Water Bond

SACRAMENTO - Might as well scratch one measure from the likely crowded November ballot: a pork-filled $11.1-billion water bond that is dying of its own weight. The Legislature produced this monster in late 2009 after years of wrangling by competing interests, culminated by an all-nighter in the Capitol. Like the proverbial bar pickup, the bond wasn't nearly as good-looking in daylight. It had been slated for the 2010 ballot, but the Legislature and then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wisely delayed seeking voter approval until this year.

SACRAMENTO - Might as well scratch one measure from the likely crowded November ballot: a pork-filled $11.1-billion water bond that is dying of its own weight. The Legislature produced this monster in late 2009 after years of wrangling by competing interests, culminated by an all-nighter in the Capitol. Like the proverbial bar pickup, the bond wasn't nearly as good-looking in daylight. It had been slated for the 2010 ballot, but the Legislature and then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wisely delayed seeking voter approval until this year.

And then there were nine. The water bond known as Proposition 18, which was to be the first of 10 measures on the Nov. 2 ballot, has been put off for two years, leaving voters with slightly less campaign material crowding their mailboxes, fewer words in the ballot pamphlet to read and understand, and one less decision to make. That sounds like a good thing. But it's a telling example of the state's political stalemate. The $11-billion bond measure would have presented the state with an enormous new debt and new annual service payments — at a time when Californians are grappling with the consequences of past spending decisions.

I've occasionally given City Councilman Ed Reyes a hard time. A few weeks ago, when he introduced a motion to let his colleagues violate the city's Arizona boycott policy, established in response to that state's repugnant immigration law, it seemed emblematic of a council that sticks to principles only when it feels like it. But hand it to Reyes: On the matters closest to his district, he's a hard worker and an earnest representative. That's most obvious in his dogged campaign to reconstruct the Los Angeles River.

The governor and the Legislature did the smart thing politically by removing their pork-stuffed water bond proposal from the voters' grasp in November. Next, they should do the prudent thing, both politically and fiscally, by tossing out the pork. That would make the bond much more digestible to voters if, indeed, it does wind up on the 2012 ballot as now scheduled. If not, the voters — the taxpayers — are very likely to do the right thing for themselves and bury the bloated $11.1-billion bond.

Worried that Californians struggling through the economic slump will reject an $11-billion water bond measure this year, state lawmakers acted Monday to pull the initiative from the November ballot and put it off until the 2012 election. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger requested the postponement of Proposition 18, and he will sign the bill approved late Monday by the state Senate and Assembly, a spokesman said. Some backers of the water plan opposed the delay, saying the need to fix the state's water system is immediate.

After an exhausting political fight to put an $11.1-billion plan for shoring up the state's water supply before voters, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger now wants to yank the measure from the November ballot. The governor is working with legislative leaders to postpone the water bond proposal as its prospects appear increasingly dim. Polls suggest voters may not have the appetite for such borrowing at a time when the state budget is in continuing crisis. And the governor's vow to aggressively fight another measure on the November ballot, one that would roll back the landmark global warming bill he signed in 2006, threatens to distract from the effort to get the water bond passed.

Re "Water bond may be tapped for many uses," May 21 After reading this article, it is virtually guaranteed that I will never vote for a bond issue again. While many of the projects mentioned in the article may have merit, they do not meet the public health and safety criteria of shoring up our levees, decontaminating waterways and building reservoirs, all for which I believed this bond issue was intended. I do not appreciate being deceived. JAYCIE INGERSOLL Beverly Hills State Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-Los Angeles)

Orange County's parks and beaches were hit hard by the bankruptcy five years ago as the supervisors reduced allocations for them in an effort to restore fiscal health. Although private donations, some of them sizable, have brightened the picture for recreation in the county, the passage of Proposition 12 would bring needed money to attractions including the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park.

