In the last six years, three water bonds have appeared on the statewide ballot. California voters passed two of the ballot measures and one is pending. In 1996, Proposition 204 authorized $995 million for water supply and water quality. Again in 2000, Proposition 13 was passed allowing $1.97 billion towards the same goals. In November, Proposition 50, the Water Quality, Supply and Safe Drinking Water Projects, Coastal Wetlands Purchase and Protection initiative earmarks $3.4 billion. All the initiatives, whether passed or pending, devote more funds to acquisition and habitat restoration than to the stated purpose of increased supply and improved water quality.

With California’s steadily increasing population and agriculture as its economic base, who could argue with the goals of increased supply and enhanced water quality? In fact, with the increased demand on water, the need to target supply problems with large funding proposals is logical. However, what you see and what you are told about recent water bond initiatives, is not what you get.

In support of the ballot initiatives, voters are subjected to the commercial depiction of a child sipping from a drinking fountain. A picture intended to make us believe that passage of these ballot initiatives will save children from the perils of poor drinking water, while ensuring an ample supply of the same. Based on that depiction, voters believe that the funding in the proposition is focused on water supply, water safety and water quality. But again, what you see and what you are told, is not what you get.

On the heels of Prop 204 and Prop 13, Prop 50 now assumes the water supply/water quality stage, claiming to increase supply and enhance water quality. However, the $3.4 billion initiative will leave California high and dry like its predecessors. Nothing has changed. Again, what you see and what you are told, is not what you will get.

Proposition 50 authorizes $3.4 billion in general obligation bonds and appropriates money from the state General Fund to pay off these bonds. The proposition on the November 2002 ballot was not developed through the legislative process, but the Legislature will have a role in appropriating the funds authorized by the measure. Further, the funds in Prop 50 ($3.4 billion) can be used for purposes

other than those actually stated in the initiative (with the exception of water storage projects.)

The measure allows the Legislature to re-appropriate Prop 50 funds for other high priority needs that are consistent with the purposes of the proposition. In other words, the 3.4 billion dollars can be used for nearly any project with the slightest connection to the elements in Prop 50. Any reapportionment would simply be a matter of interpretation.

Let’s take a look at the elements contained within Prop 50. There are several main categories.

Most of the above listed elements contain land acquisition and habitat restoration language with funding to match. When analyzed, 63% of the funds in Prop 50 are designated for such purposes. Specifically, land acquisition 38% and habitat restoration 25%.

Water Security, funding to protect our water supply from terrorist activity, is allowed 1% of the Prop 50 monies. All other categories including; Safe Drinking Water, Colorado River, Water Quality, Desalination, and Water Conservation share the remaining 36%. Even assuming the distribution of equal shares, each of these important categories is left with only a fraction over 5% of the allotted funds.

More than 50% of the total funding within Prop 50 goes to Coastal Protection and the CALFED Bay Delta Program. Other categories have such minimal shares of Prop 50 dollars that they can only be considered window dressing to make the Proposition more palatable to voters, a major "bait and switch" scam.

Prop 50 does not create one new drop of water. Prop 50 does not fund any water storage construction. In fact, the $500 million in the Integrated Regional Water Management section is specifically off limits to storage projects. "No project financed pursuant to this section shall include any on-stream surface water storage facility or any off-stream surface water storage facility other than percolation ponds for groundwater recharge in urban areas." And those people interested in boat ramps on the Sacramento River should note that "No river or stream channel modification project whose construction or operation causes any negative environmental impacts may be financed pursuant to this chapter unless those impacts are fully mitigated." So, Prop 50 offers no increased supply through new storage, no money for groundwater recharge in rural counties (impacting a funding source for the Colusa Basin Drain) and little hope for river access projects.

Proponents of Prop 50 state that passage keeps clean drinking water flowing to an increasing population, creates new water, removes pollutants, protects water supply from terrorists, and protects rivers, lakes, streams, coastal wetlands, beaches and bays. Opponents declare that Prop 50 does virtually nothing to complete the California Water Project or provide new water supplies while eventually costing $5.7 billion on repayment.

Read the proposition carefully. Use common sense. Ask yourself if Prop 50 helps your community. Don’t be taken in by the commercial video of a child sipping from a drinking fountain. Is what you see and what you are told really what you will get?

Remember the old saying, "Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you?" Considering the measure before us, maybe the adage should read; Fool us once shame on us. Fool us three times and the shame is on us permanently.