Those measures were drafted by lawmakers and negotiated in the Legislature. Proposition 50, however, was largely written by three environmentalists: Caves, the Planning and Conservation League attorney; Leslie Friedman Johnson, a lobbyist for the Nature Conservancy; and Barry Nelson, senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco.
"They did a pretty good job of targeting some very distinct needs," said Steve Hall, executive director of the Assn. of California Water Agencies, which has endorsed the bond issue.
Many water districts, especially those serving farmers, are frustrated that no new permanent dam or reservoir has come from the previous three water bond sales.
"What we keep seeing in water bonds is not development of water for the population," said Tess Dunham, the state Farm Bureau's water resources director, "but continual acquisition of land and, of course, most of that comes from agriculture."
Some bond money has been used to study five places in Northern California where a reservoir might be built or expanded, with planning documents to be finished in 2004. And millions of dollars have been invested to boost supplies in such places as Kern County by capturing flood flows and percolating it underground to be stored for a drier day.
"The fact of the matter is, we're not ready to build surface storage yet," Hall said. "People who believe we could have got to a surface reservoir today don't understand what it takes to get there."
To appease those eager for new reservoirs, the bond measure authors sent a letter in August to state Sen. Mike Machado (D-Linden), chairman of the Yes on Prop. 50 campaign, promising to help sponsor yet another water bond measure in 2004. It would focus on development of bigger water supplies--including new reservoirs.
*
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)
Voters OKd 12 Bonds Since 1996
There have been 14 bonds on statewide ballots since 1996. The 12 bond measures approved total $23 billion.
Generally, bonds are paid off over 30 years and interest payments cost taxpayers roughly $1.25 for every dollar borrowed.
Here is a list of those measures, with the percentage of the vote they carried.
Some measures required more than 50% of the vote for approval.
March 1996
Seismic retrofit, Prop. 192, $2 billion, passed, 59%
Public education, Prop. 203, $3 billion, passed, 62%
November 1996
Water quality and supply, Prop. 204, $995 million, passed, 63%
Jail construction and improvement, Prop. 205, $700 million, failed, 59%
Veteran's farm and home aid, Prop. 206, $400 million, passed, 53%
November 1998
School construction and repair, Prop. 1A, $9.2 billion, passed, 63%
March 2000
Parks, Prop. 12, $2.1 billion, passed, 63%
Drinking water, Prop. 13, $1.97 billion, passed, 65%
Library construction, Prop. 14, $350 million, passed, 59%
Crime labs, Prop. 15, $220 million, failed, 46%
Veterans homes, Prop. 16, $50 million, passed, 62%
November 2000
Veterans, Prop. 32, $500 million, passed, 67%
March 2002
Water and parks, Prop. 40, $2.6 billion, passed, 57%
Voting machines, Prop. 41, $200 million, passed, 52%
Source: California secretary of state
