Media Alert from Restore the Delta

Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D- Antioch): "I'm against the peripheral canal. Spending that money on conveyance is the height of stupidity... There is a lot this water package could've accomplished for the Delta that it didn't... Now, Californians will have to consider whether they can afford an $11.14 billion bond that would primarily benefit big cities and big agribusiness in Southern California. I don't think we can, or should afford it. Delta residents have everything to lose, and nothing to gain if this bond passes." ("Controversial water bill awaits Governor's signature," Martinez News-Gazette, November 5, 2009)

Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis): "Shame on all of us."

Late Monday, just before the Senate approved the bond, Senator Lois Wolk, D-Davis, said "the bond would not come close to the total cost of the Delta fix - upward of $50 billion, at the high end - and told lawmakers that their constituents, the ratepayers, would be stuck with the bill." ("Delta council bill is OK'd," Stockton Record, November 4, 2009)

Assemblymember Joan Buchanan (D-San Ramon): "There's no more fat left to cut out of the budget." ("California Legislature passes long-awaited water reforms, San Jose Mercury News, November 4, 2009)

Assemblymember Alyson Huber (D-El Dorado Hills): "I opposed the water package because it creates a new layer of bureaucrats who will make decisions on water that will impact the communities I represent, without allowing us to have a voice. I opposed the bond, especially because of the billions in pork for LA. This dead of night pork giveaway is exactly why voters give us low marks." (Statement from Assemblymember Alyson Huber, November 4, 2009)

Assemblymember Mariko Yamada (D-Davis): "I voted 'NO' on the whole bill package because of insufficient recognition of senior northern California and Delta water rights, imbalanced and non-elected representation in Delta governance, the lack of clear language explaining the interrelationships among a revamped Delta Protection Commission, the new Delta Stewardship Council and Delta Conservancy, and the remaining question as to what role a new Delta 'Watermaster' would play."

" This is not the time to put an $11.14 billion bond before the voters. It's fiscally irresponsible in my opinion. The general fund is basically bankrupt, and we're going to have to make additional reductions in services to vulnerable Californians." (Statement from Assemblymember Mariko Yamada, November 4, 2009)

Assemblymember Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) : "I believe this measure is so bulked up with pork that it is going to sink under the weight of its own pork when voters are asked to vote on it next year." ("Legislature passes water-system overhaul," San Francisco Chronicle, November 5, 2009)

Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club California: "This mad rush to do something symbolic gives the Legislature even less credibility." ("California Legislature passes long-awaited water reforms, San Jose Mercury News, November 4, 2009)

Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club California: "We have a governor with only one year left on his term, yet his appointees, who basically must have no qualifications in experience, stakeholder or geographic representation, are going to affect water policy for the next six years." ("Environmental Groups Battle Over Water Legislation," Truthout blog, November 5, 2009)

Jon Fleischman, publisher, Flash Report.org Website: "Capitol Democrats should be ashamed of themselves, as should those in the water industry with a voracious appetite to get all Californians to pay for their 'Projects of Regional Koncern' (PORK). If it were not for the insistence of Sacramento liberals, the bond facing voters would be billions of dollars smaller than the one approved in the early hours of this morning. In the end, we now have a proposal that is so large, and contains so much obvious pork spending that is not related to the water crisis that it's passage next year is in serious doubt, as it should be." (Statement from Job Fleischman, November 4, 2009)

Jason Dickerson, director of state administration at the Legislature's nonpartisan analyst's office, said "voter approval of the water bond would add to California's massive debt, which could soon require 10 percent of state revenue to pay down. Debt service on the water bond alone would likely cost between $725 million to $809 million a year after all the bonds have sold, he said". ("Calif. voters have final say over $11B water bond," Associated Press, November 4, 2009)

Willie Pelote Sr., a lobbyist with the California branch of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for a bond that benefits farmers and Southern California cities: "It's absolutely wrong and irresponsible." ("Calif. voters have final say over $11B water bond," Associated Press, November 4, 2009)

Allen Davenport, Union Lobbyist: In a letter sent to lawmakers Monday, the lobbyist for the 700,000-member Service Employees International Union California said it was unacceptable to cut education and social service programs to pay the debt that will be incurred by the water bonds."As yet, SEIU has seen no water system improvement financing plan that it would not oppose." ("California Lawmakers Pass Historic Water Package," Sacramento Bee, November 5, 2009)

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Campaign Director for Restore the Delta: "The water package that passed in the dead of night epitomizes the dysfunction that has gripped our legislative process. The package lost any semblance of rational debate and turned into a pork festival." ("California Lawmakers Pass Historic Water Package," Sacramento Bee, November 5, 2009)