Clarity Blog

It was the strangest sort of victory.

Last night’s last-hour squeaker of a vote to delay Proposition 18, the $11 billion California water bond, could be seen as an admission of defeat … well, future defeat anyway.  Had there been confidence campaign funds would roll in and the California electorate would vote “yes” in droves, Sacramento would have been busy with other things yesterday.  Important stuff no doubt, like regulating pet insurance.

But the vote was also a victory, because those who prefer the status quo – an odd mix of environmentalists, Delta residents and fiscal conservatives – were geared up to keep the bond on the November ballot, because they sensed they might be able to stop the state’s biggest step forward on water resource management in decades … if they could force the vote in year when Californians are (finally!) getting concerned about the state’s finances.

So, 2012 now will be the year of the water bond.  In California politics, 2012 is about as far in the future as white-wigged Whigs are in the past.  Who knows what mischief will transpire between now and then?  Well, we have a few ideas:

• Chances are very good that at least one citizen initiative countering the bond will be on the ballot.  It will likely be a greener alternative, but it could also be a more gung-ho one, calling for the fast-tracked construction of more storage and a new  canal. It just depends on who raises enough money to send out the signature-gathering armies.
• Forces will be tearing at the water bond itself.  Expect bills by the boatload in the next legislative sessions, each pushing one constituency’s position forward and another’s back.  So far, the rather miraculous coalition supporting the bond has held together, but can it last two more years?
• Expect wet winters … or dry ones. Who knows? Either way, weather will influence the electorate.
• And oh yeah, expect there to be a presidential race on the 2012 ballot, with all the attention and emotion it will bring.

We are supporters of the bond.  We think “meaty” describes it much better than “porky,” particularly if it’s compared to previous water bonds. We think the state’s water infrastructure has deteriorated to the point where big steps are needed.  We understand that in California, you’re not going to be able to get anything through the legislature that solves everything and does it without some sweeteners thrown in and some necessities thrown out.

In short, we’re willing to settle for the miraculous, even if it’s not the perfect.

Restore the Delta, a rabidly anti-bond group that puts the Delta “sense of place” above the state’s economic vitality, just said, “The problems with the bond will only grow more glaring in time.”

That’s what they fervently hope. Supporters of the bond need to counter this by showing – clearly, conclusively and forcefully – that it’s the problems with the state’s water infrastructure, not the problems with the bond, that are growing more glaring, and at an alarming rate of speed.

The recent State Water Resources Control Board staff report calling for an end-of-life-as-we-know-it level of cuts in water exports from the Delta, bad as it is, is a step in that direction.  Here’s hoping the water bond campaign has the resources, courage and capability to build a solid messaging lead in the next two years, and that the best bond wins.

August 9, 2010

What are the three biggest stories each week in the world of California land development?  You’ll find them right here each Monday, or follow LP&A all week long on Twitter at @LPALand for up-to-the-minute news and analysis.  This week:

1. Will the Drought Contingency Plan squeeze future land uses?

The California Department of Water Resources didn’t go so far as to blame your picket-fenced bit of the ‘burbs for causing the state’s ongoing water crisis, but it is looking at limiting future land uses as part of the solution.  According to its newly released Drought Contingency Plan, “development intensity has a direct relationship to water supply,” and since the state’s thirst for water outstrips available resources, that means builders best prepare for more regulation and limits on what they can do with their property.

>> Read the Full Report

(more…)

What are the three biggest stories each week in the world of California land development?  You’ll find them right here each Monday, or follow LP&A all week long on Twitter at @LPALand for up-to-the-minute news and analysis.  This week:

1. Is Developing Alameda Point worth the hassle?

Alameda Point - What Could Have Been

The city of Alameda voted last week to terminate an exclusive negotiating agreement with SunCal for development of the city’s former Navy base, which closed 15 years ago.  SunCal invested nearly $15 million during its four-year process, but was stymied by ever-changing political winds, a city staff with personal agendas and a public that’s not happy without a fight on its hands.  SunCal came on board in 2006 after a partnership of Shea and Catellus got fed up and walked away, which begs the question:  Is developing Alameda Point worth the hassle?  >>Read More

(more…)

Every week, our water industry clients and more than 500 others turn to LPAWater on Twitter for the latest important news and opinion in the world of water.

The mega-tweet of the week was this one, posted at 4:27 p.m. on July 21:  Draft SWRCB flow recommendations for #SacDelta call for more flow into & thru, particularly in winter & spring – not good for SoCal.

We’ve been waiting for the State Water Resources Control Board to issue its legislature-mandated report on the health of the Sacramento Delta, hoping the Board would highlight the many stressors on the Delta that have nothing to do with water exports (ammonia, invasive species, farm run-off), and to an extent it did just that. But its focus was on the need to dramatically cut water exports to San Joaquin Valley farms and cities from the Bay Area to the border that are dependent on Delta water – specifically, cuts of up to 30% of exports from the Delta and 70% of diversions north of the Delta. Cuts of that magnitude would have dramatic quality of life and economic impacts on Southern California.

