Proposition 1 provides a series of benefits and detriments to different constituents much as a legislative bill. It is nonsensical to ask for a simple yes or no vote on a proposition with many complex and contradictory parts. The legislators and governor are not completing their obligations by asking the public to make this decision for them.

The statement “Funds provided by this division shall not be expected to pay the costs of the design, construction, operation, mitigation or maintenance of Delta conveyance facilities.” [Chapter 4, 79710 (a)] is contradicted by a criteria used for funding “Water quality and ecosystem benefits related to decreased reliance on diversion from the Delta or instream flow” [Chapter 9, 79757(b)]. This appears to provide compensation (mitigation) for building the twin tunnels under the delta.

A brief phrase in Chapter 8 lists conjunctive use as eligible for funding [(79751(c)]. This supports the sale of groundwater to be transferred south.

As the state looks at groundwater for storage, they are modifying natural multiple season recharge, and threatening both the legal rights of groundwater users and natural ecosystems (temporary streams and valley oaks). Also, will the control of groundwater recharge under pollution control end up with the state claiming groundwater for state use?

Supporting water storage projects repeats past errors. California does not receive enough rainfall to justify building more dams. Furthermore, dams reduce flood plain and delta ecosystem quality by depriving them of the recharge and cleaning benefits of flood waters.

Vote no on Proposition 1.

Doug Alexander

(Letter to the Editor, Chico Enterprise-Record, sent 10.28.14)