California voters have rejected Proposition 3, the $8.9 billion water bond, sending a message to politicians. But what is that message? It can’t be that the state’s water problems have been solved. They haven’t been. It can’t be that Californians don’t care about water. Poll after poll shows we do. And it certainly doesn’t mean that more money – and potentially a lot of money – isn’t still needed to modernize our water systems. It is.
California voters have rejected Proposition 3, the $8.9 billion water bond, sending a message to politicians. But what is that message? It can’t be that the state’s water problems have been solved. They haven’t been. It can’t be that Californians don’t care about water. Poll after poll shows we do. And it certainly doesn’t mean that more money – and potentially a lot of money – isn’t still needed to modernize our water systems. It is.
Local water officials went back to the drawing board Wednesday, looking for a way to fund needed repairs to the Friant-Kern canal. The canal is damaged and requires an expensive project to repair. Farmers and water districts hoped voters would authorize the state to foot the bill by approving Proposition 3. They didn’t. The Friant-Kern is like a big water highway. It delivers water from Millerton Lake to farms all over the south valley. An Eyewitness News analysis found that the canal is directly involved in the production of approximately $2 billion of crops every year.
Backers mourned the loss of Proposition 3 on Wednesday, the nearly $9 billion bond measure that would have modernized old dams, restored tainted watersheds and created desalination plants, among dozens of other water projects throughout the state. Prop. 3 — backed by state water agencies, farming organizations, social justice advocates and environmentalists, but not the Sierra Club — lost by 52 to 48 percent, a difference of 320,000 votes out of nearly 7 million ballots cast.
California voters on Tuesday rejected a water bond for the first time in almost 30 years, disregarding pleas from its backers that the money would fix crumbling infrastructure, bring clean drinking water to disadvantaged communities and kick-start badly needed environmental restoration projects. As of Thursday’s tally, 54 percent of voters had rejected the $8.9 billion Proposition 3 that promised funds to help repair Oroville Dam and aid Central Valley farmers facing groundwater problems, among a list of other expenditures.
California voters will weigh in on 11 statewide ballot propositions on November 6th—a relatively small number for a state where the record number is 45. Still, the measures cover a lot of ground: everything from gas taxes to housing to breaks for emergency workers to daylight savings time to water conservation. There was even a ballot measure (Proposition 9) that could have split California into three states, before the state Supreme Court struck it from the ballot over the summer. Some of the remaining propositions are more straightforward than others, and Proposition 3, which would authorize the state to sell $8.9 billion in bonds to pay for water infrastructure and environmental projects, has left many voters confused.
The U.C. Davis School of Law’s California Environmental Law & Policy Center has published a detailed analysis of one of the most controversial initiative measures facing California voters on the November 6, 2018 general election ballot: Proposition 3. California’s Proposition 3: A Policy Analysis provides a detailed summary and analysis of the proposed “Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018.” If enacted, Proposition 3 would authorize the sale of $8.877 billion in state general obligation bonds to finance a wide array of water infrastructure, safe drinking water, groundwater management and watershed and fisheries improvement projects.
Should a bond for both habitat restoration and water-infrastructure projects be paid for by all Californians or just the groups that would directly benefit? That’s up for voters to decide. Proposition 3 would authorize $8.9 billion in state bonds for water-related infrastructure and environmental projects, including $30 million for repairs along the American River. But with interest it could cost Californians more than $17 billion.
In 2012, the California Legislature passed a law stating that it is a human right to have safe drinking water. But it provided only meager funds for that purpose. Proposition 3, a water bond on the November ballot, includes $750 million for safe drinking water and safe wastewater disposal in disadvantaged communities, and to eliminate lead from water fountains in schools.
In 2012, the California Legislature passed a law stating that it is a human right to have safe drinking water. But it provided only meager funds for that purpose. Proposition 3, a water bond on the November ballot, includes $750 million for safe drinking water and safe wastewater disposal in disadvantaged communities, and to eliminate lead from water fountains in schools. This is just one of many things Proposition 3 would accomplish by issuing $8.9 billion in revenue bonds to fund water projects in the state.
The Water News Network is San Diego County’s source for water news and information.
