Prop 18 – Zero Chance of Fixing CA Water Woes and a Big Price Tag
“Voters will be asked to approve a new $11.4 billion water bond that promises to increase develop more reliable water supplies and increase local water supplies. (Los Angeles Times 6/20/2010)”
Time for a Sanity check…
Going back to 1996 there have been 6 voter approved bond measures amounting to $16.6 BILLION that promised to resolve future water shortages. None of them followed through on the campaign promises they made to voters.
So today we find ourselves in one of the most serious shortages since 1987 and perhaps since William Mullolland when he opened the gates of the Los Angeles Aqueduct in 1913.
The six water bonds to-date have not resulted in reliable supplies as promised but instead have contributed to the states fiscal crisis and overdrawn water so severely that courts had to intercede and impose restrictions to stop permanent environmental losses.
All of this suggests that the bonds don’t work and do nothing to address the root cause of the water shortage.
Water bonds have instead become an endless cycle of appeals promising reliability to voters for decades to come that are followed by spending billions on projects to improve water conveyance and storage only to find later that we are further behind and again needing another bond for a new infusion cash.
Like the other bonds before it, Prop 18 to will have zero chance of resolving the state’s water reliability problems. The capital projects these bonds pay for such as new underground storage, surface storage, or improved conveyance and water conservation programs stand no chance of providing reliable water supplies to urban centers and farms as long as there are no mechanisms to throttle back on housing production when water supplies are chronically short.
Only changes in the states housing and water policies can live up to the promises we see carted out every election time. The answer is perhaps a new element to CEQA and changing state law so that Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) cannot be cited by city planning agencies and developers as evidence of available water.
Here is a list of those state water measures that were approved and the recycled claims and promises they made to us to gain voter approval:
1996 – Voters approved Proposition 204, the “Safe Clean Reliable Water Supply Act,” a $995 million bond that promised to “increase water supplies.” “…drinking water is something most of us take for granted,” proponents wrote in the ballot pamphlet that year. “But the truth is, unless we act now, California’s residents, businesses and farms face a future of chronic water shortages and potentially unsafe supplies.”
2000 – Voters approved Proposition 12, the “Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000” borrowed $2.1 billion based on proponent’s assurances that “This measure is vital because it protects the lands that give us clean water.”
2000 – Voters passed Proposition 13, the “Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Bond Act,” for an additional $1.97 billion of bonds after proponents warned them (in language almost identical to the arguments for Prop. 204) that “We can’t take our drinking water for granted. Water officials predict major shortages and say existing programs won’t fix the problem.”
2002 – Voters approved Proposition 40, the “California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002” that borrowed $2.6 billion. Proponents promised (in words exactly the same as the empty promise they made in Proposition 12): “This measure is vital because it protects the lands that give us clean water.”
2003 – Voters authorized $3.44 billion of water bonds by passing Proposition 50, “The Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002.” Supporters promised: “California’s population is expected to nearly double in the next forty years. Proposition 50 funds state and local water system improvements needed to keep up with population growth by providing new water supplies and supporting water conservation programs.”
2006 – Voters approved Proposition 84 to authorize a $5.4 billion bond. The “Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act Of 2006. Supporters promised: “Prop. 84 will increase the reliability of California’s water supply.”
Proposition 18, the so-called “Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010″ once again recycles old promises that previous water bonds failed to meet including “develop(ing) more reliable water supplies”, “Clean up drinking water sources”, “Protect & restore the environment”, “Increase local water supplies”, and “Enhance conservation“.
Prop 18 promises only two things… 1) It promises to more than double the past obligations that the previous 6 bonds saddled Californians with and 2) It promises that another bond will be on the ballot in two to four years after this one fails to meet it promises.
