Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
California Proposition 84, Bonds for Flood Control and Water Supply Improvements Initiative (2006)
| California Proposition 84 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 7, 2006 | |
| Topic Bond issues and Water | |
Status Approved | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 84 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 7, 2006. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported authorizing the state to issue $5.4 billion in bonds for projects related to water quality and supply, flood control, water pollution, and water conservation. |
A "no" vote opposed authorizing the state to issue $5.4 billion in bonds for projects related to water quality and supply, flood control, water pollution, and water conservation. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 84 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
4,431,945 | 53.79% | ||
| No | 3,807,005 | 46.21% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 84 authorized the State of California to issue $5.4 billion of general obligation bonds for water and flood control projects.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 84 was as follows:
| “ | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• Funds projects relating to safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, waterway and natural resource protection, water pollution and contamination control, state and local park improvements, public access to natural resources, and water conservation efforts. • Provides funding for emergency drinking water, and exempts such expenditures from public contract and procurement requirements to ensure immediate action for public safety. • Authorizes $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds to fund projects and expenditures, to be repaid from the state’s General Fund. | ” |
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
- Mark Burget, Executive Director of The Nature Conservancy[1]
- Larry Wilson, chair, Board of Directors, Santa Clara Valley Water District[1]
- E. Richard Brown, Professor, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles[1]
- Erich Pfuehler, California Director, Clean Water Action[1]
- Jeff Kightlinger, General Manager, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California[1]
- Kaitilin Gaffney, Conservation Director, Ocean Conservancy[1]
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 84 were signed by Mark Burget, executive director of The Nature Conservancy; Larry Wilson, chair of the board of directors of Santa Clara Valley Water District; and E. Richard Brown, professor at the School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles:[1]
| “ |
PROP. 84 PROTECTS CALIFORNIA’S WATER, LAND, AND COASTLINE. California is growing rapidly, putting new pressure each year on our water resources, land, coast, and ocean. Prop. 84 protects these vital natural resources, which are essential to our health, our economy, and our quality of life. YES on 84 PROTECTS DRINKING WATER QUALITY. The water we drink and use to grow our food is vulnerable to contamination. Prop. 84 will:
Prop. 84 is essential to assure our communities CLEAN, SAFE DRINKING WATER. Last year, there were more than 1,200 beach closing or advisory days in California. Prop. 84 will help prevent toxic pollution from storm drains from contaminating coastal waters and endangering public health. YES on 84 ASSURES A RELIABLE WATER SUPPLY. Prop. 84 will increase the reliability of California’s water supply, through conservation and other programs. Every region in the state will benefit from this measure, while being given local control over specific projects to improve local water supply and water quality. YES on 84 PROTECTS OUR COASTLINE AND CALIFORNIA’S NATURAL BEAUTY. The measure will help clean and safeguard the ocean and beaches all along California’s coastline, including the San Diego, Santa Monica, Monterey, and San Francisco Bays. It will also provide for safe neighborhood parks and protect the rivers and lakes in which we swim and fish. YES on 84 PROTECTS AGAINST FLOODING. An earthquake or a series of major storms could damage our state’s levees, causing dangerous flooding and potentially leaving up to 23 million Californians without safe drinking water. Efforts are underway to address this urgent threat to public safety and our water supply, but much more needs to be done. Flood control experts agree that Prop. 84 is an important step forward and complements ongoing efforts to improve flood control in California. YES on PROP. 84 PROTECTS CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMY. Clean beaches, rivers, and lakes are crucial to tourism, which contributes more than $88 billion to the state economy each year and directly supports more than 900,000 jobs. An adequate supply of clean, safe water is also needed for California’s farms and cities. Prop. 84 protects the water that our economy needs to thrive. YES on 84 WILL NOT RAISE TAXES—AND INCLUDES TOUGH FISCAL SAFEGUARDS. Prop. 84:
PLEASE JOIN US IN VOTING YES on 84. Conservation groups, business organizations, and water districts across California support Prop. 84. For more information about the measure, please visit www.CleanWater2006.com. Your YES vote will help protect our health, economy, and quality of life now and in the years to come. PROTECT CALIFORNIA’S DRINKING WATER, LAND, COAST, AND OCEAN. Vote YES on 84.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
- Bill Leonard, Member, California State Board of Equalization
- Ron Nehring, Senior Consultant, Americans for Tax Reform
- Lewis K. Uhler, president, National Tax Limitation Committee
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 84 were signed by Bill Leonard, member of California State Board of Equalization:[1]
| “ |
This measure should have been titled the 'Special-InterestHidden-Agenda Bond' because it was placed on the ballot by special interests who don’t really want you to know where all your money is going to be squandered. Every special interest that helped get this boondoggle on the ballot will get a share of the taxpayers’ money, but ordinary taxpayers will get nothing from this bond but higher taxes for the next three decades. This so-called 'water bond' has no funding for dams or water storage! The authors set aside billions for bureaucratic studies, unnecessary protections for rats and weeds, and other frivolous projects, but they couldn’t find a single penny to build freshwater storage for our state’s growing population. You have to read the text to believe it. Only a very small portion of the funds from this enormous bond would be available for repair and maintenance of our levees, but Proposition 1E was placed on the ballot by the Legislature to provide $4,090,000,000 for these same levees. Common sense dictates that we should wait to see how that money is spent before we authorize another $5,388,000,000 in new spending. It would be foolish to lock permanent spending formulas in place, as this initiative seeks to do, when we have no idea what our future needs will be once the funds from Proposition 1E are spent. This bond represents a huge tax increase. The proponents seem eager to avoid this unpleasant fact, but voters need to understand that bond repayment takes priority over all other government spending. Once issued, bonds cannot be cancelled, repudiated, or discharged in bankruptcy; they can only be repaid with tax revenues. Our state already has a $7 billion budget deficit, and there is no way to pay for this gigantic bond without higher taxes. Local projects should be funded at the local level. This statewide bond is designed to force people in one part of the state to pay for local projects on the other side of the state. Why should people in Redding pay for urban parks in San Diego? Why tax people in Los Angeles to pay for beetle habitat restoration in Sutter County? This is poor tax policy, and it was clearly designed to benefit the special interests that put this measure on the ballot. We should expect local communities to fund their own local parks and improvements; statewide bonds should be reserved for state parks, colleges, and other capital projects that benefit the whole state. What is worse, this bond allows unelected, unaccountable state bureaucrats to spend billions of dollars, with little or no real public oversight. Sacramento bureaucrats and special interests will love having a slush fund that they can spend without the need for public hearings and public votes in the Legislature—but we cannot allow that to happen. Please join me in voting NO on Proposition 84.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
As an initiated state statute, 373,816 valid signatures were required to qualify Proposition 84 for the ballot.
Kimball Petition Management was paid $1,043,484.00 to collect these signatures.[3]
See also
External links
- Official California Voter Guide
- Full text Proposition 84
- Guide to Proposition 84 from the California Voter Foundation
- Summary of donors to and against 84 from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 84 from Follow The Money
- Official declaration of the November 7, 2006 results on ballot propositions
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 University of California of Hastings, "Voter Guide," accessed March 23, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Cal-Access, "Expenditure details, Yes on 84," accessed March 23, 2021
