Statement from the No on the Water Bond Coalition in Reaction to Brown v. Whitman Debate

For Immediate Release
October 1, 2010
Contact: Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club California
916-557-1100 x 109

Meg Whitman’s Love of Texas Includes an Embrace of the Texas Sized Pork in the Water Bond

Sacramento – In this week’s first debate between the candidates for governor, California’s water woes were featured prominently, as was the $11.14 billion water bond slated for the November 2012 ballot. The two candidates were in stark contrast as they laid out their vision for solving California’s daunting water challenges.

Jerry Brown state that the central focus of any plan to build new water infrastructure should be based on the beneficiary pays principles. The proposed November 2012 water bond, instead, dumps the cost of building new water infrastructure on all California taxpayers. He echoed the No on the Bond coalition’s call that all parties, including Delta voices, be brought to the table.
Brown said: “As far as the peripheral canal, of course I in 1981 brought the Legislature together and had a peripheral canal bill that would have brought water to Southern California.

Unfortunately, Northern California didn’t like that and there was a referendum and my proposal, even though it went through the Legislature, was voted down by the people. What that shows you, you’ve got to negotiate, you’ve got to bring in all parties. So here’s my proposal on the water… The beneficiary has to pay, if they get the water, not the taxpayer…. If it’s for habitat protection or building the levees, that’s something the public ought to pay for. And I think if we increase our water recycling, if we work with local communities on groundwater management, do better there. If we make it easier for water transfers, and we build the conveyances that make sense, than I think we can deal with the water… one other thing you have to deal with safe drinking water. There are kids in the Central Valley with birth defects… Safe water, water conservation, the beneficiary pays, and the taxpayer then supports the general benefits that will accrue.”

Meg Whitman, on the other hand, again embraced the bloated water bond, this time clearly stating that the bond enabled a peripheral canal and new destructive dams. In previous statements Whitman also acknowledged the billions of dollars of pork projects that would be funded by this bond.

Whitman stated: “I was a proponent of the water bond that was just kicked to 2012 and I think that was wrong. I was a supporter of that bond…. It had all the elements, it had, above and below ground storage, it had an outline for the peripheral canal”

No on the Water Bond is a coalition of consumer, education, environmental, fishing, farming, tribal, community and social justice organizations opposed to the water bond that will be on the statewide ballot in November.

Coalition members include the Sierra Club California, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Friends of the River, Food & Water Watch, the Planning and Conservation League, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Southern California Watershed Alliance, Restore the Delta, and Urban Semillas.

Computer Generated ~ No on Prop 18, No on the Water Bond, Sponsored by a Coalition of Environmental Organizations, FPPC ID# 1324820

SCC Celebrates the One Year Anniversary of President Obama’s Leadership in Setting National Greenhouse Gas Standards for New Passenger Vehicles

Today Sierra Club California is celebrating the one year anniversary of President Obama’s historic Rose Garden announcement where he announced that California standards for greenhouse gases would become the basis for a strong national standard that would reduce global warming pollution spewing from our new cars, light trucks and SUVs for model years 2012 through 2016.

Just last month, on April 1, 2010, the U.S. EPA and Dept of Transportation released their final rulemaking for strong national greenhouse gas standards based on California’s landmark clean car program that our Air Resources Board (ARB) developed pursuant to the law authored by Fran Pavley and co-sponsored by Sierra Club California. The standards will also raise average fuel economy to 35 mpg by 2016.

Sierra Club California wants to ensure that ARB continues to adopt the programs that put greener vehicles on the road so that we can continue to cut our oil consumption and greenhouse gas pollution.

ARB is already working on standards for 2017 and beyond, and we need to show support for setting a high bar for the industry and the nation. ARB will be voting on two important clean car programs in the fall: the Low Emission Vehicle program III, which will set reductions of both greenhouse gas and criteria pollutants, and the Zero Emission Vehicle program, which should require putting cars like plug-in hybrids and battery electric vehicles on the road in high volumes.

Now, as California gets ready to update the next round of standards we need to ensure they are robust and result in substantial improvements so our kids can breathe easier, we can reduce our dependence on oil, save money at the gas pump and improve our economy by creating jobs through advancements in clean car technology.

To get more involved, check out Sierra Club California’s Drive Green California campaign. Sign up on line at www.sierraclubcalifornia.org.

California Governor Ends Support for Offshore Drilling

Washington, D.C. – This afternoon California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ended his support for offshore oil drilling. Gov. Schwarzenegger says he changed his mind after seeing the Gulf Coast oil spill images on television.

