The Water Bond — Proposition 1 on the November ballot — is a fraud being perpetrated on the public.

Proponents say that the bond will: increase water storage, improve water supplies and ensure reliable water for farms.

In reality, the bond would not provide a single, complete major water storage or conveyance project.

The bond limits its funding of water storage projects’ construction costs to one-quarter of any major storage project and to one-half of any regional storage project. User fees would pay for the balance.

“The bond was never designed to pay for the entire construction cost of these various storage projects,” said Assemblyman Henry T. Perea, D-Fresno.

In other words, for a major dam project, the bond could fund only $500 million of the construction costs of a $2 billion dam, such as the proposed $3.8 billion Sites Reservoir or the $2.5 billion Temperance Flat Reservoir.

“We’ve got to get the public out of this mindset that if I spend the money I get lots more water,” said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies.

The projected water yield from the proposed reservoirs is relatively low because most of the stored water already is allocated or is obligated to fishery protection. For example, Temperance Flat Reservoir would be the worst performer in terms of water supply, partly because much of its capacity would be reserved to provide water to restore salmon runs on the San Joaquin River. Much of the economic justification for Sites Reservoir comes from the benefit to salmon, not from the water supply.

Building a dam to help salmon may be a difficult concept to sell, said Steve Evans, conservation director at Friends of the River.

“We’re requiring people to think about reservoirs in a whole new way,” said Ajay Goyal, chief of statewide infrastructure investigations at the California Department of Water Resources.

“We have an opportunity in getting a bond this year that provides important flexibility to think about storage differently,” said Jay Ziegler, director of external affairs and policy at The Nature Conservancy.

The federal Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 amends the Central Valley Project Authorizations Act of 1937 to make “fish and wildlife mitigation, protection and restoration purposes” coequal to agricultural and domestic water uses.

Similarly, California Senate Bill X7 1 in 2009 established for the first time the “coequal goals” of “protecting, restoring and enhancing the Delta ecosystem” and “providing a more reliable water supply for California.”

In practice, the state’s “co-equal goals” are like the quote from George Orwell’s book, “Animal Farm:” “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” For example, the Delta flow criteria issued by the State Water Board in August 2010 and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan planning process reflect priority being given to the Delta ecosystem.

The bond states, “A project shall not be funded … unless it provides measurable improvements to the Delta ecosystem or to the tributaries to the Delta.”

Bond proponents are taking advantage of the state’s historic drought to create a sense of urgency. The water bond would authorize the issuance of $7.12 billion in new bonds and include $425 million from existing bonds for a total of $7.545 billion in bond funding. The annual principal and interest payments on the general obligation bond would cost the state more than $14 billion, all without providing a single, complete major water storage or conveyance project.

Californians do not deserve partially funded water storage projects, designed to improve the conditions for salmon; Californians need fully-funded water storage projects that improve the conditions for people.

Bruce Colbert is executive director of the Property Owners Association of Riverside County, Calif.