Header link June 22, 2020

LinkedIn

  • Read more
Header link September 15, 2014

Cart

  • Read more
Header link November 3, 2015

Donate Now

  • Read more
Header link May 15, 2014

Twitter

  • Read more
Header link May 15, 2014

Facebook

  • Read more
Instagram
Header link May 15, 2014

Instagram

  • Read more
Header link May 15, 2014

Contact Us

  • Read more
More options
Water Education Foundation
Home

Water Education Foundation

Everything about California water that matters
  • Water Academy
    • Agriculture
      • Agricultural Conservation
      • Agricultural Drainage
    • Background Information
      • Legislation — California and Federal
      • Regulations — California and Federal
      • Water History
      • Water Rights
    • Bay-Delta
      • Bay Delta
      • Bay Delta Conservation Plan
      • Delta Issues
      • Delta Smelt
      • Sacramento San Joaquin Delta
      • San Francisco Bay
      • Suisun Marsh
    • Dams, Reservoirs and Water Projects
      • California Aqueduct
      • Central Valley Project
      • Folsom Dam
      • Friant Dam
      • Hetch Hetchy
      • Hoover Dam
      • Infrastructure
      • Lake Mead
      • Lake Powell
      • Oroville Dam
      • San Luis Dam
      • Shasta Dam
      • State Water Project
    • Environmental Issues
      • Anadromous Fish Restoration
      • Ecosystem
      • Endangered Species Act
      • Invasive species
      • Lake Tahoe
      • Mono Lake
      • Public Trust Doctrine
      • Salmon
      • San Joaquin River Restoration
      • Watershed
      • Wetlands
    • Leaders and Experts
    • Regions
      • Central Coast
      • Central Valley
      • Mexico
      • Nevada
      • North Coast
      • Pyramid Lake
      • Sacramento Valley
      • Salton Sea
      • San Joaquin Valley
      • Sierra Nevada
      • Southern California
      • Tulare Lake Basin
    • Rivers
      • Carson River
      • Colorado River
      • Klamath River
      • New River
      • North Coast Rivers
      • Russian River
      • Sacramento River
      • Truckee River
      • San Joaquin River
    • Water Issues
      • Climate Change
      • Coronavirus
      • Drought
      • Earthquakes
      • Energy and Water
      • Flood Management
      • Fracking
      • Growth
      • Hydropower
      • Levees
      • Tribal Water Issues
      • Water Conservation
      • Water Equity
    • Water Quality
      • Drinking Water
      • Nitrate contamination
      • Pollution
      • Stormwater
      • Wastewater
      • Water Quality
    • Water Supply and Management
      • Acre Foot
      • Aquifers
      • California Water Plan
      • Conjunctive Use
      • Desalination
      • Grey water
      • Groundwater
      • Integrated Regional Water Management
      • Recreation
      • Surface Water
      • Water Marketing and Banking
      • Water Rates
      • Water Recycling
      • Water Supply
      • Water Transfers
  • Tours & Events
    • Water Tours
      • 2023 Tour Sponsors
    • Events
    • Event Calendar
    • Past Tours & Events
      • Anne J. Schneider Fund Lecture Series
  • Specialized Programs
    • Water Leaders
      • Class Rosters
      • Yearly Class Reports
      • Your Alumni Network
      • Alumni Profiles
    • Project WET
      • Workshops
      • Special Workshops & Events
      • Supplementary Materials
      • California Content Standard Correlations
      • Facilitator's Trainings
      • Foundation School Programs
        • Elementary Programs
        • Secondary Programs
      • Water Kids
      • California Project WET Gazette
      • Gazette Archives
    • Colorado River Project
    • GRA Scholastic Fund Program
  • Maps & Guides
    • Maps & Posters
    • Layperson's Guides
    • Map & Guide Bundles
    • Books
    • Colorado River Materials
    • California Runoff Rundown
    • Other Publications
    • Water Awareness Materials
    • Downloadable Publications
    • Videos and DVDs
      • Video Clips
    • School Age Publications
    • Stickers
    • Free Programs and Publications
  • Newsroom
    • Western Water News
    • Aquafornia
      • About Aquafornia
    • Information Desk
    • Western Water Magazine Archive
      • Full Print Edition
      • Print Edition Excerpts
    • River Report Archive
  • Aquapedia
    • Alphabetical List of Subjects
      • A
      • B
      • C
      • D
      • E
      • F
      • G
      • H
      • I
      • J
      • K
      • L
      • M
      • N
      • O
      • P
      • Q
      • R
      • S
      • T
      • U
      • V
      • W
      • X
      • Y
      • Z
    • Historical Water People
    • Where Does My Water Come From?
      • Northern California
      • Sacramento
      • North Bay
      • South Bay
      • Central Valley
      • Los Angeles
      • Inland Empire
      • San Diego
      • All California Water Sources
    • Timelines
    • Videos
    • Image Gallery
    • Water Directory
      • Federal Agencies
      • State Agencies in California
      • Environmental Organizations
      • Other California Organizations
      • State and Federal Legislative Committees
      • Water Associations and Groups
      • Western States Water Agencies and Districts
    • Online Resources
    • Useful Acronyms
    • About Aquapedia
  • About
    • About Us
      • Board of Directors
      • Staff Biographies
      • Job Openings
    • Announcements
    • Support Our Mission
      • Become a Member
      • Donate in Honor/Memory
      • Donate to Aquapedia or Aquafornia
      • Shop Amazon
      • Planned Giving
    • Contact Us
Western Water April 6, 2018 California Water Bundle Gary Pitzer