Director of Sierra Club California Bill Magavern issued the following statement:

"The Sierra Club is glad to see a high-ranking public official recognizing the danger of our addiction to fossil fuels. It's too bad that it takes a tragedy of this scale to convince drilling supporters to change their ways.

"We call on more public officials to join us in calling for a comprehensive cleanup of the Gulf Coast and full support to the impacted communities, all paid for by BP. This oil disaster requires that we reinstate the offshore drilling moratorium and adopt an aggressive plan to wean our country from oil addiction over the next two decades.

"Enough is enough. It's time to take offshore drilling off the table for good."

News:

The Sacramento Bee: Schwarzenegger won't support offshore drilling project near Santa BarbaraRead more

KGO-TV San Francisco: Schwarzenegger ends support for offshore drilling

KCRA: Governor Withdraws Support For Coast Oil Drilling

California’s Global Warming Leadership: A Win For Green Vehicles, Jobs and Oil Independence

By Bill Haller, Sierra Club California Activist

On April 1st the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in cooperation with the California Air Resources Board will release the first-ever national greenhouse gas standards for passenger vehicles. If you’re still waking up to the first few sips of your morning coffee, you may want to read that first sentence over again.

It boggles the mind. To cut greenhouse gases, create real jobs, reduce our oil dependency and in the process, better secure our nation, the Obama administration, U.S. EPA, the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration and Cal EPA through CARB put their heads together to come up with new standards for auto emissions for 2016 and beyond.

Me, I’m flabbergasted because for the last two decades the needle has barely moved on national fuel efficiency standards. Now it’s going to be set at 35 mpg. Somebody pinch me.

As a 52 year-old dad of two young kids (Little League for him, ballet and tap for her), a consumer (18 mpg when we roll the family van in neutral down a hill) and a Sierra Club volunteer (one of 150,000 treehuggers in California), I want to have the option to purchase a greener vehicle like a plug in hybrid or a battery electric vehicle. But what I really want is a cleaner, greener and more prosperous future for my kids. I know it sounds weird for me to say, but thanks to my government, that future is now more a reality than ever before. Oh, c’mon, you knew Detroit and Big Oil were never going to do it on their own.

Getting rid of harmful greenhouse gases is not only good for our environment but it also guarantees that all Americans benefit from clean breathable air including our elderly, the infirm, you, me, the kids. We save money at the gas pump, reduce our dangerous dependence on oil, create new jobs and ensure California’s global leadership in advancing technology for greener vehicles. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, passenger vehicles are responsible for over 70 percent of greenhouse gas pollution in our state. With about 30 million cars tooling around California’s freeways every day, that is why these new federal standards for greener vehicles are so important.

Happy? Me too.

White House Launches America's Great Outdoors Initiative

Sierra Club Urges Administration to Get Kids Outside, Help Wildlife Adapt to Global Warming

Washington, D.C. - Tomorrow, the White House will kick off a new initiative aimed at changing the way America's public lands are managed. Sierra Club is calling on the Obama administration to use the initiative as an opportunity to address two key challenges: Introducing more children, especially children of color, to America's public lands, and addressing the growing threat of global warming to wildlife and wild places.

Following the event on Friday, the administration is expected to launch a series of public "listening sessions" around the nation that will allow Americans to weigh in on how federal agencies manage our national forests, rivers, and parks.

Statement of Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune:

We applaud President Obama, Secretary Salazar, Secretary Vilsack, and Chair Sutley for launching the Great Outdoors initiative. This initiative offers an unprecedented opportunity to change the way we manage our public lands. Protecting our wild legacy in the face of climate change, and engaging the next generation of conservationists should be central to this effort.

Global warming poses a threat to wildlife and habitat unlike anything we've seen before. If we hope to pass on a wild legacy to future generations, we need to address the challenge of climate change head-on. We need to create connectivity between landscapes that will allow animals like grizzly bears and panthers to migrate and adapt. We can increase the odds that wildlife will survive global warming by reducing other hurdles, like irresponsible oil and gas development. Protecting forests and wetlands also helps clean the air, store carbon, and fight global warming.

As we work to protect our wild legacy, we also need to ensure that we cultivate the next generation of conservationists who will act as good stewards of our outdoor heritage. Our public lands provide an opportunity to build health and happiness among our children. Studies show that when children spend time outdoors, they benefit both physically and academically. Introducing youth and underserved communities to America's Great Outdoors should be a top priority for this administration.

