Central Valley

The Peripheral Canal – How much water? At what cost? Who pays?


The Sacramento River near downtown Sacramento

Nearly two-thirds of California residents and the majority of agriculture get their water from the Delta and its tributaries, which surround Stockton in an intricate pattern of levees, rivers and farms. But the Delta faces multifaceted environmental problems, which have led to a crisis for fisheries, wildlife and water quality.

The peripheral canal has been touted as the solution to the Delta’s problems, but it’s questionable whether it can provide reliable water and protect the ecosystem.

The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) has spent more than $150 million planning for some form of peripheral canal or tunnel-conveyance system, which would route water around the Delta rather than restoring it. The BDCP is funded by 23 South-of-Delta contractors who receive water from state and federal projects.

According to a Legislative Analyst Office report, $240 million is allocated for the BDCP planning process through the year 2013, and all total, the peripheral canal is currently estimated to cost $12 billion or higher; its actual costs are unknown.

Sign on the West Side of the Central Valley

And the BDCP draft plan has critical missing components, according to a National Academy of Sciences Report, including clearly defined goals and a scientific analysis of the proposed project’s potential impacts on Delta species—and that’s a big piece of the puzzle. Technically, the BDCP is supposed to meet the state’s co-equal goals of ecosystem restoration and water reliability.

The Delta is home to 750 species of plants and animals; 33 of which are endangered, and likely to go extinct within the next 25 to 50 years, if not sooner, said Dr. Peter Moyle, Associate Director of the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences. “Many of these are salmon and trout species, and most of the species are found only in California.”

While the Delta’s decline is due to many factors, including pollution, invasive species and loss of wetlands, the primary reasons for species decline are water diversions and excessive pumping in the estuary.

The San Joaquin River

The San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers are the Delta’s primary tributaries; the San Joaquin River has often run dry due to diversions, and the Sacramento River, which once flowed out to sea, is often used to convey water to federal and state pumps, which send the water uphill and south to farms and cities in Southern California. The reduction in freshwater flow has eliminated much of the habitat, and as a result, populations of flow-dependent species have collapsed, including Chinook salmon, steelhead and Delta smelt.

To address this, the state passed the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act in 2009, which required the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to develop flow criteria to protect public trust resources and a suite of native fish.

The SWRCB public trust recommendations indicate the need to reduce use by 13.7 to 14.6 million acre-feet annually, which is about 22 percent of the state’s annual average water supply, or almost half of the Delta water supply.

That’s roughly equivalent to the annual flow of six Sierra Nevada Rivers, including the Tuolumne, Merced, Stanislaus, Feather, Yuba and American. While the SWRCB must balance economic needs with ecosystem needs, those flow recommendations imply that all Delta water users, including state and federal water contractors, will have to significantly reduce use. As such, a coalition of water and power districts recently sent a letter to the SWRCB requesting a delay in further establishing the Delta flow criteria until the BDCP is further along.

Thus far, the BDCP has not taken the public trust flow recommendations into account, it has no plans for a cost-benefit analysis, and the cost per acre-foot of peripheral canal water is unknown. BDCP representatives did not respond to phone calls or email requests for information.

The California Aqueduct sends water south and uphill towards cities and farms. It was renamed the Edmund G. Brown California Aqueduct in December 1982.

According to Dave Paulson, Chief of the State Water Project’s (SWP) Cost Branch, there are several factors that make determining costs of conveyance difficult. First, conveyance costs vary annually based on the costs of power, operation, maintenance and new construction. Second, contractors are billed only for their share of the annual costs, and it’s difficult to project the impact of a potential BDCP program layered on these existing costs. Third, the total projected BDCP costs are undetermined, the repayment period is not defined, the share of transportation and conservation costs are unknown, and no preferred alternative has been presented.

However, the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California, which supplies drinking water to nearly 19 million people, has made estimates of its own.

According to MWD, water from the proposed conveyance system will cost the district $810 per-acre foot, on average. MWD pays, on average, $296 per acre-foot for Delta water, which implies that the project will increase costs without necessarily yielding a more reliable supply. By comparison, MWD conservation programs yield additional water for $118 per acre-foot.

“From a Southern California perspective, we don’t want more imported water,” said Conner Everts, Executive Director of Southern California Watershed Alliance. “We’re over-built, and we’re better off when we are forced to live within our means.”

