Legislative Committee Packet

Home , Fran Pavley, Garry South, Six Californias

AGENDA BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, August 15, 2014 12:45 p.m., Peralta Oaks Board Room The following agenda items are listed for Committee consideration. In accordance with the Board Operating Guidelines, no official action of the Board will be taken at this meeting; rather, the Committee’s purpose shall be to review the listed items and to consider developing recommendations to the Board of Directors. AGENDA

STATUS TIME ITEM STAFF

12:45 p.m. 1. STATE LEGISLATION / ISSUES (R) A. NEW LEGISLATION Doyle/Pfuehler Plan Amendment 1. SB 633 (Pavley D-Agoura Hills) – State Parks Energy Costs Report

2. AB 1922 (Gomez D-Los Angeles) – Greenway Development and Sustainment Act.

(I) B. ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Water and park bond updates 2. Bike bill update 3. Other issues

Doyle/Pfuehler (R) II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / ISSUES

A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. H.R. 5220 (Graves R-MO) No More Land Act – prohibits LWCF dollars from being used for acquisition

(I) B. ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund update

2. Other issues

III. ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX (R) Doyle/Pfuehler MEASURE

IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS

V. ARTICLES

(R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration (I) Information Future 2014 Meetings: (D) Discussion September 19, 2014 November 21, 2014

Legislative Committee Members: October 24, 2014 December 19, 2014 Doug Siden, Chair, Ted Radke, John Sutter, Whitney Dotson, Alternate Erich Pfuehler, Staff Coordinator

DRAFT

Distribution/Agenda Only Distribution/Agenda Only Distribution/Full Packet Distribution/Full Packet Distribution/Full Packet District: Public: District: Public: AGMs Judi Bank Director Whitney Dotson Carol Johnson Ann Grodin Yolande Barial Bruce Beyaert Director Beverly Lane Jon King Nancy Kaiser Afton Crooks Director Ted Radke Glenn Kirby Ted Radosevich Robert Follrath, Sr. Director Doug Siden Mona Koa Connie Swisher Stana Hearne Director John Sutter Dr. George Manross Michael Kelley Director Carol Severin Jim O’Connor

Distribution/Agenda Only Distribution/Full Packet Distribution/Full Packet Public: District: Norman LaForce Robert Doyle Allen Pulido Dan Levy Mike Anderson Di Rosario Fred W. Lopez Tim Anderson Carol Victor Peter Rauch Pat O’Brien Bob Nisbet Pete Wilson Dave Collins Tyrone Davis Cliff Rocha – Local 2428 Doug Houston Sharon Corkin – Local 2428

TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair John Sutter, Doug Siden, Ted Radke and Alternate Whitney Dotson)

FROM: Robert E. Doyle, General Manager Erich Pfuehler, Government Relations and Legislative Affairs Manager

SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Friday, August 15 - 12:45 p.m. Lunch will be served

WHERE: Board Room, Peralta Oaks ______

Items to be discussed: I. STATE LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. SB 633 (Pavley D-Agoura Hills) – State Parks Energy Costs Report State Senator Fran Pavley recently gutted and amended a CEQA measure, SB 633, to require the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to report to the Legislature on various activities relating to revenue generation, cost savings, transparency and the promotion of state parks. Specifically, the legislation will require a report to identify energy costs, projects to reduce energy costs and potential energy-related infrastructure projects to be funded by cap- and-trade revenue. The bill also authorizes the Department to sell park passes through vendors. Additionally, it provides for some piloting of food truck vendors in parks. This bill is a reaction to the Parks Forward Commission recommendations to maximize efficiencies and generate more “in park” revenue. As of this writing, it is unclear how this would impact the three State Parks the District operates. The process the Department would have to go through to determine what energy-related infrastructure projects could be funded by cap-and-trade revenue could be informative for the District’s purposes.

Staff Recommendation: WATCH

2. AB 1922 (Gomez D-Los Angeles) – Greenway Development and Sustainment Act Assembly Member Gomez represents much of Los Angeles and developing a “greenway” along the Los Angeles River is a high priority for the City. This bill would expand the types of nonprofits who can acquire and hold conservation easements. The bill also essentially defines a “greenway” as a part of “an open-space element of a county or city general plan.” The bill suggests state funding should be available for greenways, but does not require it. The instructive language is that a “city or county may apply for alternative fuels funding, greenhouse gas reduction funds, and other land use funds, as appropriate” if it develops a greenway that acts as a transportation corridor. A large portion of cap and trade dollars have been allocated for “sustainable communities and clean transportation,” so this would be an effort to tap into that funding for green transportation efforts. The East Bay Greenway under the BART tracks may be eligible to follow the model Los Angeles is initiating. From a District standpoint, the language suggesting cities and counties apply for alternative fuels funding [Section 1(b)(6)] should be amended to include Special Districts if possible. If Special Districts were included, staff would recommend a support position.

Staff Recommendation: Work to amend

B. ISSUES 1. Water and park bond updates The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Rivers and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2014, SB 1086 (de Leon D-Los Angeles), the placeholder for a new state park bond, passed the Senate Appropriations Committee in May. It has, however, stalled in lieu of the legislature’s debate over the water bond. The current $11.1 billion water bond is slated to appear on the ballot this November. Unless the legislature acts to remove and/or replace it by 2/3rds vote, it will be on the ballot. Polling has consistently indicated it the $11.1 billion measure would fail. The Governor and many in the legislature are eager to replace it – particularly given the drought – with something less costly which would stand a better chance of passing. The Governor proposed a $6 billion (now up to $7.2 billion) measure and the State Senate tabled an $8 billion measure. As of this writing, the legislature has extended the deadline to act on the water bond until at least August 13th. It appears likely that there will be agreement on a bond in the $7 to $10 billion range that will replace the current $11.1 billion measure. This debate continues to overshadow nearly all other issues in Sacramento for the remainder of the session. This will also table discussion about the park bond until next year, with an eye toward the 2016 ballot. The General Manager has, and will continue to be, been very engaged in efforts to shape the park bond. The highest priority for the General Manager is to return the “per capita” distributions in statewide park bond measures. This would ensure direct funding for special park districts, cities and counties for park development. This will remain a high priority for the District’s legislative team.

2. Bike bill update The Local Bike Infrastructure Enhancement Act of 2014, SB 1183 (DeSaulnier D-Concord), authorizes local governments to impose vehicle registration surcharges to fund bicycle infrastructure maintenance and improvements. The bill would authorize regional park districts, cities and counties to impose a surcharge of up to $5 on motor vehicles registered within their jurisdictions and use the revenue to maintain and improve bicycle trail networks. Under the rules of Prop. 26, this bill does not directly impose a higher fee on Californians, so it is a majority vote measure in the Legislature. The action to increase the registration surcharge, however, may be a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. The bill is currently on the Appropriations suspense file and seems likely to pass. August 15th is the last day for fiscal committees to meet and report bills to the floor. If each house passes the bill by August 31st, the Governor has until September 30th to sign or veto. The General Manager, Legislative Manger and Sacramento Advocates have all testified in support of this legislation. The Senator has expressed continued enthusiasm about this legislation and seems pleased with the District’s support.

3. Other issues

II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. H.R. 5220 (Graves R-MO) No More Land Act This legislation would limit the use of Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) dollars. It would restrict the funds to maintenance and prohibit the use of LWCF dollars for land acquisition. It requires a 20% reduction in the dollar value of backlogged maintenance within five years and requires penalties if those reduction targets are not met. It is a bad precedent for the LWCF and staff recommends an oppose position.

Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE

B. ISSUES 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund update Legislative Affairs Manager Erich Pfuehler will provide an overview of the work he and the two Legislative Policy and Social Media Interns are conducting to grow support for LWCF.

III. ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX MEASURE On the November 4, 2014 ballot, Alameda County residents will have the opportunity to support ACTC’s expenditure plan. The final TEP is a $7.8 billion plan with a 30 year sunset. It calls for an increase in the sales tax by ½ cent, so a full 1 cent of sales tax will go toward transportation related projects. The TEP includes $651 million for bicycle and pedestrian projects (a full 8.4% of total anticipated funds) which is almost as much as it includes for Highway Efficiencies and Freight ($677 million). The TEP specifies funds ($264 million) will go for gap closures on the Iron Horse Trail, Bay Trail and East Bay Greenway. It also sets up a grant program for regional projects and trail maintenance of $154 million, for which the District would be a leading candidate to receive. The bulk of the TEP is allocated to public transit ($3.7 billion), and local streets and roads ($2.3 billion). The local match money provided by the TEP will greatly increase the County’s ability to secure external funds – including bicycle and pedestrian monies. As an organization that has benefited, and will benefit, from ACTC’s emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian projects, staff recommends the District adopt a resolution of support for ACTC’s TEP ballot.

Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT

IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS

V. ARTICLES

a. “Water bond leads agenda as California lawmakers return for final month”, Sacramento Bee, August 3, 2014 b. “Dan Walters: Many issues unresolved as legislative session enters final month”, Sacramento Bee, August 4, 2014 c. “Alameda County transportation sales tax back for a vote”, SF Gate, July 28, 2014 d. “Legislature must not fund delta water tunnels through back door”, SF Gate, July 27, 2014 e. “The Port Chicago Disaster—70th Commemoration”, Domeocracy, July , 2014 f. “Political shakeup looms in California”, Politico, July 20, 3014 g. “Alameda County transportation sales tax back for a vote”, San Francisco Chronicle, July 8, 2014 h. “Candidates size up running as nomination period opens soon”. The Independent, July 4, 2014 i. “Same party November battles for California lawmakers” East Oregonian, July 7, 2014 j. “Five Democrats who should run against Hillary Clinton”, National Journal, July 3, 2014 k. “Time Bomb”, Politico Magazine, July 3, 2014 l. “Gas-tax increase on the table as highway fund nears empty”, US & World, July 3, 2014

Attachment 1.B.2

Water Bond

To My Fellow Citizens of California:

Drought conditions in California grow more serious by the day.

Last month, the State Water Resources Control Board issued mandatory conservation measures to ensure that our water supply remains reliable. Whether you’re a rancher, farmer, business owner or an average Californian — it is crucial that you do all you can to conserve water.

State government, of course, has a major role in how we manage and conserve this fundamental resource. In March, I signed legislation to provide over $680 million for drought relief efforts, including money for housing and food for workers directly affected by the drought, bond funds for local projects to capture and manage water more efficiently and funding for emergency drinking water supplies. The recently enacted state budget contains specific funding to lessen the impacts of drought on fish and wildlife across the state.

But the drought shows no sign of letting up, so we must do more.

Five years ago, state legislators and the Governor put a pork-laden water bond on the ballot — with a price tag beyond what’s reasonable or affordable. The cost to taxpayers would be enormous — $750 million a year for 30 years — and would come at the expense of funding for schools, health care and public safety. This is on top of the nearly $8 billion a year the state already spends on bond debt service.

Since being elected governor, I’ve worked with the Legislature to reduce the state’s fiscal liabilities. Together, we’ve made steady progress paying down debt and enacting responsible, balanced budgets and it is no time to turn back now. Therefore, I’m proposing a no-frills, no-pork water bond that invests in the MOST CRITICAL PROJECTS without breaking the bank.

My $6 billion plan provides for water use efficiency and recycling, effective groundwater management and added storage. It invests in safe drinking water, particularly in disadvantaged communities and for watershed restoration and increased flows in some of our most important rivers and streams. This water bond is tied to our comprehensive Water Action Plan that charts the way for California to become more resilient in the face of droughts and floods. It goes a long way to ensure clean drinking water, protect habitat and free up funding for local water projects.

Water is central to our lives, our wildlife and our food supply. Our economy depends on it. We must act now so that we can continue to manage as good stewards of this vital resource for generations to come. But we can and must do so without returning California to the days of overwhelming deficit and debt.

Respectfully,

Jerry Brown

For more on how you can do your part to conserve water, please visit www.saveourwater.com

Attachment II.B.1

Attachment IV Board Legislative Committee August 15, 2014

Water bond leads agenda as California lawmakers return for final month

By Jeremy B. White [email protected]

Published: Sunday, Aug. 3, 2014 - 10:47 pm Last Modified: Monday, Aug. 4, 2014 - 7:53 am

Looking ahead to the crush of down-to-the-wire bills that will consume their August, California lawmakers have a unified message:

It’s all about the water bond.

Legislators return from summer recess today to a mountain of unfinished business. They have until the end of the month to decide whether to pass bills and send them to Gov. Jerry Brown.

But to a person, every California lawmaker asked about the frenzied final stretch pointed to the agenda-crowning need to place a new water bond before voters this year. A widely reviled $11.1 billion measure passed in 2009 has been forsaken by most Democrats. With a vicious drought still withering the state, members of both parties feel the pressure to find a viable alternative.

“Right away, and as soon as we get back, the first week, we have to figure out how we’re going to proceed with the water bond,” said Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D- San Diego.

So far, disagreements about the overall size of the bond, the amount of money for surface storage projects, like dams, and the disputed role of the Sacramento Delta have upended attempts at compromise. Since a bond requires a two-thirds vote, some Republicans will need to be on board. That support has not materialized.

“The (already qualified) 2009 water bond is the product of a bipartisan agreement and is much better than the other alternatives that have been presented by majority-party Democrats,” Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, said in an emailed statement. “The situation is simple; California is trying to provide water to a population that’s at least doubled in numbers since our 60-year-old system was built.”

The more the Legislature delays, the more complex and costly things become for state and county election officials responsible for displaying and disseminating voter guides and ballots.

“Every day elections officials are forced to delay this important work increases the risk of error and the likelihood voters don’t receive the information they need to make decisions,” said Nicole Winger, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state’s office. “It’s very risky the further out we go here.”

Just as the looming election lends urgency to the water bond debate, it also hovers over the votes legislators will cast before voters head to the polls in November. Legislators are returning from a month spent largely back in their home districts, among constituents. The question for many, said emeritus San Jose State politics professor Larry Gerston, is: “Does the elected official feel heat?”

“When there are issues that could complicate the re-election effort or threaten the re- election effort, then that elected official is faced with a decision: ‘Do I vote my conscience or vote for what the party wants, or do I in the name of survival give in on this issue so I can be around to do other things?’ ” Gerston said. “So that becomes a district-by-district matter.”

As lawmakers debate bills, torrents of money will be flowing into their campaign accounts. A list of fundraisers obtained by The Bee records 59 events planned for incumbent legislators in August. Consistent with a Senate resolution blocking end-of- session fundraisers this year, no senators appear on the list.

One issue that could gain traction for threatened lawmakers is the prospect of higher gas prices. California’s landmark cap-and-trade law will soon require producers of transportation fuels, such as gasoline, to purchase permits for carbon emissions.

An expected spike in prices at the pump has led moderate Democrats to request a delay, attracting the ire of environmentalists and stay-the-course vows from leadership. Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-Fresno, has authored a bill to hold off on bringing fuels under the program. He cites the fragile economic situation in much of the Central Valley.

“We want to be a leader in climate change,” Perea said, “but the question becomes, how do we do it and who pays and how much do they pay? When you look at the current system, disproportionately lower-income communities like the neighborhoods I represent are going to get hit harder.”

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, cast doubt on the measure’s prospects in an interview with The Bee’s editorial board, lauding the cap-and-trade law and saying that “if we’re going to meet our appropriate and aggressive climate change goals, we have to include fuels.”

“I think there’s a great danger of short-term politics and a lot of fear overriding what is a good, solid policy,” Steinberg said. “We are either serious about incentivizing the replacement of fossil fuels or we are not, and if we are, let’s step up and do it.”

Even if the Perea bill is unlikely to succeed, it could spark debate. Two letters – one seeking a delay, one rejecting such a change – acquired the signatures of 48 Democratic legislators.

“I think there will be quite a bit of discussion about that in the last month of session,” said Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles.

Other bills with sweeping implications await key votes. Two float ideas that have repeatedly surfaced in Sacramento, setting Democratic priorities against business opposition: Assembly Bill 1522 would require employers to give their workers paid sick leave, and Senate Bill 270 would ban single-use plastic bags.

Plastic bag industry groups have already assailed the bag ban in advertisements, and a fresh salvo is coming this week. The paid sick leave bill, attempted multiple times in recent years, claims a place on the California Chamber of Commerce’s “job-killers” list.

And the water bond is not the only bond measure that could go before voters. A bill for school construction bonds has quietly been sailing through the Legislature, avoiding a single dissenting vote. The paramount issue, said Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D- Alamo, is winning over the fiscally cautious Brown.

“We have very broad support,” Buchanan said. “We still have yet to convince the governor that a school bond is needed.”

Then there are the inevitable late-blooming bills, so-called “gut and amends” that allow lawmakers to circumvent the plodding committee process by putting new language in a bill that’s already far along. Last year, bills surfaced in the final month dealing with such contentious issues as medical marijuana, condoms in pornography and a new Sacramento Kings arena.

