California lawmakers seek fix to $11B water bond
Samantha Young
San Jose Mercury News
06/18/2010
SACRAMENTO, Calif.—California lawmakers will consider altering an $11.1 billion water bond on the November ballot in an effort to deflect criticism that private corporations stand to benefit.
At issue is a provision in the bond that opponents say could allow private companies to partially own, operate and profit from water projects built with public money.
Sabrina Lockhart, a spokeswoman for Republican state Sen. Dave Cogdill, said Friday the Legislature wants to make "crystal clear" that public money can be used only for the public's benefit.
The bill, AB2775, would ensure that bond money for dams, reservoirs and water banks only go to joint power authorities made up of public agencies. It is scheduled to be heard Tuesday by the Senate Natural Resources Committee.
Lawmakers placed the bond on the November ballot as part of a legislative package intended to overhaul how Californians store, use and transport water. If it passes, a now-defunct California Water Commission appointed by the governor will be given full authority to allocate $3 billion in funds to storage projects.
As it is currently written, some of that money could go to a Joint Powers Authority that has private members to oversee a dam or other storage project. One example might be the Kern Water Bank, once owned by the state but now controlled by Paramont Farms, which is owned by Hollywood billionaire Stuart Resnick.
Defenders of the provision argue that private companies, which would be called upon to match state bond dollars on water projects, are essential to ensuring dams ultimately get built in California.
"If private entities can't be a part of the JPA managing the reservoir, they are a lot less inclined to invest in the storage project," Assemblyman Bill Berryhill, R-Ceres, said in a statement. "That's like a company asking investors to give them money for a start-up but not allowing them to be shareholders."
Berryhill, who opposed the bond, urged lawmakers to instead revamp the measure and eliminate billions of dollars of pork that they inserted in the final days to win the needed support in the Legislature.
