Prop 1 dedicates only 13% of funding to water conservation for the entirety of California

On the November ballot there is a newly named proposition. It was called California Proposition 43, but now it is Proposition 1 the Water Bond ( It was Assembly Bill 1422 and now it is Assembly bill 1471.) Upon voter approval, the measure would enact the Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2014.

It’s all very Nineteen-Eighty-Fourish. This has little to do with keeping California water clean and safe in Los Angeles–but you’re going to pay for it.

The reason behind renaming Proposition 43 to Proposition 1 is because they slimmed it down and don’t want to confuse the voters.

Yeah, sure that new name was all about transparency —OK. When you go to hell I have some fire I’d like to sell you.

It favors funding storage projects like the Sites Reservoir, Temperance Flat Dam, and the raising of the Shasta Dam project. Storage projects are big dams and reservoirs and in the case of the above would primarily benefit big agriculture.

It claims it is Twin Tunnels neutral, but a section of the Proposition 1 states that it specifically provides funding for “intrastate agreements that will enhance the reliability of water supplies on a regional or interregional basis and provide significant regional or statewide economic benefits,” which could mean subsidizing aspects of the Twin Tunnels.

The Twin Tunnels is an environmentally unsound project that could cost taxpayers $25 billion. The tunnels that will greatly benefit big agriculture and potentially big oil. The bill was renamed from Prop 43 to Prop 1 in part to reassure the public that it wouldn’t be paying for the tunnels —directly.

Another problem with Proposition 1 is the continuous appropriation of funds for storage projects. The funding for those storage projects are voted on not by us, but by handpicked gubernatorial commissioners and from what I have seen those commissions are almost always business over people.

“But it won’t cost us anything and it has recreational components in it. Don’t you like fun?”

Don’t give up our water rights for the promise of a place to jet ski.

And It will cost you. It is taking money from the general fund. Your taxes pay for the general fund. The general fund is a big pot that serves California. It serves our education, health services and infrastructure. Proposition 1 will allocate your tax dollars to help the wealthy and unsustainable big agriculture business.

Anyone who has taken the time to read this bond will understand that while it throws a few bones to groundwater clean-up and local pipe infrastructure, its main purpose is to subsidize big agriculture and possibly big oil.

“Proposition 1 does next to nothing to address near-term drought relief. It dedicates just 13 percent of its funding to conservation, stormwater capture and treatment, and recycling for the entire state. Prop. 1 marks $2.7 billion for “continuous funding,” meaning the funds flow without legislative oversight for three dams that will increase the state’s water supply by 1 percent – in 10 to 15 years, when the projects would be completed,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, director of Restore the Delta in the opinion piece “Proposition 1 funding adds big debt for little new water” in the Modesto Bee’s September 16 edition.

The Twin Tunnel, Sites Reservoir, Temperance Flat Dam, and the raising of the Shasta Dam projects are all unsustainable . We shouldn't let the wealthy steal our water and we certainly shouldn't have to subsidize the theft.

We should be investing in local water, we should be investing in our pipes. That would be the reasonable long-term investment.

“Instead of providing substantial funds to help communities save water by replacing aged and leaking water infrastructure, the water bond focuses billions of dollars on Northern California dam building to subsidize corporate agribusiness growing the wrong types of crops, with outdated technology, in the wrong places for decades.

From a statewide perspective, Proposition 1 is classic “pork” — a waste of taxpayer funds for pet projects, many of which could have devastating environmental impacts. The corporate farm owners who will be the primary beneficiaries of the water bond will have no incentive to change their water-intensive crops, increase efficiencies, reduce runoff, or upgrade to modern and cutting-edge technologies. At the same time, we can expect the big oil companies to line up for water that would come from these projects to support their high intensity polluting activities in the Central Valley, such as hydraulic fracturing (aka ‘fracking,’)” said Marco Gonzalez, executive director of Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation in Ballotpedia.

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan–aka Twin Tunnel project– will not do anything to help with our water security nor fix our pipes and neither will the Sites Reservoir, Temperance Flat Dam, and the raising of Shasta Dam.

We need to put money in projects we know will work.

“We should be investing in groundwater clean-up, water capture and activities that are proven to work,” said Alex Nagy organizer at Food and Water Watch

DWP is for the Twin Tunnel Shasta Dam, Sites Reservoir and Temperance Flat Dam project, but owing to them we lost more than 20 million gallons of water this summer in the middle of a mega-drought, because no one thought that investing in our 100-year old water pipes might be a good idea.

Why do taxpayers in L.A., San Diego and San Francisco have to pay for big agriculture, big oil and whatever else will benefit from the these projects?

With the passage of Proposition 1 there is a big chance that we will be funding the infrastructure for fracking. Governor Brown is for fracking. Brown’s support of fracking has been written about in the Nation, San Francisco Gate, ThinkProgress and Grist. And it seems like the recreation and habitat stabilization sites are next to potential fracking sites. In L.A. the Baldwin Hills Conservatory will be getting $10 million and that conservatory is on the site of Freeport McMoRan’s oil well.

Proposition 1 isn’t for us it’s for corporations, like 93% of the economic gains for our alleged recovery went to the wealthy the majority of benefits of Proposition 1 will go to the wealthy.