Torn on Prop 1, with conflicting advice from water experts

California has a serious drought. This measure claims it will fix it -- evening out the wet & dry years, as Governor Brown's TV ads say. I'm worried about the drought, and believe it will only get worse as climate change's impacts get worse. So this is a slam dunk, right?

Wrong. This is the toughest decision among the propositions this year. Prop 1 is a big ($7.5 billion) water bond, negotiated over the past several years (decades?) among a WIDE variety of interests. That means it is necessarily a big compromise. And as opponents are becoming fond of saying, "Pouring concrete won't make it rain."Prop 1 has some things I probably wouldn't like, some I definitely do, and my trusted advisors are split.  Read on for (much) more detail ...



In some ways, this analysis doesn't make too much difference -- Prop 1 is polling well above 50%. It was put on the ballot by a unanimous vote of state senators, with only two state assemblymembers in opposition. It enjoys the support of both the Democratic AND Republican parties, plus Governor Brown and Senators Boxer and Feinstein. It seems likely to pass.

But I still feel a need to figure out if it should pass with my vote.

I read all the text of the measure, but that doesn't really help. The important question is whether this is the right compromise, or could the people I support have gotten a better compromise. I think I'm best off listening to the judgment of people who basically share my values and who are immersed in the fight, or at least close to it.

Unfortunately, those people don't entirely agree.

On water issues, the people I agree with say we shouldn't build more big dams (aka "surface storage"). Instead, we should get more water through efficiency, recycling, stormwater capture, groundwater cleanup, and other "integrated regional water management (IRWM)" efforts (jargon alert!). They seem to like groundwater storage (which I understand to mean "replenish our aquifers") instead of surface storage (dams). But those people come to different conclusions:

• YES on 1: Natural Resources Defense Council has the most nuanced support position. See their explanation of why NRDC supports Prop 1, plus a post explaining why they think the era of big dams is over, EVEN if Prop 1 passes. Their argument appears to be that the measure has money for lots of good things, that it does not move forward the bad Bay Delta tunnels plan (which has been part of the debate for years), and that the $2.7 billion for water storage does not "earmark" those funds for dams, instead setting up a "transparent, competitive process" that will take into account lots of the factors that make big new dams infeasible. There's also support from the Nature Conservancy, California League of Conservation Voters, and a bunch of other environmental groups. But I didn't see those other groups responding to the legitimate concerns of dam opponents. 
• NO on 1: Opponents that I trust are focused on the $2.7 billion for water storage (their best line: "Pouring concrete won't make it rain"). Opponents say that $2.7B will largely be used for bad dams that suck water out of natural watersheds, destroying fish and natural habitats, stealing money from Northern CA and sending it to Southern CA. When they do acknowledge claims that the $$ won't necessarily be used for dams, their reasonable response is to say that Republicans and dam proponents fought for that $$ in the bond, they're not going to give it up. See good blog post from EPIC and a decent TV piece by the Sacramento TV station. You can also see the No on 1 campaign website. My friend Kevin Wolf, a staunch and often reasonable environmentalist, also urges me to vote No. 

Sigh. So I'm torn. I'll probably waffle awhile longer. My guess is that if Prop 1 passes, some of that $2.7B will go to bad dams, and I'll be unhappy about that. But probably lots of the other money will go towards things I like. I recognize compromise in ballot measures can be a good thing. In this circumstance, I'm not close enough to the situation to feel confident about what will happen if Prop 1 fails -- if lawmakers go back to the drawing board, will the next version be better, or worse? Given the unanimous support for this attempt, I'm inclined to think the next version would be worse.

Advice welcome (but please, leave out the heavy rhetoric).