|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
ARGUMENT in Favor
of Proposition 50
YES ON 50. PROTECT OUR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND COASTLINE.
Our water supply is threatened by pollution, recurring drought, population growth, and inadequate security.
Proposition 50 will help overcome these threats and provide every California family a safe, reliable supply of clean drinking water by:
- Removing dangerous, cancer causing pollutants from our drinking water.
- Creating new water supplies to keep up with population growth.
- Keeping raw sewage and pollution out of our coastal waters and cleaning up beaches and bays.
- Protecting rivers, lakes and streams and preserving coastal wetlands.
- Protecting our reservoirs, dams, pumping stations and pipelines from terrorist threats and intentional contamination.
YES ON 50 KEEPS OUR WATER FLOWING
California’s population is expected to nearly double in the next forty years. Proposition 50 funds state and local water system improvements needed to keep up with population growth by providing new water supplies and supporting water conservation programs.
YES ON 50 KEEPS OUR WATER CLEAN
Proposition 50 funds improved drinking water treatment to remove dangerous cancer causing chemicals, including arsenic, chromium and MTBE from our drinking water.
YES ON 50 KEEPS OUR WATER SAFE
Many of California’s reservoirs, dams and pumping stations are protected by little more than a chain link fence. Proposition 50 protects local water delivery systems from terrorist threats and intentional contamination by funding early warning systems, alarms, fences, security systems, testing equipment and upgraded communications systems.
YES ON 50 PROTECTS OUR BEACHES, BAYS AND COASTLINE
Many of California’s most beautiful beaches are unsafe for swimming because of pollution and raw sewage. Proposition 50 will fix aging local sewer and storm water systems that dump urban runoff into coastal waters. Proposition 50 also provides for protection and restoration of coastal wetlands vital to restoring the water quality, fisheries and wildlife of the San Francisco, Santa Monica and San Diego bays and of the coastal waters of the state.
YES ON 50 WILL NOT RAISE TAXES
Proposition 50 will use existing tax revenue where it is needed now—to protect our water supply and ensure safe drinking water for all Californians.
YES ON 50—SUPPORTED BY LOCAL WATER AGENCIES, CONSERVATION GROUPS, BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY GROUPS, INCLUDING:
- Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
- Contra Costa Water District
- East Bay Municipal Utility District
- League for Coastal Protection
- Heal the Bay
- Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
- League of Women Voters of California
- The Nature Conservancy
- Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation
- National Wildlife Federation
- Audubon California
- American River Conservancy
- League to Save Lake Tahoe
- Clean Water Action
YES ON 50—PROTECT CALIFORNIA’S FUTURE:
California’s future depends on investment in water supply and security, water quality and safe drinking water projects and on protecting our rivers, lakes, bays and coastal waters from contamination. Proposition 50 provides the funds that local water districts need to serve California’s growing population.
Please join our campaign to protect California’s water supply and coastline: www.prop50yes.com
BARBARA INATSUGU, President
League of Women Voters of California
DAN TAYLOR, Vice President
National Audubon Society
MARGUERITE YOUNG, California Director
Clean Water Action |
|
ARGUMENT Against
Proposition 50
It seems like every time we have a general election, someone asks for a few billion dollars for safe drinking water. This time we are being asked to pass the largest water bond in history. A whopping $5.7 billion—when you consider the principal ($3.44 billion) and the interest ($2.24 billion).
In spite of all the water bonds California taxpayers have approved in the last 30 years, our Governor and Legislature have taken no action to develop new water storage facilities. In fact, the construction of dams and reservoirs has been at a virtual standstill for many years in California.
Most of water bond monies California voters have been approving have gone for endless studies of the problem, and to pander to unrealistic environmental demands.
It’s time for all good taxpayers to say “no dice ” to these bond schemes that do nothing to improve our long range water supply.
Yes, we are fast approaching a big water shortage crisis in California, the likes of which we have never seen before. Proposition 50 provides virtually no money to alleviate that crisis.
We need new dams on the American River at Auburn and on the upper San Joaquin River at Friant. $3.44 billion will build both of them and provide us with a much needed new water supply.
We need to build the Sites Reservoir in Colusa County, and the Los Banos Grande Reservoir in Merced County to store an additional 6 million acre feet of new water for drought protection and to accommodate all the new construction of the last 30 years. $3.44 billion would go a long way to build these worthwhile new reservoirs.
