California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014)
California Proposition 1, the
Water Bond (Assembly Bill
1471), was on the November 4,
2014 ballot in California as a
legislatively-referred bond act.
This measure was approved.
This measure replaced a
previous measure known as
Proposition
Contents
1 Election results
3 Background
4 Support
4.1 Supporters
4.1.1 Officials
4.1.2 Organizations
4.1.2.1 Water authorities
and boards
43.[1]
The measure will enact the
Water Quality, Supply, and
Infrastructure Improvement
Act of 2014. Proposition 1
will:[2]
Authorize $7.12 billion in
general obligation bonds
for state water supply
infrastructure projects, such
as public water system
improvements, surface and
groundwater storage,
drinking water protection,
water recycling and
4.1.3 Individuals
recent-page-incategory.php?category=2014_ballot_news)
for the latest news on U.S. ballot
measures
Quick stats
4.3 Donors
4.4 Campaign advertisements
5 Opposition
5.1 Opponents
5.1.1 Officials
5.1.2 Organizations
Type:
Bond question
Referred by: California State Legislature
Topic:
Bond issues on the ballot
Status:
Approved
5.2 Arguments
5.3 Donors
2014 propositions
6 Media editorial positions
6.1 Support
7 Polls
8 Path to the ballot
8.1 2010
and ecosystem and
watershed protection and
restoration.
11 Additional reading
8.2 2012
8.3 2014
9 Related measures
10 See also
12 External links
12.1 Basic information
12.2 Support
12.3 Opposition
13 References
Require certain projects to
provide matching funds from non-state sources in order to receive
bond funds.
Specific spending proposals in the proposition
include:[2]
$520 million to improve water quality for “beneficial use,” for reducing
and preventing drinking water contaminants, disadvantaged
1 of 18
Click here (http://ballotpedia.org/most-
4.2 Arguments
advanced water treatment
technology, water supply
management and
conveyance, wastewater
treatment, drought relief,
emergency water supplies,
Appropriate money from
the General Fund to pay o"
bonds.
Proposition 1
2 Text of measure
June 3
Proposition 41
Proposition 42
November 4
Proposition 1
Proposition 2
Proposition 45
Proposition 46
Proposition 47
Proposition 48
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
communities, and the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Small Community Grant Fund.
$1.495 billion for competitive grants for multibenefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects.
$810 million for expenditures on, and competitive grants and loans to, integrated regional water management plan
projects.
$2.7 billion for water storage projects, dams and reservoirs.
$725 million for water recycling and advanced water treatment technology projects.
$900 million for competitive grants and loans for projects to prevent or clean up the contamination of groundwater
that serves as a source of drinking water.
$395 million for statewide flood management projects and activities.
Gov. Jerry Brown (D) called on the legislature to replace the previous $11.14 billion bond (Proposition 43) with a cheaper
$6 billion bond on June 25, 2014.[3] Brown called the previous water bond "a pork-laden water bond… with a price tag
beyond what’s reasonable or a"ordable."[4] The legislature passed the new $7.12 billion bond on August 13, 2014.
The original water bond was moved twice. Originally certified to be on the state's 2010 ballot, it was removed and placed
on the 2012 ballot. On July 5, 2012, the state legislature approved a bill to take the measure o" the 2012 ballot and put it
on the 2014 ballot.
Election results
California Proposition 1
Result
Yes
No
Votes
Percentage
4,771,350
67.13%
2,336,676
32.87%
Election results via: California Secretary of State (http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2014-general/pdf/2014-completesov.pdf)
Text of measure
See also: Ballot titles, summaries and fiscal statements for California 2014 ballot propositions
Ballot title:[5]
WATER BOND. FUNDING FOR WATER QUALITY, SUPPLY, TREATMENT, AND STORAGE PROJECTS.
Official summary:
The long-form summary read:[5]
“
Authorizes $7.12 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, such as
surface and groundwater storage; ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration; drinking water
protection; water supply management; water recycling and advanced water treatment technology; and
flood control.
Reallocates $425 million of unused bond authority from prior water bond acts, for same purposes.
Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay o" bonds.
Requires certain projects to provide matching funds from non-state sources in order to receive bond
”
funds.[6]
Fiscal impact statement:[5]
(Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's
Legislative Analyst and its Director of Finance.)
2 of 18
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
“
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
Increased state bond repayment costs averaging $360 million annually over the next 40 years.
Savings to local governments related to water projects, likely averaging a couple hundred million dollars
annually over the next few decades.
”
[6]
Background
Californians last approved a water-related bond in 2006, known as Proposition 84. The measure authorized $5.4 billion
in bonds for water projects. Proposition 84's supporters spent $11.4 million on their campaign urging a "yes" vote. In
2005, voters approved Proposition 50, which issued $3.4 billion for water projects.[7] Between 1996 and 2006,
Californians approved about $11 billion in bonds for water projects.[8] Proposition 1 in 1960 originally created the State
Water Project that has been regularly replenished with additional water project bond votes since then.
Support
The campaign in support of the proposition was led by Yes on Props 1 & 2.[9]
Supporters
Officials
Gov. Jerry Brown (D)[10]
US Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D)
US Sen. Barbara Boxer (D)
Rep. Marc Levine (D-10)[11]
Organizations
California Democratic Party[12]
California Republican
Party[13]
California Farm Bureau Federation[10]
The Nature Conservancy
Audubon California
California Chamber of Commerce
Delta Counties Coalition
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Ducks Unlimited
American Rivers
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Natural Resources Defense Council
California League of Conservation Voters[14]
Northern California Water Association
State Building and Construction Trades Council of
California
Association of California Water Agencies
Western Growers
League of California Cities[15]
California State Association of Counties
California Citrus Mutual[16]
Water authorities and boards
Fresno Irrigation District[10]
Friant Water Authority
Long Beach Board of Water Commissioners[17]
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
San Diego Water Authority
Individuals
3 of 18
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
Sean Parker, co-founder of Napster[18]
Arguments
Gov. Jerry Brown (D), Paul Wenger, President of California Farm Bureau Federation, and Mike Sweeny, California
Director of The Nature Conservancy, wrote the argument in favor of Proposition 1 found in the state’s official voter
information guide:
“
YES ON PROPOSITION 1 ENSURES A RELIABLE WATER SUPPLY FOR FARMS AND BUSINESSES DURING SEVERE
DROUGHT — PROTECTING BOTH THE ECONOMY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
California is in a serve, multi-year drought and has an aging water infrastructure. That is why Republicans and
Democrats and leaders from all over California came together in nearly unanimous fashion to place this
fiscally responsible measure on the ballot…
YES ON 1 IS FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE
Proposition 1 will not raise taxes. It is a no-frills investment in critical projects that doesn’t break the bank - it
even reallocates money from unused bonds to make better use of the money.
YES ON 1 GROWS CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMY
California’s economy depends on a reliable water supply. Proposition 1 secures our water future, keeps our
family farms and businesses productive, and puts Californians to work building the new facilities we need to
store, deliver and treat water.
YES ON 1 SAFEGUARDS OUR EXISTING WATER SUPPLIES
Proposition 1 will clean up our contaminated groundwater which serves as a critical bu"er against drought by
providing additional water in years when there is not enough rainfall or snow.
Proposition 1 expands water recycling and efficiency improvements making the best use of our existing
supplies.
Proposition1 provides funding for clean drinking water in communities where water is contaminated.
YES ON 1 STORES WATER WHEN WE HAVE IT
Proposition 1 invests in new storage increasing the amount of water that can be stored during wet years for
the dry years that will continue to challenge California.
YES ON 1 PROTECTS THE ENVIRONMENT
Proposition 1 protects California’s rivers, lakes and streams from pollution and contamination and provides
for the restoration of our fish and wildlife resources.
PROPOSITION 1 CONTAINS STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING ANNUAL AUDITS,
OVERSIGHT AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE TO ENSURE THE MONEY IS PROPERLY SPENT.
YES ON 1 - Supported by REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS, FARMERS, LOCAL WATER SUPPLIERS, CONSERVATION
GROUPS, BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS…
”
[6]
—Gov. Jerry Brown, Paul Wenger and Mike Sweeny[10]
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) o"ered support for Proposition 1, despite some environmental groups
opposing the measure. The following is an excerpt from a post on why the group supported the proposition:
“
NRDC fought hard to ensure that legislators crafted a bond that’s good for California’s environment and
economy. And while it’s not perfect, it has broad bipartisan support and is backed by conservation groups,
local water districts, business and labor leaders, editorial boards all around the state… because we all know
that this bond does as much as it can for as many people and groups as possible, while ensuring that our tax
dollars go as far as possible to address California’s water needs.
4 of 18
”
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
So here’s why we support Proposition 1:
1. Prop 1 will strengthen California’s water system by investing in much-needed local water supply
projects like water recycling, groundwater cleanup, stormwater capture, water conservation, and other
regional water supply projects around the state. The vast majority of these funds will go to local water districts
(Prop 1 generally requires a local match for projects). Using a transparent and competitive grant process will
help ensure we get the most bang for the buck and create significant new, sustainable water supplies for
communities around the state...
2. Prop 1 will help provide safe drinking water for all Californians, with an emphasis on disadvantaged
communities. It’s estimated that more than 1 million Californians (and possibly as many as 3 million!) cannot
safely drink the water that comes out of their tap because of contamination from arsenic, nitrates from
agricultural pollution, perchlorate from industrial pollution, and other toxics. Most of these households rely on
groundwater in rural communities and are not connected to a water treatment plant or water district.
3. Prop 1 invests in environmental restoration projects around the state, including funding for the San
Joaquin River, the Salton Sea, the L.A. River, and coastal habitat, as well as water supply to the state's wildlife
refuges. Prop 1 would make significant investments to help restore the health of rivers, wildlife, the coast and
watersheds across the state, in many cases working through local conservancies that have a strong track
record of success. This helps sustain salmon and other native fisheries (and the thousands of jobs that
depend on them), helps provide healthy rivers for the public to enjoy, and can help create new water supply
(for instance, through mountain meadow restoration or through floodplain restoration that helps with
stormwater capture and groundwater recharge)...
4. Prop 1 does not advance the State’s $25 billion flawed Bay Delta Conservation Plan, the proposal to
build two massive tunnels under the Delta and divert unsustainable amounts of water...
5. Prop 1 is not earmarked for new dams. Critics cite concerns about funding for surface and
groundwater storage, but this simply isn’t the case...
Ultimately, NRDC is committed to making sure that Prop 1 funds are well spent. We’ll continue to watch over
bond spending and work to ensure that economically infeasible and environmentally harmful dam projects
like Temperance Flat are not funded from the bond or built.[6]
—Natural Resources Defense Council[19]
Donors
A total of eleven ballot measure campaign committees registered in support of the
initiative:[20]
Note: A number of the campaign committees supported Proposition 1 and
Proposition 2.
Total campaign cash
as of December 3, 2014
$16,988,954
Support:
$97,999
Opposition:
5 of 18
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
Committee
Amount
raised
California Business Political Action Committee, Sponsored by the California Chamber of
Commerce (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1021742& $948,004
Amount
spent
$312,401
session=2013)
Wetlands Conservation Committee, Sponsored by Ducks Unlimited, Audubon California
and The Nature Conservancy, Yes on Prop. 1 (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign
/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1372481&session=2013)
$530,000
$155,050
$1,177,038
$268,720
Sac. Valley Water & Rice for Prop 1 (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees
/Detail.aspx?id=1371959&session=2013)
$56,249
$9,000
Brown; Yes on Props 1 and 2 A Bipartisan Coalition of Business, Labor, Republicans,
Democrats and Governor (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees
/Detail.aspx?id=1343257&session=2013)
$12,998,076
$11,221,528
Conservation Action Fund - Yes on Proposition 1 and 2 - Sponsored by Conservation
Organizations (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees
/Detail.aspx?id=1272719&session=2013)
Think Long Committee, Inc., Sponsored by Nicolas Berggruen Institute Trust, Supporting
Propositions 1 & 2 (Non-Profit 501(C)(4)) (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign
$250,000
$250,000
/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1372629&session=2013)
Western Plant Health Association, Supporting Propositions 1 and 2 (Non-Profit 501 (C)
(6)) (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1372785&
session=2013)
$100,000
$100,000
NRDC Action Fund California Ballot Measures Committee - Yes on Prop. 1 (http://calaccess.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1306041&session=2013)
$9,514
$6,514
Southern California District Council of Laborers Issues PAC (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov
/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1358148&session=2013)
$140,779
$85,470
$621,277
$412,808
The California Conservation Campaign (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign
/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1238760&session=2013)
$158,017
$80,623
Total
$16,988,954 $12,902,114
Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coaltion Issues PAC - Yes on Props 1 and
2 (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1358725&
session=2013)
The following are the donors who contributed $250,000 or more to the campaign in support of the initiative as of
December 3, 2014:[20]
Note: Some of these donors gave their money to a committee that was simultaneously supporting more than one
ballot measure. When that is the case, it is not generally possible to break down how much of that donor's money
specifically was spent on the campaign for a particular proposition. Those contributions are listed below with shading;
readers should not assume that all or even most of a donation to a multi-purpose committee was used for
expenditures related to this particular proposition.
6 of 18
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
Donor
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
Amount
Brown for Governor 2014
$3,367,202
Sean Parker
$1,000,000
L.John Doerr
$875,000
California Alliance for Jobs Rebuild California Committee
$521,250
The Nature Conservancy
$518,624
California Hospitals Committee
$500,000
Doris F. Fisher
$499,000
Health Net
$445,600
Area Energy LLC
$250,000
California American Council of
Engineering Companies
$250,000
California Farm Bureau Federation
$250,000
California Association of Hospitals
and Health Systems
$250,000
Kaiser Permamente
$250,000
Northern California Carpenters
Regional Council Issues PAC
$250,000
Reed Hastings
$250,000
SW Regional Council Of Carpenters
$250,000
Think Long Committee, Inc.
$250,000
Western Growers Service
Corporation
$250,000
Campaign advertisements
7 of 18
A Yes on 1 & 2 ad, titled "Firefighter," advocating
A Yes on 1 & 2 ad, titled "Pendulum," advocating
A Yes on 1 & 2 ad, titled "Folsom," advocating
for Proposition 1 and Proposition 2
Proposition 1 and Proposition 2
Proposition 1 and Proposition 2
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
A Yes on 1 & 2 ad, titled "50 Years," advocating
A Yes on 1 & 2 ad, titled "Roller Coaster,"
A Yes on 1 & 2 ad, titled "Farmer Jake,"
Proposition 1 and Proposition 2
advocating Proposition 1 and Proposition 2
advocating Proposition 1 and Proposition 2
Opposition
The campaign against the measure was led by Vote NO on Proposition 1.[21]
Opponents
Officials
Rep. Wesley Chesbro (D-2) and Rep. Tim Donnelly (R-33) were the only legislators to vote
against placing AB 1471 on the November ballot.[2]
Organizations
AFSCME District Council 57[22]
Ballona Institute
Butte Environmental Council
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
California Striped Bass Association
California Water Impact Network
Coast Action Group
Center for Biological Diversity
Central Delta Water Agency
Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton
CREDO Action[23]
Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC)
Environmental Water Caucus
Factory Farm Awareness Coalition
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of the Eel River
Friends of the River
Food and Water Watch
Foothill Conservancy
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations
Potrero Hill Democratic Club
Pulga Rancheria Concow Maidu Indians
Restore the Delta
Sacramento River Preservation Trust
San Francisco Baykeeper
San Francisco Crab Boat Association
Save the American River Association
Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen’s Association
Sherman Island Duck Hunters Association
Sonoma County Conservation Action
South Delta Water Agency
Southern California Watershed Alliance
Tar Sands Action
Wetlands Defense Fund
Wild Heritage Planners
Winnemem Wintu Tribe
Arguments
The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance issued a "statement of opposition" to Proposition 1. The group
provided 14 reasons to vote against the proposition. The following is a selection from those reasons:
“
8 of 18
1. Undermines the public trust doctrine.
Water in rivers and streams, like the air people breathe, belongs to the people of California as part of the
”
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
public trust… Private interests have a right to use the public’s water for beneficial purposes, as long as the
public’s ownership in healthy rivers is protected. The Bond requires taxpayers to enrich a few wealthy water
users by purchasing water the public already owns, at inflated prices, to protect the public’s rivers and
environment. It’s a retread of previously discredited programs that allowed speculators to reap millions in
profit selling the public’s water back to the public.
2. Undermines the principle of beneficiary pays.
The major reason more dams and other environmentally damaging projects have not been constructed in
recent decades is the principle, stemming from approval of the State Water Project in 1960, that beneficiaries
of water projects, not taxpayers, must pay for new projects. The Bond turns the beneficiary pays principle on
its head by requiring taxpayers to pay for projects benefiting special interests...
3. Undermines the principle that projects should mitigate adverse impacts.
Projects have long been legally responsible for mitigating their adverse impacts. Many, if not most, of the
watershed protection and restoration projects that will be funded by the Bond are e"orts to repair and
mitigate environmental damage caused by projects that were constructed by and for special interests…
Taxpayers should not be on the hook because regulators failed to require special interest projects to mitigate
their adverse impacts.
4. Ushers in a new era of big dams.
The Bond includes the largest appropriation for new dams in the state’s history… A number of dam projects
that had been abandoned because of low water yield and financial infeasibility are being resurrected in
response to the Bond’s commitment of billions of taxpayer dollars for dams. If the Bond passes, fishermen
and environmentalists can expect to find themselves spending decades fighting new dam schemes on rivers
throughout the state...
7. Provides little cost-e$ective near-term drought relief.
Funds for recycling, conservation and groundwater cleanup were slashed 36% in the final version of the Bond
in order to provide money for expensive water purchases and speculative new dams that will not be
operational for decades… In essence, the Bond sacrifices funds for proven near-term projects that would
create “new” lower cost water, contribute to regional self-sufficiency, reduce dependency on the Delta and
provide drought relief in order to subsidize long-term pie in the sky projects benefiting the hydraulic
brotherhood...
9. Sabotages e$orts to meaningfully resolve California’s continuing water crisis.
Prop. 1 is a red herring that diverts attention from the real causes of the state’s water crisis and the steps and
resources required to address it. The water crisis is the result of the over-appropriation, waste and inequitable
distribution of limited water supplies and the failure to balance the public trust…
10. Crowds out other critical investments.
The Bond imposes an insidious hidden cost by crowding out critical investments in public schools, roads,
public health and safety. California cannot a"ord to provide lavish subsidies to special interests, while ignoring
existing and urgent infrastructure needs...
11. Is fiscally irresponsible.
California is staggering under a $777 billion debt and voters have already approved $128 billion in general
fund Bonds that must be repaid by taxpayers. The Bond would add over $7 billion in taxpayer indebtedness
that must be repaid with interest, which can easily double the original amount. Subsidies for special interests
are inherently fiscally irresponsible.
12. Is a hogfest of projects unrelated to water supply or drought relief.
Bond proponents carefully disguised pork projects by not identifying specific projects in general funding
allocations to various groups. Associated Press, in a widely published article, reported that Conservancies and
9 of 18
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
other groups have acknowledged they will use Bond funds for pedestrian and bike trails, parkways,
interpretive centers, trash cleanups and other projects with no direct connection to the stated intent of the
water Bond...
13. Shamefully holds a few worthy projects hostage to fiscally irresponsible and environmentally
damaging projects.
The fact that the Bond contains a few worthy projects fails to justify sacrificing core environmental principles
and fiscal responsibility. Approximately, 6.9% of the Bond will provide safe drinking water and clean water
programs to disadvantaged communities. This commitment is long overdue and should have been presented
as a standalone proposition. It’s shameful to use the long-ignored plight of those lacking safe drinking water in
disadvantaged communities as justification for eviscerating environmental protection and providing
extravagant subsidies to special interests....
—California Sportfishing Protection Alliance[24]
Marco Gonzalez, Executive Director of the Coastal Environment Rights
Foundation, said the proposition would be a “burden on taxpayers and
is a bad investment…”:
“
Proposition 1 will be a burden on taxpayers and is a bad
investment for San Diegans and all Californians alike. It will
not mitigate the e"ects of drought, and does nothing to
support long-term water self-sufficiency. Proposition 1 does
not deserve your vote…
Simply put, Proposition 1 would subsidize more of the same
poor water planning that caused our current, precarious
water supply paradigm. Touted as a compromise when
compared to the first water bond proposal, this is not reason
A video against the proposition, titled "Vote NO on Prop
1."
enough to warrant support. In scope, overall expense and
approach, the majority of the projects to be funded remain
unsupportable.
From a San Diegan’s perspective, Proposition 1 ignores the
fact that we are at the end of the water pipeline, and among
the most precarious regions susceptible to impacts of long
term drought…
Instead of providing substantial funds to help communities
save water by replacing aged and leaking water
infrastructure, the water bond focuses billions of dollars on
Northern California dam building to subsidize corporate
agribusiness growing the wrong types of crops, with
outdated technology, in the wrong places for decades…
From a statewide perspective, Proposition 1 is classic “pork”
— a waste of taxpayer funds for pet projects, many of which
could have devastating environmental impacts. The
corporate farm owners who will be the primary beneficiaries
of the water bond will have no incentive to change their
water-intensive crops, increase efficiencies, reduce runo", or
upgrade to modern and cutting-edge technologies. At the
same time, we can expect the big oil companies to line up
for water that would come from these projects to support
10 of 18
”
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
their high intensity polluting activities in the Central Valley,
such as hydraulic fracturing (aka “fracking”). And as
taxpayers, we’ll foot the $15 billion debt (more than $360
million per year for 40 years) with very little water to show
for it in the end.
[6]
—Marco Gonzalez[25]
Other arguments against the proposition included:
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, field director of Vote NO on Proposition 1, argued, "Proposition 1 is a corporate money
grab aimed at bankrolling special interests with taxpayer dollars while providing tragically inadequate funding for
projects that provide safe, clean water for the people of California. Proposition 1 is the wrong investment for
California."[26]
Donors
One ballot measure campaign committee registered in opposition to the initiative as of October 31, 2014:[20]
Committee
Californians Against More Debt, Misplaced Spending - No On Prop. 1 (http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov
/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1351860&session=2013&view=electronic)
Total
Amount
raised
$97,999
$97,999
Amount
spent
$53,077
$53,077
The following are the donors who contributed $2,500 or more to the campaign in opposition to the initiative as of
October 31, 2014:[20]
Donor
Dante Nomellini
Amount
$12,500
Jack Klein Partnership
$7,500
Cerri Farms, Inc.
$5,000
Conrad Silva Farms
$5,000
Del Carlo Farms, Inc.
$5,000
Thomas Zuckerman
$5,000
Ferguson Farms, Inc.
$2,500
George Perry & Sons, Inc.
$2,500
Giovannoni Farms
$2,500
Lory & Victoria Mussi
$2,500
R&M Ranch
$2,500
Rudy and Toni Mussi
$2,500
San Joaquin Delta Farms, Inc.
$2,500
V and A Lagorio
$2,500
Media editorial positions
11 of 18
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2014
Support
Marin Independent Journal: "The measure is a compromise from more ambitious plans, in cost and scope. It won't
solve our current problem, but it is a prudent plan to better prepare the state for weathering future droughts."[27]
Modesto Bee: "The legislators have done their part, delivering a bond proposal that will truly help solve the problems
and a commitment from the governor that the state won’t take substantially more water from our rivers than they
have in the past. Now, we’ve got a bond proposal we can all support."[28]
Napa Valley Register: "The measure is less than perfect, and it will do little to alleviate our current drought, but it is
clear that California needs better water storage and transmission facilities if human life is to be sustained here."[29]
Palm Springs Desert Sun: "With the drought and the potential e"ects of climate change, we expect voters will approve
Proposition 1. The Desert Sun believes they should."[30]
The San Diego Union-Tribune: "This is a populous and growing state, and a highly productive breadbasket for the
country and the world. Proposition 1 will not solve California’s water problems forever more. But its rejection would
threaten a pillar of California’s future."[31]
San Francisco Chronicle: "Nothing focuses the mind like a crisis and the state’s three-year drought now has
Californians focused on our perennial problem — high demand for water and inefficient use of what we do have.
Proposition 1, a $7.5 billion bond on the Nov. 4 ballot will take a first step toward more realistic state water policy. It
deserves your vote."[32]
Polls
See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures
2014
California Proposition 1 (2014)
[hide]
Support
Oppose
Undecided
Margin of
Error
Sample
Size
50.0%
32.0%
19.0%
+/-3.6
1,702
Public Policy Institute of California
(https://web.archive.org
/web/20140808140239/http:
//www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey
/S_714MBS.pdf)
7/8/2014 - 7/15/2014
61.0%
22.0%
17.0%
+/-3.7
1,705
The Field Poll (http://web.archive.org
/web/20140910142139/http:
//www.field.com/fieldpollonline
/subscribers/Rls2484.pdf)
8/14/2014 - 8/28/2014
52.0%
27.0%
21.0%
+/-4.8
467
42.0%
24.0%
34.0%
+/-4.0
600
Poll
Public Policy Institute of California
(https://web.archive.org
/web/20140808135901/http:
//www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey
/S_314MBS.pdf)
3/11/2014 - 3/18/2014
Lake Research Partners
(http://web.archive.org
/web/20140911145829/http:
12 of 18
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
//www.noonprop1.org/wp-content
/uploads/2014/09/Public-Memo-NoOn-One-Sep-2014-d3.pdf)
8/26/2014 - 8/29/2014
Public Policy Institute of California
(http://web.archive.org
/web/20140924140121/http:
58.0%
29.0%
14.0%
+/-3.6
1,702
52.0%
22.0%
26.0%
+/-3.65
1,273
56.0%
32.0%
12.0%
+/-3.5
1,704
54.0%
22.0%
24.0%
+/-3.4
1,536
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll
(https://gqrr.app.box.com
/s/ptifyq5cjpg0ahf2auoc)
10/22/2014 - 10/29/2014
62.0%
23.0%
13.0%
+/-2.9
1,537
AVERAGES
54.11%
25.89%
20%
+/-3.68
1,358.44
//ppic.org/content/pubs/survey
/S_914MBS.pdf)
9/8/2014 - 9/15/2014
Hoover Institute Golden State Poll
(http://www.hoover.org/sites/default
/files/golden-state-poll-october2014-results.pdf)
10/3/2014 - 10/17/2014
Public Policy Institute of California
(http://www.ppic.org/content
/pubs/survey/S_1014MBS.pdf)
10/12/2014 - 10/19/2014
The Field Poll (http://www.field.com
/fieldpollonline/subscribers
/Rls2490.pdf)
10/15/2014 - 10/28/2014
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by
Ballotpedia sta#. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to [email protected]
(mailto:[email protected]).
Pre-2014
California Proposition 1 (2014)
Poll
[hide]
Support
Oppose
Undecided
Margin
of Error
Sample
Size
34.0%
55.0%
11.0%
+/-4.0
600
Tulchin Research (https://web.archive.org
/web/20140808135504/http:
//www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs
/capitolalertlatest
/Water%20Bond%20Public%20Release
%20%23143A%2002-10%20v3%20Final.pdf)
1/20/2010 - 1/25/2010
13 of 18
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by
Ballotpedia sta#. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to [email protected]
(mailto:[email protected]).
Path to the ballot
See also: Authorizing bonds in California
As mandated by Section 1 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, the California Legislature was required to pass the
bond act by a two-thirds vote of all the members in both legislative chambers.
2010
On October 27, 2009, Sen. Dave Cogdill (R-14) introduced Senate Bill 2, also known as the Safe, Clean, and Reliable
Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010. On November 4, 2009, both chambers of the legislature approved the bond measure.
The votes were as follows:[33]
November 4, 2009 Senate vote
November 4, 2009 House vote
California SB 2 Senate Vote
California SB 2 House Vote
Result
Votes
Yes
No
Result
Percentage
55
73.33%
20
26.67%
Votes
Yes
No
Percentage
27
77.14%
8
22.86%
Senate Bill 2 was slated to appear on the 2010 ballot as Proposition 18.[34]
2012
On August 9, 2010, the legislature voted to postpone the measure from the November 2010 ballot to the November
2012 ballot. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) recommended the postponement. Schwarzenegger said he did not think
Proposition 18 could win in 2010. He noted, "It's critical that the water bond pass... I will work with the Legislature to
postpone the bond to 2012 and avoid jeopardizing its passage."[35] Both chambers of the legislature voted to move the
bond measure from 2010 to 2012 via Assembly Bill 1265 on August 9, 2010. A two-thirds majority was needed to move
the measure. The votes were as follows:[36]
August 9, 2010 Senate vote
August 9, 2010 House vote
California AB 1265 Senate Vote
California AB 1265 House Vote
Result
Yes
No
Votes
Result
Percentage
54
71.05%
22
28.95%
Yes
No
Votes
Percentage
27
79.41%
7
20.59%
2014
On January 19, 2012, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) expressed that he would like to see the water bond measure delayed. He said,
"I think they've [voters] got to take a hard look at that one." He also expressed the view that the state's lawmakers need
to think about whether the bond proposal "really fits with what is absolutely needed" for water purposes in the state.[37]
US Rep. Jared Hu"man (D-2), who was a state assemblyman in 2012 and chair of the Water, Parks and Wildlife
Committee, said, "As written, this bond cannot pass in 2012 or any other year so my hope is – and the reality suggests –
that we shouldn’t be seriously considering strategies to pass this particular bond, whether it is 2012, 2014 or 2020. To be
14 of 18
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
viable, the revised bond will have to be leaner and greener."[8]
Sen. Lois Wolk (D-3) said both a tax increase and a large bond should not be on the ballot in 2012. She said, "It is critically
important that we focus on the revenue measure," referring to Proposition 30. Wolk continued, "We are faced with a tax
levy in November. It would be disastrous to have [the borrowing] on the ballot."[38][39]
In March 2012, Darrell Steinberg (D-6), the President Pro Tem of the California State Senate, told reporters that the water
bond would probably be pulled o" the ballot.[40]
Assembly Bill 1422, sponsored by Rep. Henry Perea (D-31), was introduced into the legislature. AB 1422 moved the water
bond from the 2012 ballot to the 2014 ballot. On July 5, 2012, legislators approved the bill. The votes were as follows:[41]
July 5, 2012 Senate vote
July 5, 2012 House vote
California AB 1422 Senate Vote
California AB 1422 House Vote
Result
Votes
Yes
No
Result
Percentage
72
91.14%
7
8.86%
Votes
Yes
No
Percentage
34
94.44%
2
5.56%
Gov. Brown signed the bill on July 9, 2012.[41]
On June 25, 2014, Brown called on the legislature to replace the previous $11.14 billion bond with a cheaper $6 billion
bond.[42] He called the previous water bond "a pork-laden water bond… with a price tag beyond what’s reasonable or
a"ordable."[43] The legislature passed a new $7.12 billion bond on August 13, 2014.
Legislators were able to develop a bipartisan deal after weeks of deliberation. Republicans wanted more funding for
reservoirs and water storage. Gov. Brown met with legislative leaders from both parties to help forge a compromise.
Rep. Toni Atkins (D-78) said, "The pitch now is you've got a unified 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."[44] The new bond measure was Assembly Bill 1471, also known
as the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. The votes were as follows:[2]
August 13, 2014 Senate vote
August 13, 2014 House vote
California AB 1471 Senate Vote
California AB 1471 House Vote
Result
Votes
Yes
No
Result
Percentage
77
97.47%
2
2.53%
Yes
No
Votes
Percentage
37
100.00%
0
0.00%
Related measures
California Peripheral Canal Act, Proposition 9 (June 1982)
See also
California 2014 ballot propositions
2014 ballot measures
California Legislature
Additional reading
Governing, "Future of California Water Supply Up to Voters," August 14, 2014 (http://www.governing.com
/news/headlines/mct-water-bond.html)
15 of 18
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
External links
Basic information
Suggest a link
Official Supplemental Voter Information Guide for November 4, 2014, General Election
(http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig-public-display/110414-supplemental/20-day-public-display.htm) (dead link)
Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures
/pdf/ab-1471-chapter-188.pdf)
League of Women Voters Guide to Proposition 1 (http://cavotes.org/vote/election/2014/november/4/ballot-measure
/proposition-1)
Voter's Edge Guide to Proposition 1 (http://votersedge.org/california/ballot-measures/2014/november/prop1?jurisdictions=28.1.28-upper-ca&state=CA#.VC1TnL60a5Q)
California Water Foundation,"The Water Bond Education Project" (http://waterforthelonghaul.com/)
Support
Opposition
Yes on Props 1 & 2 (http://www.yesonprops1and2.com)
Vote NO on Proposition 1 (http://www.noonprop1.org)
Yes on Props 1 & 2 Facebook
(https://www.facebook.com/YesOnProps1and2)
Vote NO on Proposition 1 Facebook
(https://www.facebook.com/NoProp1)
Yes on Props 1 & 2 Twitter (https://twitter.com
/YesOnProps1and2)
Vote NO on Proposition 1 Twitter (https://twitter.com
/VoteNoProp1)
References
1. ↑ KQED, "New Ballot Numbers For November’s Water,
Budget Propositions," August 12, 2014
(http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2014/08/12/new-ballotnumbers-for-November-water-and-budget-propositions/)
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 California Legislature, "AB-1471 Water Quality,
Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014,"
accessed August 14, 2014 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml)
3. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal intensifies
water bond negotiations," June 25, 2014
(http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pol-waterbond-20140626-story.html)
4. ↑ KQED, "Brown Wades Into Water Bond Debate," August 6,
2014 (http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2014/08/05/brownwades-into-water-bond-debate/)
5.0 5.1 5.2
5. ↑
Official Supplemental Voter Information Guide for
November 4, 2014 Election, "Ballot Title and Summary,"
accessed September 9, 2014 (http://web.archive.org
/web/20140909192827/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections
/vig-public-display/110414-supplemental/prop-1/prop1-title-summary.pdf)
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from
the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to
the original source.
7. ↑ Mercury News, "Californians asked to spend more during
unprecedented spree of water spending," November 23,
2009 (https://web.archive.org/web/20140808153144/http:
//www.mercurynews.com
/ci_13852484?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1)
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Capitol Weekly, "For water, perilous economy is big
16 of 18
player in November 2012," December 15, 2011
(https://web.archive.org/web/20140808152229/http:
//capitolweekly.net/for-water-perilous-economy-is-bigplayer-in-november-2012/)
9. ↑ Yes on Props 1 & 2, "Homepage," accessed October 8,
2014 (http://www.yesonprops1and2.com)
10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Official Supplemental Voter Information
Guide for November 4, 2014 Election, "Argument in Favor,"
accessed September 9, 2014 (http://web.archive.org
/web/20140909194744/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections
/vig-public-display/110414-supplemental/prop-1/prop1-arg-in-favor.pdf)
11. ↑ Marin Independent Journal, "Marin Voice: Prop. 1
prioritizes conservation and climate change," September
24, 2014 (http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_26598536
/marin-voice-prop-1-prioritizes-conservation-and-climate)
12. ↑ California Democratic Party, "2014 Endorsement
Information," accessed September 23, 2014
(http://www.cadem.org/resources?id=0713)
13. ↑ Santa Monica Mirror, "State Republicans Vote To Back Two
Measures On November Ballot, Oppose Two," September
22, 2014 (http://www.smmirror.com/articles/News/StateRepublicans-Vote-To-Back-Two-Measures-On-NovemberBallot-Oppose-Two/41185)
14. ↑ The Republic, "Environmentalists split over California
proposal to borrow billions for water projects," October 2,
2014 (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story
/0a4c108e002f4301aedc30f881038925/CA--Prop1-Environmental-Split)
15. ↑ Sierra Sun Times, "League of California Cities and
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
California State Association of Counties Support
Proposition 1, the Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure
Act of 2014," September 7, 2014
(http://www.webcitation.org/6SUAR3tp7)
16. ↑ The Porterville Recorder, "CCM to contribute to water bond
campaign," October 1, 2013
(http://www.recorderonline.com/news/ccm-to-contributeto-water-bond-campaign
/article_a4db3ab6-4982-11e4-9758-001a4bcf6878.html)
17. ↑ Signal Tribune, "Long Beach Water commissioners back
Proposition 1 water bond," September 26, 2014
(http://www.signaltribunenewspaper.com/?p=25206)
18. ↑ San Francisco Weekly, "Sean Parker Is Now a Top
California Political Power Player In November Election,"
October 9, 2014 (http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch
/2014/10/09/sean-parker-now-a-top-california-politicalpower-player)
19. ↑ Natural Resources Defense Council, "Why NRDC Supports
California's Prop 1 (Water Bond) on the November Ballot,"
