Four years ago Californians were asked to approve a little over $7 billion in borrowing for a variety of water quality and supply needs. The bond measure, called “Proposition 1,” passed, which suggests that voters thought spending money on water is a good thing.

The measure included $2.7 billion for water storage projects, dams, and reservoirs. The law was carefully written so that portion of spending was not reliant on annual legislative appropriations, but would be available pending approval by the California Water Commission.

Sadly, the measure also included a lengthy timeline by which those vying for the water storage portion of funds would have to wait, with no guarantee they’d be awarded any of the money. From the looks of things in the last few weeks, one would think the Water Commission is treating the money as their own, and has no desire to let loose a penny of it.

The commission received 11 proposals — requests, if you will — for portions of the $2.7 billion. Among these were Sites Reservoir in northern California, Temperance Flat on the San Joaquin River above Millerton Lake, and a proposed expansion of a groundwater bank near Bakersfield.

As it stands, none of the 11 proposals will get a dime, because the commission determined none provide a public benefit.

Sites Reservoir in western Colusa County is an off-stream lake that could take in water from the Sacramento River, store it, and return it to the river in a balancing act many say is needed in years of extremes like we’ve seen the past several seasons.

Jim Watson, general manager of the Sites Joint Powers Authority, says the project could still happen, but the hurdle to overcome is large. Sites JPA can still continue with its $1.6 billion proposal by answering more questions by the Water Commission, but admits that the whole thing is “a little discouraging.”

That’s a kind way to put it.

The idea that the water commission is standing in the way of viable water projects necessary to the sustainability of California is unconscionable. Voters in 2014 were “sold” on an idea to create more water storage,  yet here we are, four years later, money in hand, but no closer to building the necessary facilities than we were the day voters went to the polls.

California is decades behind in building new water storage and maintaining its water infrastructure, and now, the very agency that should be leading California onto a path of water sustainability is sitting selfishly on $2.7 billion that could be used to move the state in a positive direction.

For all the talk of climate change, and the alleged leadership coming from a governor who likes to lecture the U.S. on what it’s not doing, withholding funds for water sustainability does not make sense.