Newspapers Take On Proposition 3 + City of San Francisco
Teams Up with Trump Administration on the Tuolumne River
Prop. 3 promises more California water projects. Too bad so many are the wrong projects – The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board
“We must do more to protect the future of California’s water, but that doesn’t mean just pumping in more money without making sure the investments will have widespread benefits for the public.
“Proposition 3 – the $8.9 billion bond on the Nov. 6 ballot – fails that test.”
Proposition 3 mostly benefits billionaire investors – Eric Parfrey, special to the Sacramento Bee
“When Californians consider Proposition 3, a $8.9 billion water bond on the November ballot, they should be aware that it began with a bad process, it is full of bad spending items and — if passed — Californians will be responsible for paying back this bad bond for more than a generation.
“In short, it’s a bad water deal.”
The San Diego Union-Tribune:
Proposition 3: Two biggest reasons to oppose water bond in November election – The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board
“Proposition 3, which asks voters to approve $8.9 billion in bond funds for water projects, has a surface appeal. The state’s need for improved water infrastructure and new water storage facilities is plain. But there are strong reasons to reject it.”
Vote No on Proposition 3: A Special Interest Giveaway – Peter Andersen
“Proposition 3 is a special interest giveaway of nearly $8.9 billion to water districts and agribusiness, and provides little or no benefit to San Diego. It was crafted behind the scenes by special interests without input from the public or the Legislature.
“This measure makes us all pay for specific water districts and for agribusinesses. They should be responsible for their own infrastructure and canal repairs, particularly since their overpumping of the aquifer led to the collapse of some of that infrastructure.
“Those who benefit from a project should pay for the project.”
Los Angeles Times:
Proposition 3 is the wrong water bond for California. Vote no – The Times Editorial Board
“Californians will have to keep spending billions of dollars to secure the state’s water supply during an era of drought and hotter temperatures. But be careful. Especially when money is flowing and water isn’t, it’s easy to be seduced into spending on the wrong water projects at the wrong time and for the wrong benefits and beneficiaries. Proposition 3 would lead us into exactly that kind of trap.”
The Orange County Register:
No on Proposition 3, another water bond – The Editorial Board
“With interest, Prop. 3 would ultimately cost taxpayers twice as much. According to the legislative analyst, taxpayers would be on the hook for an average of $430 million in repayments every year for 40 years.
“In the context of a state like California, which has recently seen general fund state spending grow from $86 billion to $139 billion, the notion of squandering over $8 billion on interest payments for the sake of $9 billion in bond funding seems wasteful to us.
“And it should to taxpayers.”
Proposition 3 is an $8.9 billion giveaway. California voters should reject it. – The Desert Sun Editorial Board
“Proposition 3 is pay-to-play legislation, with large chunks of its funding earmarked for agencies whose planned use of the funds would almost solely benefit large private firms. Those who agreed to help fund the initiative’s promotion are in line for big payouts from its proceeds.
“California should be drawing up and funding key infrastructure water projects primarily based on those who benefit paying the lion’s share of costs rather than lumping another massive sum, yet again, on all state taxpayers.”
The Mercury News:
Editorial: Reject Prop. 3 $8.9 billion pay-to-play water bond – Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Boards
“When you see that it would spend billions for restoring watershed lands, clean drinking water, water recycling, fish and wildlife habitats, dam repairs and groundwater cleanup, don’t get sucked in. Those are all laudable goals. But there should be adequate oversight, and the funds should be doled out to the most needy projects, not to those that best attract special-interest funding. Prop. 3 is classic pay-to-play. Vote no.”
San Francisco Chronicle:
Chronicle recommends: No on state Prop. 3 – Chronicle Editorial Board
“Voters defeated a similarly constructed pay-to-pay scheme by the architect of this measure, Gerald Meral, in 2002. That scheme (Proposition 51, rejected by 58.2 percent) would have diverted 30 percent of the state’s sales tax revenue from vehicle sales and leases into a fund distributed outside the normal budgeting process, showering largesse on big contributors to the campaign.
“This is no way to spend taxpayer dollars. Voters should reject Prop. 3 on both principle and substance.”
Santa Cruz Sentinel:
“California voters just passed a $4.1 billion water bond in the June primary election. So, why is there another one on the Nov. 6 ballot? The answer is a bit complicated and bears on why we recommend a “no” vote on Proposition 3, which is much bigger than the June measure and dedicates all the funds to water projects.
“[…] unlike the bond approved in June, which was placed on the ballot by state lawmakers in part to discourage outside groups from asking voters for even more money in November, with Proposition 3 which did not go through the legislative process, that’s exactly what has happened. That means its spending commitments would not go through the annual legislative budgeting procedures to ensure funds go where voters are told they’ll go. Instead, this initiative was in part funded by the very people and organizations that will receive a portion of the bond money – reason enough for voters to reject Proposition 3.
“Instead, this initiative was in part funded by the very people and organizations that will receive a portion of the bond money – reason enough for voters to reject Proposition 3.”
Natural Resources Defense Council:
San Francisco Teams Up with Trump on Tuolumne River? – Doug Obeji
“Did you know that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”) has been working with the Trump Administration to try to stop the State of California’s efforts to restore the health of the Tuolumne River? Despite San Francisco’s iconic fishing industry in Fishermen’s Wharf, this weekend’s story in the San Francisco Chronicle highlights how the SFPUC has been working with the Trump Administration to undermine Federal agencies’ recommendations regarding how much water should remain in the Tuolumne river.
“The State Water Resources Control Board’s proposal for increased flows on the Tuolumne River is already a compromise that is lower than what the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, other agencies, and conservation groups have stated is needed to restore healthy salmon runs. However, apparently San Francisco has been working with irrigation districts to lobby the Trump Administration to weaken or eliminate recommendations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, and National Marine Fisheries Service on how to restore the Tuolumne River and its native salmon runs.”