California Proposition 1, Water Bond (2014)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Proposition 1
Flag of California.png
Click here to read the latest news on ballot measures around the country
Quick stats
Type:Bond question
Referred by:California State Legislature
Topic:Bond issues on the ballot
Status:On the ballot
2014 propositions
Seal of California.svg.png
June 3
Proposition 41Approveda
Proposition 42Approveda
November 4
Proposition 1
Proposition 2
Proposition 45
Proposition 46
Proposition 47
Proposition 48
DonationsVendors
EndorsementsFull text
Ballot titlesFiscal impact
Local measures

California Proposition 1, the Water Bond (Assembly Bill 1471), is on the November 4, 2014 ballot in California as a legislatively-referred bond act. The measure was formerly known as Proposition 43.[1]

The measure, upon voter approval, would enact the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. Proposal 1, if approved, would:[2]

  • Authorize $7.12 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, such as public water system improvements, surface and groundwater storage, drinking water protection, water recycling and advanced water treatment technology, water supply management and conveyance, wastewater treatment, drought relief, emergency water supplies, and ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration.
  • Appropriate money from the General Fund to pay off bonds.
  • Require certain projects to provide matching funds from non-state sources in order to receive bond funds.

Specific spending proposals in the proposition include:[2]

  • $520 million to improve water quality for “beneficial use,” for reducing and preventing drinking water contaminants, disadvantaged communities, and the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Small Community Grant Fund.
  • $1.495 billion for competitive grants for multibenefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects.
  • $810 million for expenditures on, and competitive grants and loans to, integrated regional water management plan projects.
  • $2.7 billion for water storage projects, dams and reservoirs.
  • $725 million for water recycling and advanced water treatment technology projects.
  • $900 million for competitive grants, and loans for, projects to prevent or clean up the contamination of groundwater that serves as a source of drinking water.
  • $395 million for statewide flood management projects and activities.

Gov. Jerry Brown (D) called on the legislature to replace the previous $11.14 billion bond with a cheaper $6 billion bond on June 25, 2014.[3] Brown called the previous water bond "a pork-laden water bond… with a price tag beyond what’s reasonable or affordable."[4] The legislature passed the new $7.12 billion bond on August 13, 2014.

The water bond was moved twice. Originally certified to be on the state's 2010 ballot, it was removed and placed on the 2012 ballot. On July 5, 2012, the state legislature approved a bill to take the measure off the 2012 ballot and put it on the 2014 ballot.

Text of measure

See also: Ballot titles, summaries and fiscal statements for California 2014 ballot propositions
Note: The following ballot title, summary and fiscal note were for the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012. The newest ballot title will be provided when made available.

Ballot title:[5]

Water Bond. Funding for Water Quality, Supply, Treatment, and Storage Projects

Official summary:

The long-form summary reads:[5]

  • Authorizes $11.14 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, such as surface and groundwater storage; ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration; Bay-Delta Estuary sustainability; drinking water protection; water recycling and advanced water treatment technology; water supply management and conveyance; drought relief; wastewater treatment; emergency water supplies; and public water system improvements.
  • Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay off bonds.
  • Requires certain projects to provide matching funds from non-state sources in order to receive bond funds.[6]

The short-form or ballot label summary reads:[7]

Authorizes $11.14 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, including surface and groundwater storage, ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration, and Bay-Delta Estuary sustainability.[6]

Fiscal impact statement:[5]

(Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's Legislative Analyst and its Director of Finance.)

  • Increased state bond repayment costs averaging $560 million annually over the next 40 years. Increased state costs, possibly in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, to operate and maintain projects built with these bond funds.
  • Savings to local governments related to water projects, likely averaging a couple hundred million dollars annually over the next few decades.


CA 2014 Prop 43 Fiscal Impact.png
[6]

Background

Californians last approved a water-related bond in 2006, known as Proposition 84. The measure authorized $5.4 billion in bonds for water projects. Proposition 84's supporters spent $11.4 million on their campaign urging a "yes" vote. In 2005, voters approved Proposition 50, which issued $3.4 billion for water projects.[8] Between 1996 and 2006, Californians approved about $11 billion in bonds for water projects.[9] Proposition 1 in 1960 originally created the State Water Project that has been regularly replenished with additional water project bond votes since then.

Support

Note: The following were supporters of the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012.

