The California state legislature did not reach an agreement regarding California’s water issues by the time they adjourned on Sept. 11, so Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called a special session to continue discussions on water. The governor and the senate and assembly leaders have since been meeting in a series of closed-door talks.

California’s water crisis involves several different problems that have exacerbated in recent years. At the root of the crisis is that the majority of California’s water supply comes from the northern part of the state via a system of man-made dams and aqueducts constructed in the 1960s.

This system provides drinking water for 25 million people and supports California’s $27 billion agricultural industry – the largest in the nation.

However, the water system runs through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where it impacts the ecosystem and endangers wildlife. The Delta smelt, a small fish native to the Delta, and the winter-run Chinook salmon have both become federally endangered species, in part due to the disruption of their habitat by the aqueducts.

As a result, a federal court order caused many of the pumps in the Delta to be turned off or reduced.

“There are many factors that are contributing to the decline of the salmon and the delta smelt, but the water exports in the Delta is certainly one of the factors,” said Kate Williams, principal consultant to state representative Jared Huffman, chair of the Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee. “The risk to the state’s water supply and the risk of extinction for critical species has made this a major issue of importance to the legislature this year.”

Many, however, assert that the welfare of a few species of fish is not worth sacrificing the well-being of California’s population. Furthermore, California has also seen a natural shortage of rainfall in recent years, which has led to serious water shortages for farmers and urban areas in Southern California and the Bay Area.

At the heart of the controversy is the debate over how to fix the problem. Some believe a new pipeline around the delta to move the water from north to south is the solution, while others believe that that pipeline could further endanger the ecosystem and water quality of the delta.

An attempt at an agreement was made this year with the creation of Senate Bill 68 (SB 68), which has four basic parts.

First, Delta governance would create a new decision-making structure consisting of appointed members. Secondly, requirements for urban and agricultural water conservation would be created. Next, water management improvements would be made in monitoring California’s groundwater supply and enforcing water rights. Lastly, a General Obligation bond would likely be proposed to fund the project, though the details have not yet been decided.

Legislators failed to agree on the issues involved in the bill, and SB 68 did not pass.

Democrats and Republicans are not only split on the issue, but many Democrats may also be opposed to the bill because funding it might mean more cuts for schools and human services.

Senator Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), vice chairman of the Natural Resources and Water committee, issued a statement on the matter in September.

“Republicans agree our fragile Delta needs to be fixed, but we have been clear that environmental protection should not come at the price of economic destruction,” he said.

The aim of the special session is to alter the bill and hopefully create a new proposal to vote on this month. Although an agreement to California’s water crisis has yet to be reached, the legislature is turning their full attention to the matter.

“The water supply and ecosystem problems we are facing are at a crisis stage and the status quo is not acceptable,” said state representative Jared Huffman. “The legislature is working to develop a path forward out of 30 years of lawsuits, species decline and water shortages.”

SARAH HANSEL can be reached at city@theaggie.org.

Governor Schwarzenegger’s vetoes of three higher education bills on Oct. 11 has sparked outrage among many in the education sector.

Introduced by Senator Leland Yee (D- San Francisco), SB 86, 218 and 219 aimed to reform the UC/CSU system, mainly by altering their fiscal systems to be more transparent to the public.

SB 86 and SB 218 had bipartisan support from the State Assembly and Senate. SB 86 would have eliminated executive pay raises during bad budget years, or when the current year’s budget is less than or equal to the preceding year’s at UC and CSU institutions.

Schwarzenegger said in a veto message that he felt the bill would limit the flexibility for the UCs and CSUs to attract and retain high level employees.

In July, the UC Board of Regents approved salary increases for executives at the same time it was voting on furloughs, fee hikes and other cutbacks.

UC spokesperson Leslie Sepuka said the UCs felt that the bill was unnecessary and deemed it micromanagement.

SB 218 would have required foundations and other auxiliary non-profits connected with the state’s public universities and colleges to make their handling of money and other operations more visible to the public.