So more momentous bills could emerge this month. Regardless, lawmakers will also be mulling hundreds of measures, big and small, whose fate will be determined before the calendar flips.

“I have a feeling,” Atkins said, “we’re going to be up to our eyeballs.”

Dan Walters: Many issues unresolved as legislative session enters final month

By Dan Walters [email protected]

Published: Monday, Aug. 4, 2014 - 12:00 am Last Modified: Monday, Aug. 4, 2014 - 7:53 am

Among some fans, the rap on professional basketball is that players run up and down the court for 45 minutes, exchanging buckets, but games are often decided in the final three minutes of intense physicality.

The same could be said for the California Legislature, which spends months in session but typically delays big, difficult issues until the frantic final few days.

Some of that tendency is merely human nature – the reluctance to make difficult decisions until they absolutely must be made.

Some of it is by design. It’s easier to hide something if procedures are bypassed and everyone is preoccupied.

This “low-balling” happens every year, and it may take weeks before the public and even lawmakers learn what was wrought in the dead of night.

Whether done publicly or clandestinely, as the Legislature reconvenes this week for the final four weeks of the 2012-14 session, there are many pending issues:

• The size and details of a water bond to replace an $11.1 billion proposal already on the Nov. 4 ballot. The prevailing assumption is that it must be changed because it’s likely to be rejected, but a recent poll is inconclusive.

• Regulation of groundwater, which farmers have been tapping heavily as drought dries up surface supplies.

• Legislation to more or less ban plastic grocery bags.

• A promise to give Northrop Grumman the same tax break already enacted for Lockheed Martin, its competitor for a Pentagon bomber contract.

• A bill pushed by some Democrats to delay placing auto fuel under the cap-and-trade greenhouse gas program because it could substantially boost fuel prices, already among the nation’s highest. • A measure asking voters to press Congress for immigration reform, even though Gov. Jerry Brown says he doesn’t want more advisory propositions on the ballot.

• A boost in college financing being pushed by Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins.

• A school bond that educators and business groups back but that Brown evidently doesn’t want.

• Whether the Legislature will streamline executions of murderers in the wake of a federal court ruling that delays make them unconstitutional.

• The four bills still alive from the state Chamber of Commerce’s 27-bill “job killer” list, since all others have died or been stalled or neutralized.

In terms of importance, the water bond looms the largest, given the severe drought. Brown wants a small bond, most legislators want a larger one, and there is much angst over its effect, if any, on Brown’s “twin tunnels” project in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The groundwater regulation issue complicates the picture even more.

In terms of election-year impact, however, the bills that would affect consumers – gasoline prices and plastic bags – could be the biggies.

Call The Bee’s Dan Walters, (916) 321-1195. Back columns, www.sacbee.com/walters. Follow him on Twitter @WaltersBee.

Alameda County transportation sales tax back for a vote

Michael Cabanatuan Updated 7:19 pm, Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Alameda County voters will get a second chance at extending and increasing a transportation sales tax, two years after a similar measure failed to gain the needed two-thirds approval - by just 721 votes.

The county Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a nearly $8 billion spending plan for the transportation tax and to place it on the November ballot. All 14 of the city councils in the county have also voted unanimously to back the plan, which will allot funds to transit; affordable fare programs for youth, seniors and the disabled; street repairs; and bicycle and pedestrian projects.

"Future ... is at stake"

"The future of Alameda County and the greater region is at stake," said Jim Wunderman, head of the Bay Area Council, a business organization that's supporting the tax measure.

Alameda County Measure B1 failed narrowly in 2012 with 66.53 percent of voters approving the proposal to indefinitely extend the existing half-cent transportation sales tax and increase it by another half-cent. But tax measures require a supermajority vote of 66.67 percent, and after the initial results of a recount showed little hope, the Alameda County Transportation Commission gave in and decided to plan for 2014.

The biggest difference in this November's version is that the tax will expire after 30 years. Tess Lengyel, the commission's deputy director of planning and policy, said that change appears to have won over some opponents and skeptics.

The proposed spending plan steers $2.8 billion to BART, bus, ferries and commuter trains; $2.4 billion to city and county streets; $1 billion to paratransit service for seniors and disabled and an affordable youth transit pass; $677 million for improvements to major freeways and highways; $651 million for bicycle and pedestrian paths and safety improvements; $300 million for community development that improves connections to transit and $77 million for technology and innovation.

Among the specific investments are $400 million toward a BART extension in the Interstate 580 corridor to Isabel Avenue in Livermore; $130 million for a future Irvington station in south Fremont on BART's Warm Springs extension now under construction; and station expansion and modernization at San Leandro, Lake Merritt, MacArthur, 19th Street, Oakland Coliseum, South Hayward and West Oakland stations.

AC Transit, the Wheels bus system in the Tri-Valley area and Union City Transit would receive money to restore and increase service, and AC Transit would also get funds for bus rapid transit projects. Traffic projects would include the widening of Highway 84 through Pigeon Pass, a carpool lane extension from Hegenberger Road in Oakland to A Street in Hayward on Interstate 880, and several interchange reconstructions, including the dreaded Gilman Street interchange at Interstate 80 in Berkeley. Officials confident

Alameda County transportation officials said they were confident the measure will pass this time, especially since polls show 72 percent support. Support for the measure was weakest two years ago in Livermore, but Supervisor Scott Haggerty, who represents the area, said circumstances have changed.

"Times are better, and Livermore is again stuck in congestion," he said. "We have to do something about it."

Michael Cabanatuan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: [email protected] Twitter: @ctuan

Legislature must not fund delta water tunnels through back door

Published 6:36 pm, Sunday, July 27, 2014

-San Joaquin River Delta to places farther south is controversial, contested and very expensive. So may be the way that local water districts choose to pay for it.

Until recently, it had escaped everyone's notice that local water agencies can raise property taxes to pay for water infrastructure without getting voter approval. It turns out that there's a small quirk in the law that allows water agencies to do so - and at least a few of them are considering raising property taxes in order to pay for the delta plan.

"Legally, my understanding from our attorney is that we could," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. But Kightlinger quickly emphasized that his water district had no plan to do so. "We haven't raised our property tax portion of revenue since 1960. It always felt like raising rates would be the fairest, most direct way to pay for things."

Kightlinger's hesitancy also reflects the fact that California voters are passionately attached to voting on any tax increases, particularly property tax increases. Proposition 13, which requires a two-thirds vote of approval on property tax increases, is still very popular. Some antitax groups, including the Howard Jarvis Foundation, have already sounded an alarm that there will be a fight over any property tax increases by water agencies.

There might be a fight, but the antitax groups are unlikely to win it. State courts concluded decades ago that water agencies have the unique authority to raise property taxes without voter approval because voters approved the construction, operation and maintenance of the State Water Project in 1960 - nearly two decades before the passage of Prop. 13. The California Legislative Analyst's Office agrees with this assumption.

In fact, some water agencies have indeed raised property taxes over the years, usually by a very small amount. The Santa Clara Valley Water District's property tax rate regularly fluctuates up and down by fractions of a percentage point, for instance. "Every year the board sets the increment rate a little differently," said Jim Fiedler, the district's chief operating officer.

The Santa Clara Valley Water District is among the agencies contemplating a property tax hike to pay for the new tunnels. It, like other water districts, doesn't have enough money to pay for its portion of the tunnel budget otherwise.

The problem is that there are still plenty of interest groups that oppose the tunnel project - is it really wise to add average homeowners to that list?

The state needs to make a better argument for its delta plan. It needs to soothe voter fears about how the tunnels will work, what their environmental impact will be, and how California is going to pay for them. If the state can't make that argument successfully, then any attempt to fund this project via property tax increases without voters' consent will be a political disaster for everyone involved. hardline political news and analysis The Port Chicago Disaster — 70th Commemoration by John Lawrence

A ceremony was held at the Rosie the Riveter Home Front National Park on July 19th to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Port Chicago disaster and the ensuing events which have such great significance in the history of the U.S. military and the evolution of the struggle for civil rights in mid-20th century America. I received the Commemorative Hero’s Award for my work on creating the Port Chicago National Memorial and my efforts to secure exoneration for the sailors wrongly charged, by a racist judicial system, with mutiny. Below are my remarks at the ceremony:

I would like to thank the Friends of Port Chicago for honoring me with this year’s Commemorative Hero’s Award, particularly our chair, Rev. Diana McDaniel, my fellow board members, and Superintendent Tom Leatherman and his outstanding team form the National Park Service. And especially, I want to acknowledge Congressman George Miller without whose leadership and determination, there would be no Memorial, no pardon of Freddie Meeks, and far less understanding of the significance of the events of July 17, 1944 and their aftermath.

