$11.1B bill likely a tough sale with voters
Foes already organizing against centerpiece of state's new package
Alex Breitler
Recordnet
12/06/2009
SACRAMENTO - Persuading voters to pass an $11.1 billion water bond in November will be a "huge challenge," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told leaders from throughout the state last week.
Indeed, opponents already are organizing to try and stop it.
Representatives of Delta counties are concerned about provisions that require a 50 percent local match for projects in the estuary; they say they don't know where that money will come from.
» The state's budget already is bleak. Borrowing more would add to the annual debt that must be paid before money can be used for schools or hospitals;
» Billions of dollars remain unspent from earlier voter-approved bond measures; and
» Tens of millions of dollars in the proposed bond would pay for things which do little to solve the state's immediate water problems.
For example, at the Bolsa Chica wetlands in Huntington Beach, $20 million would be allocated not only to protect and restore the wetlands, but also for "visitor and interpretive natural history or archeological facilities."
More than $1 billion was added to the bond in the final hours last month as lawmakers sought votes from their peers across the state.
"It's a pork bill, there's no doubt about it," Stockton East Water District General Manager Kevin Kauffman said.
The bond has been described as the linchpin of the state's new water deal. Whether it passes or not, new rules on Delta governance, water conservation, groundwater and water diversions will remain in place.
The bond will not pay for a peripheral canal. It does contain $2.25 billion for projects in the Delta, such as strengthening levees, improving drinking water quality and making up for the economic hit as farmland is converted into habitat for endangered species. It also offers $3 billion for new dams and/or groundwater storage.
At a conference of the Association of California Water Agencies on Thursday, Schwarzenegger said the bond has a "good shot" of passing.
"I know the people of California are interested in rebuilding the state," he said. "It's going to be an uphill battle, as it is with all initiatives."
San Joaquin County will likely be no exception. Voters here narrowly rejected the last water bond, Proposition 84, in 2006, though the measure passed statewide. That $5.4 billion bond was half the size of the current proposal and was floated when the economy was decent.
"It seems that throughout the state, but particularly here, we've had a history of questioning these kinds of expenditures. We're prudent people," said Bob Benedetti, head of the Jacoby Center for Public Service and Civic Leadership at the University of the Pacific.
The new water bond would add $724 million to $809 million each year to the state's annual debt, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office. However, the debt would not rise to that level for several years, at which point supporters hope the economy will have improved.
Overall, California's annual bond debt is nearing an unprecedented 10 percent. The larger the debt, the less money available from the general fund for other things.
Jim Metropulos, a legislative representative with the Sierra Club, said environmentalists will reach out to unions to fight the water bond. A spokeswoman for Service Employees International Union, the state's largest union, said the group had not yet taken a position.
Critics also question why a new bond is necessary. The state treasurer reported in July that of the $9.4 billion in water-related bonds approved by voters in 2006, $7.9 billion remains unspent.
Bond supporters have said that water infrastructure needs have simply been delayed too long.
