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: http://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.
|
