Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Our Klamath Basin
Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
|
JULY 8, 2005 California Farm Bureau Friday
Review, budget and bills California’s new State Budget was approved by the Assembly on vote of 65 to 13 and 34 to 4 in the Senate. The $117 billion spending plan still leaves the so-called structural deficit problems in place and set the stage for the November battle royal over the "California Live Within Our Means Act" that stops the autopilot overspending and forces the state to not spend more than they bring in. Some of the highlights of the State Budget include: • An increase in education spending by $384 per pupil over last fiscal year. • No new taxes although there are approximately $19 million in new civil court filing fees. • $1.3 billion in gasoline sales tax revenues is dedicated for highways and transit projects, fully funding Proposition 42 for the first time since it was approved by voters in 2002. • A $1.2 billion loan from local governments will be repaid a year early, thus reducing the state's obligation for the future. • Cost of living adjustment for the state's CalWORKS program, which provides financial assistance and training to help low-income parents enter the work force, will be frozen two years. Governor Schwarzenegger was forced to give in on several of his proposed spending cuts including shifting the state’s $469 million annual contribution to local school districts for the State Teachers Retirement System. He also could not convince the Democratic leaders to accept a reduction in the state's contribution to in-home supportive services salaries to minimum wage or the $408 million in state worker concessions. The governor is expected to use his line-item veto power to shave millions more from the spending plan before he signs it into law next week. This year's budget also includes an important item of tax bill relief for water right holders in Northeastern California who participate in the California Department of Water Resources' Watermaster Program. Participants pay a portion of the program cost through assessments that appear on their county property tax bills. During the recently ended fiscal year 2004-2005, these assessments doubled from the previous year. For the new fiscal year, the Department of Water Resources intended to dramatically increase these assessments yet again, by $1,441,100 statewide, an average of $895 per participant. However, language included in the budget prohibits any increase in the assessments for this year. California Farm Bureau, several County Farm Bureaus, and numerous Farm Bureau members invested considerable time and effort informing their local officials and state legislators of these threatened increases, and advocating against them. Several county officials were directly involved as well, as was the Regional Council of Rural Counties. Northern California legislators were instrumental in including the relief in the budget. Assemblyman Rick Keene, vice-chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, played a key role, and Assemblyman Doug La Malfa and Senators Dave Cox (author of CFCF sponsored legislation on the watermaster program) and Sam Aanestad all actively supported the effort in important ways and voted in favor of the relief on the Assembly and Senate Floors. Remarkably, the budget is free of unpleasant surprises in the water arena for California farmers and ranchers. The Governor and legislative leaders should be commended for sticking to fiscal issues instead of loading the budget bills up with the kinds of side deals and secret policy provisions that have characterized many previous budgets. This year’s resources trailer bill has a minor item that affects water rights processing at the State Water Resources Control Board, providing the Board an additional year (until January 1, 2008) to complete instream flow regulations for North Coast streams, and securing additional funding to the Board to do this work. The funding relieves pressure at the Water Board to increase the state Water Right Fee to fund this work. CFBF opposed the imposition of the requirement to do the regulations, and is concerned that water right applications in the North Coast area will be delayed further while the Board works on these regulations. Farmers in the San Joaquin Valley scored a big victory in the budget with the full funding of the Central Valley Rural Crime Prevention Program. The Governor’s initial budget proposal only allowed for $1.4 million; thanks to the continued efforts by our Central Valley members, the final budget was raised to $3.3 million for the program. Now that the program is fully funded we need to make sure that the statutory authority for the program continues. The program sunset on July 1st and SB 453 (Poochigian, R-Fresno), the bill to continue the program, has still not been passed by the legislature. SB 453 is currently on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense file and will be heard by the committee in August. CFBF will continue to work on getting this bill passed and signed by the Governor. Proposed pesticide legislation that is opposed by the agricultural community underwent a surprising procedural step this week. Last week, SB 879 (Martha Escutia, D-Whittier) was denied approval by the Assembly Agriculture Committee on a 4-4 vote. When a bill is denied approval, it usually remains in the committee and is given the courtesy of reconsideration so the author can bring it back for another vote, usually after accepting amendments that will assure its passage. Instead, SB 879 was assigned to the Assembly Rules Committee, supposedly with the understanding that it does not move from Rules unless the Chair of the Assembly Agriculture Committee, Barbara Matthews (D- Tracy) is satisfied with the contents of the bill. Negotiations are underway to resolve concerns of the agricultural community, but at this time there are several provisions that are still very troubling. SB 879 mandates that fines be imposed where there is actual health or environmental hazard. There is a concern about how an actual health hazard could be defined, such that an odor complaint (being unpleasant as opposed to a medical threat) could be construed to be included. Agricultural commissioners are meeting with the proponents, industry and other administration representatives trying to find a compromise that assures agricultural commissioners have a clear decision tree to use in imposing pesticide law while not eliminating flexibility in fitting the penalty to the severity of the violation. CFBF is opposed to SB 879 as currently written, but will continue to be involved in the negotiations. |
Home
Page Updated: Thursday May 07, 2009 09:14 AM Pacific
Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2005, All Rights Reserved