We meet here at a time of momentous milestones. Not only is 2014 the 70th anniversary of the events that led to the de-segregation of the military and helped fuel the modern civil rights movement, but also of D-Day – June 6, 1944 – that marked the beginning of the liberation of Europe. Just 16 days ago, I walked on the beach at Normandy, and I brought back a vial of red sand that I deposited on the shore at the Port Chicago Memorial on Thursday to symbolically link these two places that share such historic significance.

Coincidentally, this year also marks the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I, during which more than 370,000 African Americans served in combat, as well as the 60th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, and the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act.

These are important moments in our national history, and they require recognition and solemn celebration. They changed our country, and they changed the world.

We recall them not simply for reasons of sentimentality but because they compel us to think about something more than our own times and our own struggles. They challenge us to consider how we arrived at this place, the sacrifices that were required, and who we are as a result of these shared experiences.

These events marking the 70th anniversary of the Port Chicago disaster are a good example of why we need memorials and commemorations. For decades after the war ended, few knew anything about Port Chicago, or the racism that pervaded the military during the War. Apropos of our presence here today, few understood the crucial, changing role of women on the Home Front during the war – not just the Rosie the Riveters who built the Victory ships and tanks right here in Richmond, but also the unprecedented role that women began to play in the nation’s economy.

These events also serve as a reminder that it can be time-consuming and frustrating to challenge old stereotypes and erroneous records. It took an Act of Congress in 1992 to compel the Navy even to review the shameful prosecution of the sailors convicted of mutiny after the explosion. Unfortunately, the Navy refused to overturn the convictions.But as a result of the determination of Congressman Miller, with strong support from other Californians like Barbara Boxer and Ron Dellums, legislation was soon passed creating the Port Chicago Memorial.

Yet even military has begun to revise its views of the Port Chicago disaster and its aftermath. It is worth noting the remarks at the memorial service on Thursday of Lt. Colonel Timothy Zetterwall, the new commanding officer in Concord, which included unprecedented recognition of the Navy’s serious shortcomings in the handling of both the Port Chicago facility and the prosecutions that followed the disaster. That acknowledgement is a very important step.

When I began researching Port Chicago back in the mid-1980s, I remember calling an African- American veteran who had served there at the time of the explosion. Like many others, he had put the memory of that terrible night far behind him. He had rarely discussed his experiences even with his own family. Yet, when I told him I was calling to talk about his recollections of July 17, 1944, he quietly said, “I’ve been waiting my whole life for this phone call.”

My work on Port Chicago conjures up a number of such vivid scenes for me:

 Percy Robinson, Robert Routh and Yale Lewis telling me of having to write home for gloves to prevent their hands from being cut in the loading of weapons — because the Navy would not supply them;  how a trumpet, sent by a worried parent, resulted in a fortuitous assignment to the base band instead of an assignment loading the E.A. Bryan on that night 70 years ago.  the unapologetic testimony of the purported “ringleader,” Joe Small at a congressional hearing when we began the effort to create the National Memorial;  the quiet dignity of Freddie Meeks when Rep. Miller and I visited him shortly after the issuance of the pardon by President Clinton in 1999 – the aging photos of him in his Navy uniform still proudly displayed in his living room.

After the story of the pardon appeared in the newspaper, many people wrote to Mr. Meeks to share their own recollections and emotions. One told Mr. Meeks, “Your fight is not just for you, or just for black people, but for all people. The United States is still on the path to Freedom and Equality. You have helped us stay on that path.”

Out at Normandy last month, I saw a few of that Greatest Generation wearing their veterans’ caps, carrying canes and riding in wheelchairs pushed by children or grandchildren. They had brought their families back to France, to that hallowed beach, to create a personal connection to that shattering experience – to ensure that they would always remember the sacrifices that were made for future generations. It is in that same spirit that we continue our efforts to explain the significance of Port Chicago to our children and grandchildren.

When I wasn’t working late nights in the Congress or helping my wife raise our two sons, I also composed and recorded songs, including “The Ballad of Port Chicago.” I’d like to close by reciting to you the last verse and the chorus, which seem appropriate to today’s celebration. It goes like this: And out in California, a flag still flies today,

Right where old Port Chicago stood

Before it blew away.

It waves there to remind us brave men served there once and died

And we must fight for justice still

That’s why they gave their lives.

Chorus:

Oh, my, what a terrible sight

The sky blew apart with a thundering light

And all those boys were blasted right

To Kingdom Come on that terrible night.

Their legend lives on and it’s quite a tale.

Half a hundred went to jail.

They took a step down freedom’s trail

Those Port Chicago boys.

When the National Anthem was played at the Port Chicago Memorial during Thursday’s memorial service, a flock of pelicans appeared from nowhere and suddenly formed a perfect “V” for “Victory,” hovering high over the fluttering flags until the song ended, and then disappeared, as did the 320 victims of the Port Chicago explosion.

I am very grateful to you for recognizing my work for this important cause, and I salute all those committed to telling the story of Port Chicago.

Political shakeup looms in California

By: Alexander Burns July 20, 2014 05:29 PM EDT

LOS ANGELES — The rumblings are early but unmistakable: A political earthquake is — finally — headed to California.

For decades now, Democrats and Republicans here have experienced statewide politics as an interminable waiting game, thanks to a gang of 70- and 80-somethings from the Bay Area who have dominated government for a generation.

In a state famed for its youth and vitality, home to Hollywood and the Silicon Valley gospel of economic “disruption,” boasting an ultra-diverse population that presaged the country’s larger ethnic transformation — California’s leadership looks much the same as it did in the late 20th century.

(PHOTOS: Dianne Feinstein’s career)

Rising stars in both parties have come and gone, but the state’s chief power players have remained the same: Jerry Brown, California’s 76-year-old governor, is running for reelection this year to a post he first won in 1974. The two senators — Barbara Boxer, 73, and Dianne Feinstein, 81 — have held their jobs since the early 1990s.

The most prominent member of the congressional delegation, 74-year-old House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, started out as chairwoman of the California Democratic Party when Ronald Reagan was president. The current party chairman, 81-year-old John Burton, is a former congressman who first went to Washington in the 1974 post-Watergate revolution.

But at long last, change is afoot in the Golden State.

Democrats here — along with a few tenacious Republicans — say there’s a palpable sense that a changing-of-the-guard moment is approaching. It has already begun in some places, with the retirements of several long-tenured federal lawmakers and the defeat of 16-term Democratic Rep. Pete Stark in a 2012 primary.

(Also on POLITICO: 'Six Californias' plan moves forward)

For the most part, members of the under-50 crowd in California politics aren’t taking shots at their elders. On the contrary, they praise them for their steady leadership of an often-troubled state even as they brace for a shakeup that may be as few as two years away.

“We’ve had great leadership in Washington and also in Sacramento lately. But look to the next eight, 10 years — it’s going to be a generational shift. The Gen X-ers are going to take over in California,” said Santa Barbara Mayor Helene Schneider, a 43-year-old Democrat.

Longtime Democratic consultant Garry South called it “ironic” that in a state “viewed as a hip trendsetter for the rest of the nation, we’ve got this cast of septuagenarians and octogenarians.” “I mean, even Catholic bishops have to retire at 75,” South said. “We’ve got such an aging leadership in our party when there’s so much bright young talent on our bench. It’s only a matter of time before the torch is passed.”

(Also on POLITICO: California GOP seeks new blood)

The elections this year in California look mostly like a status quo affair: Brown is expected to easily win another term . Neither of the U.S. senators is up for reelection. The hottest statewide race may be a down-ballot contest for superintendent of education that has become a proxy fight between teachers unions and heavily funded reform groups.

Yet the buildup of talent on the Democratic bench means it’s only a matter of time before the state witnesses a genuine free-for-all among feisty younger officeholders. At the latest, that’ll come in 2018, when Brown would run up against the state’s two-term limit on governors; it could happen even sooner if Boxer were to retire in 2016. What’s more, new term limits promise to shake loose entrenched members of the Legislature and start to bring new faces to Sacramento as early as next year.

The names regularly circulated for the next big statewide race include state Attorney General Kamala Harris (49), Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (46), former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (61) and his successor, 43-year-old Eric Garcetti.

