HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-11; Municipal Water District; 463; Proposition 13 - Statewide Water BondCARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - AGENDA BI
4B# 63 TITLE:
VlTG. l/l l/00 PROPOSITION 13 - STATEWIDE WATER BOND
ON MARCH BALLOT
DEPT. CMWD
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPT. HD. E.zT
CITY ATTY. w
CITY MGR.
Support Proposition 13, the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection and Flood
Protection Act on the March 2000 ballot.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On October 7, 1999, Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill 1584 (Machado-Costa) placing
Proposition 13, a $1.97 billion general obligation bond measure, before the voters in March 2000.
Proposition 13 is the largest water bond measure in California’s history and, if adopted, will provide
nearly 1 million acre-feet of new dry-year water supply. The bond will also make important improvements
to water quality and stabilize the core water supplies in the Bay-Delta.
Enactment of this bond will bring greater certainty to water supplies which fuel California’s economy and
sustain the state’s competitive edge. The investment will help prepare California for an increase of 15
million people by 2020 through a variety of clean water, watershed, flood protection and water supply
improvement programs.
This bond is the culmination of more than two years of effort by Senator Jim Costa, Assemblyman Mike
Machado and urban, agricultural and environmental water stakeholders. Some of the water supply
benefits include:
acre-feet annual1
Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto Watershed
Program
Water Conservation Program
Water Recycling Program
$155 million
$40 million
(plus $70 million from
l dry-year supply
More specifically, Proposition 13 will provide $3 million toward the San Diego County Water Authority’s
feasibility studies for a potential new aqueduct to bring Colorado River water to the San Diego region. In
addition, Water Authority member agencies may be eligible to receive funding for water conservation,
recycling, groundwater recovery, conjunctive use, watershed management and coastal pollution control
projects.
Proposition 13 also earmarks $430 million for projects planned by CALFED, the agency formed to improve
the quality and reliability of water supplies from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River/San Francisco Bay-
Delta area. Northern California water flows through the Bay-Delta, then to Southern California via the
. - Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. -@3
.- State Water Project. The Bay-Delta and the Colorado River are San Diego County’s sole sources of
imported water.
Proposition 13 is supported by the San Diego County Water Authori$ the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California and the Association of California Water Agencies, as well as a variety of municipal,
commercial and agricultural associations.
01/10/00 08:56 I 'jr760 $1 1601
Jantiary 6,ZOOO
CARLSBAD MWD ++-, C MGR !.zj002/006
CMti P&*1 All Receive-Agenda Item # 2
ForthCJnfO~on of the:
~COUNCIL
A-d.-C&CCJ
DateHOCity Mws
TO: RAY PATCHETT, CITY MANAGER
FROM: BOB GREANEY, DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
INFORMATION REGARDING PROPO5ITlON 13 AGENDA BILL
5earched and found information on Proposition 13 and the method
proposed to pay of the $1.7 billion bond. A5 we discussed, it will be
through the state s General Fund over a period of about 25 years.
(See the second page of zhe attached Official Title and Summarv
Prepared bv the Attorney General)
Robert Greaney
Deputy Public Works Director
01/10/00 08:56 B760 31 1601
- .
CARLSBAD MWD +*+ C MGR @003/006
i
Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed
Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act.
Official Titie and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General
SAFE DRINKING WATER, CLEAN WATER, WATERSHED
PROTECTION, AND FLOOD PROTECTION BOND ACT.
. This act provides for a bond issue of one billion nine hundred seventy million dollars (S1,970,000,000) to provide funds for a safe drinking water, titer quality, flood protection, and water reliability program.
l Appropriates money fkum the General Fund to pay off bon&.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
l State cost of up to $3.4 billion over 25 years to a off both tie principal ($1.97 billion) and interest (S 1.4 billion) costs on the bonds. Payments of about PJ 1 5 million per year.
l Potential costs of an unknown amount to local governments to operate or maintain projects developed with these bond Funds.
