Author: SacBee — Opinion

More than 3,000 El Dorado Irrigation District customers have so far filed protests objecting to the EID board’s proposal to raise water and sewer rates a whopping 79 percent over five years.

If the rate increases go through as proposed, the average EID household would pay $336 more for water and sewer services this year and in excess of $600 more annually by 2015. Increases of that magnitude will be difficult for struggling families to absorb. For some businesses, El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce CEO Laurel Brent-Bumb says, the increases will be “catastrophic.”

Last Friday, the chamber wrote a letter asking EID to suspend all rate increase activity for 90 days and to appoint a blue-ribbon panel to study the proposal and consider alternatives. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors has unanimously endorsed the chamber’s request.

The size of the rate hike was not the only thing that troubled supervisors and business leaders. The rate hike notification went out in mid-December and arrived in most customers’ mailboxes between the busy Christmas and New Year holidays when many were too busy to notice. But now that the word is out, tough questions are being raised and rightfully so.

To its credit, the irrigation district appears to have heard its critics and is moving to respond. EID General Manager Jim Abercrombie says district staff will unveil proposals for a scaled-back rate increase when the board meets Monday.

The newest EID proposals will seek to soften the blow on ratepayers in several ways. These include possible salary and benefit reductions for district employees, higher charges for the district’s big hydroelectric customers, and restructuring debt in ways that allow the district to reduce payments to bondholders, at least over the short run.

The changes proposed may not be enough to head off protests aimed at forcing the district to rescind all increases, but they are a necessary first step.

In the absence of exit polls, pundits are reading whatever they want in the Massachusetts Senate race.

But one thing is clear. The switch of a 47-year Democratic seat to Republican control will test the staying power of the now-slimmer governing party in Congress. It will also be a test of the resolve of President Obama, now starting his second year in office.

At stake is the health care reform package. Will the 59-member majority in the Senate and 256-member majority in the House backpedal on this core issue? Or will the majority renew its commitment and show that it can govern effectively by getting a bill to the president?

The 1930s Depression era provides some lessons. Franklin D. Roosevelt faced attacks in his first year in office from the left and right. He could have succumbed to the general spirit of discontent and limited his ambitions for taking on difficult problems. Instead, he embarked on a campaign of persuasion. Congress passed a bold program, including Social Security.

If Obama and the Democratic majority believe their own rhetoric that health care reform is right, they must show their mettle and approve the overhaul. Anything short of that will reveal a shameful lack of courage.

The Senate has passed an amended version of the House bill. The House could simply pass that Senate version and send it to the president to sign. This is where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the other California negotiators, George Miller and Henry Waxman, will have to persuade their members.

It is clear that this is a “now or never” time. No bill is perfect and this one could be improved. For example, Congress needs to get real about reimbursements to states and physicians for services to the elderly and poor.

Ironically, the winning candidate in Massachusetts praised that state’s health reform of 2006: “The plan is not perfect, and we need to get costs down, but we have already achieved near-universal coverage.” He opposed the national bill because he fears added costs for Massachusetts as other states expand coverage. Massachusetts residents will continue to debate whether that state would do better paying the full tab for its one-state reform or benefit from the federal bill.

In the coming California election, Sen. Barbara Boxer will have to defend her stand against whichever challenger emerges, as will every House member. That’s a good thing.

As Massachusetts has shown, state-by-state experimentation has its place. For California and other states, the issue is whether proposed national reforms would be better than the current system. For that, the answer remains “yes” – even after the Massachusetts election.

Chon A. Noriega

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s budget plan has drawn attention to a shocking reversal in state spending priorities over the last generation. Three decades ago, 10.1 percent of the state’s general fund was allocated to higher education, 3.4 percent to prisons.

Today, prisons receive almost 11 percent of the budget, whereas higher education has dropped to 7.5 percent.

This reversal reflects a change in the state’s investment strategy, from educating the next generation of workers to locking them up.

Given the unlikelihood of legislators increasing taxes, we might consider how a solution might be found in the connection between higher education and the prison system. Simply put, admission to the former is perhaps the best deterrent for sentencing to the latter. It will also save lots of money.

The state currently spends $48,214 per prisoner, yet it only spends $7,463 per student in the UC and CSU systems. Imagine if the governor pardoned the state’s 168,000 prisoners and then enrolled them in a four-year college. There would be an immediate savings of $6.8 billion per year.

Clearly such a proposal is impractical. The UC and CSU are not equipped to bring on so many additional students. And, frankly, some prisoners are too dangerous to release into society, let alone higher education.

