Skip to content
Sign up free
News

Proposition 1 To Authorize Billions for Calif.'s Water Infrastructure

By Steve Baker

2-minute read

After three years of drought, Proposition 1 will authorize $7.12 billion and reallocate $425 million of unused bonds to support water quality, storage, treatment, and supply through the development of a better supply infrastructure. The sale of general obligation (GO) bonds will fund the proposition’s projects only after a majority vote since each bond requires “full faith and credit” and an increase in taxes in order to repay.

The drought, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, is a symptom of reduced snow-pack that normally feeds runoffs which in turn becomes useable groundwater -- the implications of which affects crop yields, livestock, and potentially consumers, according to the United States Department of Agriculture.

Proposition 1 will allow for the implementation and testing of pipelines, canals, and storage centers to support these needs. Ratified by the Assembly and the State Senate on August 13, 2014, AB1471 -- or Proposition 1 -- was brokered by Governor Brown as part of his Water Action Plan.

Within the California's state legislature, votes in favor of the proposition were nearly unanimous across party lines with the only opposition from two assemblymen, Wesley Chesboro (D-Eureka) and Tim Donnelly (R-Hesperia). Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) highlighted the bipartisan nature of the bill in a comment to the Desert Sun.

"The pitch now is you've got a united front. You got Northern, Central, South. You got Republicans, you got Democrats. You've got the Senate leadership, the Assembly leadership- both, you know, Republican and Democrat- and you got the governor."

Individuals such as Sean Parker (co-founder of Napster) and organizations like the California Farm Bureau Federation have contributed funding over $150,000 on average for the support of Proposition 1 -- totaling $6.6 million. The opposition’s contributors, such as the Jack Klein Partnership, have raised considerably less money with most donations averaging under $5,000 and totaling $71,000, as reported by Ballotpedia.

Arguments in Favor

  • Allocates resources for critical water infrastructure
  • Expands water storage
  • Helps the state prepare for future drought years
  • Provides funding for clean drinking water in contaminated areas

Arguments Against

  • Wastes taxpayer dollars on pet projects and special interests
  • Primarily benefits corporate farmers
  • Offers no incentives to wean off of water-heavy crops like berries and nuts which strain the system.
  • Doesn't place new restrictions on industrial practices that require large quantities of water like hydraulic fracturing.

Across many major Californian metropolitan areas approval remains only slight, with San Francisco and the Inland Empire at the highest -- 64 percent and 62 percent, respectively. Other areas, such as the Central Valley, Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego, hover between 51 percent to 55 percent approval.

PPIC Poll: Would you vote yes or no on Proposition 1?    Currently, the ballot measure has the support of 58 percent of likely voters with 29 percent against and 14 percent undecided, as reported by the

Public Policy Institute of California.*

During the PPIC’s survey, participants were asked whether or not the sale of bonds would affect voter opinion. Sixty-seven percent affirmed a yes vote regardless of an added bond measure to the ballot.

Financially, the sale of $7.1 billion in GO bonds will cost taxpayers $360 million a year for the next 40 years. The drought has cost the state millions in lost revenue with lost farm revenues ($810), livestock and dairy loses ($203), and increased pumping fees ($454). The sale of bonds will reduce the cost of water-related projects for local governments, determined by the Legislative Analyst's Office.

Yes or no Californians will determine how California’s most vital resource, water, is handled. The burden that remains on voters’ shoulders is whether or not the expenditure now is worth the price later.

*Editor's note: The numbers quoted are an accurate representation of the PPIC report. PPIC, to our knowledge, has not updated its survey since publication.

Photo Credit: Eddie J. Rodriquez / Shutterstock.com

Tags: News

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Set the canonical URL of your copy to the original IVN article (the HTML we give you includes the tag).
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Proposition 1 To Authorize Billions for Calif.'s Water Infrastructure

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us