Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
California Proposition 44, Water Conservation Bond Measure (June 1986)
| California Proposition 44 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date June 3, 1986 | |
| Topic Bond issues | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Bond issue | Origin State Legislature |
California Proposition 44 was on the ballot as a bond issue in California on June 3, 1986. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported authorizing the state to issue $150 million in bonds for water conservation and water quality management. |
A "no" vote opposed authorizing the state to issue $150 million in bonds for water conservation and water quality management. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 44 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
3,204,793 | 74.09% | ||
| No | 1,120,499 | 25.91% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 44 was as follows:
| “ | Water Conservation and Water Quality Bond Law of 1986 | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | This act provides for a bond issue of one hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000) to provide funds for water conservation, groundwater recharge, and drainage water management, and clarifies language in the Clean Water Bond Law of 1984. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ |
Paying Off the Bonds. The state would make principal and interest payments over a period of up to 20 years from the state's General Fund. The average payment would be about $13.4 million each year if the bonds were sold at an interest rate of 7.5 percent. If all the loans were repaid on time, the net state cost would average $3.5 million per year for 20 years, bringing total state costs to $70 million. These costs would consist of: (1) the state's administrative expenses (which would not be reimbursed by the borrower) and (2) interest on the bonds that is not covered by payments from local agencies because these agencies are charged a lower interest rate. Borrowing Costs for Other Bonds. By increasing the amount which the state borrows, this measure may cause the state and local agencies to pay more under other bond programs. These costs cannot be estimated. Lower State Revenues. The people who buy these bonds are not required to pay state income tax on the interest they carn. Therefore, if California taxpayers buy these bonds instead of making other taxable investments, the state would collect less taxes. This loss of revenue cannot be estimated.[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.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ University of California, "Voter Guide," accessed August 17, 2021
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
