Editorial:
Prop. 1: Water Bond. Authorizes $7.12 billion in general obligation bonds for various water supply infrastructure projects.
Authorizes $7.12 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, such as surface and groundwater storage; ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration; drinking water protection; water supply management; water recycling and advanced water treatment technology; and flood control.
We want to like Prop. 1. With increasingly dismal news coverage on Cali-fornia’s drought, the picture that has been drawn regarding the future of water availability in the state is not pretty. We should all be worried! But we’re not worried enough to support this proposition.
We like the ideas expressed within the proposition – drinking water protection, water supply management, and especially water recycling with advanced water treatment technology. But the cost associated with this bond is $7.1 BILLION dollars plus $425 MILLION dollars in unsold bonds that had already been approved by the voters for a total of $7.5 BILLION dollars!
The cost to the tax payers to pay Prop. 1 off over the next 40 years will be $14.4 BILLION dollars!
What this proposition doesn’t say is that even if this proposition passes it won’t do anything for the drought conditions of today or even the next ten years.
The proponents say that there will be no new tax, which in our opinion doesn’t mean much. The tax payer will still have to pay off the bonds with their dollars. Also, the majority of the money – $5.7 billion dollars – will go towards competitive projects for water supply and water quality projects ONLY if recipients provide a local match, in most cases 50% of the total cost. To match state bond funds, local agencies will have to add new taxes or raise water rates to cover their portion of their cost.
Then there is the fact that there are a lot of environmental groups that oppose this proposition. One or two environmental groups opposing is one thing. But when there are a lot of environmentalist groups opposing this proposition, it raises some red flags.
Lastly this proposition does nothing to alleviate the pain the consumers feel every time they pay their water bill and see their annual increases.
This proposition is good for big business and the growers and does little for the community except to add a greater financial burden.
We urge a NO on Prop. 1.