November 10, 2017
Someday soon you may be asked by someone holding a clipboard to sign a petition to put a water bond on the November 2018 ballot.
What should you do?
Just say no.
Don’t sign.
If you do sign, you’ll be helping advance some bad water policies. But you’ll also be continuing a practice informally known as “pay-for-play” that a few old timers continue to cling to as they dream up bond measures.
Pay-for-play bond measures are basically measures that give a little bit to everyone, including a few wealthy interests who can fund the measure’s expensive travels to get on the ballot and garner the votes needed to pass.
The pay-for-play bond measures are like Christmas trees with ornaments that often clash.
Sierra Club California’s volunteer leaders and staff have analyzed the proposed November 2018 water bond measure. A few leaders and staff have discussed the measure with its lead architect.
The conclusion: The proposed “Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018” has serious flaws that are too damaging to the environment to overlook.
Sierra Club California typically does not take positions on ballot measures until they are already qualified for the ballot. However, in recent years, because of campaign finance restrictions, it has become increasingly obvious that if we want to stop a bad measure from taking effect, we need to address the measure at the time it is out for signature gathering.
At that early point, we can begin to educate our members and allies that they should not sign. And they can warn their friends and family to stay away from the clipboard-toting signature gatherers.
The water bond circulating for signatures now would provide $8.877 billion for various water projects and programs.
The damaging flaws in the bond will enable certain dams and other infrastructure we have opposed.
The bond also directs to unspecified water projects a specific category of funds collected through the state’s cap-and-trade program that should be used to efficiently cut climate emissions.
Also, the provisions of the measure deviate from the principle of beneficiary pays for infrastructure construction and improvements. That means that it shifts the costs of specific dams and other infrastructure from the water agencies and customers who actually get that water to all the taxpayers of California.
Finally, aspects of the bond as written could cut funds established for wildlife habitat preservation.
We’ve produced a more detailed list of concerns about the water bond and posted it on our website.
One thing to note: There are some good things in the bond that we don’t oppose. In the past, we’ve looked at certain bond measures that we didn’t entirely agree with and decided to simply not take a position if the good outweighed the bad.
In this case, the bad outweighs the good. There are other ways to get funding for water projects. Some of those ways include other bond measures that we can support.
But this one is just too bad to let fly through without protest.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Phillips
Director
Sierra Club California is the Sacramento-based legislative and regulatory advocacy arm of the 13 California chapters of the Sierra Club.
Please consider making a monthly donation.
