WATER

Who’s Behind the Bond?

How Proposition 18 Benefits Private Interests over the
Public Good
Fact Sheet • August 2010

C alifornia’s budget is in crisis; lawmakers are struggling to close a $19 billion

deficit that threatens deep cuts to vital public services. But Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger and state legislators want California voters to approve an $11.14 billion
water bond, laden with special interest projects. Instead of focusing on sustainable
long-term water supply and water quality practices, the bond would provide a massive
subsidy to private interests and wasteful projects, including new dams and desalination.1
It’s the wrong approach for California’s water future.

Bankrolling the Pro-Bond Campaign Another significant contributor, Schwarzenegger’s Califor-

A well-funded campaign has ramped up to promote the
water bond. As of June 2010, more than $1 million had
poured into the Alliance for Clean Water and New Jobs,
the main pro-bond political action committee (PAC). Siz-
able contributions came from the construction industry,
developers, land conservancies and the Western Growers
Association, a leading agricultural trade group.2
nia Dream Team, raises money to support the governor’s
agenda, which includes the water bond. For the 2009-
2010 election cycle, it received funding from a number
of sources, including the energy industry (e.g., $325,000
from Occidental Petroleum Company), agribusiness (e.g.,
$35,000 from Steward Resnick, the billionaire owner of
Paramount Farms) and developers (e.g., $150,000 from
Henry Segerstrom of C.J. Segerstrom & Sons).3

Contributions to the Alliance for Clean Water and New The Nature Conservancy and other land conservancies also
Jobs, the primary Pro-Water Bond PAC (through June 2010) have made large contributions to the pro-bond PAC. (In
Industry Contributor Contribution addition to its direct contributions to the PAC, The Nature
Agriculture Western Growers Association $200,000.00 Conservancy is a major contributor to the Conservation
Issues PAC Action Fund.)4 That may be because these interests could
Construction California Alliance for Jobs – $200,000.00 indirectly receive as much as $1 billion in grants from the
Rebuild California Committee bond for land purchases, ecosystem restoration and related
California Building Industry $50,000.00 projects.5 In addition, Schwarzenegger appointed the direc-
Association
tor of The Nature Conservancy’s California water program
Real-Estate Cypress Management $50,000.00 to the California Water Commission, which would oversee
Development Company, Inc. (Los Angeles
  developer) $3 billion of water bond funds.6
  DeWayne Zinkin (Fresno $5,000.00
developer)
Granville Management, Inc. $15,000.00 Who Benefits?
(Fresno developer)
Land The Conservation Action Fund $210,000.00 Beneficiary: Big Agribusiness
Conservancies The Nature Conservancy $395.00
 
More than half of the water bond could go toward the
Wildlands Support Fund $84,891.60 development of dams, reservoirs and conveyance net-
Schwarzenegger’s California Dream Team, A $200,000.00 works, much of which would benefit the powerful owners
Ballot Measure Committee of Central Valley agricultural land.7 It is therefore unsurpris-
Grand Total  $1,015,286.60 ing that the Western Growers Association, an agricultural
trade association, contributed $200,000 to the pro-bond
campaign.8
The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, which irrigates
thousands of acres of rice land and other farms in the
heart of the Sacramento Valley, has long promoted the
Sites Reservoir, a top candidate for funding.9 Up to $1.7
billion of bond money could go toward the $3.6 billion
project, which would flood the Antelope Valley with
water piped from the Sacramento River.10 The Glenn-
Colusa Irrigation District requested that the water bond
allow the privatization of this dam and similar endeavors,
and legislators granted their request in the original text of
the bond.11 In an attempt to quell opposition to the bond,
legislators proposed revising the language in the summer
of 2010 so that private entities could not control bond-
funded dams. But as of this writing, that proposal has not
passed.12 (Private companies can also own other projects,
such as desalination plants.)13
Friant Water Users Authority, representing east San
Joaquin Valley agricultural interests, would benefit from
the proposed $3.4 billion Temperance Flat Dam near the
existing Friant Dam, where Governor Schwarzenegger
signed the bond legislation.14 The project, a top contender
for funding, could receive as much as $437 million from
the water bond, even though its cost-effectiveness is
questionable.15 It would produce only one-seventh of the
water currently delivered by the Friant Dam while de-
stroying habitats and Native American sites.16 East Valley
farms would receive up to three-quarters of this water, but
