Voters face sea of propositions in November

By: GIG CONAUGHTON - Staff Writer | Saturday, September 2, 2006 10:10 PM PDT ∞

When voters go to the polls Nov. 7, they'll be swimming in a sea of propositions and bond measures asking them to OK $42.7 billion in new state debt ---- including two water bonds, one of which has even divided water officials.

The first of the water bonds is the $4.1 billion Proposition 1E, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Act of 2006. It's part of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's massive requests for cash to beef up the state's aging infrastructure, including fragile Northern California levees protecting half of the state's water supply.

The second is the $5.4 billion Proposition 84, the Water Quality, Safety and Supply, Flood Control, National Resource Protection and Park Improvement Bond. That bond would spend a half-billion dollars on flood control programs and $36 million on canal-lining projects aimed at providing San Diego County residents with billions of gallons of water for the next century ---- in addition to environmental programs such as buying park land, and paying for forest and wildlife conservation.

Water and political leaders from around the state have publicly endorsed both measures, although:

- Water leaders say neither bond issue, alone or together, will drum up enough cash to take care of California's current water problems. And that they plan to ask voters to pony up billions more in bond money in 2008, even if 1E and 84 pass.

- Some water officials have attacked Prop. 84 as an environmental bond masquerading as a water bond ---- although the state's Department of Water Resources has stated Prop. 84 would create enough "new" water to sustain 2 million households a year.

Meanwhile, summertime surveys conducted by the Field Poll have suggested that both Prop. 1E and Prop. 84 could struggle to come up with the two-thirds voter approval ---- 66 percent ---- they need in November to pass. Field polls conducted in July reported that 48 percent of respondents would vote for Prop. 1E, with 33 percent against, and 20 percent still undecided. The poll reported that 49 percent would vote for Prop. 84, with 31 percent against, and 20 percent undecided.

The governor's proposition


Prop. 1E is part of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's larger $37 billion bond package. It asks voters to approve adding onto the state's existing $45 billion bond debt ---- a move that taxpayers groups have howled over. But Schwarzenegger and water officials say the additional borrowing is badly needed to protect the state's water supply.

The lion's share of Prop. 1E ---- $3 billion of the overall $4.1 billion ---- would be spent on trying to shore up more than 1,100 miles of century-old, fragile levees in the Bay-Delta near San Francisco.

The Bay-Delta is the key to delivering rainwater and Sierra Mountain snowmelt ---- through the 600-mile-long State Water Project ---- to Northern and Southern California.

In June 2004, a single Bay-Delta levee, the Jones tract, suddenly crumbled, swamping 12,000 acres of farmland in 12 feet of water. It took state officials seven months and nearly $100 million to fix it. Fortunately for Southern Californians, the failure came after the region had already taken all of its State Water Project deliveries and did not affect water supplies.

But California leaders' worries about the Bay-Delta were ratcheted up another notch last year when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, swamping levees protecting New Orleans and creating devastating floods.

Now, water officials worry not only that Bay-Delta levees could fail, but also that earthquakes could burst massive oil pipelines that run through the Bay-Delta and taint up to half of Southern California's water supply.

Because of that, Prop. 1E has received generally universal support from water agencies and leaders statewide, who say that the money the proposition would provide is desperately needed to protect water supplies from natural disasters.

In addition to the $3 billion the proposition would spend on Bay-Delta levees, it would also spend $500 million on locally created flood-control programs around the state, $300 million in grants to local agencies for stormwater programs and $290 million to protect, create and improve flood-protection corridors statewide.

Controversy


Unlike Prop. 1E, the $5.4 billion Prop. 84 has created some controversy among water officials ---- although the measure has been endorsed by nearly 40 water agencies, dozens of environmental agencies, community groups, business groups and elected officials.

That includes endorsements from major water players such as the Department of Water Resources; the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego; the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the San Diego County Water Authority.

