In last Friday’s inaugural address, Governor Schwarzenegger likened himself to Paul on the road to Damascus, stating that his Special Election in 2005 was “an experience that opened (his) eyes.” This illuminating moment showed him that Californians were hungry for a new kind of politics “beyond the old labels, the old ways, the old arguments.”

Indeed, during the 2006 legislative session Schwarzenegger appeared genuinely converted. Over the summer he helped craft an infrastructure bond package for over $40 billion, including funds for affordable housing, smart growth planning and a suite of cost-effective water management projects that enjoyed broad bi-partisan support.

In September, he joined with his colleagues across the aisle to approve the first legislation in the country requiring a statewide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Voters applauded his bold action to protect California’s economy, health, and environment from the impacts of Global Warming.

This spirit of bi-partisanship continued with the Governor’s pre-inaugural “Leading the Green Dream" event on the lawn of the State Capitol last week. The climate-neutral celebration drew together state agencies, businesses, and non-profits to showcase popular environmental trends including new hybrid vehicles, organic food samples, urban forestry programs, and inexpensive emission offset programs for plane and car travel. 

But alas, just as Schwarzenegger begins his second term, he seems to have encountered a political hiccup.

Sources inside the Capitol say that the Governor’s “State of the State” speech this evening will include one item requested by a small band of wealthy partisan supporters: a multi-billion dollar bond to fund construction of new dams in Central California. 

While all Californians would pay for the concrete, steel, labor, and land, the projects would provide subsidized water to a handful of large-scale corporate agribusinesses.

Federal cost-effectiveness studies for the two dams won’t be completed for several years. Insiders say the studies are delayed because the economists can’t make the proposals pencil out.

And given that the Legislature, Governor, and California voters have chosen to invest billions of dollars over the next several years on widely embraced money-saving projects like water conservation, water recycling, and clean-up of polluted groundwater, taking on future debt for partisan pet projects seems more than a little fiscally imprudent. 

Not surprisingly, both proposed projects also carry heavy environmental costs.

The Temperance Flat Reservoir would be located upstream of Friant Dam on California’s second largest river, the mighty San Joaquin. Diversions from Friant Dam already cause a sixty mile stretch to run completely dry in most years. In 2006, a coalition of environmental and fishing organizations led by NRDC settled an eighteen-year lawsuit which returns water back to the San Joaquin. Additional dams above Friant Dam could jeopardize the carefully crafted settlement and leave the river dry for decades.

Sites Reservoir in Colusa County would remove water from the Sacramento River, reducing flows into the California Delta. Water exports from the Delta to Central and Southern California have contributed to the near extinction of several aquatic species. Reducing flows into the Delta would likely push those populations out of the ecosystem and into the history books.

Why has the Governor deviated from his new type of bi-partisan politics when he received such strong support for his successes in 2006?

Will the Governor seriously fight for this dam proposal given his already ambitious plans to tackle health care, prison overcrowding, and implementation of the Global Warming legislation he signed just three months ago?

And what will happen to the Governor’s reputation and effectiveness if his agenda is hijacked by his partisan supporters?

As the story goes, after Paul was blinded by a heavenly light, scales fell from his eyes and he saw the world anew. Perhaps the proposal to dam California’s rivers is one scale that has yet to fall.

The Governor’s presentation of the State Budget on Wednesday may shed more light on the subject. Stay tuned for details!

The California Air Resources Board is soliciting suggestions for “Early Actions,” policies and activities that public agencies could undertake during the next several years to help meet the greenhouse gas emission reductions required under AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Pavley & Nuñez). 

Here’s a taste of our brainstorming:

• How about charging higher registration fees for higher emitting cars and lower registration for lower emitting cars?
• Why not require cities and counties to include a Climate element in their General Plans?
• Couldn't the state Capitol go climate neutral as a symbol of the State's commitment?
• Wouldn’t a State-sponsored campaign to reward local, organic farmers with “Local Means Less Global Warming” message help consumers weigh the impacts of different purchasing options?

What about your ideas? We know that in your daily work you likely see hundreds of opportunities that could help the State cut down its global warming pollution.

Send your suggestions to PCL’s Matt Vander Sluis (mvander@pcl.org, 916-313-4515). From detailed technical fixes to pie in the sky dreaming, we’ll pass them along!

This year’s Symposium offers updates on hot environmental issues and provides training sessions to give you the skills you need to be effective in the sophisticated world of environmental policy change.

Mark your calendars for Saturday, April 14th at the Sacramento Convention Center.