Fllnal Votes Cast by the Legislature on AB X584 (Proposition 13)
Assembly: Ayes 68 Senate: Ayes 30 Noes II Noes 6
Analysis by the Legislative Analyst
Background
fiscal condition in the early 1990s. the state was not able to pay its full share of the costs for these co ecus. In 1996. voters roved Proposition 204 which provi e gd $60 million in general ation bonds CO pay a portion of these costs. These bond have been spent. The Department of Water Resources estimates chat the unpaid amount the state owes for Its share of costs for local flood contra1 projects will total abour S130 million as of June 30, 2000. In addition, the state has protided funds for srar~sponsmd flo.od control projects, malnly located in the Central Valley. The
e%x Fund source of funding for these projects has been the state
Bay-Delta’ Restoration. The state also has funded the restoration and im rovemenc of fish and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay A acramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (the Bay-Delta) and other areas. The state has done this using various fund sources in&ding general obligation bonds and the state General Fund, The Bay-Delta supplies a substantial
I-
portion of the water used in the state for domestic, industrial. agricultural, and environmental pu Bay-Delta’s capadty co P mvide r&a % oses, Over the years, the le supplies of water and sustain fish and mldli e species has been reduced. This has occurred because of increased demand for water from the
f%l! and wildlife habitat and deterioration of d&a Ba -Delta and other factors such as pollution d radation of P evees The CALFED Ba -Delta Pmgram is a joint state and federal effort to develop a on -term a preach for better ma of water resources i Je Ba#elta. Propram costs fo?%?i% stage of the CALFED Bay- elca plan covering seven years) currently under consideration are projected co total about $5 billion. These costs could double over the projected 30- ear term of the a variety o P Ian. It Is anddpated chat funding would come ram Y federal. state. local. and rivate soums. Proposition 204 provided SSS! million for earrystem restoration and other im June 1999, about $4 15 ml If rovemencs In the Bay-Delta. As of Ion of this amount remains available for future rejects. Water 6 uaff r and Water Supply. The state also has provided funds or projects that improve water quality and supply. For example, the state has provided loans and grants to Iocal agencies for construction and implementation of wascewater creacment, water recycling, and water conservation
ii rojeccs and facilities. The stare has sold general obli ation onds to raise mone if for these purposes. As of June 19 I 9. all but about SlOO m lion of the approxlmatel $1.8 billion authorized by previous bond acts Unce 1970 ha dy committed to specific projects. been spent or
Watershed Pmtect~on. In recent ears, the state has modified the way it manages the sta es water and other rv natural resources. Instead of using primarily a project-by-project or site-bysite approach, the state now rakes a broader a the “walers R preach by focusing on entire watersheds. Under ed management’ approach, impiove water quality and rehabllity o P rograms designed to supply. resture and
P2000
01/10/00 OS:57 ZW60 $1 1601 CARLSBAD MWD ++)+ C MGR @ 0041006
. enhance wildlife habitat. and address flood control within a watershed are coordinated, often involvin various federal, and grants for projects auchorized by rhb measure.
state. and local agencies. Warershed protect on programs may f Repayments from the loans made under this measure would be
Indude a variety of activities, such as water conservation, required to be deposited in the state’s General Fund. This will
desalination. erosion control. water quality monitoring, result In a General Fund savings potentially of u co
&water recharge. and wetlands restoration. $40 milllon to pay off the principal and lnrerest of the bon ss ,
Safe Drinklng Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, And Flood Protection Act Uses of Bond Funds
(In Millions) .., ..*I t ; I. Afnnu
This measure allows the state to sell Sl.97 billion of eneral Safe &lnklng WiieiFacliltiL~ ,‘, :I ,
obligation bonds to im rove the safety, uality. and relia Lucy of 6. * l Public water &stem cap&l improvements
water su lies, as we i as to improve P B ood protection. Of thb total, SZ!#milJion Is dedicated specifically CO carrying out the FloocJ Prutectlon
CALFED Ba -Delta plan. l Flood control and fish and wildlife
General o l! ligation bon& are backed by the state, meaning improvements on Yuba and Feather Rivers
that the state is required to pa . Local flood control projects in specified areas,
on these bonds. General Fun cr the principal and interest costs revenues would be used to pay including 13 counties, the state capitol area,
these costs. These revenues come primarily from the state and the Santa Ctuz region
personal and corporate income taxes and sales rax. 4 Land acquisition and restoration projects
F’ J.lY re 1 summa- the purposes for which the bond money l Delta levee rehabilitation wo d be used. The bond money will be available for expenditure by various state a l Urban stream restoratIon
to local a specifies t lf encies and nonpro % ncies and for loans and grants t associations. The measure l Mapping . -
e conditions under which the funds are available for @e+& P,j+&* ,, j .‘T:v ” I
nt
II
t
;
,$:; 76
7c
.$ ‘i92
90
In general, under-the watershed mana federal and state B overnments ement approach, the en orce environmental B standards, while loca agencies deveiop and Im lement local watershed management plans to meet the s&an t ards set for a wershed.