Voters may feel deja vu when they ponder Proposition 84 on the Nov. 7 ballot, because like five other bond measures in the last decade, it promises clean water, flood control, better parks and coastal protection. And like the last water bond to go before voters, in 2002, Proposition 84 was written by a Sacramento lobbyist whose clients are land preservation and environmental groups that stand to win public money for pet projects through the measure.

Gov. Jerry Brown recently said, "I've got a lot on my plate. " One item is a big slab of pork — formally called a water bond proposal. The plate is shared with the Legislature. Together, they must decide whether to serve up the bond whole to voters, trim it down first or shove it back in the fridge. Or maybe they'll just toss it in the garbage. That's the most unlikely scenario. But voters might dump it for them if the bond isn't pared and recooked. Let's back up. After years of fighting — south vs. north, farmers vs. enviros, water buffaloes vs. fishing interests — then-Gov.

Government water managers cringe at the word "drought. " But there are two words that they dread even more: "drought over. " A drought forces the government to reduce water deliveries. That agitates farmers and urban gardeners. But at the same time, politicians and bureaucrats gain an opportunity to make a strong case for building more waterworks, especially dams. Parching droughts and killer floods: They're proven motivators that whip up public support for big water projects.

The governor and the Legislature did the smart thing politically by removing their pork-stuffed water bond proposal from the voters' grasp in November. Next, they should do the prudent thing, both politically and fiscally, by tossing out the pork. That would make the bond much more digestible to voters if, indeed, it does wind up on the 2012 ballot as now scheduled. If not, the voters — the taxpayers — are very likely to do the right thing for themselves and bury the bloated $11.1-billion bond.

And then there were nine. The water bond known as Proposition 18, which was to be the first of 10 measures on the Nov. 2 ballot, has been put off for two years, leaving voters with slightly less campaign material crowding their mailboxes, fewer words in the ballot pamphlet to read and understand, and one less decision to make. That sounds like a good thing. But it's a telling example of the state's political stalemate. The $11-billion bond measure would have presented the state with an enormous new debt and new annual service payments — at a time when Californians are grappling with the consequences of past spending decisions.

Worried that Californians struggling through the economic slump will reject an $11-billion water bond measure this year, state lawmakers acted Monday to pull the initiative from the November ballot and put it off until the 2012 election. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger requested the postponement of Proposition 18, and he will sign the bill approved late Monday by the state Senate and Assembly, a spokesman said. Some backers of the water plan opposed the delay, saying the need to fix the state's water system is immediate.

After an exhausting political fight to put an $11.1-billion plan for shoring up the state's water supply before voters, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger now wants to yank the measure from the November ballot. The governor is working with legislative leaders to postpone the water bond proposal as its prospects appear increasingly dim. Polls suggest voters may not have the appetite for such borrowing at a time when the state budget is in continuing crisis. And the governor's vow to aggressively fight another measure on the November ballot, one that would roll back the landmark global warming bill he signed in 2006, threatens to distract from the effort to get the water bond passed.

With surprisingly little opposition, lawmakers Thursday authorized a statewide vote in November on a $995-million water bond measure, and Gov. Pete Wilson quickly signed it into law, calling it "truly historic legislation." The bulk of the water bond money--$600 million--would be used to restore the environment in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Give Meg Whitman some credit. She's listening and reading up -- trying to learn about being governor of California. True, she occasionally shows her political naivete. A good example was when the former EBay chief last week suggested that as governor she'd organize the Legislature into "teams." A "jobs team," a "government efficiency team." As any high schooler knows -- or should -- a governor doesn't organize anything in the Legislature. It's a separate, equal branch of government.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today will lay out plans to spend $500 million on worker training in an effort to create 100,000 jobs, along with other measures to stimulate the economy, as a centerpiece of his policy agenda for his final year in office. Schwarzenegger is set to announce the proposal this morning in his last State of the State address to lawmakers, in an attempt to stem the bleeding of jobs in a state that had a November unemployment rate of 12.3%. The new spending to train workers is part of a five-pronged proposal Schwarzenegger is calling the California Jobs Initiative, according to a draft obtained by The Times.