News
Sports
ENLARGE
Nevada County's state legislators are dead-set against the recently approved water bond, which goes to voters in November 2010.
Their issue: The bond bill demands a 20 percent reduction in water use across California.
Others raise questions about the bond because — though it would raise $11.1 billion for water projects around the state, and though two-thirds of the state's water originates in the Sierra Nevada — less than 1 percent of the money would support projects in the region.
Both Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, and a spokesman for Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, refused to support the package, which could produce millions in projects for the Sierra Nevada region.
“The 20 percent thing is a real problem for me,” Logue said Thursday. “We'll just see (local water) shipped down to Southern California.
“I support more off-stream storage (the building of reservoirs), but 75 percent of the bond money goes to everything but water storage,” Logue said.
Logue did not vote for the bond package last month, and he thinks voters will reject it as well because it will add to California's mounting deficit problems.
“The payoff for the bond for the taxpayers will be $600 to $800 million for the next 30 years. Where are we going to get that money?” Logue asked.
Aanestad did not vote when the water bond issue passed in the legislature because he was away on personal business, spokesman Bill Bird said.
“He liked the new storage provisions, because he's been pushing for that since he's been
elected,” Bird said. “But to impose conservation mandates on Nevada County of 20 percent” is something Aanestad disagrees with.
Rising demand, fewer reservoirs
The state hasn't kept up with water demands as the population has boomed from 16 million people in the mid-1950s to almost 37 million now, Bird said.
“The senator is adamant: You have to build additional storage,” Byrd said. “He thinks you can't conserve your way out of a drought”
Right after the Legislature approved the bond issue for the November ballot, Aanestad told the Associated Press he was against it also because it provided for the removal of three dams in Siskiyou County that would cause a property tax revenue loss of $1.5 million.
The bond calls for spending in several areas, including protection for the Delta, groundwater protection, conservation, drought relief, regional strategies to ensure future water supplies, and watershed protection.
About $100 million would be available for grants to protect Sierra watersheds and to reduce fire fuels in forests, according to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office.
Millions more would go to small community wastewater projects, water rights acquisitions and water recycling.
Their issue: The bond bill demands a 20 percent reduction in water use across California.
Others raise questions about the bond because — though it would raise $11.1 billion for water projects around the state, and though two-thirds of the state's water originates in the Sierra Nevada — less than 1 percent of the money would support projects in the region.
Both Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, and a spokesman for Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, refused to support the package, which could produce millions in projects for the Sierra Nevada region.
“The 20 percent thing is a real problem for me,” Logue said Thursday. “We'll just see (local water) shipped down to Southern California.
“I support more off-stream storage (the building of reservoirs), but 75 percent of the bond money goes to everything but water storage,” Logue said.
Logue did not vote for the bond package last month, and he thinks voters will reject it as well because it will add to California's mounting deficit problems.
“The payoff for the bond for the taxpayers will be $600 to $800 million for the next 30 years. Where are we going to get that money?” Logue asked.
Aanestad did not vote when the water bond issue passed in the legislature because he was away on personal business, spokesman Bill Bird said.
“He liked the new storage provisions, because he's been pushing for that since he's been
elected,” Bird said. “But to impose conservation mandates on Nevada County of 20 percent” is something Aanestad disagrees with.
Rising demand, fewer reservoirs
The state hasn't kept up with water demands as the population has boomed from 16 million people in the mid-1950s to almost 37 million now, Bird said.
“The senator is adamant: You have to build additional storage,” Byrd said. “He thinks you can't conserve your way out of a drought”
Right after the Legislature approved the bond issue for the November ballot, Aanestad told the Associated Press he was against it also because it provided for the removal of three dams in Siskiyou County that would cause a property tax revenue loss of $1.5 million.
The bond calls for spending in several areas, including protection for the Delta, groundwater protection, conservation, drought relief, regional strategies to ensure future water supplies, and watershed protection.
About $100 million would be available for grants to protect Sierra watersheds and to reduce fire fuels in forests, according to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office.
Millions more would go to small community wastewater projects, water rights acquisitions and water recycling.
Sierra projects
Another $75 million would go to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, based in Auburn. That amount would be disproportionate compared to what the rest of the state could get, according to Conservancy Executive Officer Jim Branham.“I don't want to sound greedy, but 65 percent of the state's water originates in the Sierra,” Branham said. “There's less than three-quarters of 1 percent in the water bond to bolster the state's water supply.
“We need to reduce fire risks and deal with the mercury issues up here,” left in foothill streams from the Gold Rush days, Branham said. “That's going to take some money.”
To contact Senior Staff Writer Dave Moller, e-mail dmoller@theunion.com or call (530) 477-4237.
