Proposition 3 Water Bond Act: Overview and Benefits in Kern County
"Learn about the Proposition 3 Water Bond Act presented to Kern County in November 2018. Discover how it differs from Proposition 1, its major benefits for Kern County, additional funding categories, and water supply benefits. Explore the allocations, funding sources, and implications for water conservation and management."
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
PROPOSITION 3 2018 November Water Bond Act Presentation to Kern County
Status of Prop. 1 funds $2.7 billion in storage funds were allocated by California Water Commission inJuly. Of remaining $4.8 billion, funds will be largely exhausted by 2019.
How is Novembers Proposition 3 water bond different from Proposition 1 (2014 water bond)? No allocation to California Water Commission. No similar convoluted language. Direct appropriation to DWR, SWRCB and other state agencies. No legislative appropriation. Use of existing guidelines for existing programs. No new regulations required.
Proposition 68 (June 2018) Legislative bond: SB 5 (DeLeon) Primarily urban park bond June vs November Small overlap between measures (18%)
Major benefits for Kern County $200 million for Oroville repair. Benefits to KCWA: $50 million $750 million for Friant Kern Repair. Also makes USBR 215 water available again $640 million for SGMA implementation $750 million for Safe Drinking Water and wastewater disposal for DACs
KEY ADDITIONAL FUNDING CATEGORIES Urban Water Conservation Agricultural Water Conservation Wastewater Recycling Desalting (inland) Flood Management Salton Sea Stormwater Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Watershed restoration $300 million $50 million $400 million $400 million $500 million $200 million $550 million $1450 million $2400 million
WATER SUPPLY BENEFITS OF Proposition 3, THE WATER SUPPLY AND CLEAN WATER BOND INITIATIVE BASED ON INVESTMENT AND REQUIRED MATCHING FUNDS DROUGHT YEAR SUPPLIES SOURCE SUPPLY IN ACRE FEET /YEAR WASTEWATER RECYCLING 124,000 DESALTING 70,000 STORMWATER CAPTURE 101,000 URBAN WATER CONSERVATION 589,000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT 661,000 REPAIR OF FLOOD CONTROL DAMS 20,000 REPAIR OF FRIANT KERN CANAL 200,000 TOTAL 1,765,000 An urban family in California uses .5 acre feet per year.
Year 1960burns porter act. Bond. Established state water project. 1970recreation at state water project; fish and wildlife enhancement clean water bond act 1974clean water bond act 1976safe drinking water bond act 1978clean water and water conservation bond 1980amend safe drinking water bond act of 1976 1984safe drinking water bond act clean water bond act 1986water conservation and water quality bond safe drinking water bond act 1988water conservation bond act clean water and water reclamation bond act safe drinking water bond act 1990water resources bond act 1996safe reliable water supply bond act 2000parks, water, air coast bond act water bond act 2002parks, water, air, coast bond act water quality supply safe drinking water initiative 2006water bond act initiative Disaster preparedness and flood prevention 2014water Quality, Supply, Treatment, Storage 2018parks, water, climate change
Prop. 1 water bond statewide (2014: 67%) Measure AA SF Bay Restoration (2016: 70%) Proposition 68 (2018: 57%) John Cox; Sen. Feinstein; Fresno Bee Strong inter-sector support California Building Industry Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Properties; huge SJV support National Wildlife Federation, Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, Save the Bay, Ca Native Plant Soc., Sustainable Conservation, Planning and Conservation League Association of California Water Agencies, No. Calif. Water Assoc., So. Cal. Water Coalition; dozens of water agencies Rice, Fresh Fruit, Cotton, Pistachio, Dairy, Ag Council, Farm Bureau, Western Growers; Westside PAC EJ: Community Water Center, 10 others California Labor Federation
Impact of Central Valley Vote Prop. 50 (2002) Prop 84 (2006) Statewide Central Valley 42 55 Prop 1 (2014) Statewide Central Valley 46 54 Prop 68 (2018) Statewide Central Valley 48 Statewide Central Valley 65 67 57
polling April 2018 YES 61 NO 33 After positive arguments YES 68 NO 29 PPIC July 2018 YES 58 NO 25
The proposition specifies that the Friant Water Authority would receive $750 million for repairs, reconstruction, and enlargement of nearby canals. Over-pumping of aquifers caused the groundwater subsidence that damaged the Friant-Kern Canal. Those who caused the damage should pay to repair the canals. The proposition would essentially require taxpayers from across California to pay to fix the Central Valley canal that isn t even their water source. This makes no sense. Sierra Club.