Twenty percent of the CSU $6.7 billion budget, or $1.34 billion, is held in auxiliaries and foundations, according to the CSU Chancellor’s Office. This portion is currently out of public view.

The California Faculty Association was not happy with 218’s veto.

“It would appear that [the governor’s] public commitment to transparency and accountability is only lip-service,” said CFA President Lillian Taiz in a press release. “When given the opportunity to provide the public with real, meaningful transparency in its public universities – he failed miserably.”

The UC system agreed with the governor’s decision.

“Subjecting university foundations to oversight that far exceeds that applied to other nonprofits will send the wrong message to our donors and volunteers who unselfishly give their time and philanthropy to the university,” said Leslie Sepuka, UC spokesperson. “SB 218 is attempting to address an issue that does not exist for our foundations.”

The third vetoed bill, SB 219, would have provided UC employees who report waste, fraud and abuse with the same legal protections as other state employees.

“The governor has failed to keep his promise of bringing greater sunshine to government agencies,” said Yee in a press release. “While he talks a lot about government waste, he vetoes the only bills to actually provide public oversight and accountability. His vetoes are certain to allow further scandal at these public institutions and will only result in fewer philanthropic dollars at a time when they are needed more than ever.”

Sepuka disagreed, and said UC is committed to protecting the rights of “whistleblowers” and will continue to believe that a fair and open administrative review process is the best means to resolve whistleblower complaints.

“The use of the courts should be reserved for exceptional cases,” Sepuka said. “Although the university offered to accept whistleblower complaint provisions that would provide whistleblowers access to the courts under specified circumstances – similar to provisions that currently apply to CSU – the author rejected our proposed compromise.”

Communications Director Fred Glass of the California Federation of Teachers was not surprised by the governor’s actions.

“The governor’s priorities are all wrong,” Glass said. “He’s more interested in raising fees and tuition than he is in financial fairness. He’s blocking access to public education. This is ironic because he benefited from community colleges in California many years ago.”

Yee’s Chief of Staff Adam Keigwin said the senator is working on a similar legislative package to reintroduce next year. Yee hopes a change of language will garner the governor’s signature, possibly compounding the bills until there is a new governor.

In November, the Board of Regents is voting on whether they should raise student fees by 30 percent next year.

In terms of solutions to the budget problem, Glass said the California Federation of Teachers is sponsoring AB 655. This bill would create an oil severance tax of 9.9 percent that could raise over $1 billion for public education in California. California is the only one of the 21 oil producing states that doesn’t have this tax.

ANGELA SWARTZ can be reached city@theaggie.org.

Part-time working students are more likely to be on the Dean’s List as opposed to students working more than 20 hours each week, a recent study says.

A study conducted by Charlene Kalenkoski, an associate professor of economics at Ohio University, and Sabrina Wulff Pabilonia, a research economist in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Division of Productivity Research and Program Development, has found that working more than 20 hours while in school may have a negative effect on GPAs.

Kalenkoski and Pabilonia decided to collaborate while doing research on student behavior.

“We were both interested in examining the magnitude of the effect of working while in school on grades because of the common perception that students who are working are sacrificing study time,” Pabilonia said in an e-mail interview. “In addition, we wanted to know why students choose to work. In particular, do they work to cover the cost of tuition and fees? Are their parents not contributing enough?”

Kalenkowski and Pabilonia found different results for four-year and two-year college students.

In four-year college students, the more money their parents gave them, the less they worked.

Two-year college students whose parents did not pay for their tuition worked more if tuition costs were higher, yet their earnings did not go directly into paying for tuition costs. This finding led Kalenkowski and Pabilonia to speculate that these students rely on loans to help pay for schooling while the money they earn from work goes to paying for entertainment and other non-tuition expenses.

“As the net price of schooling rises, two-year students work more, although not enough to cover the increase in cost,” Pabilonia said. “Thus, they must be partly relying on loans to cover increases in costs.”

The negative correlation found between grades and work hours, however, only applies to students that work more than 20 hours per week.

