Article from Daily Kos.
WED OCT 08, 2014 AT 03:04 PM PDT
by Dan Bacher
The campaign for and against Proposition 1, the $7.5 billion water bond on the November 4 ballot, has emerged as the classic David and Goliath battle of this election season in California.
The Governor, Republican and Democratic establishment, corporate agribusiness interests, construction unions, corporate “environmental” NGOs, prominent billionaires and big water agencies are backing the Yes on 1 campaign. In contrast, a grassroots coalition of fishing groups, environmentalists, consumer organizations, two Indian Tribes, family farmers and Delta water agencies is enlisted in the battle to defeat Proposition 1.
The contrast between the Yes and No on 1 campaigns is illustrated by the respective money each campaign has raised. Governor Jerry Brown’s Proposition 1 and 2 campaign has raised $6,621,946 and spent $817,276, while the No on Proposition 1 campaign has raised a total of $71,000 and has spent $41,036 as of October 6, 2014, according to Ballotpedia:
http://ballotpedia.org/…_(2014)
The water bond proponents are divided up in two committees.
The Yes on Props 1 and 2 A, “Bipartisan Coalition of Business, Labor, Republicans, Democrats and Governor has raised $4,540,580 and has spent $759,649.
The second Yes on 1 committee, The California Business Political Action Committee, Sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, has raised $62,500 and has spent $57,627.
The top donor in the Yes on 1 campaign is Sean Parker, an entrepreneur and venture capitalist who cofounded the file-sharing computer service Napster and served as the first president of the social networking website Facebook. He also cofounded Plaxo, Causes, and Airtime. As of September, 2014, Parker’s net worth was estimated to be $3.1 billion, according to Wiikipedia. He has contributed $1 million to the Yes campaign to date.
Also noteworthy is that four members of the family that owns the Gap Stores – Doris F. Fisher, John J. Fisher, Robert J. Fisher, and William S. Fisher – each contributed $245,000 to the campaign.
Of course, Stewart Resnick, the Beverly Hills agribusiness tycoon, owner of Paramount Farms and largest orchard fruit grower in the world, contributed $150,000. The California Farm Bureau Federation contributed $250,000, the Western Growers Service Association donated $250,000 and the California Cotton Alliance contributed $200,000 to the Yes on Prop. 1 campaign. That’s a total of $850,000 from agribusiness!
The following are the donors who contributed $150,000 or more to the campaign in support of the initiative as of October 6, 2014:
Sean Parker $1,000,000
California Alliance for Jobs – Rebuild California Committee $500,000
Health Net $445,600
Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition PAC $400,000
California American Council of Engineering Companies $250,000
California Farm Bureau Federation $250,000
California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems $250,000
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Issues PAC $250,000
Reed Hastings $250,000
SW Regional Council Of Carpenters $250,000
Western Growers Service Corporation $250,000
Doris F. Fisher $245,000
John J. Fisher $245,000
Robert J. Fisher $245,000
William S. Fisher $245,000
California Cotton Alliance $200,000
Northern California District Council Of Laborers Issues PAC $200,000
Stewart A. Resnick $150,000
The State Building And Construction Trades Council of CA $150,000
Organizations backing Proposition 1 include the following:
California Democratic Party
California Republican Party
California Farm Bureau Federation
Trout Unlimited
The Nature Conservancy
Audubon California
California Chamber of Commerce
Delta Counties Coalition
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Ducks Unlimited
American Rivers
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Natural Resources Defense Council
California League of Conservation Voters
Northern California Water Association
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
Association of California Water Agencies
Western Growers
League of California Cities
California State Association of Counties
California Citrus Mutual
Water districts and boards:
Fresno Irrigation District
Friant Water Authority
Long Beach Board of Water Commissioners
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
San Diego Water Authority
The campaign against the measure is led by Vote NO on Proposition 1, a grassroots coalition of fishermen, environmental groups, consumer organizations, two Indian Tribes, family farmers and Delta water agencies.
Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, sums up why it is so important to vote again the Water Bond: “Prop. 1 is a poster-child of why California is in a water crisis: it enriches water speculators but accomplishes little in addressing the drought, solving California’s long-term water needs, reducing reliance on The Delta, or protecting our rivers and fisheries.”
The following are the donors who contributed $2,500 or more to the No on 1 campaign as of October 6, 2014:
Dante Nomellini $12,500
Jack Klein Partnership $7,500
Conrad Silva Farms $5,000
Del Carlo Farms, Inc. $5,000
Thomas Zuckerman $5,000
Ferguson Farms, Inc. $2,500
George Perry & Sons, Inc. $2,500
Lory & Victoria Mussi $2,500
R&M Ranch $2,500
Rudy and Toni Mussi $2,500
San Joaquin Delta Farms, Inc. $2,500
V and A Lagorio $2,500
Opponents include the following:
AFSCME District Council
Ballona Institute
Butte Environmental Council
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
California Striped Bass Association
California Water Impact Network
Coast Action Group
Center for Biological Diversity
Central Delta Water Agency
Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton
Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC)
Environmental Water Caucus
Factory Farm Awareness Coalition
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Friends of the Eel River
Friends of the River
Food and Water Watch
Foothill Conservancy
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations
Potrero Hill Democratic Club
Pulga Rancheria Concow Maidu Indians
Restore the Delta
Sacramento River Preservation Trust
San Francisco Baykeeper
San Francisco Crab Boat Association
Save the American River Association
Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen’s Association
Sherman Island Duck Hunters Association
Sonoma County Conservation Action
South Delta Water Agency
Southern California Watershed Alliance
Tar Sands Action
Wetlands Defense Fund
Wild Heritage Planners
Winnemem Wintu Tribe
The Save the American River Association (SARA) Board of Directors has compiled a handy list of reasons of why everybody who cares about the future of fish, rivers, the environment, the economy and the people of California should vote NO on the water bond:
• Prop. 1 does nothing to address drought relief in the near future.
• Prop. 1 adds $7.12 billion to California’s debt, debt that will cost taxpayers $14.4 when the principal and interest is paid.
• Prop. 1 dedicates only 13% of its funding forconservation, stormwater capture and treatment, and recycling.
• Prop. 1 allocates $2.7 billion for three dams that would increase the state’s water supply by only 1%. The money would flow under the provision that allows “continuous funding,” meaning there would be no legislative oversight. A number of dam projects that had been abandoned because of low water yield or would not be cost-effective are now being revived.
• When the State Water Project was approved in 1960, it provided that beneficiaries of water projects — not taxpayers statewide — would pay for new projects. Prop. 1 reverses that principle. Taxpayers would pay the lion’s share of new projects. Taxpayers, for example, would pay 73% of the cost of the proposed Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River while the beneficiaries — agribiz and the City of Fresno — would pay most of the balance.
• Prop. 1 requires taxpayers to buy water the public already owns to protect fish. It’s a retread of programs in force for years that allow speculators who reap huge profits by selling the public’s water back to the public. And it will have the additional impact of making more water available to export from The Delta.
• Prop. 1 does nothing to address factors that have worsened the water crisis in California during the current drought: the overdrafting of major reservoirs in Northern California, inequitable distribution of limited water supplies and the failure to balance the Public Trust.
• Prop. 1 contains $1.5 billion for “conservancies” without any language governing how the money is to be spent. Nothing would prevent the conservancies from spending the money on projects that have no impact on water supplies such as bike trails or administrative costs. Critics are calling it “pork.”
• Promoters of Prop. 1 note that about 6.9% of the bond will spent to provide safe drinking water and clean water programs to disadvantaged communities. That long overdue initiative should have been presented to the voters years ago as a standalone proposition. It is shameful that California government has never addressed the water problems of disadvantaged communities.
For more information, go to: the Vote NO on Proposition 1 – 2014 California Water Bond website at: www.noonprop1.org/