The controversy around the proposition revolves around its creation, and the fact water critics argue that more than half of the bond's funding would be spent to buy land for parks and other environmental programs.

Prop. 84 was created in 2005 when a committee from the Association of California Water Agencies ---- which represents nearly 440 water agencies statewide ---- worked with longtime environmental consultants Joe Caves and Leslie Friedman-Johnson.

Among other things, Prop. 84 would set aside $1 billion for water projects spent on regions with "integrated" water plans that San Diego County is still working to complete; and various pots of hundreds of millions of dollars on flood-control projects; to buy and protect open space, wilderness and forests, and to protect rivers, lakes, streams and watersheds.

In June, the board of the San Diego County Water Authority ---- which supplies nearly all the water county residents use annually, and which represents 23 San Diego County cities and water agencies ---- joined the heavyweights that have endorsed Prop. 84. The bond would give San Diego County $36 million to help pay for two Imperial Valley canal-lining projects expected to deliver water to San Diego County residents for 110 years. It would also provide the county with $91 million that could be used on a number of projects ---- as long as local water officials complete an integrated water management plan next year.

However, some local water officials say Prop. 84 is not a good water bond.

Susan Varty, currently vice president of the board of Encinitas' Olivenhain Municipal Water District, has been one of the most outspoken critics ---- and urged the Water Authority not to support Prop. 84 in June.

Varty said Prop. 84 is basically an environmental bond measure using the public's willingness to spend money on water to mislead them and get them to pass the environmental measures.

"This very same bond measure went in front of the Legislature (before qualifying for the ballot) and they (legislators) said, 'There's not enough water in it,' " Varty said last week.

Keith Lewinger, general manager of the Fallbrook Public Utility District and a board member of the Water Authority, agreed.

"There just aren't enough water projects being built and paid for in that bond issue for me to make it worthwhile to support," said Lewinger, one of the 10 out of 26 Water Authority board members who voted against endorsing Prop. 84.

Both Lewinger and Varty said their biggest fear is that if voters approve Prop. 84 and it doesn't deliver as much water improvement as promised ---- that they'll refuse to vote "real" water bonds in the future, including one the association wants to put out in 2008.

"My concern is we're going to alienate the public," Lewinger said. "They're going to be fed up."

Varty and some others have said water agencies have reluctantly agreed to support Prop. 84 because they're afraid they'll lose the support of the environmental community and state Democratic leaders ---- who they'll need to float their 2008 bond.

But officials from the association and the "Yes on 84" campaign reject that notion.

Jennifer Persike, a spokeswoman for the association, said, "Our association helped draft the language of (Prop. 84). We believe strongly that there is funding there to benefit every region of the state."

Money, money, money


When Nov. 7 finally does arrive, the fate of Prop. 1E and Prop. 84 may be decided on the basis of cash ---- and have nothing to do with water, or concerns about the Bay-Delta's fragile levees.

Taxpayers groups such as the California Taxpayer Protection Committee and Americans for Tax Reform have opposed the bond measures, saying the state is already too far in debt and should not assume any more. According to California's legislative analyst's office, the state has $45 billion in debt, and predicted that state residents would have to pay $266 million a year for 30 years to finally pay off Prop. 1E's $4.1 billion principal loan and the $3.9 billion in interest payments. The office also predicted state residents would have to spend $350 million a year for 30 years to pay off Prop. 84's $5.4 billion in principal and $5.1 billion in interest payments.

Officials from the legislative analyst's office said it was difficult to determine with exact certainty how much the additional bond debt would mean to individual homeowners. They said the bond debt is paid for each year out of the state's general fund. Depending upon how the state's economy fares, increased revenues could cover bond costs without much notice. Decreased revenues, however, could lead to cuts in state programs, or increased taxes, to pay off overall state debt.

Taxpayers groups argue that state leaders should find a way to divert state revenue surpluses when they occur to improving the state's water infrastructure, instead of asking voters to approve new debt.

Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at (760) 739-6696 or gconaughton@nctimes.com.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.