“The proposed $12B GO Delta bonds would result in debt service costs of nearly $780M/year to the General Fund for the next 30 years.”

“The state budget deficit for the next three years is projected to be as much as $15B per year, and could climb even higher. Even these dire projections may not represent the worst case, should California’s economy continue to slide. The $780M debt service burden would consume an increasing share of discretionary state funding, without counting the $1.3B annually that it will cost to service debt from resource bonds already approved since 2000. Which state programs are we willing to sacrifice to take on this massive, additional debt?”

“State expenditures for resources-related GO bond debt have grown rapidly, from 8% of General Fund spending in 2000-01 to a whopping 36% in 2009-2010. Adding a $12B bond would simply break the bank. According to State Treasurer Lockyer, between now and 2028, the state will assume another $225 billion in general fund bonded indebtedness. This mounting debt burden is an unsustainable trend, and is already interfering with the state’s efforts to address its growing environmental and resource needs.”

And it’s not just costs from a GO bond. It is simply shocking to Restore the Delta staff members that the Governor and Legislative Leaders could be in favor of this package during this time of economic crisis. Look at what California’s urban water users will be expected to pay, all to support agribusiness on the West side of the San Joaquin Valley. Also, according to the East Bay Municipal Utility District analysis:

“The legislature has embarked on a major reform of the state’s water system, heedless of the enormous costs involved, just when the state’s financial condition has never been more dire. A realistic assessment of the total costs of the Delta legislation comes to $52B to $78B or more. This includes a series of huge capital projects: new Delta conveyance, construction of several new surface storage reservoirs, construction of other local water management and delivery projects, Delta levee strengthening, ecosystem restoration, and creation of three new state agencies and expanded state programs to prepare and implement the Delta Plan.”

“Of this total price tag, urban SWP and CVP customers (who comprise roughly 24 million Californians) located south of the Delta will pay between_$42B and $68B, likely to be amortized over thirty years. First, these customers will pay all of the costs of new Delta conveyance, which are estimated between $18B and $44B. As they comprise 70% of all Californians who reside within the Delta watershed, their cost share of all other components of this water package (totaling approximately $34B) will add another $24B. Paying this huge price tag via water user fees on the water bill will result in more than doubling of the water rates for these customers, as well as additional huge annual water rate increases for many years into the future.”

“The costs of new Delta conveyance includes the construction cost of building a canal or tunnel on an eastern or western alignment, plus necessary levee upgrades to continue through Delta operations, new rights of way, mitigation and relocation of impacted facilities/infrastructure. The reason for the range ($18B-$44B) in estimated costs of new Delta conveyance is that a tunnel will be substantially more expensive than an open canal.”

“All users of water from the Delta watershed will have to pay the $16B cost of new programs and projects in the “Delta Plan. These costs include:

·$14B in levee repair and strengthening, plus new staffing costs for the Delta Plan.

·$2B for ecosystem restoration not included as part of the new Delta conveyance.”

So to be clear, Delta landowners and communities, which have riparian rights and rights to the use Delta water for beneficial use, will now have to pay for the restoration and mitigation needed from 50 years of excessive water exports. And if that’s not enough…

“It is expected that these activities will be funded through a surcharge or fee on water use. $16B in state water fees spread over 30 years is approximately $530M per year in new state water fees, not counting the likely fee increases over time. For the same urban customers south of the Delta who are financing the new Delta conveyance, this fee would come to $11B more on their water bills.”

The agricultural water districts have repeatedly told the Legislature that they can pay neither the costs of the new Delta conveyance, nor any fee on water use. This would shift all the costs enumerated above onto urban water customers in California. As a result, urban water customers south of the Delta carrying the full cost of a new Delta conveyance, two- thirds of the cost of the Delta Plan, plus their share of surface storage and regional projects. In the absence of drastic cost-cutting, the debt service for these urban customers could come to more than $4B/year.

“The money to pay the $52B to $78B price tag for these programs and projects will be demanded from the same Californians who are enduring the worst recession since the 1930s. The state share of any bond repayments will strain the state’s already overburdened General Fund. This long-term over- commitment of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars must be rigorously scrutinized by the Legislature, and the costs scaled down to meet financial reality.”

Click here to watch.

The California Latino Water Coalition is one of several groups that have sprung up in recent years as the Golden State has tried to address its water woes. But according to critics, those blue signs are hiding another color: the green of Astroturf. In politics, “Astroturfing” means creating and financing a group to make it appear to be a real grass-roots organization when, in fact, it isn’t. It is a common practice in the high-stakes world of Sacramento lobbying and communications strategy.

Click here to read the entire story.

In short, the BDCP presentations made by SAIC, the company contracted to create the BDCP plan, sounded much like King Julian’s scheme (in Madagascar II) to use animal sacrifice as a way to acquire water from the volcano gods. According to an SAIC representative, by building a large pipe to divert a large amount of Sacramento River water, Delta fisheries will be made healthier because it will be easier for fish to escape the pumps in an upstream current. As with King Julian’s presentation of the facts to the huddled masses, the SAIC science presentation “seemed” sound on the surface, but the premise – diverting large quantities of fresh water from a collapsing estuary in order to fix it – is fiction. Unfortunately, the consequences for the Delta, complete destruction of its fisheries and communities, would not be as harmless as an into- the-volcano prank in a kid’s movie.

While the Bay Delta Conservation Plan Steering Committee, water exporters, and Resource Agency Directors should have been present at these meetings, Delta advocates succeeded in sending a clear message back to the staff present: that neither the Delta can be fixed, nor California’s water problems solved by building a pipe or canal through the heart of the Delta in order to export water at the rate of 15,000 cubic-feet-per-second to agribusiness in the San Joaquin Valley.

Yet, yesterday, Senator Feinstein called for waiving the Endangered Species Act to speed water transfers from the delta to farmers as part of her new legislative effort to solve California’s water crisis. (To read Senator Feinstein’s comments click here for the San Francisco Chronicle story.)

Clearly, it is time to begin calling Senator Feinstein to let her know that we appreciate her past efforts and that she needs to continue protecting the endangered species act, Delta fisheries, and Delta communities. Let her know that Delta fisheries and Delta farmers are deserving of full protection under the law. The number of Senator Feinstein’s Washington D.C. office is (202) 224-3841.