Proposal
loo, including the terms for interest and repayment of the
Thk measure also re uires that funds remainin in s eclfled 1 d % accounts under the 19 6 Safe, Clean, Reliable ater upply Bond Act (Proposition 204) be used co provide loans and grants for similar ty es Additionally, t R of projects funded under this measure. e measure requires that repayments of loans funded from specified Proposition 204 accounts and under the Clean Water and Water Reclamation Bond Law of 1988 (Proposidon 83 projects fimde d be used co provide loans and grants for similar under this measure.
l3scal Effect
. PrO*~o~~..~ilij;~S~tH’ii;;8(.~iver ‘..& *e .*
Elsinore and San Jacinto watersheds
l River parkway acquisition and riparian habitat restoration
l Development and implementation of local watershed management plans
l Protection end a&p&ion of coastal salmon habitat
9 Water education institute, science center. and science lahoratofy
72 70
30
25
.,;;;ii
250
95
90
25
8
Bond and Ofher Costs. For these bonds, the state would make principal and interest Fund over a period of about aymencs from the stare’s General ears, If the bonds are sold at an interest cafe of 5.5 percent (t e current rate for this cy e of bond), the cost would be about S3,4 billlon to pay off bot R the principal ($1.97 bilLIon) and interest (51.4 billIon). The average
?F ent would be about $135 million per year. owever. total debt repayment costs to the state will be somewhat less. This is because tie measure requires that loans made for nonpoint source pollution control. water conservation, and specified water quali /su pl projects (up to 5363 mUon) be yd w the General Fund: ‘&e repayments of these loans cm11 reduce the General Fund costs by a out $470 million over the life of the bonds.
Sean Water &j~~$r~&$j+ilng,, ; ,’ ” ., . ..a..
l “Nonpoint source” pollution control
_I ?; : .$$z
- Wasrewater treatment loo
l Water recyding 40
9 Seawater intrusion control 25
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~:j~~~~~~.~~~
. . ” : .‘!k.? I “.,5X II&&a
l Water delivery system rehabilitation in economically disadvantaged areas 60
l Agricultural water conservation 35
l Urban water conservation 30
9 Groundwater recharge 30 ya’y..“,~,-,,r~-‘, : :‘:.:r,*, f&‘&p*, Rellahlllty : ~;;,p;~i :,, $J~[C$?T~ .I’ :;z,’ ‘,~:$f$$.)
I-\-.. . ‘b+&d..r.,.u:.L... L.. .:* o.;,. Local governments that develop projects with these bond ‘H
funds ma f incur additional costs to o erate or maintain the l Various rojecks in Bay-Delta to improve water
P$!w& he amount of these poten ‘al additional costs is e ’ i%YkD fxoiectsl &h migration, and water levels 250 _-- _- . __. Use of Re authorizt?d S R ayments of Past khans. Proposition 204 million in loans to local agencleJ for water conservation projeas and roundwater rechar e facilities. Current1 , 1 repayments of t B ese loans are use dI to provide adcUrio-!a loans for such projects and facilities. This measure requires. instead. that the repayments be used to fund loans
l kroundwaier &or&e
l Pro@zts to improve water qualify and supply in amas receiving delta water
For text of Proposition 13 see page 97
13
01/10/00 OS:57 B760 A31 1601
c
CARLSBAD MWD -+++ C YGR @OOS/OOS
Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed
Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act. 1
Argument in Favor of Proposition 13
THIS WATER BOND IS VITAL TO OUR COMMUTW’IES. IT’S THE KEY TO SAFE. RELIABLE, POLLUTION-FREE FISH AND WILDLIFE-Wetlands, and other natural
c ~ DRINKING WATER WITHOUT NEW TAXES. habitats are protected, including the San Francisco . . . . Bay&cr+tpento-San ..Ioaquin Delta, the source of drinking 3ate ann,ng ice’: We cant live wxhouc ic. And we can’t take it for granted. That> wh Proposicfon 13 is so im onant The Cali ornia Department of 1 4 acer Resources P redicts major shortages of pollution-free water. Its pmclal jve-year for&zby~ says existing water management optxms won t fix the
Clean’ drinkin water: Pro 8 osition 1 s groun makes our drinking water safer. It fights water contamination; repairs corroded water pipes and sewer systems: eliminates pollution sources and protects the watersheds chat provide our drinking water. More water:
su Proposition 13 reverses a 20.year vend of decreased water