Supporters

Organizations

Arguments

Timothy Quinn, executive director for the Association of California Water Agencies, Tom Nassif, president of Western Growers, and Jim Earp, executive director of California Alliance for Jobs, wrote the argument in favor found in the state’s official voter information guide:

CALIFORNIA’S WATER SYSTEM IS STRESSED AND VULNERABLE TO SHORTAGES.

California is in a severe drought. Reservoirs are low, groundwater basins and ecosystems are stressed, water quality is impaired, and wildfire risks is extremely high. Three consecutive dry years have pushed California’s water system to its limits and exposed vulnerabilities that must be addressed now if we are to avoid even more dire challenges int he coming years.

Signs of California’s severe water challenges include:

  • Drinking water shortages and mandatory rationing in some areas
  • Impaired water quality and contaminated groundwater basins
  • Water cutbacks to family farms
  • Lost farm jobs and reduced economic activity
  • Extreme wildfire danger
  • Increased food prices

Climate change will bring even more severe droughts in the future. We need a variety of strategies and actions to combat drought and improve the resilience of the state’s water system, including investments in safe drinking water, water recycling, conservation, and water storage capacity.

YES on 43: A BALANCED APPROACH TO FIX OUR WATER SYSTEM. PROP 43 WILL…

… help California prepare for droughts.

The drought has highlighted widespread vulnerabilities in our water system and urgent need to create more resilient water supplies. Prop 43 will enhance local supplies, and increase our ability to store water so it’s available when we need it.

… ensure reliable water for farms.

Water shortages have forced many family farmers to reduce planting, leading to thousands of lost farming jobs. Prop 43 improves water supplies so farmers

… clean up contamination of water resources.

Drought has worsened water quality in rivers and streams in California. Prop 43 funds actions to clean up contamination and remove pollutants from rivers and streams that end up as drinking water.

… protect against the collapse of our water system in an earthquake.

Scientists warn that aging levees protecting two-thirds of the state’s drinking water could collapse during an earthquake. Prop 43 will strengthen waterways and better protect supplies against an earthquake or major flood.

… repair the Delta, one of the most important ecosystems on the West Coast.

Water for 25 million Californians and more than 700 species flow through the California Delta. The Delta has seen significant declines in water quality and ecosystem health. Prop 43 will provide funds for urgently needed habitat restoration in the Delta.

… create jobs now by fixing vital infrastructure.

Prop 43 will fund shovel-ready construction projects across California - fixing and strengthening the network of levees, pipes and reservoirs and creating tens of thousands of jobs.

… protect taxpayers with strong fiscal safeguards.

Prop 43 is funded through existing and will NOT increase taxes. Prop 43 limits administrative costs to less than 5% and requires annual, independent public audits.

WATER IS ESSENTIAL - WE MUST ACT TO PROTECT OUR ECONOMY and QUALITY OF LIFE.

Prop 43 is the solution we need to combat drought and create a more resilient water system for California.

VOTE YES on 43. [6]

—Timothy Quinn, Tom Nassif and Jim Earp, [10]

Opposition

Note: The following were opponents of the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012.

Opponents

Organizations

Arguments

Helen Hutchison, president of the League of Women Voters of California, Lenny Goldberg, executive director of California Tax Reform Association, and Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California, wrote the argument in opposition found in the state’s official voter information guide:

Prop 43. is a holdover from 2009 when Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature jammed through this $11.14 billion borrowing measure for the 2010 ballot to satisfy special interests.

The legislature removed it from the 2010 ballot when they realized voters wouldn’t fall for such a pork-laden waste of money. Then they removed it again in 2012. Now they think voters will fall for this bloated measure.

The Riverside Press-Enterprise said it contains, “… a host of other items that have little to do with the state’s central water concerns. The state simply cannot afford such politically motivated handouts.”

California is in a serious drought, but this bond does very little to help. Instead, it will cost billions that would be better spent on real solutions. Californians will have to pay back this money each year, through taxes, for 30 years. With interest, that’s more than $20 billion.

NOT WRITTEN TO DEAL WITH TODAY’S DROUGHT

The most important reason for passing a water bond today is to deal with current and future droughts. But less than 5% of this larded-up bond would go to drought relief.