Even this year, some youthful candidates are testing the limits of California’s surprisingly insurgent-averse political culture. Silicon Valley lawyer Ro Khanna is running a well-financed challenge to veteran Democratic Rep. Mike Honda, while Neel Kashkari, former administrator of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, is playing up his youth in a bid to unseat Brown.

Kashkari’s first TV ad featured the 40-year-old Republican swinging an ax, splitting logs and pledging to cut taxes. In an interview, he said he considered his relative youth part of the larger contrast he’s trying to draw with Brown and his “1970s” ideas.

“In this race, me versus Jerry Brown, the Republican is 40 years old, a brown guy, a son of immigrants. The Democrat is the old white guy [who] inherited millions of dollars from his rich, powerful father,” Kashkari said.

Khanna, a Democrat who filed against Honda under the state’s open-primary system, struck a similar, if softer, chord on the issue of age. “I honestly don’t think age should be a factor in any election,” he said. “What’s relevant is, are the ideas new and innovative to address California’s economy. The campaign really is about the different approach in terms of ideas.”

To a great extent, California’s coming generational turnover may also line up with a geographic shift in state politics. If the upper echelons of Democratic leadership here are unrepresentative in terms of age and race, they also come disproportionately from the San Francisco area.

About 20 percent of the state’s population lives in the San Francisco-San Jose region, according to the U.S. Census. But fully half of California’s people are in the greater Los Angeles area, which has produced only one major Democratic statewide officeholder — recalled ex-Gov. Gray Davis — in a quarter-century. The last U.S. senator from L.A. was John Tunney, who left office before Jimmy Carter was sworn in as president.

When Senate seats and the governorship start to open up again, Democrats say, it’s an opportunity for Southern California as much as it is for the younger Democratic set. Garcetti, who only just finished his first year in office, said at a POLITICO event last week that Californians had been wise to recognize that “seniority gets us power” in Washington. (“The work that Sens. Boxer and Feinstein have done — we couldn’t ask for a better team.”) He also suggested that a shift in political balance could be coming among the various regions of the state.

“If you want an honest answer, people have always said down here that we don’t have a chip on our shoulder about the North and we always vote for Northerners, but not always vice versa,” Garcetti said. “I think that can change.”

Geography, however, is only one of the many ways in which California’s leadership is out of line with a state that has a median age of 35. Its under-45 population is larger by 3 percent than the nation’s as a whole; California’s Latino population is double that of the rest of the country, and its Asian population is nearly triple.

Burton, the party chairman, called talk of leadership turnover still several years premature: “It’s not something on my radar.” He said he hadn’t yet heard rumblings from candidates laying the groundwork to succeed Brown or the two senators.

“What are they gonna say? ‘I’m thinking of running’? Fine. Call me in four years,” he said. “I’m sure they’re all salivating.”

Alameda County transportation sales tax back for a vote

Michael Cabanatuan Updated 7:19 pm, Tuesday, July 8, 2014

"Future ... is at stake"

"The future of Alameda County and the greater region is at stake," said Jim Wunderman, head of the Bay Area Council, a business organization that's supporting the tax measure.

Officials confident

"Times are better, and Livermore is again stuck in congestion," he said. "We have to do something about it."

Michael Cabanatuan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: [email protected] Twitter: @ctuan

Candidates Size Up Running As Nomination Period Opens Soon

Posted: Friday, July 4, 2014 12:00 am

The Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin city councils, mayoral positions and school boards all have elections coming up in November.

The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) and East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Ward 5 also have terms that will be up for renewal.

The nomination period for the November 4, 2014 General Election opens on Monday, July 14, 2014 and ends on Friday, August 8, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. In the event that an incumbent fails to file for re-election, the nomination period for that office is extended until Wednesday, August 13, 2014 for any candidate other than the incumbent.

In Livermore, Mayor John Marchand's term expires, as do the seats held by Councilmembers Bob Woerner and Doug Horner, who is termed out.

Marchand plans to run for another two-year term. He told The Independent, "The true reason to serve in elective office is for the community to be a better place because you served." Marchand said that when he is out in the community, people tell him how much they love Livermore, and the great things the council is doing.

Woerner, who was appointed two years ago when Marchand moved up to mayor, will face his first election contest. He is running because he says he wants to continue to improve the quality of life and preserve the open space. Fiscal responsibility is another motivator. "I want to make sure that funds are spent wisely," he stated.

Planning commissioner Steven Spedowfski has announced that he will run for City Council. He wrote in a press release that he plans "to run a campaign focused on core values that make Livermore a great place to live -- preserving open space, maintaining the voter-approved urban limit line, expanding transportation services (including BART to Livermore along the freeway), encouraging business development and growth, and creating strategies for long-term financial stability."

In Pleasanton, Mayor Jerry Thorne, Councilmembers Kathy Narum and Cheryl Cook-Kallio have expiring terms. Cook-Kallio has reached term limits. Olivia Sanwong has formed a 2014 council committee. She was a candidate to fill the seat vacated by Thorne when he was elected mayor. Narum won that election.

Thorne has announced that he will seek another two-year term. Narum was not available for comment. For more information, prospective candidates are encouraged to schedule an appointment with the Pleasanton City Clerk by calling (925) 931-5027.

Dublin Mayor Tim Sbranti has reached term limits, and will be running in November for the 16th Assembly District seat against Dublin resident and Pleasanton attorney Catharine Baker. Dublin councilmembers Kevin Hart and David Haubert told The Independent that they will be seeking the mayor's job. Both will run from safe seats on the council. If not elected mayor, they would remain on the council.

Hart said, "Many things to be done to move the city forward." He mentioned economic development and open space. "We have the Let Dublin Decide initiative. I'm a strong supporter of defeating that," said Hart. Also, some have said that they are proud of Dublin being No. 2 in the state in growth, but "I'm not proud of that. We need to slow down," Hart said.

Haubert said that he has begun a financial campaign for a a run for mayor. He said he has endorsements from the I-680 corridor mayors -- Jerry Thorne of Pleasanton, Bill Clarkson of San Ramon, and Robert Storer of Danville. He also has been endorsed by former Livermore Mayor Marshall Kamena, and former San Ramon Mayor Abram Wilson.

Kasie Hildenbrand, who termed out of the Dublin Council in 2012, plans to run for mayor.

On the Dublin council, the terms of Vice-mayor Don Biddle and Councilmember Abe Gupta are expiring. Biddle told The Independent that he will run again, and will make a formal announcement after Independence Day.

Gupta told The Independent that he plans to run in November because he wants to continue to be a voice on the council for smart, progressive growth. He cited a desire to bring in more tech companies, maintain open space, and "create a safe vibrant community."

Gupta said, "I championed the defeat of the conceived Doolan Canyon development when it was first proposed. I want to continue to stop projects like that, while supporting innovation in the Tri- Valley and the extension of BART to Livermore."

On the Livermore school board, terms expire for Bill Dunlop, Kate Runyon, and Anne White. The election also will fill the remaining two years for the term of Tom McLaughlin, who died recently.

White, who was first elected to the school board in 1990, said that she is committed to running again. She said that she is excited about the coming Core Curriculum and its implementation. Also, she has become one of 30 members of the board of directors of the California School Board Association, a step up from the delegate position that she held previously. She wants to be able to make contributions from that more powerful position.

In Pleasanton, school trustees Joan Laursen and Jeff Bowser have expiring terms. Both said that they will be running again.

Bowser said that the key issue for him will be to continue the work the board has done, continue with smaller class sizes, and strong fiscal stewardship. "We have a balanced budget, and no layoffs. It's all good news."

Laursen said, "While I am proud of the improvements we have made in our district over the past four years, I still have many things I wish to accomplish with our team. To quote Robert Frost, 'But I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep.'"

In Dublin, the terms of school board president Sean Kenney and trustee Megan Rouse will expire. Rouse, who was appointed in January 2013, said that she will be running.

Rouse said, "We are thriving and growing, and I want to continue my work on the school board to make sure our district remains fiscally responsible and sound, to approach learning in a way that values every child, and to strengthen communications and partnerships with families, teachers and staff."

Kenney could not be reached for comment.

In LARPD, David Hutchinson, Bob Coomber, and Maryalice Faltings have expiring terms. They had not responded by press time as to whether they would be running. For more information, call Gretchen Sommers with LARPD at 925-373-5725.

EBRPD 5th Ward director Ayn Wieskamp's term is also up.

In Congress, voters in June chose incumbent Democrat Eric Swalwell and Republican Hugh Bussell to face off in November.

