Californians voted for Proposition 1 in 2014 with the expectation that the $2.7 billion in water supply funding would be invested wisely in climate-resilient water projects. Unfortunately, the Sites Reservoir Project, which has been allocated nearly $900 million, falls short of these criteria.
The Sites Reservoir Project would primarily benefit wealthy farmers, who would use the subsidized water to continue unsustainable agricultural practices, such as growing water-intensive crops for export. Urban water districts scheduled to receive water from Sites would pay exorbitant prices for their modest shares, driving up water rates for low-income households.
Furthermore, the project poses significant environmental risks. The water in the reservoir would be too warm for salmon to survive, and it would be contaminated with mercury. Releasing the water downstream would harm fish populations and the ecosystem. Additionally, the reservoir would release large amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Despite these concerns, the project received a rushed environmental review and was fast-tracked by Governor Newsom. Multiple organizations are now suing to stop the project, and the State Water Board should reject it and redirect the funds to more environmentally friendly and cost-effective water projects.
In an era of rising water rates and climate change impacts, California must prioritize investments in sustainable water solutions. This means reducing agricultural water subsidies, protecting ecosystems, and developing local water sources. The California Legislature should take note and ensure that any future climate bonds are used wisely to address these critical issues.
