Photo Credit: Pixabay

Hilbert Morales

The focus here is upon the eleven (11) CALIFORNIA STATE PROPOSITIONS. The CA State Secretary’s Elections Division has assembled “California General Election, Tuesday, November 6, 2018, Official Voter Information Guide” pamphlet. Do share this official document with other registered voters living at the same address.

These 11 State Propositions, numbered 1 to 8 and 10 to 12 are all presented on the paper ballot presented on page nine of the County Voter Information Guide – November 6, 2018 General Election mailed by County of Santa Clara’s Registrar of Voters Office. Consider using its paper ballot to record your decisions regarding these 11 State Propositions. Plan to take this record of your decisions along with you to expedite your voting at your precinct’s polling place. It will also help you correctly mark your “Vote by Mail” ballot.

Recall that these two pamphlets contain the official information about candidates, measures and propositions. Information received from other sources (TV, radio, newspapers, mailers, friends, etc.) is probably tainted by spin-mistering, which is favorable to a candidate or special interest. If you really want to know the official information, do read what is presented in these two official documents. Any other source may be slanted towards a special interest or candidate. The League of Women Voters is a very reliable and objective source. LWV presentations contain no ‘conflict of interest’ issues.

The following is my voting recommendation pertaining to each of the 11 State Propositions:

PROPOSITION 1: VOTE YES to “Authorizes BONDS to fund specified housing assistance programs. VOTE YES to have the CA State Assembly authorize $4 Billion in State General Obligation Bonds to underwrite existing housing programs. FUNDS WOULD BE USED TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOIUSING.

PROPOSITION 2: VOTE YES to “Authorizes BONDS to fund existing housing programs for individuals with mental illness. VOTE YES to have the State Assembly authorizes up to $2.0 Billion to finance the “No Place Like Home” program for homeless with mental health challenges.

PROPOSITION 3: VOTE NO to prevent “authorization of funding using CA state bonds to fund several water projects. Agribusiness needs to be encouraged to invest in desalinization facilities which provide water suitable for irrigation and replenishment of depleted aquifers…especially where land surface subsidence has occurred impacting existing canals.

PROPOSITION 4: VOTE YES to authorize BONDS funding construction at hospitals providing children’s health care. Up to $1.5 billion to fund grants to fund needed construction.

PROPOSITION 5: VOTE NO to continue allowing elderly (over age 55) or disabled homeowners from transferring their homeowner’s tax base from current home to their replacement home.

PROPOSITION 6: VOTE NO to prevent repeal of 2017 gasoline tax intended to fund road repairs. Retain the legislative requirement for 2/3rds vote to change existing gas tax laws; prevent the CA Assembly from transferring funds with a simple majority vote.

PROPOSITION 7: VOTE NO to allow continuing the present compliance to which many personal and commercial operations use to coordinate their involvements and activities. Any changes result in much confusion, especially with transportation travel schedules. Imagine the costly confusion.

PROPOSITION 8: VOTE NO to prevent state government from meddling with costs incurred and involved in the Kidney Dialysis service enterprises.

PROPOSITION 9 (REMOVED from ballot by CA State Supreme Court)

PROPOSITION 10: VOTE NO because the supply of housing may be suppressed by restrictive zoning; increases likelihood that supply of affordable housing never happens. Allows repeal of current rent controls.

PROPOSITION 11: VOTE NO because Emergency Medical Technicians must continue to respond to medical emergencies even when on break periods. Labor laws should not permit EMT’s to stay on their scheduled 15-minute breaks.

PROPOSITION 12: VOTE NO to establish new regulations regarding the confinement (cages, restrictive devices) of livestock currently in the food production system. Let the food industry apply the appropriate standards of animal husbandry.

This State of California’s Water Resources Board needs to consider the construction, one at a time, of a series of desalinization facilities along the Pacific Ocean from San Diego up to San Francisco Bay Area. This approach, using existing desalinization know-how, already used in the Mid-East, where its energy requirements are from solar panel farms, will add potable water extracted from Pacific Ocean brines, to the existing volumes of potable water produced by unreliable weather patterns resulting from current global weather changes being experienced. These additional desalinization facilities will ADD potable water which will be needed as California’s population grows up to a projected 50 million residents for year 2050. Visionary planners can scope out plans for enough of these solar powered desalinization facilities which could produce enough potable water to render California totally independent upon unreliable rain/snow storm weather patterns. Excess potable water could be pumped up to and over coastal mountain ridges and just dumped into selected creek beds. Then that water would flow down towards the San Juaquin River while seeping into existing natural channels leading to replenishment of depleted aquifers in San Juaquin Valley. Extraction of water from aquifers is the reason certain surface areas have subsided up to 15 feet east of Fresno. That subsidence has created ‘choke points’ which limit the capacity of existing canals to convey volumes of water towards Southern California.

While the initial investment may be considered to be very high, the outcome would be a system of potable water production via desalinization whose volume could be managed. This is a much better approach than Governor Jerry Brown’s WaterFix Plan which is a revived version of that prior Delta Diversion Plan to divert water from the Sacramento River. The volumes of Sacramento River water to be diverted would cause ecosystem failures in the Delta because of oceanic water seeping into the Delta in a flow pattern which is the reverse of what happens presently.

Not a good approach which would result in much habitat changes for existing flora and fauna. Building desalinization facilities along the Pacific Coast would create many local jobs and its operation using solar energy would be totally green. An outcome would be the ability to provide potable water in volumes needed by this state’s growing economy…already the 5th largest on this planet Earth and create a sustainable diverse population whose creativity and innovation is the envy of many.