More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Income ($75K-$100K) voters
Last answered 3 years ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Income ($75K-$100K) voters.
No, the costs of overhauling California's water system should be paid for by wealthy farmers and agricultural business
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Dec 9, 2013. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Income data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011).
Choose a demographic filter
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
More stances on this issue
We should be charging adjustable scale water rates based on income, usage, and cities/areas/non-essential business needs (like golf courses). Reward those who are using water saving methods with lower rates. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Sacramento, CA
Yes, but what the money is spent on should be specifically mandated so the state can't spend it on high-speed rail instead. 6 years ago from a Republican in Sacramento, CA
Possibly, if it included stronger permanent year round water restrictions regardless of drought conditions and included the release of Hetch-Hetchy reservoir and restoration to its natural state. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Mammoth Lakes, CA
We should not borrow and intead pay for the cost directly as a water infrastructure tax as part of everyone's water bill. It should be high enough of a tax to fund large projects and maintenance. 6 years ago from a Libertarian in Yuba City, CA
Recent research has discovered enormous freshwater aquifers under the ocean floor off the continental shelf of nearly every state including California.
California should be at the forefront of developing these aquifers. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Santa Fe Springs, CA
Possibly, but I don't know enough about the issue to decide right now. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Chula Vista, CA
We need to expand our resivoir capacity and improve water management, and if the water situation gets very extreme (drought) whe shoulde ALWAYS put humans befor fish, birds, frogs, etc. 6 years ago from a Libertarian in Sacramento, CA
We should take care of the water problem before we spend more money on a train. 6 years ago from a Republican in Piedmont, CA
Only if the solar arch system is added to eliminate losses due to evaporation while in transit and to generate power to drive the pumps needed. 6 years ago from a Republican in Huntington Beach, CA
Add new technology to preserve water as well as to transport it like the solar arch system would do while generating the power to actually transport water to point of use. 6 years ago from a Republican in Huntington Beach, CA
CA bureaucrats should never be given access to more borrowed money for them to regulate right out of existence and left with nothing but an additional $25B Debt. 6 years ago from a Republican in Compton, CA
Cancel the bullet train and spend the money on the water system. 6 years ago from a Libertarian in Yorba Linda, CA
Desalination plants for Southern CA make more sense than tunnels to take Northern CA water. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Concord, CA
No, invest in diversifying the water profile instead of going into debt for a dwindling source. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Mill Valley, CA
Water should be limited, no more sweeping with a hose, no more sprinkler systems. We don't have the water we are using now. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Signal Hill, CA
Not if it is used to fund those tunnels in the delta area, but yes if it makes the current system more efficient and provides for more capture of runoff. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Lake Arrowhead, CA
As long as they don't build the tunnels, yes. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Piedmont, CA
Put it to a bond measure, referendum. 6 years ago from a Republican in Signal Hill, CA
California should begin funding research and development of methods for converting sea water to drinking water. 6 years ago from a Republican in Mission Viejo, CA
No, It will destroy the Sacramento River delta. 6 years ago from a Green in Sacramento, CA
YES. This is a critical issue that most people don't know about. We are one earthquake away from being disconnected from our current water distribution system. We also need more efficiency for delivery, collection, recycling treatment plants and... 6 years ago from a Green in Reseda, CA
Yea as long as it removed fluoride from our water completely. 6 years ago from a Democrat in Valencia, CA
Only if the expenditures provide benefits to all and all beneficiaries share the costs. 6 years ago from a Republican in Encinitas, CA
Make Southern CA pay for water taken from Northern and Central CA. 6 years ago from a Socialist in Stockton, CA
Yes, as long as it is not for the benefit of Southern California alone. 6 years ago from a Republican in Turlock, CA