You are on page 1of 4

WATER

Who’s Behind the Bond?


How Proposition 18 Benefits Private Interests over the
Public Good
Fact Sheet • August 2010

C alifornia’s budget is in crisis; lawmakers are struggling to close a $19 billion


deficit that threatens deep cuts to vital public services. But Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger and state legislators want California voters to approve an $11.14 billion
water bond, laden with special interest projects. Instead of focusing on sustainable
long-term water supply and water quality practices, the bond would provide a massive
subsidy to private interests and wasteful projects, including new dams and desalination.1
It’s the wrong approach for California’s water future.

Bankrolling the Pro-Bond Campaign Another significant contributor, Schwarzenegger’s Califor-


nia Dream Team, raises money to support the governor’s
A well-funded campaign has ramped up to promote the agenda, which includes the water bond. For the 2009-
water bond. As of June 2010, more than $1 million had 2010 election cycle, it received funding from a number
poured into the Alliance for Clean Water and New Jobs, of sources, including the energy industry (e.g., $325,000
the main pro-bond political action committee (PAC). Siz- from Occidental Petroleum Company), agribusiness (e.g.,
able contributions came from the construction industry, $35,000 from Steward Resnick, the billionaire owner of
developers, land conservancies and the Western Growers Paramount Farms) and developers (e.g., $150,000 from
Association, a leading agricultural trade group.2 Henry Segerstrom of C.J. Segerstrom & Sons).3

Contributions to the Alliance for Clean Water and New The Nature Conservancy and other land conservancies also
Jobs, the primary Pro-Water Bond PAC (through June 2010) have made large contributions to the pro-bond PAC. (In
Industry Contributor Contribution addition to its direct contributions to the PAC, The Nature
Agriculture Western Growers Association $200,000.00 Conservancy is a major contributor to the Conservation
Issues PAC Action Fund.)4 That may be because these interests could
Construction California Alliance for Jobs – $200,000.00 indirectly receive as much as $1 billion in grants from the
Rebuild California Committee bond for land purchases, ecosystem restoration and related
California Building Industry $50,000.00 projects.5 In addition, Schwarzenegger appointed the direc-
Association
tor of The Nature Conservancy’s California water program
Real-Estate Cypress Management $50,000.00 to the California Water Commission, which would oversee
Development Company, Inc. (Los Angeles
  developer) $3 billion of water bond funds.6
  DeWayne Zinkin (Fresno $5,000.00
developer)
Granville Management, Inc. $15,000.00 Who Benefits?
(Fresno developer)
Land The Conservation Action Fund $210,000.00 Beneficiary: Big Agribusiness
Conservancies The Nature Conservancy $395.00
 
More than half of the water bond could go toward the
Wildlands Support Fund $84,891.60 development of dams, reservoirs and conveyance net-
Schwarzenegger’s California Dream Team, A $200,000.00 works, much of which would benefit the powerful owners
Ballot Measure Committee of Central Valley agricultural land.7 It is therefore unsurpris-
Grand Total  $1,015,286.60 ing that the Western Growers Association, an agricultural
trade association, contributed $200,000 to the pro-bond Who Is Bankrolling the Pro-Water Bond PAC?
campaign.8 Total Contributions: $1 Million
(Conributions to the Alliance for Clean Water and New Jobs
The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, which irrigates Through June 2010)
thousands of acres of rice land and other farms in the
heart of the Sacramento Valley, has long promoted the Developers, 7%
Sites Reservoir, a top candidate for funding.9 Up to $1.7
billion of bond money could go toward the $3.6 billion
project, which would flood the Antelope Valley with Land
water piped from the Sacramento River.10 The Glenn- Conservancies,
Colusa Irrigation District requested that the water bond Agribusiness, 29%
allow the privatization of this dam and similar endeavors, 20%
and legislators granted their request in the original text of
the bond.11 In an attempt to quell opposition to the bond, Governor’s
legislators proposed revising the language in the summer California
of 2010 so that private entities could not control bond- Construction
Dream Team,
funded dams. But as of this writing, that proposal has not Industry, 24%
20%
passed.12 (Private companies can also own other projects,
such as desalination plants.)13

