<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:garamond, new york, times, serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7859" dir="ltr"><b style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 10px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_8023">URL: <a href="http://www.chicoer.com/opinion/20180505/editorial-water-bond-conflict-heats-up-of-course" class="" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_8026">http://www.chicoer.com/opinion/20180505/editorial-water-bond-conflict-heats-up-of-course</a></b><br></div><div><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 1.17em; font-weight: 700;">Chico ER Editorial: Water bond conflict heats up, of course</span><br></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7946"><br id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7948"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7949">Saturday, May 5, 2018</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7950"></div></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard; border-bottom-style: none;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7951"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7952"></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7953"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7954">As the Water Commission crept closer this week to actually spending the water storage money voters approved in 2014, things predictably got ugly.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7955">What the commission did this week is determined the public benefit of the 12 projects that were seeking the $2.7 billion in Proposition 1 that was earmarked for water storage.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7956">The problem is, it wasn’t just earmarked for water storage. It was earmarked only for water storage that provide five defined public benefits: ecosystem benefits, water quality, flood control, emergency response and recreation.</div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7957"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7958">That’s spelled out specifically in the language approved by voters. But very few of the politicians who voted to put the measure on the ballot, and very few of the voters who approved it.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7959">So there’s a foundation for conflict: Most people think they voted for something quite a bit different than what they actually voted for.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7960">And the proposition also was written to escalate that conflict by setting up a competition for a limited amount of money, which means you’re going to have winners and losers.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7961">We got the first look at who’s going to win and who’s going to lose this week, and the reaction was quick.</div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7962"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7963">Sites Reservoir west of Maxwell has to be considered a winner, as the Water Commission put its public benefit in excess of a billion dollars. It wasn’t as much as the project’s backers wanted, but it was double what anyone else got.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7964">We contacted the Sites folks on Friday, and they were going sit down Monday and talk about what to do next. A calm reaction.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7965">The big loser without question is Temperance Flat. The backers of the proposed dam on the San Joaquin River was seeking more than $1 billion, but a public benefit of only $171 million was identified by the Water Commission.</div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7966"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7967">And Friday, every politician in the San Joaquin Valley blew their tops. The commission was called a kangaroo court, its action a “shameful betrayal” of voters, and hints of lawsuits were raised.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7968">No doubt the dam would provide more water for farms and towns in the San Joaquin, but that’s not what the law approved by voters says the money can be spent for.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7969">It might be had to make the case for those public benefits in this case, because Temperance Flat would be a dam in a river that’s already dammed. It actually would be built in the upper reaches of Millerton Lake. </div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7970"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7971">Picture building a dam under the Oro-Quincy Highway bridge over Lake Oroville, and raising the water level in the South and Middle forks of the lake. That’s Temperance Flat. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7972">Which of the defined public benefits would it provide that Lake Oroville doesn’t already provide? It would be a tough case to make.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7973">But expect more and more stringent and shrill commentary as the process plays out. There are a couple of additional steps before the money gets allocated in July. That’s a lot of time to make a lot of meaningless noise.</div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7974"></div></div><div style="font-family: -webkit-standard; border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(191, 191, 191); clear: both;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7975"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7976"><form id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7977"> </form></div><div style="font-size: 10px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7978"><b id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7979">URL: http://www.chicoer.com/opinion/20180505/editorial-water-bond-conflict-heats-up-of-course</b></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7980">© 2018 Chico Enterprise-Record (<a href="http://www.chicoer.com/" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7981">http://www.chicoer.com</a>)</div></div><div class="signature" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_7867"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1525795766644_8011"><br></div></div></div></body></html>