When hundreds of farmworkers gathered at the state Capitol in July to advocate in support of the most recent water bond proposal, a $9.3 billion boondoggle, they were sold a faulty bill of goods, or a leaky list of projects, as the case may be.

The governor and water bond proponents would have farmworkers and all other Californians believe it's a choice between jobs and water. While such a simple message may be appealing, water in California is never that simple.

Many of those farmworkers were bused in by labor contractors from areas where agri- culture may not be sustainable in the long term. If the governor were truly concerned about these farmworkers, wouldn't he be pushing for job training and economic investment in their communities to transition the work force to something more sustainable? Or perhaps he could start by ensuring living wages or economic hardship relief during this drought time?

If the bond really provided relief for the water woes suffered by farmworkers, wouldn't it also address the drinking water crisis that's afflicting their communities, and tens of thousands of other Central Valley residents, by investing in sustainable solutions to provide them with the safe drinking water that many of them lack?

Tulare County may be receiving fewer water deliveries this year, but its communities have just as many contaminants that ruin drinking water supplies throughout the area. Over 20 percent of public community water systems in the county cannot meet basic drinking water laws because of contamination. Yet the water bond would provide little relief for these communities.

Instead, the governor has called a state of emergency to keep the companies – ones that have contributed to the drinking water problems in the Valley – afloat. Meanwhile rural communities – the exact people bused to Sacramento to rally for his bond – would benefit little and lose a lot.

The debt service on these bonds will siphon money from basic services that are already taking a hit in tough financial times. Asking the Californians who are the most in need to choose between jobs or clean drinking water or public benefits like health or social services makes the governor seem more like the kind of bond salesman you find by the jailhouse, not the kind watching out for the public's best interest.

Propaganda flying around would have us believe the water crisis started with the most recent drought. In reality, California's real water war has been waged for years in economically disadvantaged areas that have almost as little public financing for much-needed water projects as they do rain. The current bond proposal would set these communities in competition with more well-heeled agricultural districts and coastal cities for the limited funding that might address their problems.

Don't be fooled by the public relations machine: This bond is not about solutions to California's water problems. It's about big-ticket water projects that maintain entrenched water policies at the expense of California taxpayers, the environment and public health. These are the kinds of projects that California has built for decades – dams, aqueducts – that have continually failed to provide long-term solutions to the water problems of Central Valley communities. Are we really prepared to approve yet another bond that leaves these communities without safe drinking water?

We want to go beyond the photo opportunity of farmworkers calling for water on the Capitol steps. We want real solutions to our most pressing water needs and real relief for all communities.

The good news is that we have these solutions. We have ways to meet the drinking water needs of Californians, but it takes more than political posturing to achieve them. If we support this bond, the public relations coup wins and California loses.

Susana De Anda is co-executive director of the Community Water Center, a Visalia-based nonprofit organization that provides assistance to low-income communities facing water challenges.