Critics, like Adam Scow of the San Francisco based Food and Water Watch organization said the bond will actually cost more than 20 billion dollars, and provide little benefit to the taxpayers who would pay for it.
"This bond would benefit big Agri business such as the Westland's Water District which has been a long term recipient of public handouts," said Scow. But, Sarah Woolf, of the Westland's Water District said the bond would benefit the entire state.
"This is the first time in 60 years we've had significant water legislation to actually put in infrastructure so it's important it's going to be difficult to get done and also the vast majority of the state isn't real connected with the fact we have a real water problem right now," said Woolf.
The water bond would pay for long term fixes dams and canals. A proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein to ease the endangered species act, which protects fish, to provide immediate water supplies to West side growers is also under attack, from environmental groups, and members of congress, many of those from California.
"We are not winning the battle amongst Californians, and legislators in California. But, I think nationally we are getting the message out that this is a crisis." Woolf said.
The poll was conducted by Tulchin Research and was paid for by the Sierra Club and other groups fighting the November bond measure.
The poll shows about 55 percent of voters oppose the bond. About 33 percent support it, and about 11 per cent are undecided.