Another LPAWater tweet, published Friday at about noon, presented a good response: SF Chron calls for “gradual … shift in #water use thru conservation, tech & better planning,” not harsh cuts. http://tinyurl.com/2v7nobg

We like that idea, and we also like the emphasis the San Francisco Chronicle made that this is a draft study, and is  subject to change.

I remember those blissful days a decade or so ago before the Sacramento Delta settled like a cold, wet blanket over my consciousness.  The bliss!

Now not a day goes by when the Delta (Twitter hashtag #SacDelta) isn’t talked about, thought about, flown over or toured.  It is at the crux of whatever solution we attain for California’s water problems, so it touches policy discussions we have with our water district, land development and municipal clients. It’s simply become the most important place in all of California.

And coming up next Tuesday is an important hearing at the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee (9:30 a.m., State Capitol, room 437) into how things are going with the Delta Stewardship Council and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. These two entities are critical to the answer to one of the most significant policy discussions of our times:  Will California be able to maintain a reliable water supply?  For those of you as interested in the topic as we are, here’s the agenda for the meeting:

A G E N D A

I. Opening Comments

II. Panel 1 – Agency Perspectives

• Lester Snow, Secretary, California Natural Resources Agency
• Phil Isenberg, Chair, Delta Stewardship Council

Panel 2 – BDCP Steering Committee Stakeholders’ Perspectives

• Laura King Moon, State Water Contractors
• Ann Hayden, Environmental Defense Fund
• Melinda Terry, North Delta Water Agency

Panel 3 – Perspectives on Integration: BDCP & Delta Counties’ HCP/NCCPs

• Don Nottoli, Delta Stewardship Council, Delta Protection Commission, Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
• Jim Provenza, Yolo County Board of Supervisors
• Kim Delfino, Defenders of Wildlife

Panel 4 – Other Interested Stakeholders’ Perspectives

• Barry Nelson, Natural Resources Defense Council
• Osha Meserve, Reclamation District 999, Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Association

III. Public Comment

The Water Policy Oracles will be reading the tea leaves on this hearing for some time to come.  We’ll keep you posted on what we hear, mostly via our LPAWater Twitter page.

Amidst a recent hectic afternoon, one of our clients called to pick our brain about what LP&A sees as the latest trends in water agency communications.  Although it admittedly caught us off guard, it’s a great question that couldn’t have been posed at a better time, given the uncertainty of California’s water future and the swirling dynamics of public sentiment.  We share our answer below, but the bottom line is that the old ways of doing business no longer work in today’s changing environment.  Here’s why:

1. Water is no longer an issue that flies under the radar. These days water providers are asking a lot from their customers: Use less, pay more, vote for this (within the advocacy laws), don’t mind that sinkhole or pipe break.  Agencies that foster trusting relationships with their customers through proactive communications will reap the most benefits.

(more…)

We recently attended the Southern California Water Committee board of directors meeting and were very pleased by that group’s early and unanimous support of the $11 billion water bond that will be on this November’s ballot.

Laer Pearce & Associates played a small but important part in getting the comprehensive water legislation passed last November, pulling together a coalition of important local business organizations and taking their pro-water message to Orange County’s Sacramento delegation. We’re proud that an OC senator, Tom Harmon, was the deciding vote in favor of the bond.
(more…)

Let’s say … and I’m just hypothesizing here … that the state legislature decided to raid a water districts’ coffers in an attempt to bail itself out from ballooning deficits. Or that a group of ratepayers placed an initiative on a local ballot that would rescind a water rate increase. Could you, as a public agency, actively campaign against these moves?

Thanks to a recent court decision, Vargas v. City of Salinas, the answer is yes … but only if you define “actively campaign” correctly.

“Express Advocacy” is still out, so what’s in?

In the Salinas case, a few Salinas residents placed an initiative on the ballot,  Measure O, that would have repealed the city’s utility users tax. The city   launched a communications effort to let citizens know the devastating   effect Measure O would have on city finances. The voters voted down the   measure,  and the citizens group sued, claiming the city unlawfully  interfered and used public funds for political purposes. They sought $250,000 from the city.

(more…)

I’m here at the highly anticipated board meeting of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, where they just decided to declare a “Water Supply Allocation Plan Level 2.” This means Met will reduce deliveries to member agencies by 10 percent beginning July 1.

You can hear a collective sigh across the Southland, because this represents a considerable improvement over what water wholesalers and retailers in Met’s service area were anticipating just one month ago.

What Does This Mean For Your Conservation Message and Outreach?

(more…)

If you want effective communications, be an authority first and foremost – not a cheerleader.

In this issue, let’s look at the peripheral canal debate to see how different communication styles can have a huge impact on behavior.

In July, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) published Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which concluded that a peripheral canal was the most promising strategy for saving the Delta and meeting the state’s demand for water. In September, the Pacific Institute countered with More with Less: Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency in California that found that reduced water use by California agriculture could negate the need for a canal.

(more…)