Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
California Proposition 1E, Flood Control and Water Supply System Bond Measure (2006)
| California Proposition 1E | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 7, 2006 | |
| Topic Bond issues and Water | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Bond issue | Origin State Legislature |
California Proposition 1E was on the ballot as a bond issue in California on November 7, 2006. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported authorizing the state to issue $4.09 billion in bonds for flood control structures and water supply systems. |
A "no" vote opposed authorizing the state to issue $4.09 billion in bonds for flood control structures and water supply systems. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 1E |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
5,305,852 | 64.17% | ||
| No | 2,962,546 | 35.83% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 1E authorized the State of California to issue $4.09 billion in general obligation bonds for various flood management programs. The specific flood management projects to be administered using Proposition 1E funds were:[1]
- State Central Valley Flood Control System and Delta Levees: $3 billion.
- Flood Control Subventions: $500 million.
- Stormwater Flood Management: $300 million.
- Statewide Flood Protection Corridors and Bypasses: $290 million.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 1E was as follows:
| “ | Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006. Legislative Bond Act. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• This act rebuilds and repairs California’s most vulnerable flood control structures to protect homes and prevent loss of life from fl ood-related disasters, including levee failures, flash floods, and mudslides. • Protects California’s drinking water supply system by rebuilding delta levees that are vulnerable to earthquakes and storms. • Authorizes a $4.09 billion dollar bond act. • Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay off bonds | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ |
|
” |
Support
Supporters
- Henry Renteria, Director, California Office of Emergency Services
- Michael L. Warren, President, California Fire Chiefs Association
- Linda Adams, Secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency
Official arguments
The official arguments in support of Proposition 1E for the voter guide were submitted by Henry Renteria, director of the California Office of Emergency Services; Michael L. Warren, president of the California Fire Chiefs Association; and Linda Adams, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency:[1]
| “ |
YES ON PROPOSITION 1E: PROTECT AGAINST FLOODS, PREVENT OCEAN POLLUTION, SAFEGUARD CLEAN DRINKING WATER California continually faces natural disasters—from earthquakes and fires to floods and mudslides. Proposition lE is critical to prepare for these natural disasters and ensure we always have enough clean water to meet our needs. YES ON 1E: PROTECT HOMES, PREVENT LOSS OF LIFE Our nation learned a tragic lesson from Hurricane Katrina—we cannot continue to neglect our unsafe levees and flood control systems. One catastrophic flood would impact the entire state and disrupt the supply of clean drinking water to major cities. Proposition 1E expedites urgent projects to protect homes and lives across the state:
'Californians deserve to know that their homes and families are protected from flooding, caused by levee failure in the Central Valley, or flash flooding in Southern California or coastal areas. Proposition 1E is vital to the state’s ability to ensure flood safety throughout the state.'—Lester Snow, director of the California Department of Water Resources YES ON 1E: PROTECT OUR OCEANS AND OUR SUPPLY OF CLEAN, SAFE DRINKING WATER Outdated flood control systems can threaten drinking water supplies, pollute streams, and foul beaches.
Proposition 1E helps ensure that clean water is available for all Californians all the time by providing funds to rebuild out-of-date systems to prevent pollution and safeguard water sources. YES ON 1E: STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY AND NO NEW TAXES Proposition 1E won’t raise taxes to pay for these important infrastructure improvements. By building safeguards now, with current revenues, we can limit the impact of disasters when they do hit. And, Prop. 1E includes annual audits and tough fiscal safeguards to ensure the money is spent wisely. YES ON 1E: PART OF A LONG-TERM PLAN TO REBUILD CALIFORNIA Proposition 1E is part of the Rebuild California Plan, which uses the taxes we’re already paying to build the roads, housing, schools, and water systems we need to sustain our economy and our quality of life for the long-term. The Rebuild California Plan: YES ON 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E California’s population will reach 50 million in the next 20 years—twice what our current infrastructure was designed for—and it can’t be rebuilt overnight. That’s why we’ve got to start now. To learn more about how this infrastructure plan will benefit you and your community, visit www.ReadForYourself.org. YES on 1E: Clean Water, Flood Protection, and Disaster Preparedness.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
- Thomas N. Hudson, executive director of the California Taxpayer Protection Committee[1]
Official arguments
The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 1E for the voter guide were submitted by Thomas N. Hudson, executive director of the California Taxpayer Protection Committee:[1]
| “ |
We need strong levees and clean water, but Proposition 1E is the wrong solution. This measure is full of misguided priorities and doesn’t have any controls on funds. The most important thing we can do is to make sure we have enough water for our growing population, but 1E doesn’t spend a cent on that. Prop. 1E sounds good, but it means higher taxes for projects that local and federal governments should already be doing. —Proposition 1E won’t provide 'Clean Water' to drink: California’s population is expected to grow to fifty million people in the next decade. This will place an enormous strain on our water supply. However, this bond will not provide a single drop of drinking water for California’s growing population. It will not build a single water storage reservoir or water treatment facility. Yet it will give hundreds of millions to private organizations to spend on their pet projects and lets them use these funds for their own 'administrative costs.' —Benefits local urban projects: Rural California loses under Proposition 1E. State taxpayers’ money from these bonds will go to protecting cities and their water supplies. These communities and their local governments should be paying for their own water supply improvements. Local tax dollars should be used to fund these projects, not state funds. —Federal responsibility: Instead of putting the state in more debt to pay for these levee repair projects, our state should be demanding more federal funding. This is a federal responsibility. California taxes are already high, and we shouldn’t have to pay more taxes to protect ourselves because the federal government won’t plan for disasters. —Fiscally irresponsible: By taking on what are really local and federal responsibilities, we are encouraging mismanagement from all levels of government. And, they will expect taxpayers to foot the bill down the road rather than refocusing their priorities. —Californians must focus on our priorities: While our economy is slowly recovering, approving Proposition 1E would be like taking out a loan to buy new patio furniture when you can’t afford to pay your mortgage or rent. At the same time, this measure means less money for other important priorities like education, health care, or public safety. The state can’t take responsibility for every project in the state. These projects should be paid for by the local and federal agencies responsible for these public safety issues. If we don’t make them reprioritize their spending, our children will continue to foot the bill for their short-sighted planning and mismanagement. Proposition 1E is bad for families, bad for taxpayers, and bad for California. Vote NO on 1E.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
A simple majority vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the measure to the ballot for voter consideration.
The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 1E on the ballot via Assembly Bill 140 of the 2005–2006 Regular Session (Chapter 33, Statutes of 2006).
| Votes in legislature to refer to ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Chamber | Ayes | Noes |
| Assembly | 62 | 9 |
| Senate | 36 | 1 |
See also
External links
- Official Voter Guide
- Full text of Proposition 1E
- Guide to Proposition 1E from the California Voter Foundation
- Summary of donors to and against 1E from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 1E from Follow The Money
- Official declaration of the November 7, 2006 ballot proposition election results
Notes
