 95814.
