<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18852">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN id=rds_global><SPAN id=rds_global>
<H1 id=articleTitle class=articleTitle>Water bond's lure for the North
Coast</H1><!--subtitle--><!--byline-->
<DIV id=articleByline class=articleByline>John Driscoll/The Times-Standard</DIV><!--date-->
<DIV id=articleDate class=articleDate>Posted: 11/25/2009 01:30:21 AM
PST</DIV><!--secondary date--><BR><SPAN fd-id="default"
fd-type="end"></SPAN><SPAN fd-id="default" fd-type="start"></SPAN>
<DIV class=articlePositionHeader></DIV><SPAN fd-id="default"
fd-type="end"></SPAN>
<DIV id=articleBody class=articleBody>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px"
id=articleViewerGroup class=articleViewerGroup>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript>
var requestedWidth = 0;
</SCRIPT>
<SPAN class=articleEmbeddedViewerBox></SPAN><SPAN fd-id="default"
fd-type="start"></SPAN><SPAN fd-id="default" fd-type="end"></SPAN></DIV>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript>
if(requestedWidth > 0){
document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.width = requestedWidth + "px";
document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.margin = "0px 0px 10px 10px";
}
</SCRIPT>
<SPAN fd-id="default" fd-type="start"></SPAN>
<P>The North Coast would get $315 million and be eligible for a share of $3.38
billion as part of a state water bond being proposed for 2010 -- a bond that
many are questioning as unaffordable and that regional interests say threaten
salmon rivers. </P>
<P>The Department of Water Resources this week roughly outlined how the $11.1
billion in the water bond would be dispersed by region. The North Coast would be
eligible for hundreds of millions for watershed projects, wetland restoration,
salmon habitat improvement, waterfowl habitat projects, and vegetation
management. In the bond measure is also $250 million for removal of the Klamath
River's four main dams. </P>
<P>While the bond, and the legislative package passed earlier this month, has
been touted by supporters as a big stride toward improving the state's weak
water policies, conservationists in the north point out that most of the money
would go to new dams, water projects and a canal to pump water around the
Sacramento River Delta to cities and farms to the south. That could threaten
water available for fish in the Trinity River, which is connected to the Central
Valley Project, they say. </P>
<P>”I'm pretty sure that it's a long-term commitment of Central Valley water and
nobody is sure how the Trinity River plays into that,” said Humboldt County
Supervisor Jimmy Smith, “but I think it's going to be significant.” </P>
<P>The Legislative Analyst's Office points out that the state is currently
operating at </P>a $6.3 billion shortfall, with deficits projected to reach $14
billion next fiscal year and $20 billion a year for another five years. The bond
would create debt service of $600 million a year.
<P>Smith said the proposed bond is far too expensive and complex, and that the
Klamath money should be carved off and put forward in its own package, or a
simpler one. </P>
<P>If the money for the North Coast -- Humboldt, Del Norte, Trinity and parts of
Glenn, Lake, Marin, Modoc, Siskiyou and Sonoma counties -- is meant to draw
support from the region, it's not certain that it would be delivered.
Proposition 84, a water bond passed in 2006, was $5.4 billion. Tom Stokely with
the California Water Impact Network pointed out that some $40 million for the
California Department of Fish and Game's fisheries restoration program hasn't
yet come through. </P>
<P>Billions from previous water bonds also haven't been spent, according to the
State Treasurer's Office. </P>
<P>Stokely cautioned that the efforts most likely to be funded are the building
of dams, reservoirs and canals, while fish and wildlife provisions are likely to
get bound up due to state budget woes. </P>
<P>”I liken it to Charlie Brown and Lucy where she holds the football for him
and then at the last minute pulls it away,” Stokely said. </P>
<P>Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro called the water package and the bond to be “a
wolf in sheep's clothing.” The Trinity River may be particularly vulnerable to
excess diversion due to existing infrastructure tying it to the Central Valley
Project, he said. Chesbro also said that water projects have always been paid
with revenue bonds, but that's different with the latest water bond. </P>
<P>”This would be a general obligation bond, which means they want to take our
water and then make us pay for it,” the Arcata Democrat said. </P>
<P></P>
<P>John Driscoll covers natural resources/industry. He can be reached at
441-0504 or <A href="">jdriscoll@times-standard.com</A>. </P>
<P><BR
style="CLEAR: both"> </P></DIV></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>