State contractors on average pay $185 per acre-foot of water, and San Joaquin Valley contractors pay about $52 an acre-foot under the current contract, which expires in 2035.

The Capitol Building

The BDCP is also linked to the Delta Plan, which is supposed to establish a more reliable water supply while protecting the Delta ecosystem, as well. The difference? The 88-year Delta plan will contain legally enforceable regulatory policies. It sets deadlines for the completion of the BDCP and Delta flow objectives. To be included in the plan, the BDCP must meet certain requirements, including flow requirements and approval from the Department of Fish and Game.

The Delta Plan is in the fifth draft of seven, and thus far, more than 200 environmental organizations have criticized it for failing to take the doctrine of public trust into account.

“It’s nebulous. It’s vague. It doesn’t include a cost-benefit analysis, and it doesn’t deal with flow issues and public trust recommendations,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Campaign Director for Restore the Delta. “They set themselves up as a super regulatory agency, the way it’s written, but it’s a plan without a plan. There are 12 recommended actions, 61 potential actions.”

The public can comment on the Delta Plan’s 2200-page environmental impact report until February 2, 2012. The sixth draft will be published in March.

In regards to the BDCP, Assemblywoman Alyson Huber (D-El Dorado Hills) and Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) are attempting to bring fiscal accountability to the BDCP process. This January, Huber re-introduced Assembly Bill 550, to prohibit the construction of a peripheral canal without a full fiscal analysis and a vote of the state legislature. The bill failed on a 5-7 vote, with seven votes needed for passage. “We have made great progress from last year, and I am still committed to pressing for a full fiscal analysis and a vote of the legislature before any Delta water conveyance program can move forward,” Huber said.

Wolk also recently issued a statement on the Delta. “I accept the Governor’s invitation to engage constructively to find a solution to restore the Delta and improve water supply reliability for the state. However, I don’t think it will require what the Governor described as an enormous project, a giant canal, and taking 100,000 acres of Delta farmland out of production,” she said. “But it will require supporting everyone’s effort to reduce reliance on the Delta as their primary source of water and relying more on sustainable regional water supplies.”

Budget Shortfall Sign at Tule Elk State Natural Reserve

Gov. Jerry Brown, in his 2012 state of the state address, expressed his support for the BDCP, but more recently indicated that he would support delaying the $11 billion water bond currently on the November ballot, saying an overhaul of the state’s water system can begin without voters approving borrowing this year.

Brown advocated the peripheral canal in his last term as governor, but it was defeated in a referendum in 1982. Notably, his father, former Gov. Edmund G. Pat Brown, helped develop the State Water Project, when he served from 1959 to 1967.

Despite Brown’s enthusiasm, the state’s budget woes present a formidable roadblock. The general bonds that fund large infrastructure projects are financed by state taxpayers who pay the interest and principal out of the General Fund. According to the state’s fiscal outlook, the General Fund cost for debt service on infrastructure bonds is currently $6 billion for 2010-11 and $7.2 billion for 2011-12, and will continue to rise until 2015. Funds from bonds provided 78 percent of the financing for the construction of the State Water Project.

Wonder what happened to water conservation? See the next article in this series: Water Conservation, Recycling and California’s Future.

About Deanna Lynn Wulff

Deanna is an activist, an editor and a writer. She is the Director of the Sierra National Monument Project (www.unitetheparks.org) and the author of the award-winning book, "The Girl's Guide to Getting Lost: Hard Hikes for Wild Women." Follow her blog, Minerva's Moxie, at deannalynnwulff.wordpress.com/.

Discussion

18 thoughts on “The Peripheral Canal – How much water? At what cost? Who pays?

  1. Congratulations to all for a reasonable discussion of the issues and exchange of facts and opinions. It’s rare to see this transpire without vitriol and childish puling.

    Save the Delta!

    Posted by Jeff Gillenkirk | February 10, 2012, 4:34 pm
  2. strange. of course water makes money. it makes cities, it makes life and food and fish and birds. water helps everything.

    CLASS and RACE warfare are intolerable [IMHO] in our society. those who choose hate to promote their agendas deserve no quarter.