Friant Water Users Authority, representing east San


Joaquin Valley agricultural interests, would benefit from
$16,700 to the California Alliance for Jobs – Rebuild Cali-
the proposed $3.4 billion Temperance Flat Dam near the
fornia Committee, which represents North and Central
existing Friant Dam, where Governor Schwarzenegger
California’s heavy construction industry and is a major
signed the bond legislation.14 The project, a top contender
funder of the pro-bond campaign.25
for funding, could receive as much as $437 million from
the water bond, even though its cost-effectiveness is Despite the large expenditures, the bond will not neces-
questionable.15 It would produce only one-seventh of the sarily promote hometown businesses. Local companies
water currently delivered by the Friant Dam while de- received none of the major contracts for the Fish Passage
stroying habitats and Native American sites.16 East Valley Improvement Project at the Red Bluff Division Dam,
farms would receive up to three-quarters of this water, but which would receive $60 million from the water bond.26
their owners balk at paying a proportionate amount of the
cost.17
Beneficiary: Warren Buffett
The Westlands Water District and the $1 billion agricul- The water bond earmarks $250 million to remove four
tural operations it serves in the dry western part of the San dams on the Klamath River, and another $20 million for
Joaquin Valley exerted considerable influence over the “economic development” in Siskiyou County to soften
water bond legislation.18 Although the bond snubs one the blow of losing the dams there.27 Pacificorp, a power
of the district’s pet projects, expanding the Shasta Dam,19 subsidiary of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, owns
it provides billions of dollars to other dams and projects these dams. While restoring the river is certainly a worth-
aimed at sending more water from the Delta to the district while endeavor, it is questionable whether taxpayers
and the rest of the Central Valley.20 This includes as much should be footing the bill to rectify the damage done for
as $1.5 billion to lay the groundwork for the develop- the private profit of Schwarzenegger’s billionaire friend.28
ment of a massive multi-billion-dollar tunnel or periph-
eral canal around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.21
Beneficiary: Cadiz, Inc.
Westlands also could seek bond money to help pay for its
planned $3.2 million desalination plant, which will turn Cadiz, Inc., would be able to access water bond funding
salty drainage water into irrigation water.22 for its dubious groundwater bank.29 The $200 million proj-
ect involves taking water from the Colorado River to store
Beneficiary: The Construction Industry underground in the Mojave Desert so that Cadiz could
later resell the river water along with native groundwater
The bond would generate considerable new business for at a profit to Southern California communities. Eight years
builders and engineers who develop new water infrastruc- ago, the Metropolitan Water District rejected a similar
ture. For example, the water bond gives $100 million to proposal because of environmental and cost concerns.30
San Diego County for raising the height of the San Vicente Cadiz’s plan could over-pump the aquifer and damage the
Dam, which will more than double the size of the res- desert ecosystem.31
ervoir there.23 This money would flow into the hands of
the county’s private contractors, including the Shimmick
Beneficiary: American Water Company
Construction Company and Obayashi Corporation, a
large Japanese company.24 During the 2007-2008 election California-American Water, a subsidiary of the nation’s
cycle, the Shimmick and its joint ventures contributed largest water company, could apply for bond money
to build an expensive desalination plant in Monterey handouts. In fact, last fall Schwarzenegger defended the
County.32 The state Division of Ratepayer Advocates has cost of the water bond at the same time as he called for
lambasted the $400 million project, saying it will lead to cuts to public services to resolve the state’s growing bud-
“unacceptably high costs, unfair risks and a lack of ac- get deficit.44
countability to Monterey Peninsula ratepayers.” 33 House-
hold water bills could double.34
Help Stop the Bond and Demand
Beneficiary: Poseidon Resources Better Water Policies
Poseidon Resources could access the water bond to Food & Water Watch and our coalition partners are work-
subsidize its ocean desalination projects in Carlsbad ing hard to spread the word about this wasteful bond. Join
and Huntington Beach.35 In fact, State Assemblymember us to help defeat the bond and advocate for water policies
Mary Salas promoted the Carlsbad plant as a candidate that benefit all Californians.
for funding.36 The $646 million plant in Carlsbad and the
$350 million plant in Huntington Beach will be energy-
intensive and environmentally destructive, and Poseidon’s
plans have been riddled with controversy and delay.37 For more information:
Bay Area:
Who’s Left Out? The Public Adam Scow, ascow@fwwatch.org

