There was an error in this gadget

Friday, May 14, 2010

$11 Billion Water Bond - Boondoggle or Necessity?

Things are starting to heat up with the $11 billion water bond proposal that will go before California voters in November. 

A coalition of bond supporters have started to make their voices heard, while at the same time, those opposing the bond are ramping up their efforts to undermine the value of the bond.

To learn more about the water bond you can browse the websites of both the support and the opposition groups below:

http://nowaterbond.com/

http://www.waterforca.com/

These are both biased websites, so keep that in mind as you read through them.

After you've read them, let us know what you think...

1 comment:

  1. The bond calls for all taxpayer dollars to fix the problems in the Delta. Those problems were caused in large part by excessive diversions of water to corporate agribusiness in the San Joaquin Valley. Those interests should pay their fair share to fix the Delta. There are many more reasons to vote against the bond. Here are a few: 1. The debt service on the bond will reach $800 million per year out of the General Fund and that will come right out of education, law enforcement, social services, etc. 2. The so-called "water crisis" is a manufactured crisis by corporate agricultural interests who want the taxpayer to pay for more economically and environmentally disastrous dams. 3. There are $8 billion worth of water bonds (Props 84 and 1E) previously approved still unsold. 4. There is close to $2 billion in pure pork (handed out to legislators to get their vote to put this turkey on the ballot) in the bond. 5. $3 Billion is allocated for new storage facilities with a limited list of alternatives including new dams. The decision maker on what facilities will get built is the California Water Commission. That commission has been defunct for years and has no current members. Schwarzenegger has the power to appoint all the members at any time. It is no secret that he has a fondness for big dams and is looking for a legacy ---- maybe a new dam named after him. 6. The bond provides that if a new dam is funded by the Water Commission the funds may go to an entity that includes “nongovernmental partners”. That is legislative lingo for privatization of the State Water Project; a very bad idea!! 7. The bond potentially provides as much as $4.5 Billion for new storage projects (i.e. dams) but only a maximum of $2 Billion for soft path measures such as conservation and recycling. That has backwards. See www.NoWaterBond.com and join the fight against the bond.

    ReplyDelete