Prop. 204

Your editorial, “Prop. 204: Unglamorous but Essential” (Oct. 6), says that the $995-million water bond on the November ballot has virtually no opponents. In fact, the Libertarian Party of California is the main opponent of Prop. 204 and two other bond measures: Propositions 205 and 206.

Proponents say there is a “water crisis” in California. Whenever our political leaders say there’s a “crisis,” I reach for my wallet. Raising an alarm and making dire predictions are time-honored ways for politicians to soak the taxpayers.

First of all, bonds almost double the cost of any government project. Prop. 204 will cost $1.8 billion in principal and interest over 25 years. Our state bond debt exceeds $20 billion now. We currently pay $3 billion per year out of the state budget to the existing bondholders. If these water projects are needed, it would be much cheaper to pay for them out of current revenues.

But do we need these projects? It’s a fact that 85% of California’s water goes to agriculture--at a subsidized price. If farmers had to pay market rate, they would be more inclined to conserve water.

And at least half the money proposed in Prop. 204 has nothing to do with water quality or supply. It’s for various fish and wildlife habitats, “wetlands” protection, etc.

TED BROWN

San Gabriel

The writer is the author of the ballot argument against Proposition 204.