WHY AUDUBON CALIFORNIA SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA
PROPOSITION 1
(THE WATER BOND)
September 17, 2014
Michael Lynes
Audubon California
Director of Public Policy
Tel. (415) 505-9743
Email: mlynes@audubon.org
Audubon California supports the $7.12 billion Proposition 1 (the Water Bond) because we recognize the
need to improve water supply infrastructure in the State while ensuring that a substantial investment is
also made to benefit natural watershed functions, wetlands, and wildlife.
As California enters its third year of drought—and climate change predictors indicate that drought is the
“new normal” in California—we are seeing impacts on waterfowl, shorebirds, riparian species, and other
birds. This year, Central Valley wildlife refuges will only receive 65% of the water they are required to
get under law—water which represents the bare minimum needed to sustain healthy populations. Even
in non-drought years, the State has struggled to fulfill its obligations. Proposition 1 sets aside almost
$1.5 billion to meet these and similar needs.
Audubon California is very mindful of the central criticisms of Proposition 1 and we share many of the
concerns of its opponents. First, the bond sets aside $2.7 billion for new storage projects—which could
include dams and new groundwater supplies. We know that dams have been incredibly destructive to
rivers in the West and Audubon California does not believe they are the best ways to address our water
supply challenges. While we would prefer a more forward-thinking bond in this regard, we have to (1)
acknowledge the political realities and different perspectives invested in making the bond viable in the
Legislature and on the ballot and (2) take some comfort in knowing that bond-funded projects must still
undergo full environmental review, secure 75% non-public funding, and cannot compromise rivers
protected by the Wild & Scenic Act.
We are also very mindful that issues related to the Delta and the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)
are of paramount concern. We believe that the bond is, in fact, “BDCP neutral”, but acknowledge that
keeping the State and other stakeholders honest can be difficult. But, frankly, that is always a challenge
and it’s one of the reason the Audubon network exists.
More specifically, Audubon California does not believe that the current situation in the Delta is
sustainable. We are losing fish species, doing precious little for birds, and investing in an over-burdened,
fragile infrastructure that, if compromised, could result in ecological and humanitarian disaster. On its
face, the bond provides significant funds for habitat restoration in the Delta that will benefit wildlife and
make it more resilient to climate change and earthquakes. Notably, Proposition 1 specifically prohibits
its funds being used for conveyance or mitigation for the BDCP. There is understandably some
skepticism about these provisions, but once again it’s up to us to keep the relevant players honest.
Audubon California & Proposition 1
September 2014
Personally, I am also very mindful that continuing drought will fuel further attacks on water for the
environment. Without comprehensive efforts—which mean a diversity of perspectives are
incorporated—California’s “water wars” will become more and more political. This year, we’ve seen
repeated attacks by some interests to divest water from fish, birds, and refuges. I’m concerned that
further stresses will lead to amendments of laws that protect wildlife, including the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act and the Endangered Species Act. Securing funding to meet multiple benefits is
necessary to prevent birds and the environment from, once again, bearing the largest burden of drought
and cutbacks.
In total, Audubon California believes that Proposition 1 is a necessary investment in the state’s water
resources that also provides benefits for birds and other wildlife. We understand that is far from perfect,
but we acknowledge that we have to accept some terms that we do not like in order to achieve a
broader benefit. We hope that the chapters and California members understand this—even if we
ultimately disagree in principle—and that we will continue to work together to protect California’s birds
and their habitats.
BOND OVERVIEW
Specifically with regard to wildlife and habitat benefits, Proposition 1 provides:
 Funds for rivers and watersheds: 1,495,000 – protecting rivers and watersheds (§ 79730)
o $475 million to pay for California’s obligations under several laws, contracts, and agreements to
provide water to environmental projects including the Klamath Basin, at least 19 wildlife refuges
in the Central Valley, the San Joaquin restoration efforts and the Salton Sea. (§ 79736)
o $325.5 million in funds for watershed habitat improvements to be distributed to conservancies
throughout the state; many of these funds will provide for grants for restoration efforts, which
may provide funding opportunities for Audubon chapters and allied organizations. (§ 79731)
o $285 million to DFW for restoration throughout California (§ 79737)
 Emphasis on coastal fishery benefits
 Prohibits use of funds on Delta conveyance
o $87.5 million to DFW for restoration in the Delta (§ 79738)
 Specifically prohibits using funds to mitigate for BCDC projects
The bond also includes:
 Dams and Other Storage: $2.7 billion for new storage projects that include dams, surface storage, and
groundwater storage. Dam projects are only included in the 2008 CalFed Record of Decision (§ 79750)
o Funded projects must provide measurable ecosystem benefits to the Delta and affected
tributaries (§ 79752)
o Requires full environmental review.(§ 79753(b))
o Requires 75% commitment of nonpublic cost-share (§ 79757(a)(3))
 Clean Drinking Water Projects: $520 million for clean drinking water (§ 79720)
o $260 million to reduce storm water pollution, with emphasis on disadvantaged communities (§
79723)
o $260 million for water infrastructure improvements to provide clean water (§ 79724)
 Drought and Water Security Preparedness: $810 million for regional water security and preparedness for
drought and climate change (§ 79740)
 Water Recycling & Treatment: $725 million for water recycling and advanced treatment (§ 79765)
 Groundwater Cleanup: $900 million specifically for groundwater contamination cleanup and security. (§
79771)
 Flood Management: $395 million for flood risk reduction and management (§ 79780)
o Up to $295 million for levees in the Delta
2