Xblog

This is $5.4 billion towards efforts to protect our supply of safe drinking water, flood control, as well as a fat chunk of change for various conservancies, rivers, lakes and streams. Oh and there’s some money for the state park system, forests, wildlife habitat protection, and protection for ranches and farms too (what, you thought this was just a water bond? ;-).

According to the detailed information on the bill, we already have $1.4 billion in unspent bond money for these kinds of projects. Throw in proposition 1E and you have to wonder why you should vote for yet another water bill.

Well, the reasons are many fold. First of all, 1E doesn’t really address availability of drinking water for emergencies (not sure about the remaining $1.4 billion). Nor does it do anything for all the various conservation funds for parks, ranches, farms, etc. Of course, these kinds of things are kind of on going commitments rather than one time infrastructure investments if you ask me. There are a few specific projects, like restoration of the San Joaquin River and Colorado River, but all in all, this seems to me like things that should be paid out of the general fund.

Oh, this bill also allows a lot of the spending to bypass normal contracting and procurement requirements (can you say, “No Bid Contract”?) because of the pressing need to spend this money quickly.

Sorry. I can’t possibly see why this kind of spending shouldn’t come from the state general fund and be subject to the usual contracting and procurement requirements. This stuff is important and can and is addressed by the legislature. Maybe it’s worth talking to your representative about increasing the budget for these projects, but I just can’t see floating a bond for this stuff.