Letter to Santa Clara County
Environmentalists about the Safe Clean Water Measure
Brian Schmidt
October 4, 2012
As a long time environmentalist with what I hope is some “street
cred” on valuing the environment and knowing the Water District, I urge you, I
beg you, to support the Safe Clean Water measure - Measure B - on the November
ballot and to tell your friends to do the same.
This fall might be our only chance for a decade or longer to get
expanded environmental funding, and it definitely is our best chance based on
what we currently know about future circumstances.
It’s far better than
the funding we have now, and that funding is on its way out
In 2000 voters passed, just barely, the Clean Safe Creeks
funding measure with the support of most environmental groups, and the measure
expires in June 2016. About $15 to $20 million
for environmental funding could be available under this measure, but it’s not
required to be spent on the environment and could end up shifted elsewhere if
Safe Clean Water doesn’t pass.
The new Safe Clean Water measure by contrast has over $20
million in grants for streamside and wetland habitats, $24 million that makes
restoring South Bay tidal wetlands possible, $21 million for removing
contaminants like mercury from our watersheds, $20 million for improving fish
habitat and removing barriers to steelhead, $8 million for implementing the new
County Habitat Conservation Plan, $7 million in pollution prevention grants, and
$2 million in new water conservation programs and projects that encourage use
of drinking water instead of bottled water.
Some of these things would happen anyway without Safe Clean
Water, but some would not or not as extensively, or other worthy projects would
lose funding instead. There are other
good environmental aspects of Safe Clean Water as well, like natural flood
control along San Francisquito Creek, that I haven’t even counted. What is clear is that the original, year 2000
Measure B is going away and will be gone before the next presidential election,
so now is the time to move forward.
This is our best
chance
A special tax like Safe Clean Water requires a two-thirds
majority vote, even just for the purpose of renewing it at the same rate. The Water District did polling in the runup
to the Clean Safe Creeks measure 12 years ago and again for the current Safe
Clean Water measure. In June of this
year, Safe Clean Water polled 69% support, two percent higher than Clean Safe
Creeks did in June 2000.
If Safe Clean Water ends up failing, then one likely
conclusion the Water District may make fopr the future is that if preliminary
polling doesn’t show even higher than 69% support, then don’t go through the planning
process again, which cost over a million dollars this last time. Statistics in non-presidential elections are
not encouraging – 71% of city and special district parcel taxes like this one
failed last June, according to the Calwatchdog website. Younger, more environmentally-oriented voters
and voters of color favor this measure and are far more likely to come out for
the presidential election than the one in November 2014.
After this year there may be other open space funding
measurers, a state water bond measure, and a Palo Alto flooding benefit
district; all of them potentially competing with or reducing support for
renewing the special tax. After June
2016, the existing tax expires, and trying to get people to renew an expired
tax is far more difficult. We simply don’t
know if we have another chance, or if we do whether that other chance will win.
Environmentalists
think long-term
If Safe Clean Water passes, it is likely that in a decade or
so we will be looking at revising and renewing it, just as we are now for Clean
Safe Creeks. As is the case now, renewing
an existing tax in a decade will be easier than starting a new tax. Passing Safe Clean Water now isn’t just a
matter of this decade, but of making funding possible for the next measure. Just as Safe Clean Water is better than Clean
Safe Creeks, I expect the next measure will be better still. For that, we need your help.
If Safe Clean Water fails, the realistic option is to
prepare for reduced environmental funding until there’s another major river
flood, tidal flood, or drought, which could be many years in the future. Before then we might be able to do something
to help environmental funding, but we can’t count on it, let alone that it
would be nearly as much help.
We live in an imperfect world. I’m not suggesting that Safe Clean Water is
perfect and couldn’t have been made better (although there will be chances to
improve it during implementation if it passes).
What I’m asking of the environmental community is that we reach out our
hand and grasp this opportunity in front of us.
Please forward this letter on to any local environmentalists
you know. This letter is only a summary,
and there’s a lot more to discuss for those interested in discussing it. I am happy to talk to you or your friends to
go into those details or to refute misinformation you may have heard (and
acknowledge the occasional correct criticism). You can also get more information at http://yesonsafecleanwater.com/.
Looking forward to the election – please vote YES on Measure
B for Safe Clean Water!
Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt
Director, District 7, Santa Clara Valley Water District
Former Santa Clara County Advocate, Committee for Green
Foothills
Former Board Member, Santa Clara County League of
Conservation Voters
Former staff attorney, Earthjustice
Former co-president, Stanford Environmental Law Society
P.S. If you can do a
little more than just spread the word, please do! Contact me for ideas, or if you can make a
contribution at the website above, that would be incredibly helpful.
Brian has made an excellent summary of the way he honestly sees things.
ReplyDeleteBut there are some of us in the streams community that have higher expectations about applying the science and engineering knowledge in a focused way to restore our streams to ecological health within 15-20 years. If Measure B passes, we will not see our streams restored. But instead we will see many millions of dollars spent, a few very excellent projects built, but the bulk of the money for the environment will be frittered away on feel good projects that don't accomplish real environmental goals.
For another way of looking at things, take a look at:
www.envirosforlivingstreams.org
and watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9cxdpyRjXU
Please watch this and send to all your friends and family who are voters in Santa Clara County
I strongly disagree with some of the accuracy of the information presented at the envirosforlivingstreams website. The ratio of funding between environmental and other programs in Measure B is much higher than it states. It also inaccurately describes a non-existent commitment to a fisheries agreement in 2003 when that proposal was never finalized.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, if Measure B passes, we can do a lot to help the environment, including funding specifically directed at the fisheries problems.