Nomination documents are available at the Alameda County Registrar of Voters Office, 1225 Fallon St., Room G-1, in Oakland.

Candidates for municipal offices should contact the respective City Clerk for information on obtaining nomination documents.

For more information, contact the Registrar of Voters office at (510) 272-6933.

Same-party November battles for Calif. lawmakers

By KEVIN FREKING Associated Press Jul 7, 5:55 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Voters can forget the traditional Republican-Democratic matchups in at least seven California congressional districts come November. Contenders for those seats will have to do battle against challengers from their own parties.

Democratic Rep. Mike Honda and Republican Rep. Tom McClintock face the most competitive challenges among the incumbents in the intraparty face-offs. Both are longtime players on California's political scene and face their first serious re-election challenges.

California's revamped primary system, approved by voters in 2010, allows the top two candidates regardless of political affiliation to advance to the general election. The idea is to fight polarization by making them appeal to a wider pool of voters.

The state of Washington also has a top-two primary, while Louisiana has a similar system for its general election, followed by a runoff if no candidate wins a simple majority. Other states exploring such a system include Oregon and Montana.

Whether any of it can weaken polarization is unclear. Analysts say name recognition and money are still the biggest factors in an election. The first go-around in California led to the more moderate candidate winning about half of the same-party congressional races.

Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell has been the most notable beneficiary so far. He lost in his 2012 California primary, which in years past would have been the end of his candidacy, but placing second meant he advanced to the general election. There, he defeated a fellow Democrat, Rep. Pete Stark, who had served in the House for 40 years.

This year, Swalwell is awaiting the final canvass to see whether he will face a Republican or another Democrat in November.

The top-two primary has led to other unexpected outcomes. Republican Rep. Gary Miller defeated a more moderate GOP challenger two years ago to win a Southern California congressional district that is heavily Democratic. The two Republicans got the top slots because so many Democrats ran in the primary that they split the vote.

Some call California's new system the "jungle primary" to underscore the free-for-all nature of having all candidates running against each other on one ballot, regardless of party.

In California, this year's general election will feature at least seven same-party races among the state's 53 congressional districts. The Honda and McClintock contests have generated the most interest so far. Both men handily finished first in their June primaries, but, like Stark in 2012, they will now go again against the second-place finishers. Honda, a seven-term Democrat, has used his position on the House Appropriations Committee to help secure federal funding for an extension of commuter rail to San Jose and bring a U.S. patent office to Silicon Valley.

The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that Honda sponsored or co-sponsored some $147.5 million worth of earmarks over a three-year period before Congress banned the practice. Earmarks refer to federal money designated for specific projects, communities and organizations.

But the ban has diminished the Appropriations Committee's influence, and Honda's Democratic opponent, Ro Khanna, says it will take a new way of thinking in Congress to help the region's economy. Among his proposals: Enact national standards that require schools to teach students how to design and write computer programs and change accrediting standards so federal Pell Grants cannot go to schools where graduates struggle to get jobs.

"I really feel like I've dedicated my life to thinking about economic issues," said Khanna, 37, a deputy assistant secretary at the Commerce Department during President Barack Obama's first two years in office. "And I do think I will bring an expertise on the global economy to the United States Congress."

But Honda, 73, said his work is not done.

"I have much more to provide in the future," he said.

The race promises to be one of the most expensive in the country, with Khanna raising $2.6 million before the primary and Honda raising $2.1 million in a district in which Democratic voters outnumber Republicans by more than 2-to-1.

Honda has support from most of the Democratic establishment, including Obama, Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Khanna's endorsers include former San Francisco Mayor and state Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom as well as Silicon Valley executives including Google Chairman Eric Schmidt and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer.

McClintock's challenge comes from fellow Republican Art Moore, an Iraq war veteran and major in the National Guard.

McClintock dismisses any notion he could have a tough race on his hands, but his campaign was concerned enough about Moore that it sent a mailer to Democratic primary voters to raise the name identification of a third candidate with no party affiliation.

Across the country, tea party conservatives have been challenging establishment Republicans in scores of primary races. This time, it's the tea party incumbent, McClintock, who is getting a challenge from his left.

To win the district that stretches from Sacramento's suburbs to the outskirts of Yosemite National Park, Moore would have to hold his own with Republicans and then pick up the majority of Democrats and independents, who make up 29 percent and 21 percent of the district respectively.

Moore says McClintock is so rigid in his conservatism that he doesn't work to get money to get things done in the district.

"It's being spent in other states and other districts," he said. McClintock counters that he would "rather restore a system where local money stays local rather than being shipped to Washington."

Dallas Sweeney, chairman of the El Dorado County Republican Party, said the good news about the top-two primary is that a Republican will be in office regardless. While he has endorsed McClintock, he said he hears Republican complaints similar to Moore's.

"You've got to be strong in your principals and core values, but you also have to work to find solutions to make our country great again," Sweeney said.

Against the Grain

5 Democrats Who Should Run Against Hillary Clinton

The former secretary of State could be vulnerable in a Democratic primary, but only if qualified candidates decide to challenge her.

By Josh Kraushaar July 2, 2014

It's been remarkable to see how quickly the Democratic Party has coalesced around Hillary Clinton as its expected 2016 nominee, despite clear vulnerabilities she's telegraphed during her book tour. Clinton brings undeniable assets to the table—she'd be the first female president, the Clinton brand is still strong, her fundraising is unmatched—but her recent exposure on the book tour has demonstrated her political limitations as well.

I've outlined some of them in past columns: She's not a particularly good campaigner; she's skilled at staying on message but tone-deaf to the way comments about her wealth could backfire among an economically anxious public. With the threat of terrorism rising and increased turbulence in Ukraine, Syria, and Iraq, Clinton could find that her record as secretary of State is a major vulnerability in an election where foreign policy is looming as a major issue. Most important, she tied herself to President Obama by accepting his offer to run State, assuming that his coattails would be awfully valuable down the road. Now, with Obama's approval ratings tanking, scandals abounding, and a new Quinnipiac poll showing a plurality of voters consider him the "worst president" since World War II, Clinton knows she needs to keep some distance from Obama while maintaining the excitement of his base. That's not a great place to be.

Her biggest asset is the fact that the entire Democratic Party infrastructure is behind her, seemingly resigned to her vulnerabilities but hopeful about her potential. Even progressives who are nervous about her Wall Street connections are merely hoping to nudge her leftward, and not aggressively challenge her with an actual candidate. With a lackluster Democratic bench, it's hard to find many alternatives even willing to throw their names out there. And let's be clear: Former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, whose loose lips would sink a campaign before it launched, and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, throwing in his name as a protest candidate, don't qualify.

That doesn't mean there aren't credible candidates who, on paper, could mount a serious challenge. With anti-Washington sentiment running high, this is a promising opportunity for an outsider to run and surprise. True, they don't seem to want to run, whether from fear of the Clinton machine, a desire to avoid challenging someone who might make history, or simply an assumption that 2016 isn't a great year for Democrats. But the candidates exist. Here are some prospects who would normally be touted for higher office but have acquiesced to Hillary Clinton in the run-up to the 2016 election.

1. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia

Kaine was one of the first Democratic officials to jump on the Obama bandwagon, and he has a resume that normally would be the envy of his fellow pols: swing-state governor; Democratic National Committee chairman; senator elected on Obama's coattails against a former GOP presidential prospect, George Allen. Kaine was on the very short list of potential Obama running mates. If this were the resume of a Republican candidate, it would vault him to the top of the list of 2016 front-runners.

But instead, Kaine took the unusual step in May of endorsing Clinton before she even announced her candidacy, perhaps angling for a Cabinet post over pursuing any possible national ambitions. Maybe being a white man in the Democratic Party is now a vulnerability in the Obama era, but Kaine certainly could score chits as an early Obama supporter who helped swing his state the president's way. And his Midwestern roots, authentic personality (in sharp contrast to Clinton), and executive experience would all be strong selling points to a national audience.

2. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

One of the obvious, yet underappreciated, factors in Obama's upset of Clinton was how powerful a role race played in the 2008 presidential primaries. Clinton had close ties to the African-American community from her days in the White House, but once it became clear that Obama was a serious challenger, he overwhelmingly carried the black vote in nearly every primary state where it mattered.

Why couldn't that dynamic repeat itself in 2016? Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is leaving office, and he is a close ally of Obama's. (Obama even touted him as a prospective candidate.) Unlike the 2008 version of Obama, Patrick boasts executive experience as a two-term governor who had to deal with one of the biggest crises during the Obama presidency—the Boston Marathon bombings. Unlike Mitt Romney before launching his first presidential campaign, Patrick scored solid approval ratings in his last year in office (53 percent in a January 2014 MassINC poll).

