Tomorrow, the State Park and Recreation Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the Governor’s proposal to close 48 State Parks, as a way to address the State’s significant budget problems. You heard that correctly: Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed closing 48 State Parks, as a way to address the state’s budget shortfall. He also proposes service cutbacks at other State Park facilities, specifically including a reduction in lifeguard coverage on the very popular beaches of California’s Central Coast.

In the Central Coast Region, the following State Park facilities would be closed: Fort Ord Dunes State Park; William Randall Hearst Memorial State Beach; San Simeon State Park; Portola Redwoods State Park; Morro Strand State Beach; Los Osos Oaks State Reserve; Henry W. Coe State Park, and Montaña de Oro State Park. Lifeguard services would be reduced at:

• New Brighton State Beach
• Seacliff State Beach
• Manresa State Beach
• Sunset State Beach, and
• Natural Bridges State Beach

These State Beaches currently have over five and a half million visitors each year.

If you’d like to weigh in on this proposal, consider attending the hearing tomorrow. It will start at 6:00 p.m. at the Board Chambers in the Santa Clara County Government Center in San Jose. There’s a call in number in the transcript for today’s Land Use Report, so you can confirm that the hearing will in fact be held.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

State Park & Recreation Commission
http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=843

Details on State Park closures
http://www.savestateparks.org/facts/park-closures.html

California State Park Foundation Website
http://www.calparks.org/

Save Our State Parks Campaign
http://www.savestateparks.org/

To check that the hearing tomorrow is still "on," contact the State Parks Foundation – (916) 442-2119

The State Water Project conveys water from Northern California to the Central Valley and Southern California. A similar facility, operated by the federal government, is called the "Central Valley Project." Both of these water transfer facilities get their water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Thanks to a lawsuit against the State Department of Water Resources, brought by the Planning and Conservation League, the State Water Project must now produce a periodic "Water Project Reliability Report." This report is intended to provide an accurate prediction of the amount of water that the State Water Project will actually be able to deliver. Before the PCL lawsuit, the Department of Water Resources led water agencies to believe that it could deliver far more water than it actually could. This so-called "paper water" was then counted upon as an available water supply, and was used to justify development approvals in Central Valley and Southern California locations.

The latest edition of the "Water Project Reliability Report" reveals that the State Water Project will deliver 20 to 30 percent less water to agricultural, commercial, and residential users than it had estimated in 2005. This should change the expectations of developers and agricultural water users alike. It should also highlight the need for state legislation like Assembly Bill 2153, which would require all new development to be "water neutral" by 2014.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

California Progress Report Article
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/
2008/03/bursting_the_wa.html

State Water Project Water Reliability Report
http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/swpreliability/

Assembly Bill 2153 (Krekorian)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2151-
2200/ab_2153_bill_20080324_amended_asm_v98.pdf

Yesterday, I talked just briefly about Assembly Bill 2153, sponsored by the Planning and Conservation League. Legislation like this is vitally needed, to make sure that continuing new development doesn’t outrun available water supplies.

One reason that it’s possible to "overbuild," and to develop new water demands when there actually isn’t enough water to support the development, is the availability of groundwater. Groundwater is like a water "savings account." Unless inflows to the groundwater basin match withdrawals, the use of groundwater is like spending life savings for current needs. This works fine on a temporary basis, for an emergency, but fails as a long-term strategy. Ultimately, continued groundwater overdraft destroys the groundwater basin itself. We can see that happening, locally, in the Pajaro area.

Unfortunately, the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, put in place to solve our groundwater overdraft problem, is kind of "overdrafted" itself. Ironically, the Agency was looking to the Central Valley for a new water supply, instead of devising a plan to live within currently available local resources. A real fiscal crisis for the Agency has resulted.