All of California desperately needs a diversion channel around the Delta so that excess water that now flows out the Golden Gate into the ocean can be sent to drought stricken areas of our State. $3.44 billion would substantially fund that project.
Proposition 50 does nothing to start, or plan for completion of any of the projects listed above.
Proposition 50 has been described as the “stealth bond issue.” Proponents are trying to sell it as a clean drinking water initiative. However, all California taxpayers should know it was drafted by a Sacramento lobbyist for several environmental groups and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Supporters then hired professional signature gatherers and paid as much as $2.50 a signature to qualify this deceptive initiative for the ballot.
What Proposition 50 really does is dole out bond funds to the pet projects of those environmental groups that paid to put it on the ballot. And, you and your children will have to come up with $227 million each year for the next 25 years to pay for it.
Recently, a group of 30 taxpayer organizations from around the State met in Convention under the name California Taxpayer’s Coalition and voted unanimously to oppose Proposition 50.
Vote no on Proposition 50.
For more information tedcosta@tedcosta.com or
peoplesadvocate.org 1-800-501-8222.
ERNIE DYNDA, President
United Organizations of Taxpayers
EDWARD J. (TED) COSTA, CEO
People’s Advocate
TOM C. ROGERS, Chairman
Citizens Against Unfair Taxation
|
REBUTTAL to Argument in Favor
of Proposition 50
To say Proposition 50 creates “new water sources to keep up with population growth” is an outright lie. Just read Section 79560 of the initiative, it strictly prohibits bond funds from being spent for building new dams or reservoirs.
To say it “will not raise taxes” is another lie. Proposition 50 will cost California Taxpayers a total of $5.7 billion—that’s $227 million each year for the next 25 years. Furthermore, this initiative does nothing to complete the California Water Project sponsored by Gov. Pat Brown to meet our long range water needs.
Millions of acre-feet of water flow down the Sacramento, through the Golden Gate, into the ocean each year. A canal is desperately needed to divert water around the Delta so it can flow down the California Aqueduct to drought stricken areas of our State. Proposition 50 does nothing to address this
badly needed source of new water.
Proposition 50 is more about money than water. The proponents solicited various special interests and apparently traded bond monies for campaign cash. It’s called quid pro quo and under normal circumstances, it’s illegal. However, in the arena of initiative politics, it’s not illegal. Some of the largest real estate developers in California are big investors in this
scheme to extract $3.44 billion from the taxpayers.
The principals of the San Juan Company put up $50,000 for the effort at the same time they are trying to get approval to build 14,000 houses in an environmentally sensitive southern Orange County.
EDWARD J. (TED) COSTA, Chairman
California Taxpayers Coalition
RICHARD AHERN, Vice President
Waste Watchers, Inc. |
|
REBUTTAL to Argument Against
Proposition 50
PROP 50 IS NEEDED NOW TO PROVIDE A CLEAN, RELIABLE AND SAFE WATER SUPPLY FOR OUR FAMILIES AND OUR FUTURE.
We’ve made progress in improving water quality and reliability, but there’s a lot more that needs to be done now. Prop 50 supports vitally needed water projects critical to ensuring clean drinking water and a reliable water supply.
Even the small groups opposing Prop 50 agree that OUR LOOMING WATER CRISIS MUST BE RESOLVED. But their approach, coming from people claiming to represent taxpayers, would cost drastically more than Prop 50’s cost-effective approach.
PROPOSITION 50 WILL:
- Keep our drinking water clean by removing toxic substances and protecting our rivers, lakes and streams.
- Keep our water flowing by providing new water supplies, improving local water systems, and supporting water efficiency and conservation programs.
- Protect our beaches, bays and coastline by repairing aging sewer and storm water systems.
- Keep our water system safe and secure by protecting against terrorist threats and intentional contamination.
“Local water agencies responsible for providing Californians with safe drinking water agree: Prop 50 is vitally needed to provide a reliable supply of clean drinking water.”—James Pretti, President of the Board, Contra Costa Water District
“Nothing is more important than secure water supplies. Prop 50 can help avert attacks on and contamination of our drinking water supply.”—Lieutenant Ed Gray, President, California Organization of Police and Sheriffs
JOIN public safety groups, public health experts, water agencies, conservation groups, businesses and community groups throughout California in voting YES ON 50.
DAN TERRY, President
California Professional Firefighters
BARBARA INATSUGU, President
League of Women Voters of California
PHILLIP J. PACE, Chairman
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
| Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
|
|
|
|
|