their owners balk at paying a proportionate amount of the
cost.17
The Westlands Water District and the $1 billion agricul-
tural operations it serves in the dry western part of the San
Joaquin Valley exerted considerable influence over the
water bond legislation.18 Although the bond snubs one
of the district’s pet projects, expanding the Shasta Dam,19
it provides billions of dollars to other dams and projects
aimed at sending more water from the Delta to the district
and the rest of the Central Valley.20 This includes as much
as $1.5 billion to lay the groundwork for the develop-
ment of a massive multi-billion-dollar tunnel or periph-
eral canal around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.21
Westlands also could seek bond money to help pay for its
planned $3.2 million desalination plant, which will turn
salty drainage water into irrigation water.22
Beneficiary: The Construction Industry
The bond would generate considerable new business for
builders and engineers who develop new water infrastruc-
ture. For example, the water bond gives $100 million to
San Diego County for raising the height of the San Vicente
Dam, which will more than double the size of the res-
ervoir there.23 This money would flow into the hands of
the county’s private contractors, including the Shimmick
Construction Company and Obayashi Corporation, a
large Japanese company.24 During the 2007-2008 election
cycle, the Shimmick and its joint ventures contributed
Who Is Bankrolling the Pro-Water Bond PAC?
Total Contributions: $1 Million
(Conributions to the Alliance for Clean Water and New Jobs
Through June 2010)
Developers, 7%
Land
Conservancies,
Agribusiness, 29%
20%
Governor’s
California
Construction
Dream Team,
Industry, 24%
20%
$16,700 to the California Alliance for Jobs – Rebuild Cali-
fornia Committee, which represents North and Central
California’s heavy construction industry and is a major
funder of the pro-bond campaign.25
Despite the large expenditures, the bond will not neces-
sarily promote hometown businesses. Local companies
received none of the major contracts for the Fish Passage
Improvement Project at the Red Bluff Division Dam,
which would receive $60 million from the water bond.26
Beneficiary: Warren Buffett
The water bond earmarks $250 million to remove four
dams on the Klamath River, and another $20 million for
“economic development” in Siskiyou County to soften
the blow of losing the dams there.27 Pacificorp, a power
subsidiary of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, owns
these dams. While restoring the river is certainly a worth-
while endeavor, it is questionable whether taxpayers
should be footing the bill to rectify the damage done for
the private profit of Schwarzenegger’s billionaire friend.28
Beneficiary: Cadiz, Inc.
Cadiz, Inc., would be able to access water bond funding
for its dubious groundwater bank.29 The $200 million proj-
ect involves taking water from the Colorado River to store
underground in the Mojave Desert so that Cadiz could
later resell the river water along with native groundwater
at a profit to Southern California communities. Eight years
ago, the Metropolitan Water District rejected a similar
proposal because of environmental and cost concerns.30
Cadiz’s plan could over-pump the aquifer and damage the
desert ecosystem.31
Beneficiary: American Water Company
California-American Water, a subsidiary of the nation’s
largest water company, could apply for bond money
to build an expensive desalination plant in Monterey
County.32 The state Division of Ratepayer Advocates has
lambasted the $400 million project, saying it will lead to
“unacceptably high costs, unfair risks and a lack of ac-
countability to Monterey Peninsula ratepayers.” 33 House-
hold water bills could double.34
Beneficiary: Poseidon Resources
Poseidon Resources could access the water bond to
subsidize its ocean desalination projects in Carlsbad
and Huntington Beach.35 In fact, State Assemblymember
Mary Salas promoted the Carlsbad plant as a candidate
for funding.36 The $646 million plant in Carlsbad and the
$350 million plant in Huntington Beach will be energy-
intensive and environmentally destructive, and Poseidon’s
plans have been riddled with controversy and delay.37
Who’s Left Out? The Public
The water bond would provide massive subsidies to dams
and other projects that primarily benefit powerful cor-
porate interests, leaving little assistance for the taxpayers
who must foot the bill. Only 1 percent ($113 million) to
3 percent ($303 million) of the bond funding is set aside
for disadvantaged communities that need the most help,38
and only 2 percent ($250 million) is set aside for water
conservation and water use efficiency projects,39 the most
cost-effective way to improve the long-term sustainability
of our water resources. The bond does not fund real solu-
tions to California’s water problems.