The water bond would provide massive subsidies to dams Central Valley:
and other projects that primarily benefit powerful cor- Noelle Ferdon, nferdon@fwwatch.org
porate interests, leaving little assistance for the taxpayers
who must foot the bill. Only 1 percent ($113 million) to Los Angeles and Santa Barbara:
3 percent ($303 million) of the bond funding is set aside Renee Maas, rmaas@fwwatch.org
for disadvantaged communities that need the most help,38
and only 2 percent ($250 million) is set aside for water Visit our website:
conservation and water use efficiency projects,39 the most www.foodandwaterwatch.org/no-water-bond
cost-effective way to improve the long-term sustainability Phone: (415) 293-9900
of our water resources. The bond does not fund real solu-
tions to California’s water problems. Paid for by Consumer Advocates Against the Bond,
Sponsored by Food & Water Watch. FPPC ID# 1324966
The Public Pays
The water bond would stick California taxpayers with $22
billion or more of debt that would take decades to pay off.
It would suck as much as $800 million a year out of the Endnotes
state’s General Fund and away from public services, like 1 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79810(a); Office of the
education, public safety and health care.40 Governor of the State of California.Governor’s Budget, May Revision 2010-
11. May 14, 2010 at 3; Taugher, Mike and Paul Rogers. “Schwarzenegger
calls for $11 billion water bond to be pulled from November ballot.” Contra
Instead of funding basic public services, the governor’s Costa Times. June 29, 2010; Buchanan, Wyatt. “Schwarzenegger moves to
pull water bond measure.” The San Francisco Chronicle. June 30, 2010.
legislative agenda has prioritized irresponsible corporate 2 California Secretary of State. Cal-Access. Campaign Finance. Available at
cal-access.sos.ca.gov, accessed July 7, 2010; Western Growers Association.
“About us.” Available at www.wga.com, accessed July 12, 2010; Madigan,
Nick. “Industrial art.” Reed Business Information Grid, vol. 4, no. 2. March
2002; Benjamin, Marc. “Granville Homes eyes former Clovis City Hall site.”
A Better Use of State Funds The Fresno Bee. July 13, 2009; Schultz, E.J. “6-story office building takes
shape in Fresno, Calif.” The Fresno Bee. November 1, 2005.
3 California Secretary of State. Cal-Access. Campaign Finance. Available at cal-
If the bond passes, it will drain $800 million a access.sos.ca.gov, accessed June 28, 2010.
year from the state’s General Fund. How could 4 California Secretary of State. Cal-Access. Campaign Finance. Available at cal-
access.sos.ca.gov, accessed June 28, 2010.
that money otherwise be spent? It could fund: 5 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79750 to §79761; Sul-
livan. Colin. “Split enviro groups ready to rumble over $11B water-bond
referendum in Calif.” The New York Times. May 27, 2010; McGreevy, Patrick.
• A quarter of the University of California sys- “Proposed water bond is laden with sweeteners for lawmakers.” Los Angeles
Times. November 18, 2009.
tem’s state funding;41 6 Office of the Governor of the State of California. [Press Release]. “Gov.
Schwarzenegger announces appointments to Water Commission, Sacramen-
to-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy.” May 14, 2010.
• Nearly four years of state funding, without cuts, 7 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79720.1(a)(6), §79721,
to the Healthy Families program, which pro- §79722(d), §79740(b); California Council of Land Trusts Board of Directors
and Policy Committee. “Introduction to Water Bond.” Memo to the California
vides health insurance to 900,000 children in Land Trusts. February 8, 2010 at 6 to 7; Schultz, E.J. “Water overhaul looks
the state;42 or like win for Valley farmers.” The Fresno Bee. November 4, 2009; Boxall, Bet-
tina. “Dam project would be largest in decades.” Los Angeles Times. March
9, 2010.
• 13,000 elementary school teachers’ salaries.43 8 California Secretary of State. Cal-Access. Campaign Finance. Available at
cal-access.sos.ca.gov, accessed June 28, 2010; Western Growers Association.
“About us.” Available at wga.com, accessed July 12, 2010.
