What it does

Proposition 3 authorizes over $8 billion to help maintain water infrastructure, storage, supplies, and improvements. It also helps toward protecting and restoring natural habitats.

Pros

The argument for the proposition was that California has an urgent need to secure a safe, reliable and clean water supply. California needs to be prepared for the next drought and/or flood and this proposition would help achieve this need, supporters argued.

“Prop. 3 provides safe drinking water and long-term drought relief by cleaning up contaminated waterbodies, restoring forests and wetlands, and improving fisheries and aquatic habitats,” said National Wildlife Federation representative Collin O’Mara.

Cons

Detractors for Prop 3 worried that the high-sounding promises that Prop 3 was meant to be fulfilled would ultimately turn out to be empty words.

“[S]ince 1996, there have been eight statewide bond measures committing money to water issues. So far the total amount is more than 29 billion dollars… [yet] instead of projects that would capture or store more of the precious precipitation that California gets, officials pander to special interests and pour millions of dollars into parks, hiking trails, wildlife—like a little bait-fish in the Sacramento River—and things that have nothing to do with solving the State’s water shortages,” said Janet Roberts, president of the Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group.

Voting results 

On November 6, 2018, Prop 3 was ultimately rejected by to a difference of less than 1%. 49.35% of people voted YES, while 50.65% voted no.