Solutions the Sierra Club has proposed as part of the Great Outdoors Initiative include:

*Implement climate-smart management that protects and restores natural ecosystems, with an emphasis on ten key ecosystems identified by Sierra Club: http://www.sierraclub.org/habitat/ecoregions/

*Protect large core areas from development and connect habitat by protecting migration corridors

*Ensure adequate funding for federal, state, tribal and private-land conservation and wildlife adaptation measures

*Limit non-climate hurdles wildlife face, such as irresponsible oil and gas development.

*Protect old-growth forests and roadless areas on public lands that sequester carbon and help mitigate the effects of climate change.
*Set aside funding to engage young children in outdoor activities and employ older youth through a 21st Century Conservation Corps that will help train youth for good, sustainable jobs in conservation.

*Reach deep into communities to engage young people of color to ensure a more diverse and representative next generation of the conservation movement.

*The Interior Department and Forest Service should team up with health agencies to connect kids with the great outdoors as one solution to the obesity crisis.

*Establish a Presidential Council on Americans and the Great Outdoors to advise the President and offer policy recommendations to address the growing disconnect between Americans and the Great Outdoors.

###

Oliver Bernstein

Senior Communications Strategist

Sierra Club

Phone: 512.477.2152

Cell: 512.289.8618

Obama Unveils New Offshore Drilling Strategy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 31, 2010
CONTACT: Kristina Johnson, 415.977.5619
Josh Dorner, 202.679.7570


Washington, D.C.- In a speech today, President Obama unveiled his new strategy on offshore drilling, which will keep some sensitive coastal areas open for drilling, including the Arctic's Chukchi and Beaufort seas which are of concern because they provide important habitat for polar bears, whales, and other marine life. Much of the South and Mid-Atlantic coasts will also remain open. The new plans will leave Alaska's Bristol Bay off-limits to drilling.

Statement of Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune

"We're very disappointed to see important areas like the Arctic coast and the Mid and South Atlantic stay open to oil drilling.

"What we need is bold, decisive steps towards clean energy, like the new clean cars regulations announced this week--not more dirty, expensive offshore drilling.

"The oil industry already has access to drilling on millions of acres of America's public lands and water. We don't need to hand over our last protected pristine coastal areas just so oil companies can break more profit records.

"Drilling areas like the Arctic threatens marine life like whales and polar bears. Where there is offshore drilling, there is a constant danger of oil spills. One oil spill is all it takes to destroy a coastal tourism economy and the jobs that depend on it.

"Drilling our coasts will doing nothing to lower gas prices or create energy independence. It will only jeopardize beaches, marine life, and coastal tourist economies, all so the oil industry can make a short-term profit.

"President Obama has taken important steps to combat global warming pollution and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Our nation's increasing investment in clean energy and efficiency measures make drilling in sensitive coastal areas even more unnecessary.

"There's no reason to drill our coasts. We can achieve real energy independence and economic vitality by investing in clean energy like wind and solar and efficiency. This kind of power creates good, lasting American jobs and positions our nation to become a global leader in the new clean energy economy."

Obama Unveils New Offshore Drilling Strategy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 31, 2010
CONTACT: Kristina Johnson, 415.977.5619
Josh Dorner, 202.679.7570


Washington, D.C.- In a speech today, President Obama unveiled his new strategy on offshore drilling, which will keep some sensitive coastal areas open for drilling, including the Arctic's Chukchi and Beaufort seas which are of concern because they provide important habitat for polar bears, whales, and other marine life. Much of the South and Mid-Atlantic coasts will also remain open. The new plans will leave Alaska's Bristol Bay off-limits to drilling.

Statement of Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune

"We're very disappointed to see important areas like the Arctic coast and the Mid and South Atlantic stay open to oil drilling.

"What we need is bold, decisive steps towards clean energy, like the new clean cars regulations announced this week--not more dirty, expensive offshore drilling.

"The oil industry already has access to drilling on millions of acres of America's public lands and water. We don't need to hand over our last protected pristine coastal areas just so oil companies can break more profit records.

"Drilling areas like the Arctic threatens marine life like whales and polar bears. Where there is offshore drilling, there is a constant danger of oil spills. One oil spill is all it takes to destroy a coastal tourism economy and the jobs that depend on it.

"Drilling our coasts will doing nothing to lower gas prices or create energy independence. It will only jeopardize beaches, marine life, and coastal tourist economies, all so the oil industry can make a short-term profit.

"President Obama has taken important steps to combat global warming pollution and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Our nation's increasing investment in clean energy and efficiency measures make drilling in sensitive coastal areas even more unnecessary.