    Posted by Elwood | January 26, 2012, 6:27 pm
  3. Mike Wade says: “…the achievements and economic prosperity brought about by California’s amazing water projects reveals the truth…” It is clearly true that California’s water projects were remarkable engineering achievements and that economic prosperity resulted for many, it is also true that those same projects created social and environmental problems that the project creators either never thought about or dismissed for selfish reasons. Now the children and grandchildren of those project creators look at any effort to mitigate the tragic results of moving all that water around.

    Isn’t it about time that the loudest voices that push for ever more water take a deep breath? It would be nice if they would at least consider that their endless demands for our limited and over-subscribed water resources have created problems for many people. But Mr. Wade and his employer’s members insist that their demand and use of water is the only water policy that matters.

    So let’s have a spirited debate about the peripheral canal. This article is a good start. Here is another contribution to the discussion, Salmon Water Now’s new video: Kill the Canal. Mr. Wade may not like the message, but it lays out in plain language key points that those pushing for the canal to be built, don’t want people talking about. You can see it here:

    Here is more information about the video:

    Kill the Canal (3:11)

    The march to build a system to move massive amounts of water around the Delta continues. The goal is to build a “peripheral canal” (also referred to as a tunnel or conveyance) so that fresh water will be available to meet the seemingly never-ending needs of big agriculture and Southern California real estate interests.

    Governor Jerry Brown, in his recent State of the State address, seemed to go out of his way to justify building a peripheral canal. He emphasized his commitment to fast-tracking its construction.

    The Governor even personalized the pitch by saying that “this is something my father worked on and then I worked on—decades ago. We know more now and are committed to the dual goals of restoring the Delta ecosystem and ensuring a reliable water supply.”

    Dan Bacher, who has been reporting on water, fish, and ecosystem issues for years, pointed out in a recent story that “ironically, the theme of (Brown’s) speech was California on the Mend.” Delta advocates oppose the construction of the peripheral canal because it will, among other things, lead to the extinction of Central Valley fish species including Sacramento River Chinook salmon and many others.

    Salmon Water Now agrees with Bacher that the canal won’t “mend” imperiled Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations. It is very hard to see how it would not exacerbate the ecosystem collapse caused by record water exports from the Delta in recent years.

    But those pushing for ever more amounts of water want what they want.

    Kill the Canal, a new video from Salmon Water Now, is a three-minute look at the canal and what we believe are very good reasons to stop it from being built.

    The canal would be a massively expensive construction project at a time when California is suffering from huge budget problems. It does not seem that the current plans will help the Delta or help the people and communities who depend on having healthy runs of wild salmon. But it will help the Westlands Water District, billionaire “farmer” Stewart Resnick, and plenty of real estate developers. If they get their way, they’ll be very happy.

    A little sarcasm never hurts.

    Salmon Water Now is one of many voices that would like to put the brakes on the march to build a peripheral canal. We’d like to see a spirited discussion about this issue and there is plenty to talk about. We encourage the sharing of our Kill the Canal video as a way to stimulate a lively debate.

    Watch Kill the Canal here:

    YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDs7tZyPbo8&hd=1

    Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/32264180

    Posted by Bruce Tokars | January 26, 2012, 4:37 pm
  4. Chris,
    My comment was intended for Mike Wade. He always mentions that food grows where water flows. Obviously, a lot of this food are not staples like potatoes, carrots, or things normal people eat. And some is grown for export. Plus there are many subsidies. Chief among them being the government intervention needed to maintain cheap labor. Mike never talks about this. I thought he died when the UN rappartour criticized farmeorkers’ water and gov brown signed the right to water law because he did not post anything about that. And I love his class warfare argument. I just assumed. He was a republican. Now I know he is a santorum supporter.

    Posted by JP | January 26, 2012, 4:00 pm
  5. Perhaps Mr. Wade can tell us if Jerry Brown’s father, Gov. Pat Brown, sold the water bonds for the Aqueduct back then with a promise that “they would pay for themselves.” And then tell us if they really did pay for themselves, because I read somewhere that they never did and thrust California into long-term debt where Californians are still paying interest on that bond. And is it true that the present Governor Jerry Brown’s sister, Kathleen, works for Goldman Sachs that sells water bonds? And wasn’t she transferred from her California office to Chicago to avoid a conflict of interest should water bonds be sold?