Patrick recently said he worries about how Clinton is being viewed as the inevitable nominee, but he hasn't made any moves of his own to suggest he's running. But if he could put a credible team together, he'd be a much more threatening challenger than, say, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley.

3. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri

In a normal year, a female media-savvy, red-state prosecutor who defied the odds to win a second term in the Senate would be at the top of many Democratic wish lists. But like Kaine, this early Obama supporter was one of the first elected officials to sign up with Clinton's nascent campaign, taking herself out of the conversation. Part of her motive was to ingratiate herself with Team Clinton, who placed McCaaskill on Hillary's "enemies list" after she said she didn't want her daughter near the former president in a Meet the Press interview (as an Obama surrogate).

Instead of sucking up to the Clintons, why not challenge Hillary? Representing a populist state, McCaskill would be well positioned to challenge Clinton on her wealth, ties to corporations, and perceived disconnect from the middle class. Plus, McCaskill's long-term prospects in the Senate aren't great, assuming she doesn't face Todd Akin again in 2018.

4. Former Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin

Where have you gone, Russ Feingold? The former Wisconsin senator and campaign finance reform scold has virtually disappeared from the political arena. Like Clinton, he's now serving in the State Department— as the special envoy for the African Great Lakes region and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Like Elizabeth Warren, Feingold would be able to rally progressives around his campaign but he could potentially have more appeal to male voters, a demographic where the party has gotten crushed in the Obama era. Unlike Clinton (and Warren), Feingold took a lone stand for same-sex marriage in 2006, when most elected Democrats opposed such legislation. He's been a longtime critic of outside groups' campaign spending, which has been a rallying cry for liberal Democrats in the age of the super PAC.

Feingold has always marched to the beat of his own drum, and it would be hard to see him prevailing over the better-organized Clinton. But he could persuasively assert he was ahead of the curve on the issues animating today's Democratic Party, a powerful argument for the grassroots base. Indeed, he'd be in a situation similar to that of another reform-minded former Democratic senator, Bill Bradley, who challenged a sitting vice president and nearly won the New Hampshire primary.

5. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon

Winning two terms in an increasingly Republican red state—he ran 9 points ahead of Obama in 2008 and 11 points ahead in 2012—Nixon is one of the most accomplished Democratic governors in the country. The Kansas City Star's Steve Kraske dubbed Nixon the "Teddy Roosevelt of Missouri—vigorous, a champion of the outdoors, constantly touring all corners of the state more than any chief executive in state history." He worked with Republicans to pass comprehensive jobs legislation, cut spending, and passed ahead-of-the-curve legislation incentivizing college graduates to specialize in high-demand health care fields. Nixon won high praise for his handling of the aftermath of the tornadoes that devastated Joplin. And he's won over some social conservatives by allowing restrictions on late-term abortions and reducing the age for residents to purchase a concealed-weapons permit. But he's also expanded Medicaid and focused on boosting spending for education.

In short, his positions on social issues would probably be untenable in today's Democratic Party, where moderates are becoming as extinct as their counterparts in the Republican Party. And Nixon has shown no interest in national office, knowing the near-insurmountable challenges he'd face in a primary.

In 1992, when Democrats nominated a centrist Southern governor as their presidential nominee, it was a move born out of weakness, with party leaders desperately seeking to moderate their image and initially holding little hope they could oust the sitting president. At the onset of the primary, the field was wide open, with the party's biggest-name contenders (Mario Cuomo, Al Gore) opting not to run. The situation could well be reversed in 2016: Democrats acting like they're in a stronger position than the reality, opting for a coronation instead of a contested primary, and ignoring the political logic of nominating an electable moderate outsider who can expand the party's coalition. In 1992's more ideologically diverse Democratic Party, Nixon would be at the top of many Democratic wish lists. But we're still stuck in Clintonworld.

Because American politics is both divided and ineffective, it’s easy to assume that divisiveness is the problem, and being nicer and more cooperative would make government work again. Especially on occasions like the Fourth of July, the temptation is strong to hold hands and call, earnestly, for bipartisan comity. Can’t we all just get along?

No, we can’t—even though much of our partisan division is superficial. The more basic problem is denial. Like a dysfunctional family writ across a continent, we Americans have learned to look away from some of our hardest problems, such as inequality and climate change, and, when confronted with them, wring our hands and pretend there’s nothing we can do—even when we pretend to be making a fuss about them.

Part of the reason for the denial is that doing something meaningful about these problems would deepen our conflict. It would reveal a country divided by material interests, not just partisan rhetoric and style. It would raise the stakes of politics. This is risky, but the chance might open the door to a more hopeful politics.

Talk about embracing conflict seems divisive, which is automatically taken as a bad thing these days. But division as such is not a bad thing. Cultural vitriol stirred up by cynical posturing—that is a bad thing. Much Washington partisanship is tactical, positioning the team to take another increment of power. Much popular partisanship is a matter of culture and identity—where you get your news, what kind of tone you use when pronouncing President Obama’s name, which kinds of people you wish your children or siblings wouldn’t date.

But the actual scope of disagreement in our so-called polarized time is nothing compared with the issues that divided the country during the debates over slavery, the labor-capital clashes of the Populist and Progressive eras, the same again during the New Deal or the battles of the Civil Rights era. Conservative opponents accused Franklin D. Roosevelt of taking the country down the road to fascism, with considerably more conviction than Republicans’ insincere warnings against “socialism” today. One hundred and one senators and congressmen signed the 1956 Southern Manifesto denouncing Brown v. Board of Education and defending segregation. Those were divisions worth braving. By comparison, our civic mutual loathing is a tempest in a pisspot.

So why am I calling for conflict—real conflict, not its facsimile? Because the United States got two big doses of reality in the last six months. One was the explosive arrival of Thomas Piketty’s finding that inequality is vast and that we are headed toward a second Gilded Age, if we aren’t there already.

The other was the new set of U.N. reports on climate change, which confirmed, yet again, that the problem is real and accelerating. Happy developments like President Obama’s new greenhouse- gas rules and California’s pioneering climate legislation amount to spitting in the wind. Half of the total greenhouse-gas emissions in human history have happened just since 1970, and, growing at 2 percent a year, annual global emissions are set to double between now and 2050.Everything hard, from drought to floods to disease, is going to get worse, and, like all natural disaster, it’s going to be hardest on those who are already poor and vulnerable.

Both pieces of news ran right into a familiar politics of denial: the explicit climate-change denial that much of the Republican Party has made its specialty and the faux-outraged cries of “class warfare” that still greet factual reports on inequality.

But this is froth compared with the real denial. The real denial is structural, not rhetorical. It’s made up of policies that conceal difficulties and conflicts. This is the denial that we have to overcome in order to come to grips with the problems.

Climate denial is structural as long as the economy’s everyday feedback system, the price system, treats fossil-fuel emissions as free. We are running a carbon deficit that there is no way to repay. Like any unsustainable debt, our carbon deficit makes the borrowers feel richer than they really are, until it falls due and they are suddenly poor again—plus interest. We are greatly inflating the level of industrial activity the Earth can afford, ecologically speaking.

What about structural denial of inequality? Here the trick is actual economic debt. As Piketty and other researchers have pointed out, much of the growth in total social wealth in recent decades has gone to the very highest earners and the very wealthy—top executives and those who hold large amounts of capital. Ordinary people have seen their incomes stagnate while returns to capital, especially elite capital, grow.

Why have people tolerated this? Wolfgang Streeck, one of the most trenchant observers of Europe’s fiscal crisis, argues that policymakers have papered over growing inequality by engineering a series of bubbles. The housing boom, inflated by extremely low interest rates and deregulated financial markets, made people feel richer than they were for some years. Before that, a burst of private credit, aidedby deregulation and low rates, had the same unsustainable stimulus effect. Throughout, deficit spending has propped up tax cuts (another way to give people more money in the short run than they can have in the long run), military and “homeland security” spending, and, in general, massive public borrowing against the future. This bubble economy replaced a mid-century arrangement that was much more candid about distributive conflicts. The National Labor Relations Act and other collective-bargaining laws assumed that labor and capital (represented by management) had competing and partly irreconcilable interests. These laws tried provided frameworks for orderly conflict in which the different sides could fight out their differences. It was very far from being a perfect world, but working people got a large enough share of real economic growth that no bubbles were necessary.

