PROP. 84 PROTECTS CALIFORNIA’S WATER, LAND, 
AND COASTLINE.  
 
California is growing rapidly, putting new pressure each 
year on our water resources, land, coast, and ocean. Prop. 84 
protects these vital natural resources, which are essential to 
our health, our economy, and our quality of life.  
 
YES on 84 PROTECTS DRINKING WATER QUALITY.  
 
The water we drink and use to grow our food is vulnerable 
to contamination. Prop. 84 will:  
 
• Remove dangerous chemicals from our water supply.  
 
• Prevent future groundwater contamination.  
 
• Prevent toxic runoff from flowing into our water. 
  
Prop. 84 is essential to assure our communities CLEAN, 
SAFE DRINKING WATER.  
 
Last year, there were more than 1,200 beach closing or 
advisory days in California. Prop. 84 will help prevent toxic 
pollution from storm drains from contaminating coastal waters 
and endangering public health.  
 
YES on 84 ASSURES A RELIABLE WATER SUPPLY.  
 
Prop. 84 will increase the reliability of California’s water 
supply, through conservation and other programs. Every 
region in the state will benefit from this measure, while being 
given local control over specific projects to improve local 
water supply and water quality.  
 
YES on 84 PROTECTS OUR COASTLINE AND 
CALIFORNIA’S NATURAL BEAUTY.  
 
The measure will help clean and safeguard the ocean and 
beaches all along California’s coastline, including the San 
Diego, Santa Monica, Monterey, and San Francisco Bays. It 
will also provide for safe neighborhood parks and protect the 
rivers and lakes in which we swim and fish.  
 
YES on 84 PROTECTS AGAINST FLOODING. 
 
 
An earthquake or a series of major storms could damage 
our state’s levees, causing dangerous flooding and potentially 
leaving up to 23 million Californians without safe drinking 
water. 
 
Efforts are underway to address this urgent threat to 
public safety and our water supply, but much more needs 
to be done. Flood control experts agree that Prop. 84 is an 
important step forward and complements ongoing efforts to 
improve flood control in California.  
 
YES on PROP. 84 PROTECTS CALIFORNIA’S 
ECONOMY.  
 
Clean beaches, rivers, and lakes are crucial to tourism, 
which contributes more than $88 billion to the state economy 
each year and directly supports more than 900,000 jobs. 
An adequate supply of clean, safe water is also needed for 
California’s farms and cities. Prop. 84 protects the water that 
our economy needs to thrive.  
 
YES on 84 WILL NOT RAISE TAXES—AND 
INCLUDES TOUGH FISCAL SAFEGUARDS. Prop. 84:  
 
• Is funded entirely from existing revenues and will not raise taxes.  
• Will bring federal matching funds into California.  
• Includes strict accountability provisions, including yearly 
independent audits and a citizen’s oversight committee.  
 
PLEASE JOIN US IN VOTING YES on 84.  
 
Conservation groups, business organizations, and water 
districts across California support Prop. 84. For more 
information about the measure, please visit www.CleanWater2006.com. Your YES vote will help protect our 
health, economy, and quality of life now and in the years to 
come.  
 
PROTECT CALIFORNIA’S DRINKING WATER, 
LAND, COAST, AND OCEAN. Vote YES on 84.  
 
MARK BURGET, Executive Director  
The Nature Conservancy 
 
LARRY WILSON, Chair  
Board of Directors, Santa Clara Valley   Water District  
 
E. RICHARD BROWN, Ph.D., Professor School of Public
Health, University of   California, Los Angeles
         
     
	
      
        REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR  
        OF PROPOSITION 84  | 
       
     
	 
	
	PROPOSITION 84 CANNOT DELIVER ON ITS 
PROMISES  
 
It will not benefit everyone, but everyone will pay for 
it through higher taxes or budget cuts for education, law 
enforcement, and health services.  
 
NO on 84 PROTECTS THE PUBLIC TREASURY  
 
Prop. 84 gives state bureaucrats the power to spend 
your money without effective oversight. This proposal 
eliminates protections against corruption and favoritism in 
current law and it bypasses our competitive bidding system. 
It prevents audits by the State Controller, the State Auditor, 
and even the Legislative Analyst. It exempts itself from 
the Administrative Procedures Act. Ask yourself why the 
proponents fear routine audits.  
 
NO on 84 SENDS SACRAMENTO THE RIGHT 
MESSAGE: WE NEED A RELIABLE WATER SUPPLY  
 
This water bond does not contain ANY funds for new 
reservoirs, aqueducts, or water storage! The water diversions 
mandated by this bond will actually take away drinking 
water from current sources.  
 
NO on 84 PROTECTS YOU FROM SPECIAL 
INTERESTS  
 
Bond funds can be awarded to the same private 
organizations that placed this initiative on the ballot, 
campaigned for it, and bought advertising to promote it. This 
is a perversion of the initiative process.  
 
