Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act.
	Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 13

Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Supporters always say that bonds won't increase taxes. How then will the bonds be paid? Taxpayers must pay the principal and interest on these bonds for 30 years. This money comes from our tax dollars. Taxpayers currently pay over $3 billion per year on existing bond debt.

Let's not forget Proposition 204. Voters approved $995 million in bonds in November 1996 for the "Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act." Where did this money go? We were warned about a water crisis then. If they haven't been able to fix the problem with almost a billion dollars, why give them almost $2 billion more?

Indeed, is there any evidence that our drinking water is unsafe? Or is it just another in a long series of government-sponsored crises designed to extract more money from taxpayers' wallets?

WATER SUPPLIES--Residential customers use only 15% of California's water, but must subsidize agricultural and commercial customers who use 85%. If big water users had to pay the real cost of their water, prices would fluctuate according to supply, leading to conservation.

POLLUTION CONTROL--Those who pollute our rivers and lakes should be held fully responsible for the damage they do. Taxpayers shouldn't be put on the hook for damages caused by private businesses and individuals.

Please vote to save $7 BILLION by opposing Proposition 13 and also Proposition 12, the parks bond. These measures work together to waste our tax dollars on a bunch of "pork-barrel" projects.

GAIL K. LIGHTFOOT
Past Chair, Libertarian Party of California

DENNIS SCHLUMPF
Director, Tahoe City Public Utility District

TED BROWN
Insurance Adjuster/Investigator

Proposition 13 | Vote 2000 Home | Next - Prop 14 | Secretary of State Home |