What Is Prop 3: Water Infrastructure Bond Explained

LOS ANGELES, CA — If approved, Proposition 3 would allow the state to raise $8.877 billion in bond sales to fund water infrastructure, groundwater supply, and watershed and fishery improvements. It would fund the restoration and protection of habitats. It would also target water projects for disadvantaged communities.

The bond would likely cost the state $17.3 billion to repay over the course of 40 years, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

About $2.355 billion—would go toward conservancies, state parks and nonprofits for the restoration of rivers and watershed lands. Additional funds would go to groundwater sustainability and infrastructure repairs that improve drinking water supplies. Additional billions would be reserved for water projects serving disadvantaged communities.

This measure has a somewhat confusing hodgepodge of supporters and opponents. It enjoys the support of politicians on boths sides of the aisle, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Gubernatorial candidate Jon Cox. It’s supported by dozens of agricultural and environmental groups as well. It’s primary opponents include the Sierra Club and the League of Women Voters of California.

Critics argue that the measure is just another give-away to special interests. They argue that it would fail to fund projects such as dams that could help the state collect and store precious water.

“Instead of projects that would capture or store more of the precious precipitation that California gets, officials pander to special interests and pour millions of dollars into parks, hiking trails, wildlife—like a little bait-fish in the Sacramento River—and things that have nothing to do with solving the State’s water shortages,” reads the official ballot statement against the measure. “Half the water in our rivers just runs into the Pacific Ocean. Politicians tried to prove that they’re serious about conserving water; they passed a law requiring cities to clamp down on us water-wasters.”

Supporters, however, argue that the measure is needed to help the state secure clean drinking water and deal with the long-term consequences of drought.

“We must secure our state’s future water supply by continued investment in water conservation, recycling, canals, pipelines and water storage facilities,” reads the official ballot statement in favor of the measure.
The state would achieve these goals by capturing more mountain water runoff, repairing dams and canals, and improving groundwater quality, according to the measure’s supporters.

The measure’s supporters have raised more than $4 million while opponents haven’t raised anything, Ballotpedia reports.

According to a Public Policy Institute of California poll from July, 58 percent of voters favor the measure.

Photo: Shutterstock