Election Results Update [8 November 2006]

For updated results on all propositions, see the Secretary of State website.

Background

Water supply and safety are currently funded through a variety of state programs. These programs fund facility improvements for public water systems and provide money for flood control construction and repair projects. The state also provides grants and low interest loans to local agencies for water conservation and water treatment projects. The state also operates the state park system which administers maintenance and operation of local and regional parks. All of these programs receive money from the state general fund, federally mandated funds, and voter supported general obligation bonds. Currently, $1.4 billion remains from general obligation bond funds for new water system renovation projects. With a view toward the August 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster, the California legislature recently passed additional funds for levee repair and flood control systems. A total of 25 million new California residents are expected by 2040, and this has raised the demand for water supply and natural place renovation.

Proposition 84 would allow the state to sell $5.4 billion in general obligation bonds for water and natural resource maintenance and improvements. According to the State Legislative Analyst's Office, the state would most likely pay off the interest and principal over a period of 30 years. The cost would depend upon the interest rates at the time the bonds are sold. With the current interest around 5%, the future interest payment on the bonds will be around $5.1 billion. The principal and interest would come to a total of about $10.5 billion. Therefore, the state would likely be paying $350 million per year.

• $1.5 billion would be spent on water quality programs that would provide safe drinking water, agriculture and Delta water treatment, and regional water management.
• $928 million would be spent on conservation projects to restore and renovate major California rivers, urban streams, and Delta and coastal fisheries. Some of these funds would pay for improved access to regional conservancies. A portion of these funds would also go for stormwater pollution prevention.
• $800 million would be used specifically for flood control projects. The funds would go towards evaluation and improvements of the Flood Corridor Program. The Delta would receive a portion of these funds for flood control. Local flood control measures and floodplain mapping would also be funded.
• $580 million would be spent on maintenance of local and regional parks, water conservation and energy conservation in urban water settings, and for incentives for conservation in communities.
• $540 million would be used to improve protection of specific watersheds and coastal areas. These funds would also be used to fund the Clean Beaches Program and the California Ocean Protection Trust Fund.
• $500 million would be spent on state park system improvements. Park lands would be bought and developed and existing land would be restored. Some of these funds would also be spent on nature education programs and new research facilities.
• $450 million would be used for forest and wildlife conservation. Funds would be spent on improving protection for wildlife habitats, improving protection of farms and ranches, and conserving forests.
• $65 million would be spent on water planning statewide. This includes planning for the needs of future water users, future water transport systems and flood control projects of the future.

Proposition 84 would allocate unspecified funds for land acquisition by the state for conservation and water supply uses. It also provides for independent audits to insure that proposition funds are spent correctly.

Campaign Finance

Browse our webpage listing major contributors to all of the campaigns supporting and opposing the ballot measures here.

Supporters of Proposition 84 believe that California's coastlines, natural places and water supply systems are in need of serious renovation and new development in light of a rapidly rising population. Proposition 84, they believe, would provide much needed levee improvement and water quality protection for future Californians. Opponents argue that there would be no accountability for the money that would be spent if the measure became law. They also object that the measure contains no provision for new water storage projects, such as dams and reservoirs.

Proponents of the measure say that Proposition 84's renovation of the state's parks, coastlines, rivers and lakes are crucial components of the state's tourism dollars. Finally, they point to the fact that Proposition 84 provides for a finance committee responsible for oversight of the funds. Proponents of the proposition come from nature conservancy groups, officials from California water districts, and health and safety advocates.

Critics of Proposition 84 say that the measure was put on the ballot by special interests who are interested in taxpayer money for illegitimate projects. They claim that the proposition is too large and that it provides funds for frivolous areas of development while ignoring the creation of water dams or water storage facilities. Opponents also think that bond repayment will require the state to raise taxes on Californians. They maintain that water supply and natural place projects should be funded at the county and city level. Critics of the proposition come from the anti-tax community and small government advocates.