9 Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. “Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District back- officials find project results fishy.” Chico Enterprise-Record. May 21, 2010.
ground.” Available at www.GCID.net/GCIDbackground.html, accessed July 27 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79757 and §79758; Buchan-
8, 2010; California Council of Land Trusts Board of Directors and Policy an, Wyatt. “Water bond serves ‘pork.’” The San Francisco Chronicle. November
Committee. “Introduction to Water Bond.” Memo to the California Land 15, 2009; “A dam deal.” San Francisco Chronicle. February 20, 2010.
Trusts. February 8, 2010 at 6 to 7; Cogdill, Dave. “State senator responds.” 28 “A dam deal.” San Francisco Chronicle. February 20, 2010; Barnard, Jeff.
The Fresno Bee. November 19, 2009; Buchanan, Wyatt. “State bond lets “Oregon’s Klamath Basin deal helps farmers and fish.” The Associated Press.
firms profit from water.” The San Francisco Chronicle. December 27, 2009. February 18, 2010; Walters, Dan. “Size, pork may sink California water
10 California Water Plan. Surface Storage- CALFED. Volume 2. Resource Man- plan.” Contra Costa Times. November 13, 2009; Walters, Dan. “California’s
agement Strategies, Chapter 12. 2009 Update at 12-12; Weiser, Matt. “Dam politicos dig deeper hole.” Sacramento Bee. March 7, 2010.
is different, water battle isn’t.” Sacramento Bee. September 8, 2009. 29 Bond funding is available to partnering water agencies and Fenner Mutual
11 Buchanan, Wyatt. “State bond lets firms profit from water.” The San Francisco Water Company, which Cadiz created to facilitate the project. See: Proposed
Chronicle. December 27, 2009; Proposed California Water Code Division California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79714, §79741(b) and §79741(c);
26.7 §79749(b). Cadiz, Inc. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Form 8-K. Exhibit
12 As of this writing, the amendment was awaiting passage by the State Senate. 10.1. June 25, 2010 at 2 and 9; McGreevy, Patrick. “Proposed water bond
See California State Assembly Bill No. 2775. June 29, 2010; Young, Saman- is laden with sweeteners for lawmakers.” Los Angeles Times. November 18,
tha. “California lawmakers seek fix to $11b water bond.” The San Francisco 2009; Cadiz, Inc. “Breaking news- CA legislature passes major water bond
Chronicle. June 18, 2010. proposal.” November 4, 2009.
13 Proposed California Water Code Division 26.7 §79714. 30 Cadiz, Inc. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Form 10-K. March 15,
14 California Water Plan. Surface Storage- CALFED. Volume 2. Resource Man- 2010 at 1 to 5; Cadiz, Inc. U.S. Securities Exchange Commission. Form 8-K.
agement Strategies, Chapter 12. 2009 Update at 12-12; McFarland, J. Ran- Exhibit 10.1 June 23, 2010 at 1 to 3; Danelski, David. “Cadiz Valley desert
dall. Friant Water Authority. “Fraint Booklet Information.” December 2009; water-storage plan renewed.” The Press-Enterprise. September 28, 2008;
Boxall, Bettina. “Dam project would be the largest in decades.” Los Angeles Hiltzik, Michael. “This deal was all wet the last time.” Los Angeles Times.
Times. March 9, 2010; “Remarks from Governor’s press conference to sign June 11, 2009; Taub, Daniel. “Cadiz study shows enough water in desert for
SBbx7 2 to reform and rebuild California’s water system.” US State News. 400,000 (update2).” Business Week. February 8, 2010.
November 9, 2009; Schultz, E.J. “Dam plan for Valley a distant dream.” 31 Fine, Howard. “Chasing mirage?” Los Angeles Business Journal. June 15,
Fresno Bee. November 21, 2009. 2009; “Underground water storage plan draws fresh concern.” The Desert
15 California Water Plan. Surface Storage- CALFED. Volume 2. Resource Man- Sun. June 7, 2009.
agement Strategies, Chapter 12. 2009 Update at 12-12; Cogdill, Dave. “State 32 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79714 and §79780(b); “Edi-
senator responds.” The Fresno Bee. November 19, 2009; Burke, Garance. torial: Monterey County deserves cut of water bond funds.” The Monterey
“Calif. governor pushes $11B water bond plan, dams.” The Associated Press. County Herald. April 14, 2010; Hornick, Mike. “Monterey Peninsula water