    And what about the Dec. 20, 2011 earmark that Darlin’ Diane Feinstein jammed into Pres. Obama’s latest $915 billion spending bill that channels the Delta water directly to the Kern Water Bank and Westlands Water that is privately owned by her Beverly Hills billionaire buddies, Stewart and Linda Resnick. Resnicks sold “some” of their water rights this past year for more than $75 million. A partner with them, John Vidovich, sold “some” of his water rights from the same Kern Water Bank for $73 million. This latest political maneuver from Sen. Feinstein will be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Resnicks and Vidovich, especially. The new trend is to just resell the water in Kern County to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District and San Diego. It looks like all the financing is already lined up between the water contractors and Darlin’ Diane’s deal. Is this why perhaps Jerry Brown can now postpone the water bond vote? These top-level politicians and money people are determined to ignore the people and jam this through. Wait until the people of California look at their future water bills! By then it will be too late. And Feinstein and Obama will have gotten big campaign presents after this mega-Christmas present tot he Resnicks, I’m sure.

    Every California citizen needs to read The King of California by Mark Arax and Rick Wartzman (less than $4 on Amazon.com), an older biography on mega-farmer Jim Boswell in Kern County. Boswell drained Tulare Lake dry when it was the largest body of fresh water west of the Mississippi. This book reads like today’s politics and provides a blueprint for current politicians and billionaire backers. Instead of turning the California Delta into a national park like the Everglades, this continual draining without end will convert the Delta into a salt laden cesspool and destroy the recreation industry, especially.

    Posted by Gene Beley | January 26, 2012, 2:31 pm
    • Hello Gene, I would like to reply to some of your comments.
      First off, the water bonds that were sold for the creation of the California Water Project are being paid back in full with complete interest, principle and all the associated debt service and have not impacted the “voters” of California with more debt. IF you bothered to look at the Bulletin 132 you would see the repayment schedule and know that the scheduled repament date is 2035. The only thing California did was to provide the credit backing for the sale of the bonds to get a better interest rate. I know that doesn’t sound as good or as alarmist as your inflamatory comments but thats the truth.

      I too ready the King of California and also do not agree with what was done then but it has been done, but one of the things you so conveniently forgot was that Boswell was getting his water from the Sierras and it was the manipulation of the Corps and USBR that got his dams built and the persistant draining of the main waterfowl site to get the farming done was becuase he bought the land cheap (anyone want to buy some swampland?) and he was bound and determined to make it work and he did. Now if you had read the entire book you would have gotten to the chapter about the Periperal Canal where they talked about the 4 part campaign and the misinformation that was fed to us, which BTW you were gracious enough to regurgitate here with one of them. Historically the delta was a variable salinity estuary and in 1931 the late and small flows allowed salts to intrude into the Delta as far as Stockton and Hood but the native fish like to live in the X1 to X2 brackish water and they loved it. Now, with the farmers suits and hte SWRCB decisions fresh water has to be kept to a certain point in the delta, that will not change no matter where the diversion point is, so your arguement about turning the delta into a salt cesspool is totally unfounded and intentionally inflamatory too.

      Another little fact you tend to ignore, 70% of the water that goes into the delta goes right out through the bay. the other 30% is split fairly evenly between the 1,700 unscreened ag diversions IN THE DELTA and the State and Feds get about 10% each and their intakes are reduced because of fish and water supply where the in delta farmers don’t have that consideration. Another little thing, the pumps actually help bring fresh water into the heart of the delta (look at the Water Education Foundations map of the Delta with the salinity insert) so the actions of the pumps help to freshen up the water in the heart of the Delta.

      I do realize that there are a lot of issues and some people feel strongly about them but having this type of misinformation and disinformation just to make people feel angry is really a disservice so the discourse and civil dialogue.

