Prop. 84 aims to aid environment By Michael Gardner COPLEY NEWS SERVICE September 29, 2006 SACRAMENTO – The largest environmental bond measure in state history may test just how much Californians treasure their parks, beaches, forests and water supply. Voters on Nov. 7 will determine whether California should invest $5.38 billion in water and environmental programs authorized in Proposition 84. But they may pause before they even get to the measure. Topping the ballot is a staggering $37.3 billion package of public works listed as Propositions 1B through 1E, sponsored by the governor and lawmakers, that could overwhelm voter appetite for spending before they reach Proposition 84. The environmental initiative would pay for projects scattered throughout the state. They would help restore the Salton Sea and San Joaquin River, build city soccer fields and mountain hiking trails, and promote desalination of seawater and the return of salmon in neglected streams. “Proposition 84 will help preserve California's incredible coastline and natural resources for generations to come,” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared in an endorsement message. In San Diego County, the bond issue would pump $91 million into regional water-quality programs and set aside an additional $27 million to protect San Diego Bay. Local officials also could apply for grants to increase water supplies, protect watersheds and clean local beaches that draw millions of visitors. However, Proposition 84 has split two leading fiscal conservatives in San Diego County. “It is the first water bond that provides direct allocations to San Diego,” said Lani Lutar, president of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, who is a supporter. “San Diego would for the first time be receiving its fair share.” Ron Nehring, chairman of the San Diego County Republican Party, countered that the state would have to raise taxes or slash other important programs to pay off the debt. In arguments against Proposition 84 in voter pamphlets, Nehring said the measure will not create reservoirs and sets aside just 15 percent for flood control. (Proposition 1E on the same ballot would allocate $4 billion for levee repairs and other flood-control projects.) Proposition 84 also would pour money into making improvements along the Colorado River and at the Salton Sea, both vital links to household taps in San Diego. Of the $90 million earmarked for the sea and river region, $36 million is allocated for conservation projects along the All-American and Coachella canals. Once completed, the projects are expected to save 77,200 acre-feet of water, enough for about 150,000 households a year. The extra water would be delivered to the San Diego County Water Authority. However, litigation has delayed initial work on the All-American Canal project in Imperial County. An additional $47 million from the bond issue would be spent to restore the Salton Sea as part of a complex seven-state deal to share the Colorado River and allow Imperial Valley farmers to sell up to 200,000 acre-feet of water to the San Diego water authority. The initiative has broad support, including prominent local politicians such as San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican, and state Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego. However, pockets of resistance have popped up, with anti-tax groups citing state figures that show interest over the 30-year life of the bond would push the final price tag to $10.5 billion. For that kind of money, some water officials say, a growing California should be building reservoirs. “We want a true water bond,” said Merle Aleshire, a local water board member from Escondido. “The big issues of storage and conveyance are not there.” State water chief Lester Snow said the bond would provide more storage and add to the overall water supply – just not in the traditional sense of dams. Investments in conservation, groundwater improvements and desalination will produce an extra 1.2 million acre-feet for California – enough for 2.4 million average households a year, he said. Snow said the Schwarzenegger administration would use some of the bond money to wrap up feasibility studies of several potential storage projects, including proposals to build two new reservoirs, and to expand a few existing facilities in Northern California. Voters have been reliable supporters of such projects, approving about $6.5 billion in four resource and water-related bonds appearing on separate ballots since 1996. About half of that total has been allocated to water projects, the rest to other environmental programs. Coast and parks advocates have lined up to tout the measure as a desperately needed infusion of cash that would benefit the environment and the economy. “California's coast is a tourism magnet,” said Warner Chabot, a vice president of the Ocean Conservancy. “It's one of the most valuable resources of our state, both for our visitors and residents. It's our legacy and our heritage.” Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the California State Parks Foundation, said the bond issue would aid state and local parks, where money is particularly in short supply for playgrounds, ball diamonds and soccer fields. “There are projects all over the state that are vital to communities,” Goldstein said. “This is about the protection of all of California, its waterways and its public health.” One critic of the initiative noted that Schwarzenegger's own Department of Finance said in a June 2005 report that state oversight of similar previous bond issues has been lacking. Lewis Uhler of the National Tax Limitation Committee also said the initiative's priorities are pet projects of groups that gathered the signatures and paid for the campaign. “Proposition 84 is part of the corruption of the initiative process,” Uhler said. “It transfers taxpayer dollars into the (programs) of the creators.” http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060929-9999-1n29prop84.html

© Copyright 2006 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.