The Public Pays
The water bond would stick California taxpayers with $22
billion or more of debt that would take decades to pay off.
It would suck as much as $800 million a year out of the
state’s General Fund and away from public services, like
education, public safety and health care.40
Instead of funding basic public services, the governor’s
legislative agenda has prioritized irresponsible corporate
A Better Use of State Funds
If the bond passes, it will drain $800 million a
year from the state’s General Fund. How could
that money otherwise be spent? It could fund:
• A quarter of the University of California sys-
tem’s state funding;41
• Nearly four years of state funding, without cuts,
to the Healthy Families program, which pro-
vides health insurance to 900,000 children in
the state;42 or
• 13,000 elementary school teachers’ salaries.43
handouts. In fact, last fall Schwarzenegger defended the
cost of the water bond at the same time as he called for
cuts to public services to resolve the state’s growing bud-
get deficit.44
Help Stop the Bond and Demand
Better Water Policies
Food & Water Watch and our coalition partners are work-
ing hard to spread the word about this wasteful bond. Join
us to help defeat the bond and advocate for water policies
that benefit all Californians.
For more information:
Bay Area:
Adam Scow, ascow@fwwatch.org
Central Valley:
Noelle Ferdon, nferdon@fwwatch.org
Los Angeles and Santa Barbara:
Renee Maas, rmaas@fwwatch.org
Visit our website:
www.foodandwaterwatch.org/no-water-bond
Phone: (415) 293-9900
Paid for by Consumer Advocates Against the Bond,
Sponsored by Food & Water Watch. FPPC ID# 1324966
Endnotes
1 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79810(a); Office of the
Governor of the State of California.Governor’s Budget, May Revision 2010-
11. May 14, 2010 at 3; Taugher, Mike and Paul Rogers. “Schwarzenegger
calls for $11 billion water bond to be pulled from November ballot.” Contra
Costa Times. June 29, 2010; Buchanan, Wyatt. “Schwarzenegger moves to
pull water bond measure.” The San Francisco Chronicle. June 30, 2010.
2 California Secretary of State. Cal-Access. Campaign Finance. Available at
cal-access.sos.ca.gov, accessed July 7, 2010; Western Growers Association.
“About us.” Available at www.wga.com, accessed July 12, 2010; Madigan,
Nick. “Industrial art.” Reed Business Information Grid, vol. 4, no. 2. March
2002; Benjamin, Marc. “Granville Homes eyes former Clovis City Hall site.”
The Fresno Bee. July 13, 2009; Schultz, E.J. “6-story office building takes
shape in Fresno, Calif.” The Fresno Bee. November 1, 2005.
3 California Secretary of State. Cal-Access. Campaign Finance. Available at cal-
access.sos.ca.gov, accessed June 28, 2010.
4 California Secretary of State. Cal-Access. Campaign Finance. Available at cal-
access.sos.ca.gov, accessed June 28, 2010.
5 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79750 to §79761; Sul-
livan. Colin. “Split enviro groups ready to rumble over $11B water-bond
referendum in Calif.” The New York Times. May 27, 2010; McGreevy, Patrick.
“Proposed water bond is laden with sweeteners for lawmakers.” Los Angeles
Times. November 18, 2009.
6 Office of the Governor of the State of California. [Press Release]. “Gov.
Schwarzenegger announces appointments to Water Commission, Sacramen-
to-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy.” May 14, 2010.
7 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79720.1(a)(6), §79721,
§79722(d), §79740(b); California Council of Land Trusts Board of Directors
and Policy Committee. “Introduction to Water Bond.” Memo to the California
Land Trusts. February 8, 2010 at 6 to 7; Schultz, E.J. “Water overhaul looks
like win for Valley farmers.” The Fresno Bee. November 4, 2009; Boxall, Bet-
tina. “Dam project would be largest in decades.” Los Angeles Times. March
9, 2010.
8 California Secretary of State. Cal-Access. Campaign Finance. Available at
cal-access.sos.ca.gov, accessed June 28, 2010; Western Growers Association.
