Back to Voter Guide Landing Page
Prop 3 -- Water, Water & More Water
Prop 3 would fund water and environmental projects with $8.9 billion in new bonds, costing the state about $430 million per year over 40 years. Prop 3 would save local governments about $200 million over the next 20-30 years by using prop 3 funds for projects that local governments might otherwise have funded.
Wait...didn’t they just ask to fund water projects for $4 billion in June with prop 68? Back so soon...thirsty for more.
We thought the legislature was supposed to address these needs, but the prop suggests that we don’t trust them to handle our $$. Instead of having the legislature allocate prop 3’s bond funds in the annual state budget, Prop 3 would send funds directly to state departments, who would distribute most of it via grants to local gov, tribes, and nonprofits for specific projects. The funds cannot go toward the evil twin tunnels water diversion project.
The prop has surface appeal with the 1.5 million acre feet of increased water supply, prioritizing low-income communities, water facility upgrades, improved drinking water, flood protection, etc. They’re saying that money can go out in a proportional way to local districts that are empowered to decide how to address water challenges. Also provides more $$ for the state to take care of existing dams (*cough* Oroville *cough*).
There are some red flags:
-
The legislature didn’t put it on the ballot; people who stand to receive the money for the projects did
-
Water bonds already passed in recent years haven’t done enough and this would be more of the same.
Endorsers are mostly water districts, most of them small, but some not so small. The Westlands water district (biggest & most troublesome in the state) is missing. The people opposed to it are the Sierra Club and Friends of the River. They’re talking dams, not the way to go. Not a balanced measure, paid for by water districts who want to build more dams. CA Democratic Party didn’t endorse and Republic party is neutral. Water districts tend to do things same ol’ same ol’.
There’s nothing much to show for bond money put toward water so far...Since 2000, $31 billion in bonds for water projects were approved by voters, and as of June about $10 billion was still available. Do we want to give politicians more funds to do more of the same that didn’t work?
Sustainable groundwater act is being implemented on the local water district level. Each local water district is working on creating a sustainable water plan for agriculture. Is there enough consideration for water that farmers need?
Straw Poll
No -- 14; Yes -- 0
