Valley-area business groups have issued voting recommendations for the major propositions on the Nov. 4 ballot, including the water bond measure and two propositions related to the health-care industry. Prop. 1, which authorizes a $7.5 billion bond for state water supply infrastructure, including surface and groundwater storage, water recycling and water treatment, is being supported by the Valley Industry & Commerce Association in Sherman Oaks and the Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce in Van Nuys, as well as BizFed and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce downtown. “With 75 percent of the Valley’s groundwater wells being unreliable … we need to treat the Valley’s polluted aquifer and invest money in the San Fernando Valley’s water infrastructure and limit our overdraft,” the Greater Valley Chamber said in its Prop. 1 recommendation. The business groups are all against Prop. 45, which would give the insurance commissioner authority to reject or modify health care premiums, deductibles, co-payments and more. They argue it would give too much power to a single elected politician. VICA said the proposition could lead to “decreased coverage and potential job losses due to higher health care costs.” A “no” vote would leave the rate-setting to private insurers as it is today, with state regulators having authority to review, but not reject, rate increases. Health insurers have spent heavily in opposition to the measure, which was proposed by Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica-based group. The groups also reject Prop. 46, which if passed would increase the cap on medical malpractice lawsuits to $1 million, from the current $250,000. “This is a highly relevant issue to the broader business community because of concerns that raising the medical malpractice cap will result in more lawsuits, increased health care costs, increased litigation costs, and reduced access to care,” BizFed said in its statement. Some know the proposition as the Troy and Alana Pack Patient Safety Act of 2014, after two children who were killed by a driver under the influence of alcohol and abused prescription drugs. If approved, it would create the first law requiring random drug testing of doctors. The act is opposed by a coalition of doctors, insurers and other business groups. Its chief proponent also is Consumer Watchdog.