is this clean water initiative a coverup to lock 4x4s and other outdoor enthusiest from the areas around these places?

Yes

Read the official California voter pamplet, it does nothing to directly improve water supplies or water quality. This is a land aquisition bill: earmarked for wetland and watershed purchases (wide-open classifications) to connect habitat.

It is another 3.6 Billion Dollar funding grant for the state Wildlands Project: the California Legacy Project. These funds would be in addition to the billions of Prop 12 funds passed two years ago (and the prop that passed two years prior, too).

Sportsmen need to vote NO!

Happy Trails!

Bond doesn't hold water
Oct. 16, 2002 Orange County Register Editorial



California voters have heard a lot about Prop. 51, a widely panned Nov. 5 ballot initiative that promises to reduce traffic congestion and fix school buses, but is really nothing more than a "pay for play" scheme in which big developers and environmental groups that funded the initiative get taxpayers to fund their pet projects.

Although Prop. 51 might be the biggest outrage of this year's election, another proposition is giving it a run for the money.

It's called Proposition 50.

The $3.44 billion state water bond, which will cost taxpayers $6.9 billion over 30 years, does little to improve water quality and much to enhance the special interests of the environmental groups that are promoting it to voters.

"Proposition 50 is more about money than water," according to the official rebuttal in the state voter guide. "The proponents solicited various special interests and apparently traded bond monies for campaign cash."

"It's horrible in so many different ways," said Brett Barbre, a board member of the Municipal Water District of Orange County. It takes bond dollars, transfers them to big property owners, who then transfer their property to nature conservancies under the guise of watershed improvement, he explained. Lo and behold, it's funded in part by developers and in part by the conservancies.

The initiative, written on behalf of the Nature Conservancy and Audubon Society, promises to increase funding for water supply infrastructure, yet earmarks a large portion of the Prop. 50 windfall to environmental and conservation projects, to purchase things environmental groups have been trying to preserve from development, such as boat ramps for wealthy Lake Tahoe homeowners, wildlife conservation boards, and property such as Bolsa Chica near Huntington Beach. California desperately needs to increase its water storage capabilities, yet Prop. 50 actually bans the use of any funding that stores water or creates the dams needed to meet human needs.

Even some supporters have mixed feelings about the proposition. The Orange County Business Council recommends a "yes" vote because Prop. 50 funds the worthwhile Calfed Delta-Bay program. But OCBC worries that "the proposal sets a higher and potentially unattainable standard for meeting the California Environmental Quality Act for these water projects."

Why support this highly flawed, special-interest-designed bond measure, especially at a time that the state is facing massive budget problems?

A case can be made for a sensible bond that pays for necessary water projects, but this proposition isn't even close to sensible. Vote no on Prop. 50.

http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=7180&section=COMMENTARY&year=2002&month=10&day=16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------