| Argument in Favor | This - 204 | Argument Against |

Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 204

Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

We weren't aware of any water crisis until we read the proponents' argument. We suspect that these scare tactics are meant to convince you to support yet another big government public works boondoggle. Remember, using bond financing almost doubles the cost of any government project. Taxpayers can't afford Proposition 204. Let's look at the issues:

INCREASE WATER SUPPLIES--Residential customers use only 15% of California's water, but have to subsidize the agricultural and commercial customers who use 85%. If big water users had to pay the real cost of their water, prices would fluctuate according to supply and lead to conservation, as cost-effectiveness would become a major concern.

PREVENTING WATER POLLUTION--Those who pollute our rivers and lakes should be held fully responsible for the damage they do. Taxpayers should not be put on the hook for damages caused by private businesses and individuals. In cases where government officials are responsible for the pollution, we don't need to give them a blank check to clean it up.

HELPING OUR ECONOMY AND JOBS--Reliable water supplies alone won't create jobs. We need to cut the size and scope of government, slash taxes and repeal regulations so that businesses can create new jobs.

Many of Proposition 204's provisions could cause serious damage to private property rights. Armies of bureaucrats will march through the Sacramento Delta to impose rules and regulations. Then taxpayers will have to pay $1.7 BILLION in principal and interest over 25 years. Please vote NO.

Treasurer, Libertarian Party of California

Director, Tahoe City Public Utility District

Insurance Adjuster/Investigator, Pasadena

| Argument in Favor | This - 204 | Argument Against |