THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Brown pitches $6 billion water bond


image_pdfimage_print

By Melanie Mason, Los Angeles Times

Seeking to balance the state’s water needs with his reputation for fiscal caution, Gov. Jerry Brown called for a “no-frills, no pork” $6-billion water bond in an email to campaign supporters Tuesday afternoon.

Brown kicked off the letter by noting that “drought conditions in California grow more serious by the day,” and acknowledging more must be done for the state’s water infrastructure.

But, he says, the $11.1-billion bond currently set to go before voters in November has “a price tag beyond what’s reasonable or affordable.” He describes the measure, originally written in 2009, as “pork-laden.”

Instead, Brown pitches a $6-billion plan similar to the framework his office circulated in June. The proposal, he says, “invests in the most critical projects without breaking the bank.”

Read the whole story

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (5)
  1. rock4tahoe says - Posted: August 9, 2014

    The bond includes: $2 Billion for water storage projects, $1.2 Billion for watershed restoration/protection, $475 Million for Delta related upgrade projects, $450 million for water recycling projects, $450 million for groundwater protection/projects, $450 million in improved water management, $400 million in safe drinking water projects, $300 million in Statewide flood management/improvement projects, $200 million in stormwater capture projects, $100 million in water conservation.

    I would like to see some desalination projects in the mix too.

  2. Another X Local says - Posted: August 10, 2014

    For anybody familiar with the Delta, they know the drought & existing policies are having & have had a drastic adverse affect on the Delta. I agree with rock4tahoe saying desalinization projects should be included. In fact, SoCal shouldn’t get any more NorCal water & should be forced to become water self-sufficient through mandatory conservation, recycling & desalinization.

  3. Know Bears says - Posted: August 10, 2014

    No mention of the “tunnels” (which I oppose). Are they off the table for now?

  4. rock4tahoe says - Posted: August 10, 2014

    Bear. “Tunnels?” Actually, putting California Aqueducts in tunnels/enclosures makes good sense due to evaporation loss.

  5. Know Bears says - Posted: August 10, 2014

    Rock: No argument, but the tunnels in question are a variation on Brown’s previous idea — the peripheral canal. Either plan would divert fresh water from the Delta, to the detriment of the ecosystem. Brown (like his daddy before him) is dedicated to sending water from Northern CA to Southern CA at pretty much any cost.

    I personally favor capping the existing canals (to minimize evaporation) and installing solar collectors along the top.