      Posted by derphmm | January 27, 2012, 4:59 pm
      • Hi Derph, Let’s talk about “misinformation and disinformation” shall we ?
        Let’s start with debt. The debts associated with the water projects started accruing in 1960 or so.
        Here we are 52 years later being told they’ll get paid in full in another 23 years.
        That’s just for existing debt and doesn’t include the costs associated with a Peripheral Canal.
        What year would that get paid off ?
        You are totally correct about USBR and ACE being manipulated, both historically and currently, to the benefit of a select few at the expense of Ratepayers and Taxpayers.
        “Historically the delta was a variable salinity estuary” Taken at face value this is true, here’s what you left out.
        The overwhelming majority of the time it is a fresh water estuary. This is proven true by your own example. You had to go back 81 years to find ONE example to the contrary. Professor Peter Moyle (UC Davis) has stated a number of times in the studies he has authored that to replicate a historically correct “variable salinity estuary” would require huge reductions in water exports. Historically X1 and X2 were much further west than our current manipulations have produced.If proof is needed of this, one only has to research the history of C&H sugar and it’s Crockett refinery.
        Lastly, your assertion that the export pumps actually are a benefit to the Delta is a perfect example of disinformation.
        One of the biggest arguments used to promote a Peripheral Canal is the elimination of flow reversals caused by thru Delta Pumping. You can’t have it both ways.
        If every gallon of water potentially diverted via a Peripheral Canal was guaranteed to be replaced (codified by legislation in advance) by a matching number of gallons of flow restored to the San Joaquin and Stanislaus then perhaps an argument could be made for the project.
        You know and I know that ain’t gonna’ happen.
        I notice you didn’t address the need for a cost/benefit analysis. Where do you stand on that ?

        Posted by Chris Gulick | January 28, 2012, 10:37 am
  6. I have looked with jaundiced eye at the advertisements along I-5, namely the cotton trailers, in cotton fields, discussing thje impacts of water management on our food supply.

    Don’t often eat cotton, but my dog does. Hmmm, missing an opportunity?

    Posted by Dan Odenweller | January 26, 2012, 2:17 pm
  7. I suggest readers may want to go to my website at http://www.lloydgcarter.com and read the top article on a cost-benefit analysis for the proposed peripheral canal.

    Lloyd Carter

    Posted by Lloyd G. Carter | January 26, 2012, 1:48 pm
  8. Mr. Wade. Thank you for your comments once again. It’s fair to express your strong opinions here. I’m always open to hearing how I might rephrase something to be clearer, as well.
    However, you glossed over significant and critical data points in your response.
    In order for people to evaluate the BDCP, they have to get a sense of what it might do, what it might cost, and who might be paying for it. Those are considerable unknowns. However, we do have some data, which can help us approach understanding the situation:
    1) The public trust recommendations for water flow as given by the SWRCB (13.7 to 14.6 million acre-feet annually). This indicates that Delta water users and most Californians will have to reduce use, regardless of the project.
    2) The cost of the project as estimated by the non-partisan legislative analyst office is $12 billion or higher.
    3) The overall cost of water with new conveyance increases, as estimated from SWP reports and Metropolitan Water District reports.
    4) In the past, large construction projects have been financed by bonds, which come out of the state’s General Fund and from taxpayer earnings, which indicates how the project will be funded in the long term. The state is currently burdened with significant bond debt and in the midst of a budget crisis.
    Readers can evaluate those facts and decide for themselves and so can state and federal contractors. BDCP representatives did not choose to respond to repeated inquiries for comment.

    Posted by Deanna Lynn Wulff | January 26, 2012, 12:25 pm
  9. Chris Gulick is playing the class warfare card but a look at the achievements and economic prosperity brought about by California’s amazing water projects reveals the truth.  People at every economic level have benefitted from public investment in water projects that grow the food we eat at a cost that is a lower percentage of disposable income than anywhere on earth.  Agricultural-related jobs recirculate the financial benefits of water projects at every level of the economy.  The return on investment from an initial cost of $7 billion for the federal Central Valley Project totals more than $124 billion in new taxes to the federal treasury paid as a result of water supplies for farms and businesses that grew as a result of Project operations.

    Chris Gulick says “Money Goes Where Water Flows.”  It sure does.  Find out more at http://www.moneygoeswherewaterflows.org

    Mike Wade
    California Farm Water Coalition

    Posted by Mike Wade | January 26, 2012, 11:19 am
    • 1) Compare Stuart Resnick to the actual Mexican farmworkers.
      2) How much food is grown in the state for CA consumption? US consumption? Export?
      3) How much do growers pay for subsidized water and energy? Have they put other farmers in the State, Nation, World out of business because they receive more government welfare?
      4) How come the Delta Plan does not contain a plan? Nor mention the public trust doctrine (state law since 1983)?
      5) BDCP must be consistent with the Delta Reform Act (co-equal goals and inherent objectives) in order to be approved by the Delta Stewardship Council.
      6) If the General Obligation bond will be $11.2 B, then state taxpayers will probably pay back at least twice the amount to cover the interest
      7) Ultimately, this “new” water is for large agricultural corporations or unsustainable farming operations, and for the benefit of the Southern California growth cartel.

