|Now there isn't enough water?|
I guess the inference here is that should anyone vote against this they would be doing so unintelligently. Have you ever noticed that whenever there is any kind of tax hike or bond issue on the ballot those advocating for it always use the word "intelligent" to describe voting their way? Seems presumptuous to me.
Should you wish to read what the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District has to say about all of this on their rather dry yet informative website, you can do so by linking here. Be sure to say "hey" to Water Wise Owl while you are there. Or "like" him on Facebook. He yearns for that sort of affirmation.
So what's it all about, Alfie? Here is a portion of an article from the Fresno Bee titled "$7.5 billion California water bond headed to voters." You can link to the entire thing, and in its native setting, by clicking here.
California voters will be asked to authorize $7.5 billion to bolster the state’s water supply, infrastructure and ecosystems in November, as lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday struck a long-sought deal to move a new water bond to the ballot.
An extraordinary drought that has strained California’s water supply spurred a concerted push for a new water bond. Lawmakers moved to replace an $11.1 billion previously slated for the ballot, convinced that voters would reject it.
Instead, voters will see a $7.5 billion measure that contains significantly less money for Delta restoration. The final sum represents a compromise both from Republicans, who called for $3 billion for surface storage projects, and from Brown, who sought an overall total closer to $6 billion.
In a pivotal concession, Democrats and the governor agreed to boost the amount of money for surface storage projects to $2.7 billion. Republicans had opposed a pact between Brown and Democrats containing $2.5 billion for new dams and reservoirs.
While money for storage and the Delta occupied a central place in negotiations, the bond would also allocate billions to provide clean drinking water to thirsty communities, guard against floods and treat or reuse water.
In the end, the vote tally masked the twisting and divisive debate that preceded Wednesday’s deal. Assembly members voted 77-1 in favor of the measure and then broke into applause. In the Senate, the margin was 37-0.
So how are the voters viewing all of this? While it is probably way too early to tell, the Sacramento Bee does have one of those highly controversial on-line polls up right now. Here is what the voting trends looked like at around 4:00AM this morning.
Kind of a mixed result. Should you wish to make your on-line voting voice heard on this issue, you may do so by clicking here. Vote and vote often.
Now you might have noticed that out of all the members of the State Senate and Assembly, there was just one solitary vote against putting this $7.54 billion dollar water bond on November's ballot. And in case you are wondering who might have done that, I am pleased to report it was our very own Tim Donnelly. Or he used to be our own, anyway. Before they stuck us with 710 Tunnel Dude. Here is Tim's tweet:
Donnelly's Assembly vote is quite in line with what 48% of those responding to that Sacramento Bee on-line poll are saying. So there are some people who agree with him. They just don't happen to be elected to any state legislative offices right now.
As the solons are saying, this will all come down to a vote of we the people this November. Should be a real corker.