“About us.” Available at wga.com, accessed July 12, 2010.
9 Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. “Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District back-
ground.” Available at www.GCID.net/GCIDbackground.html, accessed July
8, 2010; California Council of Land Trusts Board of Directors and Policy
Committee. “Introduction to Water Bond.” Memo to the California Land
Trusts. February 8, 2010 at 6 to 7; Cogdill, Dave. “State senator responds.”
The Fresno Bee. November 19, 2009; Buchanan, Wyatt. “State bond lets
firms profit from water.” The San Francisco Chronicle. December 27, 2009.
10 California Water Plan. Surface Storage- CALFED. Volume 2. Resource Man-
agement Strategies, Chapter 12. 2009 Update at 12-12; Weiser, Matt. “Dam
is different, water battle isn’t.” Sacramento Bee. September 8, 2009.
11 Buchanan, Wyatt. “State bond lets firms profit from water.” The San Francisco
Chronicle. December 27, 2009; Proposed California Water Code Division
26.7 §79749(b).
12 As of this writing, the amendment was awaiting passage by the State Senate.
See California State Assembly Bill No. 2775. June 29, 2010; Young, Saman-
tha. “California lawmakers seek fix to $11b water bond.” The San Francisco
Chronicle. June 18, 2010.
13 Proposed California Water Code Division 26.7 §79714.
14 California Water Plan. Surface Storage- CALFED. Volume 2. Resource Man-
agement Strategies, Chapter 12. 2009 Update at 12-12; McFarland, J. Ran-
dall. Friant Water Authority. “Fraint Booklet Information.” December 2009;
Boxall, Bettina. “Dam project would be the largest in decades.” Los Angeles
Times. March 9, 2010; “Remarks from Governor’s press conference to sign
SBbx7 2 to reform and rebuild California’s water system.” US State News.
November 9, 2009; Schultz, E.J. “Dam plan for Valley a distant dream.”
Fresno Bee. November 21, 2009.
15 California Water Plan. Surface Storage- CALFED. Volume 2. Resource Man-
agement Strategies, Chapter 12. 2009 Update at 12-12; Cogdill, Dave. “State
senator responds.” The Fresno Bee. November 19, 2009; Burke, Garance.
“Calif. governor pushes $11B water bond plan, dams.” The Associated Press.
November 10, 2009; California Council of Land Trusts Board of Directors
and Policy Committee. “Introduction to Water Bond.” Memo to the California
Land Trusts. February 8, 2010 at 6 to 7.
16 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region
and the State of California, Department of Water Resources. “Upper San
Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation, Plan Formulation Report.” October
2008 at 3-49,5-28,5-36 to 5-53 and 5-55; U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region and the State of California,
Department of Water Resources. “Temperance Flat River Mile 274 Dam and
reservoir site selected for detailed study.” Study Update. June 2009; Schultz,
E.J. “Dam plan for Valley a distant dream.” Fresno Bee. November 21, 2009.
17 Boxall, Bettina. “Dam project would be largest in decades.” Los Angeles
Times. March 9, 2010; Rodriquez, Robert. “Water bond on tap.” The Fresno
Bee. January 16, 2010; Schultz, E.J. “Dam plan for Valley a distant dream.”
Fresno Bee. November 21, 2009.
18 Grossi, Mark. “Westlands Water District a powerful player.” The Fresno Bee.
November 9, 2009.
19 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79741(a); California Public
Resources Code. §5093.542(c); California Council of Land Trusts Board of
Directors and Policy Committee. “Introduction to Water Bond.” Memo to the
California Land Trusts. February 8, 2010 at 5; Darling, Dylan. “Shasta Dam
expansion plan: Flood of concerns.” The Record-Searchlight. February 19,
2007.
20 Westlands Water District. [Press Release.] “Thanks for passage of comprehen-
sive water legislation.” November 4, 2009; Chandler, Jenna. “East side water
at risk if water bond pulled from ballot.” Porterville Recorder. July 1, 2010;
Westlands Water District. “Westlands Water District and San Luis Water
District Transfers and Related Exchanges. Initial Study and Environmental
Checklist.” June 2010 at 2-3; Schultz, E.J. “Water overhaul looks like win for
Valley farmers.” The Fresno Bee. November 4, 2009; Wiser, Matt. “Dam is
different, water battle isn’t.” The Sacramento Bee. September 8, 2009; Grossi,
Mark. “Westlands Water District a powerful player.” The Fresno Bee. Novem-
ber 9, 2009.
