Water bond: I'll be baaaack
Health care and budget troubles behind him (well, sort of) Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is trying to resurrect efforts in the Legislature to craft a multibillion dollar water bond for the November ballot.
It would be interesting to see what details, exactly, are on the table. Even though the governor likes to refer to the bond as a "comprehensive" solution for California's water supply problems, last year's version did not get to the bottom of the biggest problem the state faces: figuring out whether or how to build a peripheral canal to carry water around the fragile Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta. Gov. Schwarzenegger euphemistically refers to this as "conveyance." Californians have been deadlocked over a peripheral canal for decades.
And it looks like the biggest bone of contention from 2007 negotiations--massive levels of state funding for three dams in the Central Valley and Northern California--is still in play. The California Chamber of Commerce may begin collecting signatures on its own $11.6 billion bond initiative, which would provide money for the dams, in the coming weeks.
At a forum on water sponsored by the Valley Industry & Commerce Association on Friday one panelist joked that negotiations over this bond reminded him of the movie Groundhog Day, when Bill Murray relives the same day over and over and over again until he breaks the cycle by becoming a better person and falling in love.
Are the parties to this conversation becoming better people, too? Falling in love? Nothing much about the discussion appears new--at least, not yet. Other than that $16 billion budget deficit lurking in the corner.
Sure we support the farmers, but when will residents in the Southland finally start planting drought resistant yards, shorten their showers, outlaw hot tubs and private pools and address their incredibly wasteful use of resources from Northern California and other states?
Of course, none of that would be necessary where it not for immigration-led population growth. As is well known, there is net movement of the American born out of the state, and of course most Americans limit themselves to two kids or fewer. But the benefits that result from slow population growth aren't materialized if we import millions of people, many of whom are doing jobs that are made necessary by the mass immigration -- e.g. the Mexicans doing the construction jobs that supposedly Americans won't do, just to keep up with immigration driven demand for housing.
Unsurprisingly this ponzi scheme strains every single area of public infrastructure -- schools, hospitals and emergency rooms, freeways, and of course water. Immigration may look like its creating 'economic growth' -- but in the larger sense it is dragging down the standard of living.
Posted by: Mitchell Young | February 24, 2008 at 09:24 AM
There is much to talk about here. People in northern California are getting tired of helping pay to ship our water to the south to water lawns and subsidize further unwise development, more yards, more water usage where there is no water. Sure we support the farmers, but when will residents in the Southland finally start planting drought resistant yards, shorten their showers, outlaw hot tubs and private pools and address their incredibly wasteful use of resources from Northern California and other states? Surely you don't think voters in Northern California and Colorado will standby and let you waste our water indefinitely!
Posted by: lou | February 23, 2008 at 01:52 PM