- GPCA Standing General Assembly Voting - Ranked Choice Vote Details

Home	Vote	Results	History	Contacts	Admin
	GPCA Standing General Assembly Voting

Login

Ranked Choice Vote Details

Ranked Choice Vote ID	55
Ranked Choice Vote	GPCA position on Prop 1: Water Bond Funding for Water Quality, Supply, Treatment, and Storage Projects
Type	Open Ballot
Number of Seats	1
Ranked Choice Vote Administrator	Mike Feinstein
Phase	Closed
Discussion	08/18/2014 - 09/28/2014
Voting	09/29/2014 - 10/05/2014
Result	Results
Presens Quorum	12 0.5001
Candidates	GPCA endorses Proposition 1 GPCA opposes Proposition 1 GPCA takes no position on Proposition 1

Background

This is the ranked choice vote for the GPCA to take a position on Proposition 1: Water Bond. Funding for Water Quality, Supply, Treatment, and Storage Projects, Legislatively-referred state statute, which has been placed by the California state legislature on the November 2014 general election ballot.

The choices are to rank 'endorse', 'oppose', 'no position' and/or 'abstain.' Delegates can rank as many or few of these options in their order of preference.

An 'endorse' vote would mean the GPCA would endorse Proposition 1. An 'oppose' vote means the GPCA would oppose Proposition 1. A 'no position' vote means the GPCA would not take a position on Proposition 1. An 'abstain' vote means the voter is not expressing a preference, but is voting to help achieve quorum. Any of these position that receives 2/3 after all preferences are transferred is the position of the party. If neither 'endorse' nor 'opposes' receive 2/3, the GPCA's position will be 'no position'.

Below is information from the State of California Voter Guide, as well as the recommendation of the Green Party of Alameda County, that will be in their November 2014 primary election voter guide.

------------

Full text of Proposition 1:

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/1/title-summary.htm

Ballot title: Water Bond. Funding for Water Quality, Supply, Treatment, and Storage Projects

Official summary: The long-form summary reads:“Authorizes $11.14 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, such as surface and groundwater storage; ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration; Bay-Delta Estuary sustainability; drinking water protection; water recycling and advanced water treatment technology; water supply management and conveyance; drought relief; wastewater treatment; emergency water supplies; and public water system improvements. Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay off bonds.Requires certain projects to provide matching funds from non-state sources in order to receive bond funds.”

The short-form or ballot label summary reads: “Authorizes $11.14 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, including surface and groundwater storage, ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration, and Bay-Delta Estuary sustainability.”

Fiscal impact statement: “Increased state bond repayment costs averaging $560 million annually over the next 40 years. Increased state costs, possibly in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, to operate and maintain projects built with these bond funds. Savings to local governments related to water projects, likely averaging a couple hundred million dollars annually over the next few decades. (Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's Legislative Analyst and its Director of Finance.)

Although the following information was not available at the time of this posting, it will be available during the SGA's six week discussion period and will be sent to all SGA members

Legislative Analysis: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/1/analysis.htm
Argument in Favor: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/1/arguments-rebuttals.htm
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/1/arguments-rebuttals.htm
Argument Against: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/1/arguments-rebuttals.htm
Rebuttal to Argument Against: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/1/arguments-rebuttals.htm

-------

Recommendation of the Green Party of Alameda County: Proposition 1 -- NO

"Water Bond: Funding for Water Quality, Supply, Treatment, and Storage Projects," the last-minute Proposition 1, is a smaller version of “The Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010.” In this case smaller is better. However, we still oppose this measure.

As Kathryn Phillips, Director of Sierra Club California, said in a Sacramento Bee article on August 19, 2014, "The new bond, like the one it replaced, is written to enable extraordinarily expensive dams that will provide negligible benefit to the public, won't resolve our water supply problems and will irreparably damage the environment. It was written this way because the Legislature's Republicans and San Joaquin Valley Democrats threatened to withhold votes needed to get the bond bill passed unless they got money for the dams."

When the old larger water bond passed the Legislature on November 4, 2009, and then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed it a few days later, it was considered an “urgency statute” which would take effect immediately if the voters passed it in November 2010. It was not as urgent as its supporters pretended. That Water Bond was removed from the 2010 ballot because the economic downturn made it likely to lose. The same Water Bond was pulled from the November 2012 ballot because Governor Brown?s priority was to pass a tax increase, and voters were considered unlikely to pass both. Voters have gradually come to understand that bond issues, which may pass during boom times, burden the state with interest payments in difficult economic periods. And the current proposal to issue $7.1 billion in water bonds will cost about double that amount in repayments, to be paid out of general tax revenues.

Although "Storage Projects" is the last part of the title, making it sound trivial, that is misleading. "Dams and groundwater storage" is the largest part of the proposed expenditures, at $2.7 billion of this $7.1 billion proposal. Readers of "Cadillac Desert: the American West and its Disappearing Water," by Marc Reisner, published in 1986, will understand that any water projects being considered at this point have a long history. But even a little history is helpful.

The last-minute decision to place this measure on November's ballot means that some of the organizations who have the most thorough analysis have not had time to re-examine this version. So we looked at what, for example, the Pacific Institute said when they looked at the larger version in 2010. They compared the proposed bonds to earlier bonds and found an important difference. Large water projects of the past, such as the State Water Project in 1960, provided that almost all the repayment funds would come from those who used the water (including the agribusinesses of the San Joaquin Valley). But the current proposed bond will have repayments coming from the General Fund.

Many Californians are concerned about whether this water bond will help Governor Brown get his "enormous tunnels" project built, the project he doesn't want to bring before the voters. In an article in Daily Kos (8/14/14), Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Restore the Delta Executive Director, disagreed [with Governor Brown] that the bond is "tunnels neutral." She responded to the passage of the bill by stating, "The passage of a water bond with BDCP funds for flows is unfortunate."

"Instead of focusing on making California's water use more efficient, fixing our aging and leaking water system and cleaning up our groundwater, Proposition 1 instead focuses on building more dams, at a cost of $2.7 billion dollars plus interest. These dams will only increase California's water supply by 1% and won't be usable for decades." This begins the "Rebuttal to Argument in Favor" from the Official Supplemental Voter Information Guide" still in its 20-day Public Display Period as of this writing. [Aug. 23- Sept. 12] Opponents of Proposition 1 include Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro, Chair, Natural Resources Committee; Adam Scow, California Director, Food & Water Watch; Zeke Grader, Executive Director, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations; Conner Everts, Executive Director, Southern California Watershed Alliance; and Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, Executive Director, Restore the Delta. Please join us in voting NO on Proposition 1.

Candidate Information

GPCA endorses Proposition 1

GPCA opposes Proposition 1

GPCA takes no position on Proposition 1

Questions about this system?
Contact the Voting Admin.

The Voting is free software, licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL).
You can download the 2006 gp-us version here or the 2012 gpca sga version here.

To independently verify a Ranked Choice Vote, or for information about how that works, go to Jonathan Lundell's Voting Page and upload the ballot file from the ranked choice vote result page. JL's ranked choice module is licensed under an alternate free software license.