Senator DeSaulnier Issues Statement on State’s Proposed $7.5-Billion Water Bond

August 16, 2014 15:00 pm · 19 comments


This week, lawmakers in California voted to place a $7.5 billion water bond on the November ballot.

Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) voted in favor of the bond and issued the following statement.

“The legislature’s vote to bring a new water bond to the voters was critical, as our state faces a severe drought crisis and needs to replace and upgrade aging infrastructure. I supported the bond because it will meet the needs of the Delta region, Northern California, and our state as a whole. This is a fiscally responsible measure that focuses on projects including drought relief, groundwater cleanup, water recycling, and drinking water cleanup. This bond is neutral on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, and no funds will be used for the Delta Tunnels or tunnel mitigation projects. The bond also includes funding for the Delta Conservancy. I thank Senator Lois Wolk for her leadership and tireless efforts to ensure the concerns of the Delta region were heard during bond negations.”

To read more about the water bond, please click ON THIS LINK (external link).

Democrats Don't Give A Dam August 16, 2014 at 3:09 PM

The Democrats lost their super majority earlier this year in the Legislature thanks to the criminal acts of several of their democrat members. As a result, they had to get some Republican votes – so we actually had negotiation and consensus for a change.

The Democrats, lead by the nose by their environmentalist overlords, would ordinarily never vote to actually build a couple of new dams, but they had to make concessions to the Republicans in order to get something done.

Too early to cheer, though. There is a big difference between funding a dam and actually building one. No doubt in a few years you will hear about delays and massive budget overruns as the environmentalists do their best to stop these much needed dam projects.

A Knowledgeable voter? August 16, 2014 at 3:44 PM

So how was the last water bond, prop 84, money spent (5.4 Billion)?

450 Million Wild Life Conservation

480 Million Climate Change

500 Million State Parks

540 Million for Beach development

900 Million for Flood control (which was in the Bond statement)

1 Billion for Restoring Rivers & Lakes

So of the 5.4 Billion only 1.5 was used for drinking water and not one new reservoir was added.

I’ll bet this bond will do the same, very little for what was promised, and no new REAL projects to solve the problem.

Dennis August 16, 2014 at 3:44 PM

In fact, this bond has been delayed for several elections now. It was originally for $11.1B, laden with pork and perks for Dems.
Meanwhile, we have already passed 4(?) bonds since 1996, for about $11B, promising to do what this measure does. Unfortunately that money was spent, but nothing got done. Fool us once – or 4 times – shame on us …
And CA is actually engineering the current crisis by closing dams (see the 7 page list here )

Meanwhile, CA is dumping billions of gallons of water to the ocean, to further deplete our water reserves:

California Drains Reservoirs in the Middle of a Drought

The state desperately needs water, yet federal policy sends huge ‘pulse flows’ into the Pacific to benefit fish.

In the bill August 16, 2014 at 3:59 PM

How much is in the appropriations for rain dancers? That’s about the only thing they missed with the past few bonds.

Tara Firma August 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM

They need to put a 10 yr moratorium on all new housing construction in Ca. Let us get a couple of yrs of rain to replenish the water supplies. Stop issuing permits to AG for expansion. We did not need 200 more acres of almonds ( or how ever many acres the permit was for).

Anonymous August 16, 2014 at 4:49 PM

DeSaulnier voting to spend more money? Shocking.

...... August 16, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Blah blah blah I’ll take more of your money blah blah more taxes blah blah.

He ought to go back to mcdonalds.

Random Task August 16, 2014 at 5:28 PM

wow you mean the dems threatened the tax payer again and forced them to pay for all their pet projects………NO ….NOT THE DEMS ……..why would they use a drought to further their own pockets ………that would be fraud and corruption as well as outright deceit …..the dems favor unions and any tree hugging Subaru driving voter they can get their hands on why would they force them to pay for things that have nothing to do with what the real problem is ……feed your brain…….

Aldridge family August 16, 2014 at 5:32 PM

How does 7.5 billion dollars make water? After all isn’t that what we need? What about the other billiosn we have spent on the same problems before?

No Way August 16, 2014 at 5:50 PM

How typical, democrat’s answer for Every problem, spend more of OUR dollars.

Am tired of it.


Ven Xeter August 16, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Where’s the funding for water desalination plants? Our population has doubled in the decades since the last dams were built. The problem is not so much the drought as the negligence of our public officials in not sourcing new water supplies while inviting ever more illegals into the state. Countries like Israel and Singapore have used desalination for years. Why are California officials so afraid of science? We can’t have fracking to become energy self-sufficient, we can’t have water desalination so we are not at the whims of mother nature for drinking water, and we can’t enforce immigration laws to keep our population at levels that our infrastructure was built to support. No, we’re told to not water our lawn, drive a Prius, and shut up. If you have had enough of this clown Mark DeSaulnier you’ll have your chance in the voting booth in November.

slagheap August 17, 2014 at 12:17 AM

straight-up corporate welfare, pure & simple.

RunDogRun August 17, 2014 at 6:52 AM

This would not be necessary
if the State would put a permanent
limit on any further development.

crazytech58 August 17, 2014 at 8:13 AM

Yeah…. let’s not do anything for years as our number of homes and businesses have tripled, everybody who’s lived here knows we have a drought every 5-8 years, then wait until we are in a severe drought to decide we need to DO something….. the cart is ahead of the horse as usual

Lorelei August 17, 2014 at 2:26 PM

All he ever does is issue statements…..

The Professor August 17, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Kill the high speed rail and take the money designated for that stupid project and fund desalination plants. The unions still get the money, the democrats still get the union votes, and we at least get something we can use.

Silva August 17, 2014 at 5:33 PM

It sounded like a good idea in the last major drought to put a limit on how many people could be allowed into California. Even before that it seemed like a good idea to me. No that I’m older and a bit wiser, I know that we can never expect that to be within the realm of possibility. Can you imagine the numbers of folks out of a work and doors closing if there were to be limits on any new building? There’s more to think about than just the actual people doing the building. That’s not going to happen, as much as we may like it too. Do we really need a pork barrel high speed rail project? I’d rather see the money go to something really useful like desalinazation also. more and larger dams doesn’t excite me much. Niether do the giant twin tunnels going south with our much needed delta water. A pivotal time is drawing down upon us in determining the future of our state.

@#2 August 17, 2014 at 6:49 PM

Exactly, I’ll be voting no.

Take the money from the bullet train fiasco and use it for water storage.

@ The professor August 17, 2014 at 6:55 PM

I like your idea.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: