First off, in the ads I've seen, including those featuring Governor Brown, the two are being promoted together, as a package, with the implication they both address water resources and drought.  This is despite the fact they have nothing to do with each other and that only Prop 1 addresses water resource issues.  I find this to be deceitful.


Proposition 2 establishes a State budget reserve, a "rainy day fund".  It generates no new revenue, so the money comes from further cuts in spending.  It is being opposed by a coalition of education-related groups who feel they've been hurt and this is one more blow to their budgets.  




I was reading and researching Proposition 1 and found this.  It surely seems filled with 'pork'.

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 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.

After reading this, I was merely skeptical of the Proposition.  After reading the opponents' discussion, I am inclined to vote against Proposition 1.







The nature of politics in this State has made me extremely cynical and skeptical.  They can't even do a water project properly - an engineering project.  No wonder we are running out of water.

More stuff to vote No on.

Heck I still cant beleive that where i live, our city is fighting the state over a state law that says all waist water must not only be treated before being released, it must also have all of the Salt content removed to some rediculous .005 ppm level. Guess where the waste water ends up, thats right, the Pacific Ocean.   The retard in our .gov is

Anyone have any thoughts on these two propositions which might be more favorable than my rantings?

If they spent only the money they intend to use for dams ($2.7B), they would not need to issue bonds.  As it is, because it's a bond issue, every cockamamie pork project on or under the table was tacked on raising the price by $4.8B, raising the total to 3X the dam project cost.