Despite the efforts of Senate leadership late in the 2009 session, the Delta water package is still not the right solution to solve California’s water crisis.

The Legislature declined to take the package up for a vote on the last day of session for good reason, and so far, the package has not improved.

First and foremost, the policy bill was linked with an irresponsible, $12 billion General Obligation Bond that:

Provided $3 billion to build environmentally harmful dams, the most expensive and least effective water supply option;
Creates a debt service of $800 million per year for 30 years, meaning $800 million in additional cuts to services and programs funded by the General Fund.

Second, the Delta Policy bill language contained several problematic features, including;

The establishment of the legally undefined “co-equal goals” as a policy imperative that will create even more uncertainty and litigation around the Delta’s water supply.
The creation of a “Delta Stewardship Council” in the same mold as the late CALFED Bay Delta Authority – an additional layer of bureaucracy that lacks the authority to direct actions in the Delta and the funding to pay for needed actions.
Ineffective mechanisms to achieve 20% urban water conservation target by 2020.

Finally, the Delta Policy omitted actions that are vital for saving the Delta, such as

State Agency reform. Agencies such as the State Water Board and the Department of Fish and Game already have the authority to take the actions needed to save the Delta, including making in-stream flow determinations.
The need to address third-party impacts. Everyone agrees that Delta actions will impact the environment, communities and jobs, yet the legislation is silent on all issues except for legally required mitigation.
A sustainable funding mechanism. Fixing the Delta is expensive, and requires a long-term financial plan that includes new revenue sources, such as well-defined fees, revenue bonds, and federal funds.

What California Can Do Now!!

Instead of taking a hasty vote on this half-baked package, the Legislature should demand that the administration tap the nearly $300 million authorized in 2008 for emergency actions in the Delta (SB2x1, 2008). These funds can be used NOW to immediately begin restoring the Delta, while allowing the legislature the time needed to develop a smarter policy and funding package.

YOU can help by contacting your legislators and urge them to vote NO on this terrible water package. Please do so by clicking here.

Printer-friendly fact sheet

Sierra Club California is part of a coalition urging a comprehensive solution to our state's water management problems, including fixing the Delta. To see our recommendations, click here.

RAISING THE STATE'S STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE POWER - 33% BY 2020

Solar Press Conference July 1, 2009 -- California once led the world in renewable energy. We have the power to take back the lead.

The state's so-called renewable-energy portfolio standard (RPS) law (AB 32 of 2006) sets the goal of deriving 20% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2010. In November the governor issued an executive order calling for 33% by 2020.

As it stands, though, our state's three investor-owned utilities (PG&E, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric) will probably miss the 20% target.

That's why Sierra Club California believes the state should reform our RPS law to help protect climate, improve air quality, and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

Other states have adopted RPS laws and made significant strides in building renewable energy. In 2007 Texas reached a total installed wind capacity of over 5,000 megawatts. That same year California built only 60 megawatts of wind turbines - a dismal performance. Making California a leader again will require significant reforms in the RPS law to remove current regulations that have a built-in bias against renewable energy, and to replace these with rules that support the clean-energy goals.

Although efforts to pass legislation to boost the RPS goal and to make reforms in the program failed last year, Sierra Club California continues to lobby for more renewable power. We are pleased that Speaker Karen Bass has appointed an RPS working group to develop legislation for 2009. This group continues to meet regularly with Sierra Club California and other stakeholders in Sacramento, soliciting our ideas and listening to our concerns about reforming the RPS law.

Sierra Club California has a lot to say about RPS. The legislature needs to ratify the goal of 33% renewable-power. To meet our current goal, and work to 33% by 2020 and 50% or more in the future, Sierra Club California supports the following.

Adopt feed-in tariffs setting fixed contract terms and prices for each green technology, to provide a more stable incentive structure, freeing investors and developers from risks and uncertainties.

Include municipal utilities such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and Alameda Municipal Power. These should be held to the same renewable-power standards as the investor-owned utilities.

Expand RPS to allow for innovation and energy-recovery systems. To foster breakthroughs, the RPS should include innovative, less-well-known technologies and all thermal, kinetic, pressure, and osmotic sources of electricity using little or no fossil fuel.

Expand Community Choice. Sierra Club activists favor Community Choice clean-energy plans (like that being planned in Marin) to allow cities to get over half their electricity from renewables. The RPS law should help and not hinder these local efforts to increase renewable-power generation.

Above all, in upgrading California's RPS law we must guard against efforts to undermine it in the name of reform. We oppose changing the definition to allow large hydropower to be considered as renewable. California offers very limited protection in its current renewable law, but does restrict the size of small hydros to 30 megawatts, and forbids new impoundments of water - hardly sufficient to protect water resources and aquatic life.

Utilities should not get renewable-power credit for their energy-efficiency efforts. While we have always supported energy efficiency, we believe the RPS should instead encourage investment in new sources of clean renewable power, while other programs focus on energy efficiency.

Not all energy sources labeled under current law as "renewable" are equally sustainable in terms of environmental impacts or energy supply. Even renewable energy can have adverse impacts. For example, poor environmental practices at the Altamont wind site in Northern California have resulted in excessive bird kills. The impact and sources of biofuels, large-scale development of solar power in the desert, and toxic materials in solar panels should be addressed and standards developed for proper use of resources. Utilities don't always consider those problems during environmental review.

As we power up California's standards, we need to ensure that we do not lose valuable resources, and that we do nothing to harm the environment we are striving to protect and improve. As lawmakers address our concerns, we move closer to a RPS for California that leads the way toward sustainable, smart development of renewable energy.

Senate Bill 14 by Senator Joe Simitian will be heard in the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee on Monday June 29. Assembly Bill 64 by Assemblymember Paul Krekorian will be heard in the Senate Energy Committee on Tuesday June 30.

Letter to the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee for Senate Bill 14 (6/24/09)

Letter to the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee for Asssembly Bill 64 (03/27/09)

Letter To Gov. Schwarzenegger: We need more renewable energy (7/22/08)

>>>Click here to learn more about Sierra Club California's priorities for 2009 …

How does your representative rate?

View Our 2008 California Legislative Report Card!