Would half a water bond sell better to voters than the full $11 billion bond scheduled to be on the ballot in November? That’s what’s now before the California Legislature in a new proposal from Gov. Jerry Brown.

In 2009 the  Legislature passed Assembly Bill 29, the Safe, Clean Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act, authorizing an $11 billion general obligation bond that excluded any new dams for water storage. The bond would need to be approved by two-thirds of voters. The Legislature pulled the bond from 2010 and 2012 ballots over concerns voters would balk at its size and excessive earmarking during the recession.

Any new water bond must pass both houses of the Legislature and be signed by the Governor by June 26, 2014 — today — or it will not be placed on the November ballot.

Democratic senators want a larger bond without tunnels, while Republicans wanted the tunnels included. But Brown gave neither side what it totally wanted by cutting down the bond’s size from $10.5 billion to $6 billion and saying he wanted a “tunnel neutral” bond.

Since the Twin Tunnels and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan are linked, a tunnel-less bond is also likely to end up a “fish-less” bond as well.

The Twin Tunnels is a plan to convey water underneath the Sacramento Delta to southerly farms and cities in two huge tunnels.

Today the Delta has to mix southerly water flows to farms and cities with northerly water flows for salmon to migrate to the ocean. The Delta has thus become dysfunctional because it cannot do both unless someone can devise a system where water can flow in opposite directions at the same time. 

That is what the Twin Tunnels would do. Salmon are anadromus fish (swimming up rivers to breed) that are born in mountain fresh water streams and migrate to ocean salt water, then return to fresh water again to spawn.

Prospects for a Water Bond

Water economist Rodney T. Smith, Ph.D., of Stratecon Water Policy Markets, has devised a statistical water prediction service to answer the following questions:

• Will California voters pass a new water bond?
• What will be the size of the new water bond?
• What would be California’s water supply situation without the tunnels?
• Should any new water bond include new dams for water storage?

Smith’s statistical forecast in August 2013 indicated the prospects for passing a water bond in 2014 based solely on bond size, as follows: Electoral Prospects of 2014 Water Bond by Size

Even Gov. Brown’s downsizing of the bond to $6 billion wouldn’t likely gain voter approval with or without the tunnels or the fish-flow improvements.

Smith says the crucial factor in approval of bonds by voters is the amount of state debt burden. While Brown touts a balanced state budget, his budget only partly deals with an $80 billion deficit in the California State Teachers’ Retirement Fund, let alone other huge pension and unfunded retiree health care costs.

Another issue is the typical understating of true costs of large capital projects, especially bottomless environmental projects. According to Smith, without the tunnels, California would be facing a very high cost of $1,000 per acre-foot for unreliable, untreated water. At that cost, it would be better off to stop pursuing the tunnels and think about local alternatives for water resources development.

He added that a water storage component should be included in any new water bond to increase the reliability of water deliveries, especially during drought years.

Will CA pass a Water Bond?

If new water storage is retained in any new bond, there still is a way to convey water south to farms and cities in the existing State Water Project without any new tunnels.

Voters are ultimately unlikely to pass any water bond unless the state’s long-term debt situation improves. However, the newly released U.S. Gross Domestic Product data might spell doom for any water bond.  The first quarter of 2014 saw the national economy shrank by 2.9 percent, mainly due to Obamacare costs.

Two consecutive quarters of GDP decline indicate a recession. Assuming a water bond is put on the ballot by the Legislature and governor today, by November we will know whether we are in another recession and whether we will have a water bond.

For nearly four years, the City of Sacramento has been encouraging residents to attend water conservation training sessions. Water conservation is always a good idea, but the city is going about it with an iron fist. The utility agency has three water waster inspectors, and is working to hire five more. The agency said in a recent news report it will spend $200,000 on meetings, and billboards to teach people about conservation.

Currently, only about 40 percent of city residents are on water meters.

“Over the past year, we have seen a huge increase in the numbers of calls for service and a desire by the community to have water conservation information shared with their organizations or neighborhoods,” Marty Hanneman, Director of the Department of Utilities, said in 2010. “We can’t think of a better way to share this information than neighbor to neighbor. These Water Conservation Ambassadors will be a huge asset to our department and allow our staff to focus on meeting Best Management Practices and reaching our goal of a 20% reduction in per capita water use by 2020.”

“To become a City of Sacramento Water Conservation Ambassador, volunteers must be 18 years of age or older, sign a volunteer agreement and attend a training session. While all activities are voluntary, it is estimated that the time commitment will be approximately 2-4 hours per month. Bilingual volunteers are especially needed.”

“We believe this is a great opportunity for all Sacramentans, from all walks of life to become more involved in their City, do something great for the environment, and make a difference in their neighborhood” said Hanneman.

Granted, some city residents do a lousy job monitoring their sprinkler systems. Some sprinkler systems spray sidewalks and cars, and run until the gutters flow like a river.

“Learn about the City’s free water conservation services, cool new ways to save water and how to help your neighbor’s [sic] save water by becoming a Water Conservation Ambassador,” a 2012 city notice said.

“Water Conservation Ambassadors will help spread the word about water conservation and protection of our water sources,” the city’s website says. “Ambassadors will help educate neighbors, friends, family and community organizations about conservation through attending community events, conducting knock and talks, and presenting at community meetings!”

Water wasters can receive fines up to $1,000 for repeat offenses.

California’s inadequate water plan

California’s water system is currently adequate enough for a population of 10 million — but the state is home to 30 million residents.

