Some good might come of the bond, but I'm willing to wait until policy makers have it right, or at least better, before I say yes. Here's the reasons that resonate with me to say no, based on my reading:
Using general obligation funds rather than ratepayer funds to pay for water supply is inherently a subsidy and often sends the wrong cost signal to consumers. Paying the full cost of water supply through one's utility bill provides a better incentive for conservation and efficient use. There are exceptions to this statement, and the one I would have liked to see addressed is the the Delta Conveyance, but that is explicitly prohibited from being funded by the terms of the bond (probably because it is so controversial in N Ca. Voters at some remove can see that the way the state currently gets water from the Delta ought to be fixed, somehow.)
No one knows how the California Water Commission would evaluate proposals to spend the 2.7 billion dollars allocated for the "public benefits" of new storage (surface or groundwater). While there is significant political pressure to allocate the funds for certain proposed (and controversial) surface storage projects, including Sites and Temperance Flat reservoirs, many believe those projects cannot pass any reasonable economic hurdles.
Requirements of the bond can be read to favor improvement of or new surface water storage facilities rather than ground water storage, desalination, or waste water reuse. This is an area in which the bond is not very clear and we will only learn the criteria against which proposed facilities are ranked after the bond is approved, if ever.
The bond doesn't do enough for conservation of water, arguably the most effective approach to the current drought.
The bond doesn't address our current drought in any other meaningful way.
No comments:
Post a Comment