This bond would hand over $3 billion to a government commission comprised entirely of political appointees with absolutely no accountability to the taxpayers. It gives them sole authority to pass out that money without any budgetary oversight.

FILLED WITH PORK

Because special interests got to write this bond, it would have taxpayers pay for every pet project from those interests’ wish lists. For instance, it would charge taxpayers — you — $100 million for a dam that has already been built. Your money could even be used to buy a water taxi for Lake Tahoe vacationers.

San Jose Mercury News asked: “… why not just get them (legislators) to take out the pork and offer up a smarter, more basic plan that Californians might actually approve… ?”

SUPPORTS THE DESTRUCTIVE WATER TUNNELS

This bond would provide $1.5 bullion supposedly for restoration of the Bay Delta ecosystem. The real purpose is to make the taxpayers put up the first of tens of billions in payments to proceed with building 35-mile-long giant tunnels to send water to huge corporate agriculture and developers. The tunnels would destroy productive Delta-area farmland, limey ruin the salmon fishery and, with droughts, wouldn't have new water to move in any case.

As a San Jose Mercury News investigation revealed, when bond service fees and interest are included, “… the grand total (for the tunnel project) is $51 billion to $67 billion.” Tunnel backers have already admitted this would not be the last bond they would need to pass.

THE WRONG BOND

California is in a serious drought and a smart water bond would help. But this is not that bond. Taxpayer-funded gifts to special interests for projects that won’t help respond to real water needs are not the answer. Vote NO on Prop. 43! [6]

—Helen Hutchison, Lenny Goldberg and Kathryn Phillips, [11]

Donors

One ballot measure campaign committee is registered in opposition to the initiative as of August 8, 2014:[12]

Committee Amount raised Amount spent
Citizens Against Taxpayer Funding of BDCP Tunnels in the 2014 Water Bond $0 $0
Total $0 $0

Polls

See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures
California Water Bond (2014)
Poll Support OpposeUndecidedMargin of ErrorSample Size
Tulchin Research
1/20/2010 - 1/25/2010
34.0%55.0%11.0%+/-4.0600
Public Policy Institute of California
3/11/2014 - 3/18/2014
50.0%32.0%19.0%+/-3.61,702
Public Policy Institute of California
7/8/2014 - 7/15/2014
61.0%22.0%17.0%+/-3.71,705
AVERAGES 48.33% 36.33% 15.67% +/-3.77 1,335.67
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org


Path to the ballot

See also: Authorizing bonds in California

As mandated by Section 1 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, the California Legislature was required to pass the bond act by a two-thirds vote of all the members in both legislative chambers.

2010

On October 27, 2009, Sen. Dave Cogdill (R-14) introduced Senate Bill 2, also known as the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010. On November 4, 2009, both chambers of the legislature approved the bond measure. The votes were as follows:[13]

November 4, 2009 House vote

California SB 2 House Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 55 73.33%
No2026.67%

November 4, 2009 Senate vote

California SB 2 Senate Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 27 77.14%
No822.86%

Senate Bill 2 was slated to appear on the 2010 ballot as Proposition 18.[14]

2012

On August 9, 2010, the legislature voted to postpone the measure from the November 2010 ballot to the November 2012 ballot. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) recommended the postponement. Schwarzenegger said he did not think Proposition 18 could win in 2010. He noted, "It's critical that the water bond pass... I will work with the Legislature to postpone the bond to 2012 and avoid jeopardizing its passage."[15] Both chambers of the legislature voted to move the bond measure from 2010 to 2012 via Assembly Bill 1265 on August 9, 2010. A two-thirds majority was needed to move the measure. The votes were as follows:[16]

August 9, 2010 House vote

California AB 1265 House Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 54 71.05%
No2228.95%

August 9, 2010 Senate vote

California AB 1265 Senate Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 27 79.41%
No720.59%

2014

On January 19, 2012, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) expressed that he would like to see the water bond measure delayed. He said, "I think they've [voters] got to take a hard look at that one." He also expressed the view that the state's lawmakers need to think about whether the bond proposal "really fits with what is absolutely needed" for water purposes in the state.[17]

US Rep. Jared Huffman (D-2), who was a state assemblyman in 2012 and chair of the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, said, "As written, this bond cannot pass in 2012 or any other year so my hope is – and the reality suggests – that we shouldn’t be seriously considering strategies to pass this particular bond, whether it is 2012, 2014 or 2020. To be viable, the revised bond will have to be leaner and greener."[9]