This kind of candidly distributive politics has been seriously unfashionable in respectable circles, where the way to show you are a political grownup is by talking in terms of total wealth, the national interest, overall welfare—something we can all get behind. When extended to unsustainable deficits, this produces austerity talk—calls for “shared sacrifice” when the bills come due. On the right, these calls come from deficit hawks. On the left, they come from climate activists who understand that energy has to become much more expensive before renewable sources make it permanently cheaper, and that in the transition we may need to rethink highways, personal cars, flying for business and much else that we take for granted.

What’s wrong with austerity talk? It ignores that when national debts—economic or ecological— fall due, who will pay the piper is a distributive question, which means that austerity ends up concealing political decisions about who takes the pain. Austerity talk treats national debts like a household’s credit-card debts: In practice, “We will all have to tighten our belts” means cuts in health care and pensions. For ecological debts, the worst case is even worse than this: Nature collects the unpaid bills directly, with climate-driven disasters that fall on the poor and socially vulnerable.

The alternative to austerity talk is a politics that grasps the nettle of distribution. European austerity has amounted to strapping, and sometimes stripping, the postwar welfare state while ensuring that bondholders get their share of the next 20 years of national wealth. By the time a country reaches that point, either the battles are rearguard—saving what you can save—or the measures are desperate—dropping the euro, as Greece’s left-wing Syriza party proposed when it came close to winning a post-crisis national election.

Rejecting the politics of denial before things get more desperate would mean embracing a politics of conflict, a politics that recognizes the legitimacy and persistence of competing interests. Economic inequality is not just an unfortunate trend that is happening to all of us; it is deprivation, and sometimes exploitation, that is harming some of us and, often enough, benefiting others. Without bubble-driven illusions of shared prosperity, those who lose out from inequality might demand greater tax contributions from the winners—higher taxes on the highest incomes and taxes on wealth, where the money is. On average, people are richer than they have ever been. It’s just that a tax system that focuses on income from work and treats insanely wealthy people the same as (or better than) ordinary high earners misses where most of national wealth has been accumulating, giving the impression that “we” are sharing a tight period—when, in fact, the burden is disproportionately on the middle class and professionals, who have missed the biggest gains.

Climate change also presents distributive questions. Climate policy is a choice among futures— future energy economies, future atmospheric chemistry, future versions of seasons and weather. Each of these will be better for some industries, regions and people than for others. Even the catastrophic but likely scenario, where greenhouse-gas emissions keep growing at present rates, will work out especially well for the global elites now buying property in places like Vancouver, which are expected to be climate-resilient. Conversely, emissions controls 20 years ago would have been a boon to poor and low-lying populations from Bangladesh to New Orleans’s Ninth Ward. Now it’s probably too late. Other big questions for climate policy are even more explicitly distributive. Suppose there were a successful effort to charge for greenhouse-gas emissions—a carbon tax. Where would the payments go? Would emissions rights be doled out free to industry according to historical levels of pollution—basically a subsidy for past polluters? Would they be sources of public revenue? Or might they create something like Alaska’s oil-financed Permanent Fund, a stream of payouts to individual citizens? The latter alternatives would announce, in effect, that the global atmosphere belongs to the people of the world, that it is a global commons and that the right to use it comes from these owners and must benefit them. (James Hansen, the eminent climate scientist, calls this idea “cap and dividend.”)

These kinds of measures would be worth some conflict. By contrast, cynical and superficial polarization is just another form of denial, and in some ways the most effective. It produces infernos of political passion—think of the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012—followed at most by trickles of change. All this confirms the suspicion that government is always ineffective, that politics is a show of empty gestures and hollow promises. That kind of cynicism doesn’t make politics less engaging; it just makes it less consequential. Politics becomes a form of middle-class entertainment: a highbrow soap opera, sports for nerds, Hollywood for ugly people. This kind of politics could never produce a constructive engagement with America’s biggest problems. At best, it amuses us while we await the guillotine of austerity. In this guise, the politics of denial denies politics itself.

Calling for a more divisive politics does not mean embracing polarization for its own sake. It also doesn’t mean denying that, in the end, we really are all in this together. But we need versions of patriotism and solidarity based in real—which means conflictual—responses to our big problems. We have some fighting to do.

What might this look like? It could mean a major-party candidate calling for a modest annual wealth tax, as Piketty has urged. It could mean defending spending on public higher education to raise social mobility and ease the debt crunch for middle-income and poorer graduates. It could mean defending infrastructure investment and public services as benefits for everyone, and opposing spending cuts and privatization for reserving goods to those who can buy them.

Even just a change in attitude, a new willingness to talk about distributive conflicts, could have surprising results. Less than three years ago, Occupy Wall Street opened a floodgate, moving inequality from a pariah issue to a major theme of the next election. Americans were ready to acknowledge inequality and argue over it. But they needed, somehow, to give themselves permission. A small, mainly symbolic encampment movement found itself giving that permission. Political shifts can be surprising like that—which is probably why the conventional wisdom that Occupy “failed” got it wrong.

What’s especially tricky now is that some of the conflicts we need to embrace are transnational. Changes in national politics won’t be enough, and they could be undercut at the international level even if they start to succeed. Inequality is driven by global capital flows, which no one country has enough power to bring to heel. Climate change, an equally global problem, outruns national borders and undercuts international cooperation. Meaningful responses may require transnational coalitions of working people, professionals and the climate-vulnerable. That is a very tall order, but working-class internationalism was one of the political signatures of the last Gilded Age, so maybe now is the time to recapture and expand it.

Meanwhile, for patriotism and solidarity that go beyond denial, the fighting starts at home. Let the fireworks begin.

Jedediah Purdy is Everett professor of law at Duke Law School.

Gas-tax increase on the table as highway fund nears empty

Washington --

Sen. Barbara Boxer visited a road-building project Thursday in Monterey County to warn that Congress is about to let the Highway Trust Fund run dry, endangering highway and transit projects in every state.

"This is a major crisis," said Boxer, D-Calif.

The Highway Trust Fund, which has been perpetually short of money since sometime after the Clinton administration last raised the gasoline tax two decades ago, is expected to run out of money by the end of August.

The Transportation Department warned Tuesday that by August, the federal government will begin delaying reimbursements to states for projects under way. These include the San Juan Road Interchange Project on Highway 101, where a dangerous confluence of local roads in northern Monterey County would be replaced with a single interchange and be converted to a freeway. It's where Boxer joined Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty and Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, to warn about the looming cutoff.

Steep cuts

The cuts will average about 28 percent across the states, transportation officials said, and could deepen when the trust fund goes dry. A second deadline is coming Sept. 30, when the government's authority to spend money on transportation programs expires.

Raising the gas tax was considered political suicide in both parties until last month, when Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Chris Murphy, D-Conn., proposed boosting it by 12 cents per gallon over two years. That would generate $164 billion over the next decade, more than enough to shore up the highway fund.

Corker, a former mayor, said he was fed up with Congress letting roads and bridges decay. "I finally got to the point that I realized this cannot go on," he said.

But other Republicans refuse to raise taxes of any kind. Led by deposed House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., House Republicans suggested ending Saturday mail delivery in order to fund highways. The conservative Heritage Foundation ridiculed the idea as transferring money from one bankrupt entity to another. The U.S. Postal Service, desperate to cut costs, supports it.

Boxer now says she is open to a gas-tax increase, which in effect is a mini-carbon tax. Gas-tax revenue has fallen below funding needs in part because cars are getting better mileage, and the tax has not kept up with inflation.

Funding alternatives

Boxer recently passed a transportation bill out of her Environment and Public Works Committee on a unanimous vote, which was remarkable given that the panel includes some of the Senate's most conservative and liberal members. But other committees have to come up with the money. Boxer said she is open to other funding ideas, including allowing multinational corporations to repatriate foreign earnings at a discounted tax rate, replacing the gas tax with a user tax levied at the refinery level, and taxing vehicle miles traveled, which would require those who drive the most to pay the most.

Boxer said that because she drives a plug-in hybrid, she personally doesn't pay her fair share of gas taxes.

Money from Washington

Here's what the Highway Trust Fund means for California:

-- Fifty percent of California's highway capital program comes from the Highway Trust Fund.

-- California receives more than $3.5 billion in highway funding and over $1.2 billion in transit funding from the federal government each year.

-- A total of 586 projects in California are vulnerable to funding cutoffs if the Highway Trust Fund runs out of money as projected Sept. 30.

Carolyn Lochhead is The San Francisco Chronicle's Washington correspondent. E-mail: [email protected] Twitter: @carolynlochhead