Who's Behind It: The state's most powerful people: Gov. Jerry Brown, the Legislature, et al.
Who Stands to Benefit: According to proponents, the average Californian (that'd be you) would profit. In other words, you could maybe stop worrying, or at least worry a lot less, about having to take shorter showers during future droughts. But if you ask the opponents, they'll tell you this water bond is nothing more than an early and overpriced Christmas gift to contractors who are itching to build us more dams.
Sometimes good campaigning depends more on perfect timing and less on political prowess. Such is the case with Proposition 1, Gov. Jerry Brown's baby (aka, the very expensive water bond) that promises to keep your drinking water tasting fresh and create infrastructure to stash away H2O for those desperate times. Needless to say, if rainstorms in California seem to have become as frequent as snowstorms in Texas, well, that'll make pretty compelling campaign literature right about now.
As proposed, Prop. 1 would allow the state to sell $7.1 billion in additional general obligation bonds and redirect $425 million in unsold general obligation bonds that were previously approved by voters for resource-related uses. Both these actions would pay for various water-related projects that would allow us to capture more water from local rivers and depend less on rain and melting snow to provide us with water. Some of these projects include public water system improvements, surface and groundwater storage, drinking water protection, drought relief, emergency water supplies, and ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration. That sounds nice, especially for those whose livelihoods rely heavily on water flow: farmers, ranchers, fishermen, and environmentalists.
But those are the very people who are opposing the governor's massive bond. According to Steve Hopcraft, spokesman for the "No on Prop.1" campaign, this bond is a waste of money. "Prop. 1's expense will go to build projects that will not solve our water problem, but will benefit wealthy agriculture corporations who want more access to California's water," he tells us. "We should not go into debt to build projects for billion-dollar farming conglomerates." There are better, less expensive alternatives to dealing with the depleting water supply, including repairing aging water-delivery infrastructure responsible for some 10 to 20 percent of water loss, Hopcraft says.
But with less than three weeks left until Election Day and only $50,000 in the bank, those hoping to convince voters that Gov. Brown is wrong and farmers are right won't have it easy. It's especially daunting when you consider that Prop. 1 donors, which include many Brown-backed committees, have kicked in more than $60 million to get this bond passed. "Prop. 1 donors expect to get a return on their investment: land to manage, water to use or political favors from the governor," Hopcraft says. But "voters are skeptical about this huge debt and its misplaced spending. Prop. 1, if it passes, won't solve the problems we face, so we will be here Nov. 5 to offer the real solution."
Showing 1-1 of 1
Comments are closed.
