Last month the California Legislature passed an $11.14 billion water bond to appear on the November 2010 ballot. Since then the state has raised income tax withholdings, the University of California raised tuition by 32% to offset budget cuts, and the Governor has told the public to brace themselves for even more cuts in the upcoming year.

Understandably, the public is in an uproar. Throughout the state, opposition to the water bond is making headlines as Californians ask why they should pay for this package during a budget crisis.

Headlines across California:

Debt trap: California’s increased debt load threatens to chew up its budget (Santa Rosa Press Democrat)

Surprise: Schwarzenegger Uses ‘Drought’ Announcement to Promote Canal, Dams (IndyBay)

California debt may be half a trillion dollars (Sacramento Bee)

Sink the pork-laden water bond (Riverside Press-Enterprise)

Calif. can’t afford water bond, Lockyer says (Fresno Bee)

Californians asked to spend more during unprecedented spree of water spending (Silicon Valley Mercury News)

Pork Indulgence (Riverside Press-Enterprise)

California voters want a no-pork diet: The water bond proposal written and passed by the Legislature needs a major rewrite, with an emphasis on de-larding it (L.A. Times)

Water Waste (San Luis Obispo New Times)

Is more Debt the Answer? (Santa Clarita Valley Signal)

Proposed water bond is laden with sweeteners for lawmakers (L.A. Times)

No perks for Monterey in big water package (Monterey County Herald)

Santa Cruz County won’t see major benefits from state water package (Santa Cruz Sentinel)

Water package lacks clout to reverse Delta’s decline (Sacramento Bee)

Water bond offers nearly $2 billion in ‘pork’ (San Francisco Chronicle)

California’s deficit of common sense (Oakland Tribune)

Water bills…and their loopholes (Sacramento Bee)

The Conversation: Water pact falls short on protections (Sacramento Bee)