      Posted by JP | January 26, 2012, 1:18 pm
      • JP, have you read Caddilac Desert by Marc Reisner ?
        What we’re watching play out is nothing new.
        I’ts just the same old song and dance.
        I truly believe the internet is going to play an unprecedented role in educating ratepayers and taxpayers and finally pulling back the curtains to expose the wizard of Oz.The first step towards not being a puppet is to figure out who is behind the scenes pulling the strings.

        Posted by Chris Gulick | January 26, 2012, 3:25 pm
    • Ah yes, the class warfare argument. I actually thought you were smart enough to not respond to a “dog whistle”. That B.S. talking point isn’t likely to get Mitt Romney elected and isn’t helping bolster your position a bit. The class warfare argument is the last desperate act of those who would continue eat from the public trough. I wonder if the poor people who live in Seville, who can’t drink the water flowing from the tap, yet continue to tend to the crops and cattle, share your sentiment that they have benefitted.

      RE: MONEY GOES WHERE WATER FLOWS
      They say that plagiarism is the highest form of flattery. Given the length of time I have been using that phrase as a tag line one must assume the California Farm Water Coalition felt threatened enough by the message that they feel the need to control it. You are welcome to use it. It doesn’t change the intended inference that the movement of water to benefit one group of farmers at the expense or loss of productivity of another group of farmers is fundamentally wrong.
      Before you launch off on to one of your tangental arguments designed to deflect attention from the original point, I highly suggest you research the sale of the majority of Sherman Island to DWR , a subject I am all to well versed on having lived on Sherman Island since 1968.

      “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Abe Lincoln

      As I said Mike, It’s only class warfare if we fight back.

      Posted by Chris Gulick | January 26, 2012, 3:16 pm
  10. It is unfortunate that the author chose to write this article in a manner that includes incorrect information that leaves the reader with a false picture portraying the many efforts currently underway in relation to the Delta. Consider:

    1. The BDCP is not charged with “the state’s co-equal goals of ecosystem restoration and water reliability.” The BDCP is a permitting process for conveyance. The Delta Stewardship Council, created in 2009, is charged with the co-equal goals.

    2. Both the BDCP and the Delta Stewardship Council plans are in the draft stages of their respective planning processes. Their work is ongoing and to suggest that either does not include certain documents or processes fails to understand the work schedules by both.

    3. The author suggests that exports of water that flows through the Delta may have altered its route to the sea as she writes “which once flowed out to sea…” The Sacramento River still flows to the sea and the water that flows through the Delta is also delivered to 25 million Californians (not just south of the Delta but also to the East Bay, San Benito and Santa Clara areas) and also to farms to grow the food we rely upon.

    4. The SWRCB early report of the flow requirements were publicized with specific instructions from the Legislature that the report did not look at other factors relating to water, such as local uses in areas of origin, the result of water delivered to millions of people and to farms, etc. The report clearly articulates this; yet, many people choose to ignore its narrow scope, instead hanging their hats solely on the specific flow numbers by themselves. The report’s accompanying statement strongly recommended that more work needed to be done before final flow requirements could be adopted.

    5. Contractors receiving water from the State Water Project pay the associated costs to deliver that water to its eventual point of use. If a contractor is located further south along the Aquaduct than another user, then that contractor must pay the costs for both construction and delivery for that extra distance. This is the major reason that contractors further south along the Aquaduct pay more than their counterparts to the north.

    Mike Wade
    California Farm Water Coalition

    Posted by Mike Wade | January 26, 2012, 10:37 am
  11. The title says it all.
    No answers are forthcoming from BDCP and our elected representatives have once again avoided requiring any by killing AB550. Until and unless a full cost/benefit analysis is performed, the ratepayers and taxpayers will remain completely in the dark.
    My guess is this is by design.
    If we knew the actual cost, acknowledged who will be footing the majority of the bill and realized who the primary beneficiaries are, then the 1% would have a much tougher time getting the 99% to allow this without questioning and perhaps defeating this effort.
    Its only class warfare if we choose to fight back.

    MONEY GOES WHERE WATER FLOWS…….sound familiar ?

    Posted by Chris Gulick | January 26, 2012, 9:58 am

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Sunday Reading – 01/29/12 « Romick in Oakley - January 29, 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: