Prop 3 is a boondoggle (Water Infrastructure and Watershed Conservation Bond Initiative )

Prop 3 is a boondoggle. Press Democrat is one of the few papers in the state that supports this prop. The wine industry over pumps here which has created 3 medium water basins in the GSA to now become 5 basins with 3 high priority due to years of over pumping for the vineyards. Taxpayers will subsidize their profits. Very little actually goes to environment. VOTE NO.

The Sierra Club is one of the groups opposing. The LA Times calls it "pure pork". Here are some of the valid points made by them.

Prop 3 would:
● Shifting the cost for water from the end users to California taxpayers;
● Reducing state money available for other critical state programs like education, affordable housing, and healthcare;
● Failing to provide for adequate project oversight and financial accountability.
There are at least five specific ways that we (Sierra Club) believe this bond will directly harm the environment.

• It could open new funding pathways for ill-conceived dams. Only chapters 8 and 9 and the new Section 6 (page 49-50) prohibits the expenditure of funds on new surface storage or raising existing reservoirs. We are concerned that the only clear prohibition is found in 3 specific places in the bond and nowhere else. This raises the issue that the other chapters are not subject to that prohibition. Also, the bond measure’s proponents rejected requests by environmental groups to overtly prohibit funds from being used to construct, expand or improve conveyance facilities associated with any surface storage project listed in the CalFed decision of 2000. We take this as a sign that it is possible—and maybe probable—that funds in this bond will be used to advance several dam projects we have opposed.
• It could create incentives that harm threatened and endangered species. Section 86032 of the bond provides funding for agricultural water conservation in the tributaries of the Delta for the benefit of flow and to expedite water transfers. This section does not explicitly prohibit the expenditure of funds on activities that create adverse impacts to wildlife, such as eliminating flooding of rice fields for decomposition or the disking of fallowed agricultural lands to prevent the growth of plants that provide for upland habitat for birds and other species. This section could provide perverse incentives that decrease migratory bird habitat and habitat for other wildlife such as the threatened giant garter snake.
• It shifts money away from important upland habitat conservation. The bond’s proposed addition of Section 2799.7 to the Fish and Game Code would send the Habitat Conservation Fund money to water acquisition after 2020. We do not believe that 100 percent of that money should go only to acquire water. That fund has been important to non-water related habitat. If there is to be a reallocation of that fund, a substantial percentage should go to wildlife corridor conservation in the face of climate change.
• It raids the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to build political support. AB 32 (2006) created California’s cap and trade system. Emitters of greenhouse gases must either reduce their levels of emissions or purchase credits to cover their emissions at auction. Proceeds from those auctions are supposed to go towards projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This bond mandates that funds paid into the GGRF by the Department of Water Resources, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority will be given back to those agencies for water conservation measures. This could shift a large amount of money from programs that efficiently cut

There's a good entry on Prop 3 on Ballotpedia here.

Water bond Proposition 3 has something for everyone — and that's the problem
By GEORGE SKELTON
OCT 15, 2018 | SACRAMENTO

Call it a Christmas tree or a candy shop, Proposition 3 has a nice gift for almost everyone, especially eastern San Joaquin Valley farmers.

The Nov. 6 ballot initiative would authorize the largest water bond in California history, $8.9 billion. Add in $8.4 billion for interest payments and the total reaches $17.3 billion. That’s $430 million annually for 40 years.

Proposition 3 is the product of a classic pay-to-play operation. It’s probably not what Gov. Hiram Johnson envisioned when he and Progressive reformers created California’s direct democracy system more than a century ago.

Those reforms included the initiative, referendum and recall. The idea was to empower citizens to fight special interests — not to provide the interests with another tool to buy themselves public benefits.

{snip}

One crucial flaw in the initiative is that the Legislature would have no say over the bond program’s operation. No legislative oversight. The money would be spent unchecked by state agencies.

Voters should resist Proposition 3. And the next Legislature should devise a more modest plan with less candy.

Full article here

Here are some more editorials against this "pay to play" scheme by big ag interests (who should be paying for repairs they caused to the Kern canal from over pumping). It's the cost of doing business and taxpayers should not be subsidizing at the expensive of education and health. The Sierra Club and League of Women Voters have extensive info on this and they are opposed. GET CORPORTATIONS OFF WELFARE.

1.)https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/...ay-water-bond/

"So why are backers spending all this money? A tip-off on the true nature of Prop. 3 can be
found in the $100,000 donation to the cause from Stewart Resnick, the billionaire Central
Valley almond grower who is a backer of the $19 billion Delta twin tunnels project. The
proposition would provide $750 million to the Friant Water Authority for repairs of canals
damaged from Big Ag drawing too much groundwater from aquifers, rather than the norm
of holding the water agency and its ratepayers responsible for the damage. "

2.) "In the context of a state like California, which has recently seen general fund state
spending grow from $86 billion to $139 billion, the notion of squandering over $8 billion
on interest payments for the sake of $9 billion in bond funding seems wasteful to us.
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/09/2...er-water-bond/

The second reason to vote no is that vote just approved a $4 billion state bond in June
to pay for improvements at parks and for water projects, on top of a $7.5 billion water
bond that passed in 2014. Passing a third water bond in just four years feels like
throwing money at a problem. Given the poor condition of water infrastructure in
California, it might be justifiable. But that only holds for a bond that was crafted in an
impartial way by lawmakers or citizen committees — not by groups that would benefit
from it. Vote no on Proposition 3.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/endorse
ments/sd-proposition-3-water-bond-20180911-story.html

3.) "And although he isn’t publicizing his opposition, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon is
among the critics of Proposition 3 because of what his office calls a lack of oversight, an
absence of statewide priorities and a surplus of special interest projects for Central
Valley agriculture. On Proposition 3, all taxpayers would have to repay the bonds. But the list of
beneficiaries is far smaller – not enough to deserve voters’ support."
https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/elect...218816280.html