|
WATER QUALITY, SAFETY AND SUPPLY. FLOOD CONTROL.
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION. PARK IMPROVEMENTS.
Bonds. Initiative Statute
QUESTION
Should the state issue $5.4 billion in bonds for a wide variety of projects
related to water safety, rivers, beaches, levees, watersheds, and parks
and forests?
BACKGROUND
(From the LAO analysis)
State Spending on Resources Programs
The state operates a variety of programs to conserve natural resources,
protect the environment, provide flood control, and offer recreational
opportunities for the public. The state also operates a program to plan
for future water supplies, flood control, and other water-related requirements
of a growing population. In addition to direct state expenditures, the
state also provides grants and loans to local governments and nonprofit
organizations for similar purposes. These programs support a variety of
specific purposes, including:
- Natural Resource Conservation. The state has provided
funds to purchase, protect, and improve natural areas including: wilderness
and open-space areas; wildlife habitat; coastal wetlands; forests;
and rivers, lakes, streams, and their watersheds.
- Safe Drinking Water. The state has made loans and
grants to public water systems for facility improvements to meet state
and federal safe drinking water standards.
- Flood Control. The state has funded the construction
and repair of flood control projects in the state Central Valley flood
control system. The state has also provided financial assistance to
local agencies for local flood control projects in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta and in other areas outside the Central Valley.
- Other Water Quality and Water Supply Projects.
The state has made available funds for various other projects throughout
the state that improve water quality and/or the reliability of water
supplies. For example, the state has provided loans and grants to
local agencies for the construction and implementation of wastewater
treatment, water conservation, and water pollution reduction projects.
- State and Local Parks. The state operates the state
park system, and has provided funds to local governments for the acquisition,
maintenance, and operation of local and regional parks.
Funding for Resources Programs
Funding for these various programs has traditionally come from General
Fund revenues, federal funds, and general obligation bonds. Since 1996,
voters have authorized approximately $11 billion in general obligation
bonds for various resources purposes. Of this amount, approximately $1.4
billion is projected to remain available for new projects as of June 30,
2006, primarily for water-related purposes. Legislation enacted earlier
this year provides $500 million from the General Fund for emergency levee
repairs and other flood control-related expenditures.
THE PROPOSAL
Proposition 84 would authorize $5.388 billion in general obligation bonds,
payable from the state's general fund, to fund water-related projects
as follows:
- $1,535 million - Safe drinking water, water quality and other water
projects
- $ 928 million - Protection of rivers, lakes, and streams
- $ 800 million - Flood control
- $ 580 million - Sustainable communities
- $ 540 million - Beaches, bays, and coastal water
- $ 500 million - State parks and nature education & research
- $ 450 million - Forests and wildlife conservation
- $ 65 million - Statewide water management and planning
$1 billion would be divided among the twelve hydrologic regions in the
state, which are identified in the California Water Plan, to address multi-regional
needs and issues of statewide significance. Local projects that are already
approved would be given priority in the competitive process.
Other provisions:
- These public funds must result in a public benefit with preference
for multi-benefit programs and projects, and services to underserved
communities.
- Some provisions of the measure impose dollar limits per project.
- Five percent administrative cost limits per program are required.
- Ten percent finance planning and monitoring limits per project are
required.
- Severability provision.
- Requirement that purposes of this Act be liberally interpreted.
FISCAL EFFECT
Over a period of 30 years and at an interest rate of five percent, the
cost to the General Fund would be roughly $5.4 billion in principal payments
and $5.1 billion in interest with annual payments of $350 million.
There would be revenue loss to local government if land purchases removed
properties from local tax rolls, which could amount to several million
dollars annually.
Land acquisitions and park expansions could increase maintenance costs
to local and state governments, amounting to tens of millions of dollars
annually.
WHAT A YES OR NO VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means that the state could sell $5.4 billion
in bonds to fund a wide variety of water-related projects at the state
and local level.
A NO vote means $5.4 billion in general obligation bonds
could not be sold to fund these water-related projects.
SUPPORTERS SAY
- While Proposition 1E, passed by the Legislature, recognizes the
state's urgent need for levee repair and flood control, the funding
is not sufficient to the need; the scope of its programs is comparatively
narrow; and the programs it would fund are not clearly defined. Prop
84 provides a wealth of detail and requirement for careful planning
and management of the projects
- The state's economy benefits greatly from its public spaces--beaches,
rivers, lakes, forests, and parks. Protecting them is a sound investment
of public funds.
- Californians are well aware of the potential for disaster from natural
events like earthquakes, fires, and floods. Prop 84 complements management
of, and improvements to, prevention and control projects, planned
or now underway.
- Prop 84 is not a tax increase. Bond proceeds would go into the General
Fund and principal and interest payments would come from the General
Fund.
- Federal funds are available to states that can match them, and state
funds can leverage local government revenues.
- The measure would fund programs that are essential to the public
health, protecting groundwater, preventing toxic runoff, and removing
toxins and pathogens from water supplies.
- Our population in growing and we need to plan for that growth and
increase access to water and water storage.
- Prop 84 contains detailed provisions for oversight of the programs
that it would fund, including yearly audits by independent agencies,
plus a citizens oversight committee.
OPPONENTS SAY
- Prop 84 promises more than it can possibly deliver.
- The Legislature has already put a water-related measure on the
ballot. (Prop 1E) We don't need another one that is even more expensive
than the first.
- The funds for Prop 84's programs would have to come at the expense
of other parts of the state General Fund, like education, law enforcement,
and health services.
- This measure was put on the ballot by special interests, many
of whom will be beneficiaries for both their programs and overhead
expenses.
- While the measure talks about population growth, there in nothing
in it for dams and water storage to accommodate the growing need.
- Flood control is needed, but only 15 percent of the funds are
dedicated to it, while millions are dedicated to studies, environmental
planning, and administration.
- The measure exempts itself from the Administrative Procedures
Act, bypassing the competitive bidding system, and it prevents audits
by the State Controller, State Auditor, and the Legislative Analyst.
- This measure is a tax increase.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
Official ballot arguments in support are signed by the following: Mark
Burget, Executive Director, The Nature Conservancy; Larry Wilson, Chair,
Board of Directors, Santa Clara Water District; E. Richard Brown, Ph.D.,
Professor, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles;
Eric Pfuehler, California Director, Clean Water Action; Jeff Kightlinger,
General Manager, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; Kaitilin
Gaffney, Conservation Director, The Ocean Conservancy
Official ballot arguments in opposition are signed by the following:
Bill Leonard, California State Board of Equalization
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters
Californians for Clean Water, Parks, and Coastal Protection/Yes on 84,
818-784-1222, www.yeson84.com
Opponents
California Taxpayer Protection Committee, 916-991-9300, www.protecttaxpayers.com
Web Resources
Analysis
by the Legislative Analyst's office
Voter
Information Guide (ballot pamphlet)
Reports
of campaign expenditures for ballot measures
You may link to any individual proposition page. You may
print and circulate this copyrighted material if you use it in its entirety
(the
introductory page plus the 13 proposition
pages) and give credit to the League of Women Voters of California Education
Fund.
|
