No: It shifts costs to all but not benefits

What’s being sold as commonality between Republicans and Democrats on environmental concerns based on support for Proposition 3 is a false premise. Prop. 3 is not what it appears to be.

There are several bad ideas incorporated in this $8.9 billion bond statewide bond measure. Here are just two:

One: A shift of the fiscal burden for water delivery systems from corporate agriculture and water agencies to the general public. How? The bonds would be repaid out of the state’s general fund, thus all taxpayers, not just the project beneficiaries, would foot the bills. Another good deal for large, well-connected water interests, and one more bad deal for the average taxpayer.

Two: Imbedded in the “green” agenda of Prop. 3 is $750 million to improve or rebuild canals and other delivery systems to help move south water that might eventually be made available by Gov. Jerry Brown’s twin tunnels. For example: The Friant-Kern Canal will receive tax dollars to increase its diminished capacity. (The ground beneath the canal is subsiding and the canal collapsing due to overpumping of the groundwater.) This, despite a long-standing claim that the governor’s WaterFix project will not use taxpayer money.

On top of that, more bond funds would be given to the Friant Water Authority for water delivery “improvements,” such as the construction of more dams. When was the last time you saw a “green” proposition that allotted money for more dams?

As a Northern Californian, it is offensive to me that Prop. 3 would implement the WaterFix/twin tunnels project, which many experts say would sound the death knell of the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem.

The architect of Prop. 3 is Jerry Meral, who said in 2013: “The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is not about, and has never been about, saving the delta. The delta cannot be saved.”

The truth of that harsh statement is directly tied to the successful enactment of the WaterFix/WaterGrab Plan — augmented, of course, by at least $1 billion from Prop. 3’s expenditures, hiding under the cover of some green, and feel-good projects.

Before people vote on this proposition, they should understand its unsavory, underlying truths.

Mel Melcon / TNS Susanna Danner of the Eastern Sierra Land Trust stands alongside a canal that diverts Sierra runoff vital to cattle ranchers and struggling sage grouse. Water use has long been contentious.