With the state legislature returning from summer recess, the proposal to impose a statewide tax on drinking water could return before the end of the current legislative year on August 31.
The proposed tax on drinking water was introduced in 2017 by Sen. Bill Monning (SB 623). The primary purpose of the bill was to fund solutions in some disadvantaged communities without access to safe drinking water, which are primarily located in rural areas in the Central Valley. In September of 2017, the Assembly Appropriations Committee moved the bill to the Assembly Rules Committee, where it currently remains as a two-year bill. The proposal would have generated roughly $110 million per year through a 95-cent monthly fee on home water bills as well as taxes on businesses of up to $10 per month. Another $30 million would come from higher fees on agricultural and dairy businesses, industries whose chemicals contribute to the problem of contaminated groundwater.
I’ve argued it’s a very bad idea because it is the proverbial camel’s-nose-under-the-tent: It surely would be the first step towards more taxes on public drinking water.
Keep in mind, there’s money available from other sources — such as the state’s general fund — that could be used for contaminated groundwater remediation. The quick and dirty answer to this problem is that the people who caused the contamination are the ones who should at the head of the line to pay for its remediation.
The main contaminant is 1, 2, 3-TCP. It’s a man-made chemical, used historically in industrial cleaning solvents and some soil fumigant pesticides. It’s also a recognized carcinogen that may cause cancer after long-term exposure. It has been found in groundwater sources, primarily in the Central Valley. Pursuant to a new regulation, it now requires that more than 4,000 public water systems statewide to begin quarterly sampling for 1,2,3-TCP in their drinking water sources.
In January of 2018, the Brown Administration proposed a budget trailer bill that was very similar to SB 623. In June, the Budget Conference Committee decided not adopt the budget trailer bill after Gov. Jerry Brown abandoned the bone-headed idea that would have taxed water for the first time in California history.
I said it was a very bad idea because it was the proverbial camel’s-nose-under-the-tent: It surely would be the first step towards more taxes on public drinking water.
In reaching the deal to abandon the universally unpopular tax, Brown and legislative leaders agreed to spend $5 million from the general fund to deal with lead in drinking water at child care centers.
They also plan to allocate $23.5 million from the general fund for various safe drinking water provisions as the legislative year is wrapped up shortly. However, backers of the statewide water tax, a strange bedfellow coalition of agriculture and dairy interests and environmentalist groups, may try to advance their proposal through SB 623 or another legislative vehicle.
I’ll keep an eye on the situation and get back to you if there are any developments of interest.
Library consolidation 3rd Election Issue
As I’ve said a number of times, the Supes’ action incorporating three separate departments/programs — the Library, Museum, and County Parks — into a new department, the Cultural Services Agency (CSA) was a huge mistake. Their bungling in the library caper created a prodigious issue that resonates with voters throughout the county, but especially in the 3rd District which is headquarters for two extremely active “Friends of the Public Library” groups in Laytonville and Covelo..
In this space I said that it’s never a good idea for elected officials to pick a fight with an advisory board they created for the specific purpose of giving them advice.
It’s considered good public policy to encourage citizens to participate in the governing process and volunteer their time and share their expertise to assist the decision-makers in making their decisions.
It’s considered bad public policy when elected officials go out of their way to insult and vilify the very folks they appointed to serve as an advisory conduit to them.
This past week, John Haschak, candidate for the 3rd District seat in the November election, released a statement that squarely puts him on the right side of the Library issue, in other words, he understands you don’t pick a fight with folks who are a powerful political bloc.
Haschak said, “Mendocino County wants open and transparent government. Recently many people were disappointed that the Board of Supervisors approved the Cultural Services Agency, a new county department that combines the Library, County Museum and parks. The supervisors made this move disregarding the advice of their advisory boards, the public and Friends of the Libraries. The Board of Supervisors acted as if they didn’t care what people think. Their willful disregard for the public and of volunteer citizens who try to enhance our community is cause for concern. Mendocino County’s current and past Board of Supervisors approved an asphalt plant in a flood plain, overly complex cannabis rules and a Cultural Services Agency without considering the effect on its people. This behavior has to stop.”
Amen.
Jim Shields is the Mendocino County Observer’s editor and publisher, and is also the long-time district manager of the Laytonville County Water District. Listen to his radio program “This and That” every Saturday at noon on KPFN 105.1 FM, also streamed live: http://www.kpfn.org