HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-154RESOLUTiON TN OPPOSTTION TO THE WATER RE50URCE5
STATUTORY INITIATIVE, KNOWN AS PROPOSITFON 13
~~MEREAS, The Water Resources Statutory Initia~ive ~otherwise Known
as Proposit7on 13) has been placed upon the ballot for the State of California
November election_; and,
WHER~AS, the protection of our water resources and our in-stream
wildlife habitats is critically important for maintaining our environment and
aur economic prosperity in ~orthern Ca1ifornia; and,
I~HEREAS, it is the responsibility of the But~e County Baard of
Supervisars to ac~ively ass~st in the protection of our water resources and
wildlife habitats; and,
WMEREAS, the Water P.esources Statutory Initiative represen~s a
direct threat to Northern California water resources and in-stream wildlife
habitats, for the following.reaso~s:
7. It is a complicated, major revision of our long-stand~ng syste~
of water rights and water policies for California; this revision should have
been submitted to the public hearing process which woutd have identified the
many defects within the ~nitiative;
2. it takes power away from local individuals and agencies and
gives additional powers to ~he five politically-appointed members of the State
Water Resources Control Soard. This agency is un~amiliar with our local needs,
and this agency has historica7ly had an orientation toward suppor~ing the water
needs of the Southland to the detriment of Northern Ca1ifornia;
3. It requires that the Water Resources Control Board must "l~berally
construe" the act, and it furthermore prevents the Legislature from amending
this initiative, except "to further its purposes". This is a fr~ghtening
~ndication of the high~handed intent of the draf~smen;
4. It will ~robably cause additional transfers of our Northern
California water ~nto the Southland because:
A. The unclear 3anguage and the many undefined terms ~n the
initiative are subject to many interpretations, all of which cou1d be used to
transfer our water to other areas; and
B. Th3s initiative requires that conservation plans must be
established for "critically overdrafted groundwater baslns" in the South.
The water uses in these overdrafted basins will simply draw upon our water
to repienish their water basins, in the na~e of "conservation"; and
5. It will likeiy cause many expensive and time consuming 7awsuits
for local water users because of the unclear langaage and the many undef~ned
terms, and because the initiative gives ~ erson (including persons from
outside the area) standing to file lawsuits to enforce the initiat•ive;
6. It will seriousiy interfere with most private and public water
development programs in Calffornia, thereby injuring a~l wa~er users, including
recreational, hydroetectrfcal, urban and agricu]tura7 users, and thereby
increasing the cost of food products for consumers;
7. It woald drastically 9ncrease the power and authority of the
California Water Resources Control Board concern3ng our ~n-stream wildlife
hab~tats. Further, it would provide the means for persons in other areas to
make mass filings upon our water for the7r "w~ldlife, recreational, aesthetic,
scientific, scenic and/or water-quality uses", even though such persons have
no way of controlling the water. For example, in the event that someone in
the San Francisco Bay area or The Delta area made a filing upon our water to
protect the water quality and fisheries in the Delta/San Francisco Bay area,
then the Water Resources Cantrol Board would have to make a political decision
concerning t~e relative value of Butte Creek water for farm use or for wi7dlife
habitat in the Butte Basin, as compared to the water quality needs of The Delta;
8. The initiative refers to the water of the state as "a limited
resource subject to ever-increasing demands". This statement ignores the fact
that over one-half of California's totaT stream fTows now run freely into the
ocean. However, this initiative makes no mention of the need for conserving
and utilizing this lost water, nar does it develop any new water suppl9es.
NOW, THERE~ORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Bu~te County Board of
Supervisors is opposed•to the Water Resourc~s Statutory Initiative and urges
a13 voters to vote "No" on this initiative in the November 2, 1982, election.
-2-
~
PASSED AND ADQPTED by the Board of 5upervisors of the County of
Butte, Sta~e of California, this 28th day of September, 1982, by the fol7owing
vote:
AYES: Supervisars Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler
NOES: None '
ABSENT: None
I~OT VOTIN~: Supervisors Dolan and Fulton
AHttLtK, cna~rman ot tne
County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
ELEANOR M. BECKER, County Clerk
and ex-officio C1erk of the
Bo of 5upervisors
- 3-