Government officials disagree with conservation mandate

                State legislators in Nevada County strongly disagree with the recently approved water bond.  This bond is expected to go to voters in November of 2010.  The newly passed water bond will require a 20 percent decrease in water use for all of California.  Although this bill would cost $11.1 billion for water projects around the state, less than one percent of the funds would affect this region. 

                The main objection from the lawmakers arises not from the financial burden, but from the mandated water reductions.  Assemblyman Dan Logue remarked that the 20% cutback was a problem.  He then theorized that the water would just be shipped to Southern California. 

                These officials support more building of dams and reservoirs, to retain more water from the rainy season.  The bond, however, has 75% of the funding allocated to everything other than water storage. 

                The main objections arise when the lawmakers look at the long-term effect of the bill.  It will likely increase water storage to some extent, but the state population has risen from 16 million in the 1950’s to over 37 million people in 2009.  However, the state water resources have not increased at all.  If anything, the water California has received is actually in decline.  If other lawmakers want to achieve 20% reduction in water usage state-wide, they need to write a bill that focuses on water conservation as opposed to Delta protection, groundwater protection, drought relief, and regional strategies.

View the original article at:


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s