Talk:Props 2010/18/
From Jan Arnold --
No on Prop 18 “Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010”
This measure was placed on the ballot by the Legislature, which passed it in November 2009. As usual, it has been given a title equivalent to “Butterflies, Sunflowers, and Cute Little Puppy Dogs.” Who could be opposed to safe, clean, reliable drinking water? (Remember PG&E’s recent Prop 16, the” Taxpayers Right to Vote Act ?” Luckily, the voters saw through that one.)
The League of Women Voters of California, for one. These folks are not quick to jump to conclusions. They say “While the bond contains funding for water management options that the League favors, such as water conservation, recycling and watershed protection, the overall effect of the measure is to encourage continued reliance on structural water supply solutions such as dams and conveyance that take more water from instream flows.”
Sierra Club California, for another. They say “This November, California voters will vote on an $11.1 billion water bond. Sierra Club California opposes the water bond and urges voters to reject it.
This bond would obligate the state to pay back more than $800 million in bond debt every year for the next 30 years. These payments would further stress our general fund, providing $800 million less for schools, parks, social services, police protection and fire services. It seems unwise to add these huge annual payments to a budget with a projected shortfall of $21 billion by 2011.
Certainly the state must invest in maintaining and improving our water infrastructure. Since 1996, California voters have approved over $14.3 billion in water-related bonds. To this day, $7.1 billion of those bond dollars have not been spent. Shouldn't the state spend this money prior to asking the voters to authorize more water bonds?
This proposed bond would not address our water problems in the most efficient way. It allocates only $250 million for conservation, but includes $4 billion to build new dams and expand existing ones. California can't afford $4 billion to finance environmentally destructive projects. Dams harm fish and other wildlife, reduce biodiversity and harm the natural habitat. They are also inefficient: each year more than a half million acre-feet of water evaporate from reservoirs, unused.
The bond does not do what is necessary to solve our water problems by promoting low cost and efficient solutions like conservation, water recycling, storm water recapture and the cleanup of polluted groundwater basins...”
A very quick run through the bill shows everyone, every purpose, and every region seems to be included. I’ll mention the billion-dollar items that I noticed. Chapter 6 (Water Supply Reliability) is a billion-dollar item (but localities have to match the State funds, unless the State decides they are “disadvantaged” or “economically distressed”). Delta Sustainability is a $2,250,000,000 item, which supports agriculture along with drinking water supplies. Almost $2 billion is allocated (chapter 9) to conservation and watershed protection, $1 billion (chapter 100 for Groundwater Protection and Water Quality, $1 billion for the (chapter 11) Water Recycling Program.
We Greens feel we should exercise independent judgment on ballot measures. But in this case, when our knee-jerk reaction (is there a Peripheral Canal in there somewhere?) matches the Sierra Club and the League, we can spend our time better in other ways.