"There's no reason to drill our coasts. We can achieve real energy independence and economic vitality by investing in clean energy like wind and solar and efficiency. This kind of power creates good, lasting American jobs and positions our nation to become a global leader in the new clean energy economy."

Poll Shows Voters Ready to Flush $11 Billion Water Bond in November

SACRAMENTO, Feb. 18 – A majority of California voters oppose the $11.1 billion water bond that the Legislature and the Governor have placed on the November ballot, according to a recent statewide poll conducted by Tulchin Research.

Just one-third of likely voters (34%) support the water bond currently, while more than a majority of likely voters (55%) oppose it. That’s a very weak start for a bond measure, and some of the existing support is likely to drop off as a campaign against the bond ramps up later this year, in the view of opponents of the bond, who released the survey results today. (Please see the attached memo from Tulchin Research for more.)

"Voters recognize this bond as bad water policy and bad fiscal policy at a time when California is drowning in red ink," said Jim Metropulos, Senior Advocate with Sierra Club California, part of the campaign opposing the bond measure. "We need clean water and we need a better water policy, but this bond is not going to get us there."

Pollster Ben Tulchin, who conducted the survey, called the results daunting.

"The challenge for backers of this bond is monumental," said Tulchin. “No statewide bond measure has ever won when a majority of voters opposed it at the outset.”

Support was weak in the poll, even among those voting yes, with just 12% saying they would “definitely” vote yes and 4% saying they merely “leaned” in favor. In contrast, there was greater intensity on the "no" side, with a third of all voters polled (32%) saying they would “definitely” vote no.

"This bond hands out billions of dollars to corporations and other special interests at the expense of California taxpayers," said Adam Scow, California Campaigns Director with consumer rights group Food & Water Watch. "It's no surprise that support for the bond is already weak. We expect voters to reject it in November."

A number of prominent environmental, consumer, and environmental justice organizations have already joined the campaign opposing the bond, including the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, Planning and Conservation League, Friends of the River, Food & Water Watch, the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, the Winnemem Wintu tribe, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), Southern California Watershed Alliance, and Restore the Delta.

“We are encouraged to see that voters across California share our view that this bond is a bad deal for taxpayers,” said Tina Andolina, Legislative Director for the Planning and Conservation League.

Andolina noted that cross-tabulated results from the poll show opposition across party and geographic lines. “No demographic group anywhere in the state offers majority support for the bond,” said Andolina. “Voters of all parties oppose it, as do voters in the northern and southern parts of the state and the Central Valley.”

Opponents note that the bond does not provide immediate funding to municipalities or conservation efforts. Low-income communities, many of which live with contaminated drinking water, would receive only a tiny fraction of total bond funds.

In contrast, up to $4 billion of taxpayers’ investment could be used to subsidize large corporate interests, including agribusinesses, that will profit from the projects. $3 billion can be used to construct new dams, and as much as $1 billion can subsidize costly private desalination projects.
Campaign members point out that money to finance the bond will come out of California’s general fund, which also funds education, healthcare, police and fire, and other essential services. The hit on the general fund would be enormous, as much as $800 million per year. Total debt repayment on the bond is expected to top $22 billion over 30 years.

“Instead of building projects we don’t need, we should be fixing local drinking water systems and taking other steps to ensure a safe, reliable water supply for California,” said Scow of Food & Water Watch. “Voters are already signaling that they know this bond is the wrong approach at the wrong time.”

SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA STATEMENT ON GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER’S STATE-OF-THE-STATE ADDRESS

Governor Schwarzenegger took one step toward a green economy and one step back with today’s state-of-the-state address.

By proposing a sales tax exemption for clean-tech manufacturing equipment, the Governor recognized that green jobs can lead our economic recovery. California’s pioneering standards on zero-emission vehicles and renewable energy can attract new jobs to our state.

But his proposal to exempt up to 28 private projects from community challenge under the California Environmental Quality Act represents backward thinking. CEQA provides people in the communities surrounding a proposed project a chance to see the details of a project, the potential alternatives and mitigation measures that would ameliorate the significant impacts of the project on public health, living conditions and the environment. Local people often have excellent knowledge of local conditions, and can make good suggestions for improvement of project design or the most cogent arguments why a project is wholly inappropriate for a particular location. This bill would completely undermine – for the projects it covers -- the ability of local residents to have a real say in what happens to their community, and essentially transfer local land use decisions to a single state agency. Bad planning will hinder, not help, our economic recovery, and we applaud Senate President pro tem Steinberg for saying that there is no need for this legislation.

Bill Magavern, Director, Sierra Club California