Reefs ahead: Byron Sher looks at challenges facing California Reefs ahead: Byron Sher looks at challenges facing California (December 29, 2004)

By Marion Softky

Almanac Staff Writer

As loud, talky crowds surge along the main corridor of the Santa Clara County office building in San Jose, still-Senator Byron Sher talks quietly and cogently about some of the huge challenges facing California.

"The population continues to grow, from 35 million now, to 40 and 45 million," he says. This population growth creates tremendous pressures on all the systems needed to serve the new people: highways, housing, water, sewers, schools -- "also the environment and energy."

Mr. Sher credits the governor with making some very good appointments in environmental agencies. However, he notes, "There is tension because he is outspoken in the cause of business and the economy."
Energy

Sen. Sher carried the bill to require California to obtain 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2010. These include wind, solar, geothermal and other sustainable sources of energy, he says, but not nuclear and not large hydroelectric. "I'm confident it will happen," he says.

"The other half is energy conservation, things like weatherproofing. The best way to deal with shortage of energy is not to use it," he says.

"The conservation effort saved the day during the energy crisis of 2001," he adds. "But after the crisis, we started backsliding. We need to recapture that ethic."
Restructuring government

Mr. Sher urges the governor to proceed carefully with implementing his massive proposal to reorganize state government, known as CPR for California Performance Review. He hopes he won't try to push it through by executive order.

"It's a useful exercise, but it needs careful scrutiny before you adopt sweeping proposals," he says. "I hope he gives the Legislature its appropriate role in making decisions."

A serious worry is the proposal to eliminate major environmental commissions, such as the public boards regulating air, water and solid waste. These independent agencies, which watch over important areas, could not be as effective if they were wrapped into a government department, Mr. Sher argues.

"I believe that industry, as well as environmental groups, would be opposed to elimination of these boards."

Mr. Sher adds that there may be other boards that are worth getting rid of.

"There are hundreds of them -- or thousands," he says. "I believe the governor will go slowly."
Federal attacks on environment

"The federal government is backing away and undercutting existing laws and regulations," Mr. Sher says. "In California, we have started to try and fill the gaps."

He gives two examples.

The federal government has walked away from a law calling for "New Source Review," Mr. Sher says. This law requires refineries and power plants that are expanding or modernizing to equip their new facilities so that they don't increase pollution.

"Bush said these laws were hampering modernization and expansion of plants; he said do it a different way," Mr. Sher says, then adds forcefully: "This has been law in California for 25 years. Companies lived with it and complied with it. We didn't want it to disappear in California."

In 2003 Mr. Sher introduced a bill to lock the requirement into California law. It passed, and Gov. Davis signed it.

"We were pushing back," he says. "California has always led the country in environmental laws -- emissions from cars, etc."

Mr. Sher gave another example: Last year vernal pools and seasonal waters lost federal protection. "These are wetlands and pools where water collects when it rains and becomes habitat. But it's not there year-round."

Backed by the Audubon Society, Mr. Sher introduced AB 1488 to restore the requirement for a permit to fill such ephemeral wetlands in California. It failed in an Assembly committee. "I hope someone will pick it up," he says.

Mr. Sher, who is very careful with words, sharply attacks the way the Bush administration separates phrases from their meaning. Gutting new source review is called "Clear Skies Law," he says. "Healthy Forests" lets timber companies cut down more trees, "they say in the name of fire protection."

"They're going to continue to do that. They sugar-coat the truth and try to paint a picture they're doing a better job," Mr. Sher charges. "They're very good at inventing phrases -- like 'No Child Left Behind.'"
Budget deficits

Mr. Sher sees no long-term solution in sight for curing the structural problems that cause California's growing budget deficit, and create the excruciating annual budget cycle. "That's the governor's real challenge," he says.

"We may limp through this year again, but the bills are coming due, if not in 2005, definitely in 2006," he warns.

Patiently, like a good teacher, Mr. Sher explains: "There are only two ways to deal with balancing the budget. One way is increasing revenues -- new taxes. The other way is to cut programs."

The public will get a preview of the new budget from the governor in January, Mr. Sher notes. "I believe it will start out with no increase in taxes, so it will be interesting to see what programs are supposed to be cut."

The public doesn't want to cut schools, Mr. Sher notes. The prison establishment doesn't want cuts in the prison system. The CPR (the governor's reorganization) won't solve the problem. "Those are the hard choices you've got to make."

Mr. Sher concludes, "I always thought you needed a combination of new revenues and program cuts."
Two-thirds vote

Mr. Sher believes the state budget could be passed in time if a simple majority of the Assembly and Senate could pass it, rather than the present two-thirds requirement.

"That's a favorite subject of mine," Mr. Sher says. "You get such better accountability when the majority is held responsible."

Such a budget would still be accompanied by a line-item veto, which allows the governor to veto individual budget items.

"Now it's just finger-pointing."

E-mail a friend a link to this story.