More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Household (Non-Married Couple) voters
Last answered 6 years ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Household (Non-Married Couple) 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.
Household 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. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Sacramento, CA
No. Funds should be redirected from wasteful projects like high speed rail, allowing state workers to retire at 50, etc. 9 years ago from a Republican in Laguna Beach, 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. 9 years ago from a Republican in Sacramento, CA
I would support a scaled-back water bond (closer to the $6.5 billion legislative proposals) that focuses on necessary infrastructure improvements, water efficiency, and conservation. 9 years ago from a Green in Davis, CA
Only if the overhaul allows protection for the Delta region and higher water prices or taxes are paid by residents living in naturally desert areas which have large populations requiring water to be shipped in from other areas. 9 years ago from a Democrat in San Rafael, 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. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Sacramento, CA
Not if it means giving water away to socal. 9 years ago from a Democrat in San Francisco, CA
I don't think anyone can really answer to the state of our water system unless they work there. They have some of the highest paid employees I know of in the public sector. 9 years ago from a Republican in Vista, CA
80% of our water goes to Agriculture and should be examined here for excessive waste. 9 years ago from a Republican in Tustin, CA
No, invest in diversifying the water profile instead of going into debt for a dwindling source. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Mill Valley, CA
Let's consider saving the $11.1B first, then fix the water system. It doubles the effectiveness of the tax dollars. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Toluca Lake, CA
This should be handled by the Federal Government. 9 years ago from a Green in Berkeley, CA
No, It will destroy the Sacramento River delta. 9 years ago from a Green in Sacramento, CA
Yes but much like the federal govt there is no accountability in the CA legislature so when the money doesn't go where it is supposed to, and it won't, then the price will go up and we Californians will pay more, and more. 9 years ago from a Republican in Cotati, CA
No, eliminate all roadblocks that crop up that prevents up-grading and allow locals to upgrade the water system. 9 years ago from a Republican in Rohnert Park, CA