October 14, 2014 (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs
/anottho"/why_nrdc_supports_californias.html)
20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 California Secretary of State, "Proposition 1
Campaign Finance," accessed October 6, 2014 (http://calaccess.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures
/Detail.aspx?id=1369617&session=2013)
21. ↑ Vote NO on Proposition 1, "Homepage," accessed
September 9, 2014 (http://www.noonprop1.org)
22. ↑ Vote NO on Proposition 1, "Groups Who Support Us,"
accessed September 9, 2014 (http://www.noonprop1.org
/groups_who_support_us/)
23. ↑ San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center, "CREDO
Action urges NO vote on Prop. 1, the California Water
Bond," October 16, 2014 (http://www.indybay.org
/newsitems/2014/10/16/18762935.php)
24. ↑ California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, "Statement of
Opposition to Proposition 1," accessed September 9, 2014
(http://web.archive.org/web/20140910141927/http:
//www.noonprop1.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CSPAOpposes-Prop.-1-9.2.14.pdf)
25. ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "No on Prop 1: It’s a bad
investment for California," September 27, 2014
(http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/sep/27/no-onprop-1-water-bond-bad-investment/?#article-copy)
26. ↑ The Desert Sun, "Your Voice: No on water bond,"
September 6, 2014 (http://www.desertsun.com/story
/opinion/readers/2014/09/06/voice-vote-waterbond/15230109/)
27. ↑ Marin Independent Journal, "Editorial: IJ's stands on Nov. 4
state propositions," October 15, 2014
(http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_26734757/editorialijs-stands-nov-4-state-propositions)
28. ↑ Modesto Bee, "Our View: Central Valley delegation led way
on California water bond," August 13, 2014
(http://www.modbee.com/2014/08/13/3486066_ourview-central-valley-delegation.html?rh=1) (dead link)
17 of 18
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
29. ↑ Napa Valley Register, "The statewide ballot questions,"
October 18, 2014 (http://napavalleyregister.com
/news/opinion/editorial/the-statewide-ballot-questions
/article_a4bd7fa2-9486-5b8f-b365-8354199da038.html)
30. ↑ The Desert Sun, "Our Voice: Legislators optimistic on water
bond issue," September 6, 2014 (http://web.archive.org
/web/20140910142639/http://www.desertsun.com/story
/opinion/editorials/2014/09/06/california-water-bond-vote
/15229767/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)
31. ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "For California’s future, vote
yes on Proposition 1," September 13, 2014
(http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/sep/13
/proposition-1-water-bond-yes/)
32. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommends passage
of state Prop. 1," October 2, 2014 (http://www.sfgate.com
/opinion/editorials/article/Chronicle-recommendspassage-of-state-Prop-1-5797515.php)
33. ↑ California Legislature, "Senate Bill 2," accessed August 8,
2014 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen
/sb_0001-0050/sbx7_2_bill_20091109_history.html)
34. ↑ California Legislative Analyst's Office, "Proposition 18,"
accessed August 8, 2014 (http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot
/2010/18_11_2010.aspx)
35. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Schwarzenegger wants $11-billion
water bond o" the November ballot," June 30, 2010
(https://web.archive.org/web/20140808144558/http:
//articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/30/local/la-me-arnoldwater-20100630)
36. ↑ California Legislature, "Assembly Bill 1265," accessed
August 8, 2014 (https://web.archive.org
/web/20140808150132/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov
/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1251-1300
/ab_1265_bill_20100810_history.html)
37. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Jerry Brown says November water
bond vote might need to be delayed," January 19, 2012
(https://web.archive.org/web/20140808152200/http:
//latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/01
/jerry-brown-water-bond.html)
38. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California Legislature pulls water bond
measure o" fall ballot," July 6, 2012
(http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-waterbond-20120706,0,1208282.story)
39. ↑ Business Week, "California Lawmakers Delay $11 Billion
Water-Bond Measure," July 5, 2012
(http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-05
/california-senate-delays-11-billion-water-bond-measure)
40. ↑ Daily Democrat, "Water bond teeters, may be pulled from
'12 ballot," March 29, 2012 (https://web.archive.org
/web/20140808152251/http://www.dailydemocrat.com
/news/ci_20280195/water-bond-teeters-may-be-pulledfrom-12)
41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 California Legislature, "Assembly Bill 1422,"
accessed August 8, 2014 (https://web.archive.org
/web/20140808152341/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov
/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450
1/7/15 12:53 PM
California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014) - Ballotpedia
/ab_1422_bill_20120709_history.html)
42. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal intensifies
water bond negotiations," June 25, 2014
(http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pol-waterbond-20140626-story.html)
43. ↑ KQED, "Brown Wades Into Water Bond Debate," August 6,
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Propositi...
2014 (http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2014/08/05/brownwades-into-water-bond-debate/)
44. ↑ The Desert Sun, "California water bond signals historic
compromise," August 14, 2014 (http://www.desertsun.com
/story/news/nation/california/2014/08/15/california-statewater-bond/14096953/)
Categories: Approved, general, 2014 California 2014 ballot measures, certified California 2014 ballot measures
Bond issues, California Certified, bond issues, 2014 Water, California Certified, water, 2014
Certified, but removed from ballot, 2010 Certified, but removed from ballot, 2012 State ballots, 2014
18 of 18
1/7/15 12:53 PM