21 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79731(b); Westlands Water
District. [Press Release.] “Thanks for passage of comprehensive water legisla-
tion.” November 4, 2009; California Natural Resources Agency, Bay Delta
Conservation Plan. “BDCP Status Update 3.” June 2010; Schultz, E.J. “Water
overhaul looks like win for Valley farmers.” The Fresno Bee. November 4,
2009; Taugher, Mike and Paul Rogers. “Schwarzenegger calls for $11 billion
water bond to be pulled from November ballot.” Contra Costa Times. June
29, 2010; Jones, Donna. “Peripheral canal? Californians to weigh in on Delta
question.” Santa Cruz Sentinel. April 8, 2010; Kimitch, Rebecca. “Debate
over $11.1 billion water bond begins.” San Gabriel Valley Tribune. April
17, 2010; Zito, Kelly. “Roos-Collins withdraws from delta panel.” The San
Francisco Chronicle. July 7, 2010.
22 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79780 and §79783; “San
Joaquin Valley salt water pollution targeted.” Central Valley Business Times.
March 28, 2010; “Westlands: $3.2M desal plant to address water woes.” The
Fresno Business Journal. March 22, 2010.
23 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79720.1(f); San Diego Coun-
ty Water Authority. “2010 Water Bond.” March 2010; Salas, Mary. “Reaching
the finish line on California water.” San Diego News Network. November 19,
2009; Gardner, Michael. “Water bond to rain money on local dam.” The San
Diego Union-Tribune. November 22, 2009.
24 San Diego County Water Authority. “Emergency storage project update.” June
2010 at 2; “RCC – on the up – the San Vicente Dam raise project.” Water
Power & Dam Construction. May 1, 2010.
25 California Secretary of State. Cal-Access. Campaign Finance. Available at
cal-access.sos.ca.gov, accessed June 28, 2010; California Alliance for Jobs.
“Who we are.” Available at rebuildca.org/who.html, accessed July 13, 2010.
26 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79760; Lor, Tan. “Canal
officials find project results fishy.” Chico Enterprise-Record. May 21, 2010.
27 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79757 and §79758; Buchan-
an, Wyatt. “Water bond serves ‘pork.’” The San Francisco Chronicle. November
15, 2009; “A dam deal.” San Francisco Chronicle. February 20, 2010.
28 “A dam deal.” San Francisco Chronicle. February 20, 2010; Barnard, Jeff.
“Oregon’s Klamath Basin deal helps farmers and fish.” The Associated Press.
February 18, 2010; Walters, Dan. “Size, pork may sink California water
plan.” Contra Costa Times. November 13, 2009; Walters, Dan. “California’s
politicos dig deeper hole.” Sacramento Bee. March 7, 2010.
29 Bond funding is available to partnering water agencies and Fenner Mutual
Water Company, which Cadiz created to facilitate the project. See: Proposed
California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79714, §79741(b) and §79741(c);
Cadiz, Inc. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Form 8-K. Exhibit
10.1. June 25, 2010 at 2 and 9; McGreevy, Patrick. “Proposed water bond
is laden with sweeteners for lawmakers.” Los Angeles Times. November 18,
2009; Cadiz, Inc. “Breaking news- CA legislature passes major water bond
proposal.” November 4, 2009.
30 Cadiz, Inc. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Form 10-K. March 15,
2010 at 1 to 5; Cadiz, Inc. U.S. Securities Exchange Commission. Form 8-K.
Exhibit 10.1 June 23, 2010 at 1 to 3; Danelski, David. “Cadiz Valley desert
water-storage plan renewed.” The Press-Enterprise. September 28, 2008;
Hiltzik, Michael. “This deal was all wet the last time.” Los Angeles Times.
June 11, 2009; Taub, Daniel. “Cadiz study shows enough water in desert for
400,000 (update2).” Business Week. February 8, 2010.
31 Fine, Howard. “Chasing mirage?” Los Angeles Business Journal. June 15,
2009; “Underground water storage plan draws fresh concern.” The Desert
Sun. June 7, 2009.