NO on 84 SAVES MONEY FOR REAL FLOOD 
CONTROL  
 
Flood control is vital, but less than 15% of bond funds are 
dedicated to that purpose—and that money could be chewed 
up for studies, environmental planning, environmental 
mitigation, and bureaucratic administration. If bureaucratic 
reports could stop flooding, we’d no longer have a problem.  
 
PLEASE JOIN US IN VOTING NO on 84.  
 
BILL LEONARD, Member  
California State Board of Equalization 
 
RON NEHRING, Senior Consultant  
Americans for Tax Reform  
 
LEWIS K. UHLER, President  
National Tax Limitation Committee  | 
        This measure should have been titled the “Special-Interest-Hidden-Agenda Bond” because it was placed on the ballot 
by special interests who don’t really want you to know where 
all your money is going to be squandered. Every special 
interest that helped get this boondoggle on the ballot will get 
a share of the taxpayers’ money, but ordinary taxpayers will 
get nothing from this bond but higher taxes for the next three 
decades.  
 
This so-called “water bond” has no funding for dams or 
water storage! The authors set aside billions for bureaucratic 
studies, unnecessary protections for rats and weeds, and other 
frivolous projects, but they couldn’t find a single penny to 
build freshwater storage for our state’s growing population. 
You have to read the text to believe it.  
 
Only a very small portion of the funds from this enormous 
bond would be available for repair and maintenance of our 
levees, but Proposition 1E was placed on the ballot by the 
Legislature to provide $4,090,000,000 for these same levees. 
Common sense dictates that we should wait to see how that 
money is spent before we authorize another $5,388,000,000 
in new spending. It would be foolish to lock permanent 
spending formulas in place, as this initiative seeks to do, 
when we have no idea what our future needs will be once the 
funds from Proposition 1E are spent.  
 
This bond represents a huge tax increase. The proponents 
seem eager to avoid this unpleasant fact, but voters need 
to understand that bond repayment takes priority over all other government spending. Once issued, bonds cannot be 
cancelled, repudiated, or discharged in bankruptcy; they can 
only be repaid with tax revenues. Our state already has a 
$7 billion budget deficit, and there is no way to pay for this 
gigantic bond without higher taxes.  
 
Local projects should be funded at the local level. This 
statewide bond is designed to force people in one part of 
the state to pay for local projects on the other side of the 
state. Why should people in Redding pay for urban parks in 
San Diego? Why tax people in Los Angeles to pay for beetle 
habitat restoration in Sutter County? This is poor tax policy, 
and it was clearly designed to benefit the special interests 
that put this measure on the ballot. We should expect local 
communities to fund their own local parks and improvements; 
statewide bonds should be reserved for state parks, colleges, 
and other capital projects that benefit the whole state.  
 
What is worse, this bond allows unelected, unaccountable 
state bureaucrats to spend billions of dollars, with little or 
no real public oversight. Sacramento bureaucrats and special 
interests will love having a slush fund that they can spend 
without the need for public hearings and public votes in the 
Legislature—but we cannot allow that to happen.  
 
Please join me in voting NO on Proposition 84.  
 
BILL LEONARD, Member  
California State Board of Equalization  
   
			
  
    REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST 
            PROPOSITION 84  | 
   
 
        
		
		The opponent’s argument is simply wrong.  
         
Proposition 84 provides clean water and protects our coast without raising taxes. It is supported by a broad, bipartisan 
coalition of public interest and business groups including the 
League of Women Voters of California, Los Angeles Area 
Chamber of Commerce, and The Nature Conservancy.  
 
Here are the facts.  
 
• Prop. 84 funds crucial projects needed to assure reliable 
supplies of clean, safe drinking water.  
• Prop. 84 protects all of California’s waters: our rivers, 
lakes, streams, beaches, and bays.  
• Prop. 84 includes strict financial accountability, including 
a citizen oversight committee, annual independent audits, 
and full public disclosure.  
• Prop. 84 protects our families from toxic pollution, floods, 
and other hazards through critical public safety projects 
not funded by other measures.  
 
YES on 84: BENEFITS ALL CALIFORNIANS  
 
Prop. 84 funds local priorities to improve water quality 
and supply in every region of the state.  
 
YES on 84: SUPPORTED BY CALIFORNIA’S LOCAL 
WATER DISTRICTS  
 
Proposition 84 is so important that water districts that 
provide drinking water to more than 23 million Californians 
all urge YES on 84.  
 
YES on 84: PROTECTS PUBLIC HEALTH  
 
Prop. 84 removes dangerous contaminants from drinking 
water, cleans up toxic chemicals that contaminate the fish we 
eat, and keeps dangerous polluted runoff from flowing onto 
our beaches and into our coastal waters.  
 
YES on 84 protects our land, water, and public health, for 
our families and for future generations.  
 
Join local water districts, conservation organizations, 
business groups, and public health experts in voting YES 
on 84.  
 
ERICH PFUEHLER, California Director  
Clean Water Action  
 
JEFF KIGHTLINGER, General Manager  
Metropolitan Water District of Southern   California 
 
KAITILIN GAFFNEY, Conservation   Director  
The Ocean Conservancy  |