State Ballot Measure - Water Bond - Prop 43 [1 Attachment]

Hi All. There is an $11.14 billion water bond slated to appear on the November ballot. I have contacted the state LP to see if they want to submit an argument against it, but I have not heard back yet. The word a few days ago was that the state legislature couldn't come to terms on the bond and that it would not be on the ballot in November, but I spoke with the lady at the Secretary of State on Thursday afternoon, and she said that it will remain on the ballot. Since the deadline is Tuesday, July 8 5:00 PM to submit any arguments, I suggest the LPSF submit something. Trish (from the coalition against Plan Bay Area and also a panelist at our Prop 13 Tax Symposium) has written a good, solid argument against this bond, and we can use her argument. (She is not into the proprietary business and has stated that any of the coalition groups can use her argument as they wish and can add or delete as it suits them.)

The legislators have been toying with this bond measure since 2009, if you can believe it, and have put off having the voters vote on it until this year when we're in a drought year and "Safe, Clean, & Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act" might go over better with the voters. It's full of pork. Here is the link: Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures - Elections & Voter Information - California Secretary of State

Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures - Elections & Voter ...
Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures Subscribe to California Secretary of State Ballot Measure Update in a reader Subscribe to California Secretary of State Ballot ...
View on Preview by Yahoo

Please advise if you think the LPSF should submit the argument by Tuesday. If so, I (or anyone else interested) could tinker with it on Monday night just to make it a little bit different, if any of the other coalition members against Plan Bay Area submit the argument too. I have no time to do a major rewrite with the deadline so close, but if anyone else wants to do one, that's fine with me. If the LPSF chooses to submit the argument, I will take care of faxing, emailing, and sending the originals to the Secretary of State on Tuesday afternoon.


Here you go Aubrey...there are some thing in my version derived from "reading between the lines" of Trish's version but not based on conclusive evidence. They might not be correct.

I also removed some of the things about her arguments that the Left is likely to find attractive such as open areas and the taking of private property. I tried to focus on what appears to be a fact that the bond, while guaranteed by taxpayers, will be paid by all users of water through higher rates and the fact that private interests will benefit from it.

I tried to bring some of the more important arguments to the beginning of the statement hopefully to focus....and included some research from the California Policy Center about the status of CA bond debt.

Lastly...and you can keep it or not if you want....but there is satellite data showing a major El Nino effect is building suggesting the possibility the drought may be over this winter anyways.