But let’s imagine that 10 percent of the prison population consists of nonviolent offenders who have an aptitude for higher education and could become contributing members of society. What if these prisoners were converted to college students? There would be an immediate annual savings of $536 million.

Assuming my plan were to be implemented, conversion from prisoner to college student should not be a free ride. These new students should be expected to maintain good grades and behavior, otherwise they would be returned to prison. And once they graduate and enter the work force, they should be required to pay back the public monies used for their education, like a student loan.

So, if the governor and legislature are serious about cutting costs (which seems to be their only tool for dealing with the budget crisis), then here is a simple method for reducing costs, supporting higher education, and lowering recidivism.

Let’s face it: Current expenditures do not add up to a good investment in terms of desired outcomes. California has by far the highest per-inmate incarceration costs, yet it also has the highest recidivism rate in the nation. Seven out of 10 parolees end up back in jail within three years. In this case, increased spending has not increased public safety, nor has it increased parolees’ successful return to society.

On the education front, California ranks 47th in terms of per-student spending, or about 20 percent below the national average. Not surprisingly, California also sends fewer high school graduates to college (about 6 percent below the national average), a fact that will result in a shortage of 1 million workers for California jobs requiring a college degree over the next 15 years. Here, less money equals fewer college graduates entering the work force.

We can, and must, do better on both fronts.

As UC President Mark Yudof has noted, “Having the best prison system in the world is not going to create jobs the way having the best university system will.” California does not have the best prison system in the world, let alone the nation, just the most expensive.

If California is going to reduce recidivism and increase the number of college graduates, it will need to look more closely at its spending priorities. What, exactly, do we want to invest in for the future? Ironically, my modest proposal would work, because higher education is a surefire investment in human potential, an investment that is repaid many times over by the contributions made by alumni. But California has been heading in the other direction: cutting higher education, increasing prison spending, and thereby condemning the next generation.

The fact that I can even make this proposal shows the degree to which our state’s spending priorities are out of whack. The state spends 6.5 times more on a prisoner than it does on a college student going to UCLA, one of the best universities in the world. Even when one adds all the expenses paid by the student and not the state – fees, room and board, books – the cost of prison is still almost 2.5 times more than being enrolled at UCLA.

Put another way, California could send every last prisoner to a UC campus, covering all expenses, and still save nearly $2.3 billion per year. That’s not right.

As the governor himself explained, “Spending 45 percent more on prisons than universities is no way to proceed into the future. What does it say about a state that focuses more on prison uniforms than caps and gowns? It simply is not healthy.”

The dome of the state Capitol is refracted through raindrops during a break in Monday’s showers. Rain is expected for most of the week.

What is the perfect storm for California?

There is no such thing. Every weather system that pushes up flowers also doles out punishment.

Yet for farmers and others vulnerable to drought, the current storms look promising.

After months of middling precipitation amid predictions of a big El Niño year, the Pacific Ocean is finally delivering a fire hose of water to a state that has weathered several dry years.

To top it off, the amped-up jet stream has delivered cold storms – producing not just rain but snow. While some parts of the Sierra haven’t seen huge accumulations yet, the overall precipitation has been robust, with more on the way.

Near the city of Mount Shasta, one weather station recorded 3 inches of rain in the 24 hours leading up to Tuesday afternoon. Above Lake Oroville, another station recorded nearly 3 inches of rain in 24 hours. If that keeps up, these large, depleted reservoirs will rise quickly – although filling them will take many more weeks of wetness.

And that is the delicate balance California confronts. Drought and floods are recurring themes, and sometimes they can happen in the same year. In 1995, the state started out somewhat dry, but then got doused with about 13 inches of rain in a week. The result was record-breaking floods up and down the coast, and high water suddenly surging down through the levee-lined rivers of Sacramento.

Residents of Southern California have so far borne the brunt of the recent storms, with mudslides a persistent threat. Across the state, residents are dealing with power outages, flash floods and downed trees. Even rougher weather is predicted for today.

So what would be the perfect storm?

It would produce lots of snow in the Sierra, and rain that would fall gently, but persistently, for several weeks. It would fill up the state’s reservoirs and percolate into aquifers, but it wouldn’t cause mudslides, power outages or deadly floods.

Limbs would stay on trees, gutters wouldn’t get clogged and hair wouldn’t get frizzed in the high humidity.

It is a nice storm to imagine. But it will never happen.