November 10, 2009; California Council of Land Trusts Board of Directors ratepayers talk cost to Public Utilities Commission.” The Californian. June 30,
and Policy Committee. “Introduction to Water Bond.” Memo to the California 2010; American Water Works Company, Inc. U.S. Securities and Exchange
Land Trusts. February 8, 2010 at 6 to 7.
Commission. Form 10-K. March 1, 2010 at 3 and Exhibit 21.1.
16 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region
33 Division of Ratepayer Advocates. [Press Release]. “DRA opposes Monterey
and the State of California, Department of Water Resources. “Upper San
regional desalination agreement.” March 30, 2010; California Public Utilities
Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation, Plan Formulation Report.” October
Commission. “DRA Testimony on the settlement agreement by and among
2008 at 3-49,5-28,5-36 to 5-53 and 5-55; U.S. Department of the Interior,
California American Water Company, Monterey County Water Resources
Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region and the State of California,
Agency, Marina Coast Water District, Monterey Regional Water Pollu-
Department of Water Resources. “Temperance Flat River Mile 274 Dam and
tion Control Agency, Surfrider Foundation and the Public Trust Alliance.”
reservoir site selected for detailed study.” Study Update. June 2009; Schultz,
(Application 04-09-019). April 30, 2010 at 4-27; California Public Utilities
E.J. “Dam plan for Valley a distant dream.” Fresno Bee. November 21, 2009.
Commission. “Settling parties’ motion to approve settlement agreement.”
17 Boxall, Bettina. “Dam project would be largest in decades.” Los Angeles
(Application 04-09-019). April 7, 2010 at 6, Exhibit 1 at 10 and Attachment 1
Times. March 9, 2010; Rodriquez, Robert. “Water bond on tap.” The Fresno
at Exhibit C.
Bee. January 16, 2010; Schultz, E.J. “Dam plan for Valley a distant dream.”
34 California Public Utilities Commission. “Comments of the Division of Ratepay-
Fresno Bee. November 21, 2009.
er Advocates on the proposed settlement agreement.” (Application 04-09-019).
18 Grossi, Mark. “Westlands Water District a powerful player.” The Fresno Bee.
April 30, 2010 at 63; Hornick, Mike. “Monterey Peninsula water ratepayers
November 9, 2009.
talk cost to Public Utilities Commission.” The Californian. June 30, 2010.
19 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79741(a); California Public
35 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79714 and §79780(b); San
Resources Code. §5093.542(c); California Council of Land Trusts Board of
Diego County Water Authority. “Fact sheet: 2010 water bond.” March 2010;
Directors and Policy Committee. “Introduction to Water Bond.” Memo to the
California Department of Water Resources, Division of Integrated Regional
California Land Trusts. February 8, 2010 at 5; Darling, Dylan. “Shasta Dam
Water Management. “South Coast Integrated Water Management.” California
expansion plan: Flood of concerns.” The Record-Searchlight. February 19,
Water Plan Update 2009, Vol. 3 Regional Reports. (Bulletin 160-09). 2009 at
2007.
SC-47; Larson, Mark. “With bond sales imminent, Poseidon moves on desal
20 Westlands Water District. [Press Release.] “Thanks for passage of comprehen-
project.” San Diego Business Journal. November 30, 2009.
sive water legislation.” November 4, 2009; Chandler, Jenna. “East side water
36 Salas, Mary. “Reaching the finish line on California water.” San Diego News
at risk if water bond pulled from ballot.” Porterville Recorder. July 1, 2010;
Network. November 19, 2009.
Westlands Water District. “Westlands Water District and San Luis Water
37 Burris, Annie. “H.B. denies protesters delay on Poseidon plan.” The Orange
District Transfers and Related Exchanges. Initial Study and Environmental
County Register. June 4, 2010; Wood, Tracy. “Desal plant inching toward
Checklist.” June 2010 at 2-3; Schultz, E.J. “Water overhaul looks like win for
reality in Huntington Beach.” Voice of Orange County. June 11, 2010;
Valley farmers.” The Fresno Bee. November 4, 2009; Wiser, Matt. “Dam is
“Carlsbad encounters another hurdle.” Water Desalination Report. June 14,