California has spent $18.7 billion on five water bonds since 2000, CalWatchdog’s Wayne Lusvardi explained in Nov. 2012.  “These bonds funded mostly open space acquisitions and landscaping projects that captured no new water and built no new reservoirs.”

“Those bond funds could have funded the proposed $13 billion Delta Tunnels,” Lusvardi said. “Or they could have funded both new reservoirs proposed as part of the $11.1 billion Consolidated Water Bond to appear on the 2013 ballot.  Instead the bond monies have been mostly squandered.  Water bonds have been partly turned into a slush fund for the state Legislature to redistribute Cap and Trade taxes among other activities.”

In 1982, voters turned down the proposed Peripheral Canal Project.  Population has grown about 59 percent since 1980, with few new hydroelectric dams or large water storage reservoirs added for storage since then.

There are 1,400 official dams and 1,300 official reservoirs in the state of California.

The Seven Oaks Reservoir in San Bernardino County was created in 1999 to prevent flooding. Diamond Valley Lake in Riverside County is a new storage reservoir, completed in 2004. But that reservoir is only stored surplus water from the Colorado River and the Sacramento Delta, did not produce any new water.

The Auburn Dam

In 1965, Congress authorized the Auburn Dam following severe flooding in Northern California. The proposed dam would have provided water storage, power generation, and flood control, with 2.5 million-acre-feet capacity. But in 1972 environmental groups sued to halt the dam project. In 1974, Friends of the River took over the environmental fight. By 1980 construction was halted. Despite several attempts, including a 2013 attempt to reignite the dam project, it was never built.

2014 water bonds

So here we are in 2014, with a long-delayed water bond slated for the Nov. 2014 ballot. Democratic State lawmakers have been delaying voters’ approval of an $11 billion water bond, originally passed in 2009.

Many say the bond is filled with pork, rather than seriously improving for better water storage and delivery systems. Money from the bond sale would go to cleaning up contaminated groundwater, increasing conservation and environmental projects, improving sewage systems, and studying and researching the construction of two dams — not actually building two dams, but only researching this. Only 25 percent is allocated for water storage in this proposal.

Contrast that Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Marysville, who has authored AB 1445, proposing a $5.8billion water bond, also for the November, 2014 ballot. Logue’s bill would build two dams — one in the Northern California, and one in  southern California — and fund $1 billion to water quality improvements, specifically in the Central Valley.

By Wayne Lusvardi

Is the third time the charm for an $11.1 billion water bond? Postponed two times by the California Legislature because of budget problems, the bond now is scheduled to be on the November 2014 ballot.

The bond is advertised to restore the ecology of the Sacramento Delta and possibly fund the construction of two new reservoirs — provided the reservoir projects are not killed by environmental lawsuits.  But what is to guarantee the funds won’t be turned into slush funds for NIMBY (not in my back yard) greenscaping projects, as happened to the last five water bonds in California?

California has spent about $18.7 billion — including bond interest — on five water bonds since 2000 and hardly has a drop of water to show for it.  The money mainly went to funding open space acquisitions, green landscaping and urban community gardens that appease NIMBY voters. And a portion of previous water bond funding from Proposition 84 went to funding activities that have nothing to do with water supply or conservation: subsidizing the governor’s Strategic Growth Council that is a clearing house for distribution of Cap-and-Trade funds.

If you want a winning political formula for passing a bond in California, just put the words “clean water,” “safe neighborhoods,” “parks,” or “coastal protection” in the title and the NIMBY voters will vote for it.  Witness the titles of the last five water bonds in California:

* Proposition 12: The Safe Neighborhood, Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 — $3.8 billion (with interest);

* Proposition 13: The Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2000 — $3.4 billion (with interest);

* Proposition 40: The California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 — $4.3 billion (with interest);

* Proposition 50: The Water Quality, Supply, and Safe Drinking Water Projects (Coastal Wetlands Purchase and Protection) Act of 2002 — $5.7 billion (with interest);

* Proposition 84: Bonds for Clean Water, Flood Control, State and Local Park Improvements Act of 2006 — $10.5 billion (with interest). 

NIMBYism

NIMBY voters will vote for nearly anything that enhances greenery and views around their homes.  The result is about $19 billion in waterless water bonds for NIMBY’s that have yielded no significant new sources of water to solve California’s perennial water crisis. And during that same time, California has run structural budget deficits and farms have suffered from court lawsuits to protect fish in the Sacramento Delta.

State legislators, newspaper journalists and water experts are clamoring for cutting out all the political pork in the proposed $11.1 billion Consolidated Water Bond for the 2014 state ballot. The bond has twice been taken off the ballot due to unfavorable public opinion.

About $2 billion is pure political pork to gain statewide support to get the bond passed. But cutting political pork out of the proposed 2014 water bond won’t assure Californians that the bond funds will produce any new water or restore the Delta ecology.  The proposed water bond is yet another blank check for the state Legislature to spend as it wishes within vague program categories.

Water bond advocates want the bond cost trimmed down by removing the political pork.  But without specified projects and water supply metrics, it can only be inferred that the 2014 water bond will be yet another NIMBY water bond full of jobs programs for environmentalists, nonprofit agencies and bureaucracies — but hardly a drop of water for farmers or cities.

Cutting out the fat in the water bond isn’t enough.  What is needed is binding words in the ballot initiative of how much new water Californians will get, at what cost, and from what specific projects.

If California Gov. Jerry Brown wants to exert leadership with the proposed water bond, he could start by un-muddying the waters about where the bond money is going and how much water will be produced.