ebmgh.com

There are seven months to go before the November elections, and Californian’s will be asked whether or not to we want to borrow $11 billion for a variety of state-financed water projects. In total, we’ll be paying back $800 million per year for the next 30 years. Here is a breakdown of what it will pay for, courtesy of the state’s Department of Water Resources (redrawn because, well, pie charts suck).

Environmental organizations so far are divided on the issue. Here is a list of environmental organizations with stated positions on the 2010 California water bond:

I’ll try to keep this post updated as organizations either endorse or condemn the ballot measure. If you have information to add, leave a comment or email me at mheberger@yahoo.com.

Notably, I have not read anything yet from Environmental Defense or the Natural Resources Defense Council. I specifically mention these two organizations because they endorsed last fall’s package of water bills, which included legislation enabling the water bond. I wonder if they later regretted it; by all accounts the bills got watered down and filled with pork in last-minute wrangling. (The bond was authorized by the state legislature last fall as part of a package of bills SBX 7-1, 7-2, 7-6, 7-7, and 7-8 (links point to the text of the bill and analyses at leginfo.ca.gov) The acronym stands for Senate Bill, Extraordinary Session. How come when I work overtime, nobody calls it extraordinary?)

The Pacific Institute is currently researching and writing a detailed analysis of the water bond with generous funding from the Sausalito-based Panta Rhea foundation. In any public expenditure, the benefits are of course, not shared equally by all, so we will be looking in detail at who is likely to benefit from the bond. This will be enough for many voters to decide to reject the bond. In the words of Wes Strickland, a water lawyer and thoughtful blogger, “I would agree that requiring the beneficiaries of water projects to pay makes economic, as well as environmental and political sense. That is the concept of “full-cost pricing” of water and wastewater services, which was previously incorporated into the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Four Pillars of Sustainable Infrastructure.” He gives more thoughts on the issue of “redistribution” in a previous post:

An incisive criticism of the water bond would focus on whether public benefit is achieved by collecting taxes from all Californians and then distributing the proceeds to specific projects around the state. While the $11.14 billion fund includes earmarks for many specific areas (sometimes called “pork”), it is clear that not all citizens will receive benefits from the bond proceeds. In addition, an intelligent argument could be made that the water bond will distort economic incentives to use water wisely, since the true cost of water will not be captured in utility rates, but will be hidden in unrelated taxes for many years to come. Those are significant policy questions that voters should consider when heading to the polls in November.

Related to this argument, Bay-Area voters may be uneasy about financing projects around the state, as they’ve already been asked to contribute to finance their own water infrastructure. In the last several years, water customers served by either the SFPUC or EBMUD have paid billions to upgrade and improve their water supply systems. We are paying for these improvements in the form of higher rates, now and in the future. In other words, these projects have local benefits, and were paid for locally. Why then, should we be asked to pay again for water projects that benefit other communities? Should they not raise their own funds, as we have?

For an easily-digestible official view of the water reform legislation, including the bond, take a look at this presentation given by Rick Soehren, Assistant Deputy Director of the Department of Water Resources in March at the Water Conservation Showcase organized by the US Green Building Council Northern California Chapter. Unfortunately, there isn’t a lot of information there about the SBX 7-2, the bill authorizing the bond, other than a pie chart from

According to the Mercury News of San Jose, “the proposition “was written largely by lobbyist Joe Caves.” He is characterized as “a key player behind previous water bonds” and someone who is “a master broker who brings together environmentalists, business groups and various parts of the state that often have very different interests.” (via ballotopedia). Interesting. I immediately assumed the worst about him, but according to his website, he represents a lot of environmental organizations that I respect (but don’t always agree with when it comes to water policy).

Sources:

Chisholm, Graham and Mike Sweeney, “Water bond needed to save delta”, Guest editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle. April 16, 2010. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/16/ED9C1CVBH8.DTL

“Open Letter to the Delegates of the California Democratic Party Convention,” April 16, 2010. http://www.pcl.org/files/NoWaterBond_DelegatesLetter.pdf