32 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79714 and §79780(b); “Edi-
torial: Monterey County deserves cut of water bond funds.” The Monterey
County Herald. April 14, 2010; Hornick, Mike. “Monterey Peninsula water
ratepayers talk cost to Public Utilities Commission.” The Californian. June 30,
2010; American Water Works Company, Inc. U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission. Form 10-K. March 1, 2010 at 3 and Exhibit 21.1.
33 Division of Ratepayer Advocates. [Press Release]. “DRA opposes Monterey
regional desalination agreement.” March 30, 2010; California Public Utilities
Commission. “DRA Testimony on the settlement agreement by and among
California American Water Company, Monterey County Water Resources
Agency, Marina Coast Water District, Monterey Regional Water Pollu-
tion Control Agency, Surfrider Foundation and the Public Trust Alliance.”
(Application 04-09-019). April 30, 2010 at 4-27; California Public Utilities
Commission. “Settling parties’ motion to approve settlement agreement.”
(Application 04-09-019). April 7, 2010 at 6, Exhibit 1 at 10 and Attachment 1
at Exhibit C.
34 California Public Utilities Commission. “Comments of the Division of Ratepay-
er Advocates on the proposed settlement agreement.” (Application 04-09-019).
April 30, 2010 at 63; Hornick, Mike. “Monterey Peninsula water ratepayers
talk cost to Public Utilities Commission.” The Californian. June 30, 2010.
35 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79714 and §79780(b); San
Diego County Water Authority. “Fact sheet: 2010 water bond.” March 2010;
California Department of Water Resources, Division of Integrated Regional
Water Management. “South Coast Integrated Water Management.” California
Water Plan Update 2009, Vol. 3 Regional Reports. (Bulletin 160-09). 2009 at
SC-47; Larson, Mark. “With bond sales imminent, Poseidon moves on desal
project.” San Diego Business Journal. November 30, 2009.
36 Salas, Mary. “Reaching the finish line on California water.” San Diego News
Network. November 19, 2009.
37 Burris, Annie. “H.B. denies protesters delay on Poseidon plan.” The Orange
County Register. June 4, 2010; Wood, Tracy. “Desal plant inching toward
reality in Huntington Beach.” Voice of Orange County. June 11, 2010;
“Carlsbad encounters another hurdle.” Water Desalination Report. June 14,
2010; Wilson, Janet. “Poseidon’s desalinization plant: Dream water supply or
draining the Pacific and taxpayers?” DC Bureau. May 11, 2010; Sforza, Teri.
“Public agency to pay for desalination.” Orange County Register. November
15, 2009; Fletcher, Jaimee Lynn. “Garamendi say she opposes desalination
plant projects.” Orange County Register. September 2, 2009.
38 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79720.2, §79720.4(b),
§79722.5 and §79770(2).
39 Proposed California Water Code. Division 26.7 §79784.
40 Assumes 30-year general obligation bonds with a 5 percent to 6 percent in-
terest rate. California Legislative Analyst’s Office. “Debt service information.”
October 30, 2009 at 3; Lockyer, Bill. California State Treasurer’s Office. “Sta-
tus report on California’s bond debt. Assembly Budget Hearing.” December
14, 2009 at 4; Wiegan, Steve. “Bipartisan package: Water plan OK’d – will
voters sign on?” Sacramento Bee. December 11, 2009; “State water bill full
of pork.” The Monterey County Herald. November 10, 2009.
41 State of California. Governor’s Budget 2010-11. Revised Budget Detail.
Higher Education. 6440 University of California. May 14, 2010.
42 The California Healthy Families Program. [Press Release]. “State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization update.” February 9,
2009; State of California. Governor’s Budget 2010-11. Proposed Budget De-
tail. Entire Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board Budget. January 8, 2010
at HHS 3.
43 Average income for a California elementary school teacher, excluding special
education, is $61,773.64. California Employment Development Depart-
ment. “Summary guide for elementary school teachers, except special educ
in California.” (SOC Code: 25-2021.) Labor Market Info. Available at www.
labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov, accessed July 13, 2010.
44 Yamamura, Kevin. “Water Bond; governor defends boosting debt load.”
Sacramento Bee. November 13, 2009.