Proposition 84: Cigarette Tax

Water Quality, Safety and Supply
Analysis by California Legislative Analyst, 2006

Individual Campaign Committees
Total Contributions and Expenditures
(select "Nov. 2006 election" and "Prop. 84" in dropdown boxes)

League of Women Voters of Education Fund non-partisan analysis

California Taxpayer Protection Committee
Opposes Prop. 84
[Website archived in UCLA Online Campaign Literature Collection]

Yes on Proposition 84
[Website archived in UCLA Online Campaign Literature Collection]

Majorities of voters appear ready to approve the state's infrastructure bonds (Props. 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E). Field Poll, Release 2219, Nov. 4, 2006.

Baldassare, Mark.
PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Future, Public Policy Institute, October 2006.

Continuing negative job appraisals of the Governor and the legislature, despite initial support for infrastructure bonds. Field Poll, Release 2201, June 5, 2006

Voters are supporting four of the five bond proposals on the November ballot, although not by overwhelming margins. Field Poll, Release 2206, July 28, 2006

Baldassare, Mark
PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Future, Public Policy Institute of California, August 2006

Smith-Heisters, Skaidra; Summers, Adam B.
Analysis of California's Proposition 1E and 84: Funding the state's water and flood control infrastructure. Sept. 2006, Reason Institute.

Proposition 84: Analysis and Comparisons. Sacramento: Association of California Water Agencies, 2005

The following citations include links to full-text articles online, when they are available. Some restrictions on use apply, due to licensing requirements. For more information, see Tips for Finding Full-Text Articles.

Richards, Gary; de Sá, Karen; Hull, Dana.
"Home run for bonds: $43 billion to fix decades of neglect, needs," San Jose Mercury News, Nov. 9, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Rau, Jordan.
"With bonds approved, the line for billions forms," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 9, 2006.
Los Angeles Times

Lucas, Greg.
"Infrastructure bonds: Voters backing governor's public works spending package," San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 8, 2006.
San Francisco Chronicle

Cabanatuan, Michael.
"Infrastructure bonds on course for victory: Voters set to invest in transit, schools, housing and water," San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 4, 2006.
San Francisco Chronicle

[Opinion].
"No, no, no and no: Propositions 84, 86, 87, 90 must be rejected," San Diego Union-Tribune, November 3, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Mendel, Ed.
"Voters to decide how much debt state can afford: 5 bond measures total $43 billion," San Diego Union-Tribune, Nov. 3, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Richman, Josh.
"Governor: McClintock is 'wrong' on bonds," Oakland Tribune, November 3, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Weiser, Matt.
"Water bond measure gets late start for crowded ballot: Ad spending delayed for widely backed plan," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 27, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Marinucci, Carla.
"Public Policy Institute of California Poll: Governor bucks trend against GOP," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 26, 2006.
[Includes poll information on Propositions 1B-1E, and 84.]
San Francisco Chronicle

Finnegan, Michael
"Money Is at the Root of California's November Ballot," Los Angeles Times, Sept. 7, 2006
Access World News (UCB)

Dahlberg, Carrie Peyton
"Key to flood work: Voters Legislators fall short; hope rides on billions from bond measures," Sacramento Bee, Sept. 3, 2006
Access World News (UCB)

[Opinion]
"Supporting Prop. 84: Valley voters will benefit if bond measure passes in November," Fresno Bee, Aug. 30, 2006
Access World News (UCB)

[Opinion]
"Fate of Arnold's bond package dicey," Oakland Tribune, July 29, 2006
Access World News (UCB)

Yi, Matthew
"Infrastructure bonds find general approval with voters, poll says: Initiative to aid homeless housing, shelters is behind," San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 2006.
San Francisco Chronicle

Hecht, Peter
Coming this fall: Big ballot bingo; Bonds, tax hike facing voters in November total $46 billion
Sacramento Bee, July 1, 2006
Access World News (UCB)

Wisckil, Martin
"Governor makes pitch: Schwarzenegger visits to drum up support for his $37.3 billion public works plan," Orange County Register, May 9, 2006
Access World News (UCB)

Nelson, Soraya Sarhaddi; Joseph, Brian.
"Billions in the works," Orange County Register, May 6, 2006
Access World News (UCB)