Here’s my take on the upcoming California ballot initiatives, as I’ve researched them so far:
Prop 1: NO. This is an entrenchment of the water policies that have gotten us to where we are right now, with more dams and more attempts to finagle more from a limited resource. Australia had it right: they legislated the end to their drought and rolled up their sleeves to realize that’s how much water they had. This state has a byzantine labyrinth of ancient water “rights” bound up in a way that leads to wasteful and environmentally harmful practices. Conservation and right water use is where our focus should be. If we’re going to have water “rights,” it needs to be written for the benefit of all living things as any fundamental right should be.
Prop 2: Kinda Yes. There’s some question about the funding for schools but I’ve seen it explored both ways, and some sort of fund that preps the state for economic implosions is a sound idea.
Prop 45: Leaning No. Sounds like a good idea, but I’d wait to see how Covered California works out first. Shelve it for another day.
Prop 46: NO. The drug testing requirements are asinine, and a red herring for the backdoor opening of punitive damages (note that lost wages, bills, and etc, always have been unlimited) that’ll make the lawyer industry salivate.
Prop 47: Yes. This may need some quick tweaking and clarification and re-re-shuffling of what category some crimes ought to be in, but the “burn them all forever!” style of punishment as a way of “fighting crime” has proven expensive and ineffective. This is a good step at reversing that.
Prop 48: I have not researched it enough yet.