California State 2006 -Proposition 84 Water Quality, Safety, and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds.

Official Summary, Pros & Cons
Other Resources
Visitor's Comments
Join the Discussion!

Official Summary, Pros and Cons

Funds water, flood control, natural resources, park and conservation
projects by authorizing $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds.
Emergency drinking water safety provisions. Fiscal Impact: State cost of
$10.5 billion over 30 years to repay bonds. Reduced local property tax
revenues of several million dollars annually. Unknown state and local
operations and maintenance costs, potentially tens of millions of dollars
annually.

Proposition 84 Summary
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)

Proposition 84 Analysis
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)

Proposition 84 Arguments & Rebuttals
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)

A YES vote on this measure means: The state could sell $5.4 billion in
general obligation bonds for safe drinking water, water quality, and water
supply; flood control; natural resource protection; and park improvements.

A NO vote on this measure means: The state could not sell $5.4 billion in
general obligation bonds for these purposes.

Top of the page.

Other Resources

Follow the Money (for and against this proposition)
To find the information, first click on a "Committee Name" link,
and then select the radio button "Late and $5000+ Contributions Received."

Organizations & individuals FOR Proposition 84

Extensive List of Supporters
Primary support comes from water agencies, local governments, environmental organizations, Democrats, Governor Schwarzenegger, and Chambers of Commerce.

Organizations & Individuals AGAINST Proposition 84

California Taxpayer Protection Committee
(No on 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, and 84)

Selected Articles, Editorials, Opinions, Reports

Summary of Water Management Elements in Prop 84
CA State Department of Water Resources

Proposition 84: Clean Water, Parks and Coastal Protection
Legislative and Policy WG Recommendation
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water's Analysis of Prop 84
(uses an environmental justice lens)

Another Water Bond in the Pipeline
LA Times, by Nancy Vogel
October 3, 2006

Editorial: Bonds for the Future
Yes on Props. 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, and 84
Sacramento Bee
September 18, 2006

Prop 84: Flood Control - No
Prop 84 is a reservoir of expensive bonds
Orange County Register
September 13, 2006

Another View: No on 84
Too little oversite on water, park bonds
Sacramento Bee , by Assemblyman Greg Aghazarhian (26th Assembly District)
September 13, 2006

In Depth Analysis by League of Women Voters

Preserve California: Vote Yes on 84
Public Funding is Crucial to Conservation
The Nature Conservancy

Top of the page.

Visitor's Comment List

Visitor Name: Carol Thornton
Congregation: First Unitarian Church of Oakland - Oakland

I would like to encourage folks to consider voting "no" on all the propositions. For me, it's a way to try to get State government back on track. Governing by initiative is a very bad way to govern. Here are my reasons:
1. We get stuck with horrible consequences, for example, if Prop 90 passes, it will trump by far the good that other propositions might do. And I seriously doubt that the legislature would ever pass such a draconian law. Check out what is happening in Oregon because of a similar law there.
2. This initiative process asks voters to make public policy decisions with little more than biased advertisements, slate cards, and a meager pro and con analysis from the Secretary of State's office.
3. What was once reserved as the work of elected officials who have the benefit of hearings, staff ananlysis and institutional memory has been given to voters to make what is tantamount to a snap decision.
4. The initiatives themselves are horribly flawed, use a "pay to play" method of getting on the ballot and passed, and contain items that many of us would not support if they were considered in the legislature. For example, the Transportation bond is heavily weighted to highway infrastructure, at the expense of improving public transportation. There will be another bore in the Caldecott Tunnel. As Unitarians, we might ask if this is a sustainable way to support State transportation. I'm sure when the third bore was done, folks were told that would solve all their problems. And if all this money is spent on highways, when will public transportation get its due?
4. I am most familiar with the water bonds, like Prop 84. The waste in these bonds is horrendous. The grant process required to get the money out the door requires State staff to manage the grants with no increase in staffing; so that here at the Regional Water Board, staff are pulled from their regulatory duties to manage grants that they are not trained to manage. And the selection process becomes very political. Many underserved communities don't have the same political clout as Bay Area, LA, San Diego cities and don't recieve the same consideration, even though they may need funding the most.
Well, enough of my rantings.
Just say NO!
Carol

---

Visitor Name: Carolyn Nolan
Congregation: Unitarian Universalist Church of Fresno - Fresno

Proposition 84, the Clean Water, Parks and Coastal Protection Bond Act deserves our support. I’m a UU living in one of the fastest growing regions in our state, the San Joaquin Valley. Clean water is a key issue here. Proposition 84 will provide access to clean water and protect natural resources important to us. It’s an investment we need to make in California and one that directly benefits the quality of life in our local communities.

The San Joaquin Valley is facing enormous population growth in the coming years, with double the number of new residents, from 3.5 million to 7 million, expected by 2040. But our state’s investment in the Valley’s infrastructure has not kept pace with population growth. Current funding for water quality, water supply reliability, natural resources and environmental protection programs is critically low, with past bond funds running out as early as this year.

Proposition 84 provides for $57 million for water quality and water supply projects and $180 million in grants are available to smaller communities to help meet safe drinking water standards, with priority given to those Valley towns most affected by agricultural run-off. There is also $45 million for ranchland and agricultural land preservation. With rapid growth in the San Joaquin Valley we need to protect our valuable farmland.

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 84!

---