“We found that four-year students who work between one and twenty hours per week have higher GPAs than other college students who do not work at all and those who work more than twenty hours,” Pabilonia said.

Pabilonia added that this could be due to student motivation, as students who take on a certain amount of work are likely to be aware of how to effectively manage their time.

“In other words, this same group of students might have even have higher grades if they were not working,” Pabilonia said.

Sophomore Ashley Martin said that this finding made sense to her.

“If you don’t have a job you probably think you have more free time than you actually do which is why I think people procrastinate,” Martin said. “On the other hand, people who work too many hours will find it hard to get enough free time to keep up with their studies. So working between one and twenty hours a week gives the perfect balance to keep you on your toes.”

Anastiya Osborne, research assistant at the Office of Productivity and Technology at BLS, added that the type of work may even make a difference in GPA.

“In my experience, working while in school does have a slightly negative effect on a GPA, but also depends on whether the student is working a job related to a future profession or not, or if the student has work ‘on call’ that allows doing homework in downtime or busy work,” Osborne said.

Other students thought the study’s findings hold true generally but don’t apply to all students.

“I have no doubt that when time is divided people are not going to do the best job in both fields,” said sophomore history major Kyle Short. “After all, multi-tasking is hard. But it always depends on the person and their work ethic.”

“The topic is relevant, especially during economic crisis,” Osborne said.

ELENI STEPHANIDES can be reached at city@theaggie.org.

Officials are calling all community members to step up to the plate in assessing the needs of low-income residents.

Davis citizens are asked to take a short survey online about areas throughout the city in need of improvement.

Upon completion, the survey, along with its data, will be integrated into the final Consolidated Plan. This five-year plan works towards bettering the living environments of all individuals while focusing on low-moderate income households.

The city will use the survey to determine how to allocate funds.

“A survey is one way to obtain information,” said the city’s community services administrative analyst Patrick Conway. “We have had limited time and resources to put this plan together. This is an approach to gather data from the community.”

Because there are a certain number of low-income residents in Davis, the city qualifies as an entitlement city. Davis is a participant in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The City of Davis receives government aid through federal programs, known as the Community Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnerships Program.

The city has been a part of the CDBG program for over 24 years. Through its participation, it received almost $23 million in aid. Davis also received more than $9 million from the HOME project.

The last survey was conducted in 2005. The top four facilities in need of repair were child-care centers, health care facilities, centers for the disabled and general community and recreation facilities.

“The annual report averages consistent high demands for health care and food services,” said housing and human services superintendent Danielle Foster. “With food becoming more and more expensive, these needs are harder to provide for.”

Communicare Health Services is an organization located in Davis that annually applies for and utilizes the CDBG grants. Providing medical and dental services for lower income families, Communicare offers bilingual and bicultural health education to a diverse population of people. This organization has received between $17,000 and $22,000 in grants each year since the 1990s.

“These grants have become increasingly important over the years because we aren’t getting state funding,” said Communicare executive officer Robin Affrime. “We are getting more and more uninsured people. But we don’t turn away people who can’t provide uncompensated care. We could use four times more what they give us. These funds are essential.”

City Staff, Social Services Commission and the Davis City Council are responsible for overseeing any requests for financial assistance towards social service programs. All grant funds are directed towards extremely low to moderate-income individuals and households. At least 70 percent of the total recipients are required to have low or moderate incomes. The money is then distributed amongst needed improvements in various services, housing or infrastructure. Any suggestions made in the distributing of funds must benefit all community members, according to the CDBG requirements.

“The plan should be available for viewing around February,” Conway said. “After, there will be two public hearings with the Social Service Commission with the City of Davis and then with the Davis City Council.”

Survey responses will be accepted until Nov. 30. The survey results will available for viewing in a draft of the Consolidated Plan online. To participate in the survey, community members can access the inquiry at cityofdavis.org/cs/cdbg/survey.cfm.

SAMANTHA BOSIO can be reached at city@theaggie.org.