You can get more information on AB 2153, and on the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Metro Santa Cruz Article on the PVWMA
http://www.metrosantacruz.com/metro-santa-cruz/
04.02.08/features-0814.html

Assembly Bill 2153 (Krekorian)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2151-
2200/ab_2153_bill_20080324_amended_asm_v98.pdf

PVWMA Website
http://www.pvwma.dst.ca.us/

Two ballot measures appearing on the June ballot will have a profound impact on the future of land use in the State of California. Since land use policies themselves have a profound impact on our economy, and on our environment, and on our ability to reach our social equity objectives, it’s not a stretch to say that the June election may be even more important for the future of California than the national Presidential election in November.

If you have not already started reading up on Propositions 98 and 99, I want to encourage you to start doing that now. As usual, I’ve placed some helpful links in the written transcript to today’s Land Use Report, found on the KUSP website.

Proposition 98 calls itself the "California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act," and the brief ballot summary speaks of "limits on government authority." This sounds pretty "positive," unless you know what’s going on. In fact, Proposition 98 would radically rewrite the California Constitution, and would eliminate, as a practical matter, the ability of state and local government to adopt land use regulations to advance the public interest. Specifically, Proposition 98 would eliminate rent control, which is one reason that Proposition 98 is being so heavily funded by mobilehome park owners.

I’ll have more on Proposition 98, and on Proposition 99, tomorrow.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Official Information on Proposition 98
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title_sum/
prop_98_title_sum.shtml

Official Information on Proposition 99
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title_sum/
prop_99_title_sum.shtml

Proposition 98/99 Comparison Chart
http://www.no98yes99.com/images/
sidebyside.prop98.prop99.pdf

No on 98/Yes on 99 Website
http://www.no98yes99.com/

Yes on Proposition 98 Website
http://yesprop98.com/

League of California Cities
http://www.cacities.org/index.jsp?displaytype=11
&zone=locc&section=&sub_sec=&tert=&story=27077

California League of Conservation Voters
http://www.ecovote.org

The Environmental Impacts of Proposition 98
http://www.no98yes99.com/go/get-the-facts/
prop.-98-guts-protections-for-our-land
%2c-air%2c-wildlife-and-coastlines/

If you would like to get involved in the "No" on 98 / "Yes " on 99 campaign, you can contact the regional organizer working in the Monterey Bay Area at dsessums@cacities.org; telephone: 831-429-6605.

Proposition 98, calling itself the "California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act," would radically rewrite the California Constitution to eliminate most local government land use regulation.

Specifically, the measure prohibits laws and regulations that "transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner." The courts have ruled that virtually all environmental regulations and land use decisions are likely to impose costs on the affected party, while transferring economic benefits to others – i.e., to members of the public. Thus, Proposition 98 would gut all sorts of laws and regulations that protect our environment and regulate growth and development. Proposition 98 would also eliminate rent control, which is why Proposition 98 is so heavily funded by landlords and mobilehome park owners.

Proposition 99 is the "safe and sane alternative" to Proposition 98. Proposition 99 would limit the eminent domain powers of state and local government, to prohibit governments from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer. The sponsors of Proposition 99, which include the League of California Cities and the California League of Conservation Voters, claim that Proposition 99 would provide "Real Eminent Domain Reform, Without Hidden Agendas or Adverse Consequences."

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Official Information on Proposition 98
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title_sum/
prop_98_title_sum.shtml

Official Information on Proposition 99
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title_sum/
prop_99_title_sum.shtml

Proposition 98/99 Comparison Chart
http://www.no98yes99.com/images/
sidebyside.prop98.prop99.pdf

No on 98/Yes on 99 Website
http://www.no98yes99.com/

Yes on Proposition 98 Website
http://yesprop98.com/

League of California Cities
http://www.cacities.org/index.jsp?displaytype=11&
zone=locc&section=&sub_sec=&tert=&story=27077

California League of Conservation Voters
http://www.ecovote.org

The Environmental Impacts of Proposition 98
http://www.no98yes99.com/go/get-the-facts/
prop.-98-guts-protections-for-our-land%2c-air
%2c-wildlife-and-coastlines/

If you would like to get involved in the "No" on 98 / "Yes " on 99 campaign, you can contact the regional organizer working in the Monterey Bay Area at dsessums@cacities.org; telephone: 831-429-6605.