PROPOSITION 3: WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

A YES vote here authorizes $8.8B for dam repair, habitat restoration, surface water storage, ground water storage, and the like. Canals, pipes, lakes, and forests!

This proposition was placed on the ballot by petition signatures.

If authorized, the money will come from bonds.

A bond is a loan from investors to the State of California that the taxpayers pay back with interest. A bond such as this is a good way for investors to park some cash with little to no risk. Since 1993 bonds exceeding $300M must be approved by the voters. Since 1993, 31/39 have been approved.

If this proposition passes, California is borrowing $8.8B and will end up paying back, over 40 years, a total of $17.3B (around $433M per year).

The largest chunk, $2.355B, would go to state parks and conservancies for the purpose of protecting watersheds. If you think you can continue enjoying groundwater without protecting watersheds, it’s time to walk out of the Flat Earth Society and go take a basic earth science class.

“If you think you can continue enjoying groundwater without protecting watersheds, it’s time to walk out of the Flat Earth Society and go take a basic earth science class.”

$1.1B would go to groundwater sustainability and municipal drinking water infrastructure. That matters to me personally, because I prefer the delicious Palm Springs groundwater to the carcinogen-laced plastic bottled water. But to each his own.

Over half of the money would have to be spent on “disadvantaged communities”—defined by the state as communities in which the median income is 80% or less of the statewide median. Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, and Cathedral City all qualify. Sorry, Indian Wells.

Now, let’s get the obvious stuff out of the way. Water supply is a huge problem in this state, and while some Californians believe no wild species should be left alive so that almond trees can survive in the desert, most of us agree that there is not enough water and that infrastructure improvements and additions are needed.

In the official voter’s guide the YES argument will be written by a water quality scientist, a water engineer, and an environmentalist. The NO argument will be written by the usual anti-tax lobbyists.

YES has raised $3M, most of it from environmental groups. NO has raised $0.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) supports Prop 3.

No newspaper editorials have come out in favor of Prop 3. The Sacramento Bee calls these the “wrong projects.” The San Diego Union Tribune complains that this is the third water bond in four years, which feels like throwing money at a problem.

Feelings matter too, I must admit.

My take, if you care:

If I had my way, there would be ten twelve-foot wide pipes running freshwater from Lake Superior to the Sierra Nevada—I mean, if they can pipe pressurized and deadly poisonous oil and gas from the middle of Canada to New Orleans, water shouldn’t be that big a deal. And trust me when I tell you Lake Superior has enough water to last FOREVER.

But there is no such pipeline.

Look, I get if you feel like money should be spent only on dams and pipes, and that people matter more than animals. But that attitude reflects a gross oversimplification—the fact is that deforestation and degradation of high country ecosystems degrades groundwater supply. That ducks will also benefit is neither here nor there. We are doing this for the humans, first and foremost.