B ly and protects us, especially during droughts. hs wafer bond is necessary. It reduces enough new warer co meet the needs of 8 million Cali ornians by increasing underground storage and by P promoting better conservation, recycling and water management. Prop&tion 13 lays tie hkmdaUun fora fasting waters&t&ion without new taxes. It is stron business an I! ly supported by Democrats and Republicans, labor, the agricultural and environmental communities and California’s water providers. Pro o.Gtfon 13 is: SA!E DRINKING WATER-It hel rR s water standards to rotect ublic heal meet safe drinking
POLLUTION CC!NTROE-It fights pollution in lakes and rivers and alon pesticides and agr cultural drainage; improves wa 5 our coast: protects water 9 uality From er treatment plan?. cleans up urban streams and conuols seawater mtruslon into clean water sup lies. VITAL WATER SUPPLY-% provtdes new water through conservation. recycling, underground storage and better use of reservoirs. FLOOD PROTECTION-Ir will protecr lives, avert billions of dollars in proper 7 5 dama e and prevent meve disruption of $soser supp res for amllles and busux?sses throughout
water for 22 million Califorinians. FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE-This is & wise investment for safe drinking water and against water shorta . It is fiically responsible, does not raise taxes. qualines Ca Ifornia for new $” federal funds and limits administrativelcoscs. If we don’t act NOW, the cost will be far higher in the future. “Every Califomfa communi needs Wean. reliable water Without Propos&ion 13, we al 7 future. ” face a very uncertain water -Assemblyman Michael J. Machado, Chairman, Assembly Committee on Warer P&s an4 Wild~if% Join the diverse coalition of Californians supporting this water bond: Association of California Water Agendks The Nature Conservanc California Chamber of ommerce E ! Agricultural Council of CaliFomia Audubon Society Lea ue of Women Voters Cali omia Business Roundtable PI National Wildlife Federation California Manufacturers &ociation Planning and Conservation Las ue California State Asstiaclon of 8 / aunties California State Council of Laboren I Southern Califixnia Water Committee i Northern CaUfornia WaterAssociation Please vote to protect our quality ef life by supporting Proposition 13. the safe drinking water bond and Proposition 12. the parks bond. These measures tiork together for our econom , yourY 2 our environment and our famjlles’ health. We need S vote on Propositions 12 and 13:
GOVERNOR GIUY DAVIS
ALLAN ZAREMBERG , I Pra*idurc, cJafmnd0 chamberofcomarucr
LESLIE FRIEDMAN JOHNSON I UWwPmgrarn D&ret= The NB+ Consuvancy
I
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposltfon 13 I
Supporters always say that bonds won’t increase taxes. How then will the bonds be pay the real cost of their water, prices wo?ld fluctuate according
and interest on these r aid? Taxpa ers must pay the principal to su I , leadin co conservation. onds for 3 d years. This mane comes from our tax dollars. Taxpa ers cu=mly pay over s K billion ldE?hoN ~0N~~0L--Tho0~2 who ip0U~re our rivers and
per year on existing bond de ic t. lakes should be held fuIIy responsible for the damage they do.
Let’s not for et Proposition 204. Voters ap roved $995 Taxpayers shouldn’t be put on the hook for damages caused by
million in bon If s In November 1996 for the ’ J Reliable Water Sup afe, Clean, private businesses and individuals.
warned about a wa f ly Act.” Where dld this money E o? We were Please vote to save S7 BILLION by op osing Proposition 13
er crisis then. IF they haven e een able to and also Proposition 12, the parks bond. 1 P hese measures work_
fix the P roblem with almost a billion dollars, why give them together to waste our tax dollars on a bunch of “pork-barrel
almost 2 billion more? projects
Indeed, is there any evidence that our drinking water is GAIL K LIGmOoT unsafe? Or is it d ust another in a long series of
f overnment-sponsore crises designed to extract more money romt s’ wallets7 WAT~~PPLIES-Resideneial customers use only 15% of
DENNIS SCHLUMPF
Dimcco~ Tahoe Ci@ Public UC& DlJvlcr
California’s water, but must subsidize agricultural and TED BROWN I
commercial customers who use 85%. If big water users had to Insurance Adjuste~vetcigator ;
-. . . . _L._- -.--1*-a K.s s-e..-... *.a “I.. dwri.l ae*fim# wnnn
01/10/00 08:58 'ir76O,p31 1601
I CARLSBAD MWD -+++ C MGR @I 006/006
.
Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed
Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act.
Argument Against Proposition 13
This Is NOT Pro
pro I;~IN. ’ Y
Kl at does this have co do with Pro billion. whv didn’t t R osition 137 If legislators ev SDend some of it on hadanexua$4t _ these projects? a ~~- , r
No, they couldn’t dt thar. They had to s tl! end it immediatel . ai ~~~~~~:~s~~I~e~~~~~~~~~o~~ EK#im COS’?OF ANY dOVERNiHENT PROJECT. Taxuavers will have to pay the interesr on these bonds fir the next 30’years. At the end, we’ll be out about 53.5 billion. This ru osal wouid have cost a lot less lf it came Out of the curmnt %B u get. But do we need these p ects at all? If “i ” u read the fine print. Proposition 3 looks a lot like the or ?R Ir barrel” projects the Le’glslature has passed for years. ere’s some e Y a campaign conm for just about everyone (everyone who gives udon, that is). Here and there a project may be worthwhile, but voters have no way of judging, with so many pro’ects jumbled into the same law. d f course, some towns benefit from having a owerful legislator. Proposition 13 specifies 530.5 milhon or water P treatment plants in Manceca. Stockton. Tracy and Orange
Cove, three of which are in the district of Assemblyman Machado, the author of this proposition. Indeed, since so many local projects are involved, it would seem sensible for people in those communities to decide if they need them, and then determine how to finance them. The lowest cost would be co promote private investment rather than govemmenc spending. ProposItIon 13 claims it will provide Californians with safe drinking water, flood protection, watershed protection, river habitat protection, water conservation, etc. When has the government ever succeeded in doing any of those thin s? Most often we hear about government olicies C USING 1 groundwater contamination. DAMAGE& wildlife habitats, and other blunders.
GAIL K. LIGHTFOOT Past chat. L.ibwtarian Party of califomia
THohws mYoN Calaverar Coung Supen&or
TED BROWN I-c AdjuJtexhvattigaror
Xhey don ‘c undentand
Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 13
The signers of the opposition arguments don’t seem to 4. Prop 13 has the strictest provisions ever placed in a
understand California water needs. California bond to slash administrative costs. Governor Davis
7le need co improve wxef lnfr apucturz will also conduct public audits.
F
*ty s-m maw- of the swim populadon and age have lace on the water mfrasrructure constructed by Governors at Brown and Ronald Reagan. 7he need for new wacex They seem unacquainted with the Department of Water Resources’ serious waming about statewide shortages of clean, reliable drinking water--or that the bond creates enough new water for 8 milhon people. 7hc nerd fir &an war497 They misjudge “local proJec& that, in fact. sto dis!barges now flowing directly into rivers that 2 1 sewage million CaE;zTyF for their water supply
1. Califomi& need Prop 13’s clean drinking water P”z”“* We have always used bonds to fund infrastructure programs like these. 3. This bond is fiscally prudent. Its matchin revisions will also significantly increase private sector an fP ederal water revenue coming into our stare.
5. The California Taxpayers’ Association says if we don’t act Nq,W, the cost will be far hi her in the futu~. Prop 13 Is the res mJr nsib e way to pot& our d&k/n ! -4 watt: It’s viral co aur fa enator Jim Costa, ’ ies. economy and public health. ” Chairman, Committee. Senate Agriculture and Water Resources
Please vote for Proposition 13 Without it, we all face a very uncenain water future.
LARRY MCCARTHY President, Calibrnfa IhxpaywYAssociation
J-Of CO!XA Chairman, Senate Agriculture and Water Resouae.s cblmftfce
MICHAEL J. MACHADO cbalrmm, AsscmMy WateK Pa&Yam9 lKb!m?
COt?ldCtCC
* . -c .-1-1--- ^C.L.. v....L”.... wb.l h - -,.+ hoon rharlrM fnr aecuraev bv anv offlclal aeency 15