Sen. Lois Wolk (D-3) said both a tax increase and a large bond should not be on the ballot in 2012. She said, "It is critically important that we focus on the revenue measure," referring to Proposition 30. Wolk continued, "We are faced with a tax levy in November. It would be disastrous to have [the borrowing] on the ballot."[18][19]

In March 2012, Darrell Steinberg (D-6), the President Pro Tem of the California State Senate, told reporters that the water bond would probably be pulled off the ballot.[20]

Assembly Bill 1422, sponsored by Rep. Henry Perea (D-31), was introduced into the legislature. AB 1422 moved the water bond from the 2012 ballot to the 2014 ballot. On July 5, 2012, legislators approved the bill. The votes were as follows:[21]

July 5, 2012 House vote

California AB 1422 House Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 72 91.14%
No78.86%

July 5, 2012 Senate vote

California AB 1422 Senate Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 34 94.44%
No25.56%

Gov. Brown signed the bill on July 9, 2012.[21]

On June 25, 2014, Brown called on the legislature to replace the previous $11.14 billion bond with a cheaper $6 billion bond.[22] He called the previous water bond "a pork-laden water bond… with a price tag beyond what’s reasonable or affordable."[23] The legislature passed a new $7.12 billion bond on August 13, 2014.

Legislators were able to develop a bipartisan deal after weeks of deliberation. Republicans wanted more funding for reservoirs and water storage. Gov. Brown met with legislative leaders from both parties to help forge a compromise. Rep. Toni Atkins(D-78) said, "The pitch now is you've got a unified front. You got Northern, Central, South. You got Republicans, you got Democrats. You've got the Senate leadership, the Assembly leadership — both, you know, Republican and Democrat — and you got the governor."[24] The new bond measure is Assembly Bill 1471, also known as the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. The votes were as follows:[2]

August 13, 2014 House vote

California AB 1471 House Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 77 97.47%
No22.53%

August 13, 2014 Senate vote

California AB 1471 Senate Vote
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 37 100.00%
No00.00%

Related measures

See also

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

Basic information

References

  1. KQED, "New Ballot Numbers For November’s Water, Budget Propositions," August 12, 2014
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 California Legislature, "AB-1471 Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014," accessed August 14, 2014
  3. Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal intensifies water bond negotiations," June 25, 2014
  4. KQED, "Brown Wades Into Water Bond Debate," August 6, 2014
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 Official Voter Information Guide for November 4, 2014 Election, "Ballot Title and Summary," accessed August 7, 2014
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  7. Official Voter Information Guide for November 4, 2014 Election, "Ballot Label," accessed August 7, 2014
  8. Mercury News, "Californians asked to spend more during unprecedented spree of water spending," November 23, 2009
  9. 9.0 9.1 Capitol Weekly, "For water, perilous economy is big player in November 2012," December 15, 2011
  10. Official Voter Information Guide for November 4, 2014 Election, "Argument in Favor," accessed August 7, 2014
  11. Official Voter Information Guide for November 4, 2014 Election, "Argument Against," accessed August 7, 2014
  12. California Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance: Proposition 43," accessed August 8, 2014
  13. California Legislature, "Senate Bill 2," accessed August 8, 2014
  14. California Legislative Analyst's Office, "Proposition 18," accessed August 8, 2014
  15. Los Angeles Times, "Schwarzenegger wants $11-billion water bond off the November ballot," June 30, 2010
  16. California Legislature, "Assembly Bill 1265," accessed August 8, 2014
  17. Los Angeles Times, "Jerry Brown says November water bond vote might need to be delayed," January 19, 2012
  18. Los Angeles Times, "California Legislature pulls water bond measure off fall ballot," July 6, 2012
  19. Business Week, "California Lawmakers Delay $11 Billion Water-Bond Measure," July 5, 2012
  20. Daily Democrat, "Water bond teeters, may be pulled from '12 ballot," March 29, 2012
  21. 21.0 21.1 California Legislature, "Assembly Bill 1422," accessed August 8, 2014
  22. Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal intensifies water bond negotiations," June 25, 2014
  23. KQED, "Brown Wades Into Water Bond Debate," August 6, 2014
  24. The Desert Sun, "California water bond signals historic compromise," August 14, 2014