Prop 1

[mark poulson]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I agree that there are some behind the door shenanigans going on regarding the Bypass Tunnels. How they ever got approved is a crime.
But the improvements funded by Prop. 1, if taken alone, are all good.
So the fight is to stop the Tunnels, and the EPA is our best hope now.
I think they're smart enough to recognize that robbing Peter to pay Paul, by pulling more water from other sources and creating potential adverse conditions there, is just a shell game.

Yes, we can agree to disagree. Our opinions on big ag and their efforts to fully privatize public water do overlap however--we agree on the bigger picture.

I hope the efforts of Bobby Barrack and the others who are trying to make this piracy public are successful.
The story in the LA Times you linked was a good start.

[Bass Pro Shopper]

If Jerry Brown endorses something, I'm going to vote the opposite way. He's a con-artist and can't be trusted. He's swindled Californians before, and he's going to do it again. The fact that Prop 1 isn't very detailed in how the money will be used should be a red flag. It's nothing but a money grab that plays off people's emotions over the drought. He'll probably find a way to take Prop 1 funds put it towards building his damn bullet train. Don't let Sacramento have more money, people. Seriously. And do you really want to push your property taxes up? That's what Prop 1 will do. It's a bond act. Bond acts raise property taxes. For Brown to say it won't raise taxes is complete B.S. I'm all for having more water, but it's up to Mother Nature, not that mother Jerry Brown.

Besides, Californians already voted in a water measure back in 2006, and what did that do to stave off the current drought? Under Prop 1, we'll have all these new dams (which, by the way, will take at least a decade to build), but no water in them. Great. That's right...voting for Prop 1 on November 4th doesn't mean California will have all the water we could possibly need on November 5th.

Here's a great example of why Brown can't be trusted: Remember how he went on a media blitz back in 2012 to build support for Prop 30? He cried that it was going to save California's debt crisis and our schools (again, playing on peoples' emotions). But that measure was actually failing in the polls just a month before the election that year. Turns out, he went on that blitz because he was trying to save his own a$$. A couple of months after that election, the L.A. Times reported that Brown spent the money called for in Prop 30 BEFORE voters ultimately approved it. Voting it in only made it possible for the money to be paid back, and hence his a$$ was saved. But if voters rejected it, I'm sure the "s" would have hit the fan. Don't believe me? Then search the LA Times for that story. It was a front-page article, above the fold just a couple of months after that election. Strangely, you didn't hear that story come up on the TV news the day it came out, but there it was in black and white, and strangely in the LA Times -- a very liberal paper.