different, water battle isn’t.” The Sacramento Bee. September 8, 2009; Grossi,
2010; Wilson, Janet. “Poseidon’s desalinization plant: Dream water supply or
Mark. “Westlands Water District a powerful player.” The Fresno Bee. Novem-
draining the Pacific and taxpayers?” DC Bureau. May 11, 2010; Sforza, Teri.
ber 9, 2009.
“Public agency to pay for desalination.” Orange County Register. November
21 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79731(b); Westlands Water
15, 2009; Fletcher, Jaimee Lynn. “Garamendi say she opposes desalination
District. [Press Release.] “Thanks for passage of comprehensive water legisla-
plant projects.” Orange County Register. September 2, 2009.
tion.” November 4, 2009; California Natural Resources Agency, Bay Delta
38 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79720.2, §79720.4(b),
Conservation Plan. “BDCP Status Update 3.” June 2010; Schultz, E.J. “Water
§79722.5 and §79770(2).
overhaul looks like win for Valley farmers.” The Fresno Bee. November 4,
39 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79784.
2009; Taugher, Mike and Paul Rogers. “Schwarzenegger calls for $11 billion
40 Assumes 30-year general obligation bonds with a 5 percent to 6 percent in-
water bond to be pulled from November ballot.” Contra Costa Times. June
terest rate. California Legislative Analyst’s Office. “Debt service information.”
29, 2010; Jones, Donna. “Peripheral canal? Californians to weigh in on Delta
October 30, 2009 at 3; Lockyer, Bill. California State Treasurer’s Office. “Sta-
question.” Santa Cruz Sentinel. April 8, 2010; Kimitch, Rebecca. “Debate
tus report on California’s bond debt. Assembly Budget Hearing.” December
over $11.1 billion water bond begins.” San Gabriel Valley Tribune. April
14, 2009 at 4; Wiegan, Steve. “Bipartisan package: Water plan OK’d – will
17, 2010; Zito, Kelly. “Roos-Collins withdraws from delta panel.” The San
voters sign on?” Sacramento Bee. December 11, 2009; “State water bill full
Francisco Chronicle. July 7, 2010.
of pork.” The Monterey County Herald. November 10, 2009.
22 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79780 and §79783; “San
41 State of California. Governor’s Budget 2010-11. Revised Budget Detail.
Joaquin Valley salt water pollution targeted.” Central Valley Business Times.
Higher Education. 6440 University of California. May 14, 2010.
March 28, 2010; “Westlands: $3.2M desal plant to address water woes.” The
42 The California Healthy Families Program. [Press Release]. “State Children’s
Fresno Business Journal. March 22, 2010.
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization update.” February 9,
23 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79720.1(f); San Diego Coun-
2009; State of California. Governor’s Budget 2010-11. Proposed Budget De-
ty Water Authority. “2010 Water Bond.” March 2010; Salas, Mary. “Reaching
tail. Entire Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board Budget. January 8, 2010
the finish line on California water.” San Diego News Network. November 19,
at HHS 3.
2009; Gardner, Michael. “Water bond to rain money on local dam.” The San
43 Average income for a California elementary school teacher, excluding special
Diego Union-Tribune. November 22, 2009.
education, is $61,773.64. California Employment Development Depart-
24 San Diego County Water Authority. “Emergency storage project update.” June
ment. “Summary guide for elementary school teachers, except special educ
2010 at 2; “RCC – on the up – the San Vicente Dam raise project.” Water
in California.” (SOC Code: 25-2021.) Labor Market Info. Available at www.
Power & Dam Construction. May 1, 2010.
labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov, accessed July 13, 2010.
25 California Secretary of State. Cal-Access. Campaign Finance. Available at
44 Yamamura, Kevin. “Water Bond; governor defends boosting debt load.”
cal-access.sos.ca.gov, accessed June 28, 2010; California Alliance for Jobs.
Sacramento Bee. November 13, 2009.
“Who we are.” Available at rebuildca.org/who.html, accessed July 13, 2010.
26 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79760; Lor, Tan. “Canal