LWVC HOME - VOTING Q&As - STATE PROPS - ABOUT LWV
ON BALLOT MEASURES:   ABOUT OUR ANALYSIS - LIST of PROPS - ELECTION '00 - SMART VOTER

LWV CA Ed Fund LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND
Nonpartisan Pros & Cons of

PROPOSITION 13

SAFE DRINKING WATER, CLEAN WATER, WATERSHED PROTECTION, AND FLOOD PROTECTION ACT.

Legislative Bond Act

THE QUESTION

Should the state borrow $1.97 billion through the sale of general obligation bonds to finance programs designed to provide safe drinking water, water quality, flood protection, and water reliability?

THE SITUATION

The state carries out a number of programs that provide loans and grants to local agencies for various water-related purposes. These purposes include improving the safety of drinking water, flood control, water quality, and the reliability of the water supply. Funds authorized by previous bond acts are now mostly spent or committed to specific projects.

THE PROPOSAL

This proposition authorizes the state to sell $1.97 billion of general obligation bonds to spend on programs designated to provide:

  • Safe Drinking Water ($70 million)
  • Flood Protection ($292 million)
  • Watershed Protection ($468 million)
  • Clean Water and Water Recycling (355 million)
  • Water Conservation ($155 million)
  • Water Supply, Reliability and Infrastructure ($630 million)

FISCAL EFFECT

General Fund revenues would be used to pay the principal and interest costs on these general obligation bonds over a period of 25 years. The Legislative Analysts reports that the program would cost about $3.4 billion over that period, with payments of about $135 million per year. However, General Fund debt costs would be reduced by $510 million over the life of the bonds from the required repayment of certain loans.

SUPPORTERS SAY

  • This investment is fiscally responsible because it qualifies California for new federal funds, limits administrative costs, and does not raise taxes.
  • This measure provides enough new water for eight million people through conservation, recycling, underground storage and better use of reservoirs.

OPPONENTS SAY

  • This is pork barrel spending, with so many projects included that the voters can't separate the worthwhile projects from the others.
  • These projects should have been funded out of last year's budget surplus, and using bonds this way almost doubles the cost of government projects.

For more information:
Supporters: (916) 484-3725, www.prop13.org
Opponents: (626) 614-0630, www.ca.lp.org

(Analysis prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
for the March 7, 2000 Election.)


On Propositions: About our Analysis - List of Props - Election '00 - Smart Voter
LWVC Home - Voting Q&As - State Props - About Us

Last updated: January 18, 2000
Send comments and suggestions concerning the content of this page to lwvcprocon@hotmail.com.
Send comments concerning the format or usability of this page to cmwatts@ibm.net
Copyright 2000 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.
This page may be linked to or printed in its entirety.