Statewide Water Bond Measures Could Have Californians Doing a Double-Take in 2018
WESTERN WATER NOTEBOOK: Two bond measures, worth $13B, would aid flood preparation, subsidence, Salton Sea and other water needs

San Joaquin Valley bridge rippled by subsidence  California voters may experience a sense of déjà vu this year when they are asked twice in the same year to consider water bonds — one in June, the other headed to the November ballot.

Both tackle a variety of water issues, from helping disadvantaged communities get clean drinking water to making flood management improvements. But they avoid more controversial proposals, such as new surface storage, and they propose to do some very different things to appeal to different constituencies.

Since 2002, California voters have approved more than $15.5 billion in bonds – voter-approved debt reimbursed with general fund taxes – that have been largely focused on water.

This year California voters will consider whether to approve another $13 billion in water bonds — the $4.1 billion California Clean Water & Safe Parks Act (Proposition 68) in June and the $8.9 billion Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 in November.

State Sen. Kevin de LeonProp. 68, authored by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leόn as SB 5, includes $1.5 billion for parks, $1.5 billion for drought contingency/water supply and $500 million for flood protection. It’s the first parks and water bond since 2006, when the $5.4 billion Prop. 84 was approved.

“It’s a jam-packed bond,” said Caitrin Chappelle, associate director at the Public Policy Institute of California’s Water Policy Center. “It’s not just a water bond. It’s parks, coastal protection and outdoor access.”

Gerald Meral, director of the Natural Heritage Institute’s California Water Program, is the author of the November bond known as the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018, which among other things dedicates $640 million for assisting implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). He said his proposal, which is currently undergoing signature verification with the Secretary of State’s office, is intended to complement Prop. 68, which is broader in scope. Californians, he said, are ready to embrace both measures. [Update: The Secretary of State's office on April 25 deemed the bond measure eligible for the November ballot.]

Road flooding south of Elk Grove“Typically, in polling usually what polls well is safe drinking water, clean water in rivers and streams and water supply that’s resistant to drought,” he said. This bond, he said, responds “to all those things in a really big way.”

The two bond proposals reflect the disparity that sometimes exists among California stakeholders. Prop. 68, the result of the consensus-driven legislative process, includes funding for parks, coastal protection, outdoor access and natural resource management. Meral’s measure is more geared toward the interests of urban and agricultural water suppliers.

“Given the need we have for water management, you couldn’t have gotten it on one bond,” said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, which represents both urban and agricultural water agencies. “The legislative bond reflects the constraints of doing something in the Legislature where the focus tends to be coastal, urban Democrat. The November bond shifts a lot of the investments inland [and] was developed through a different process reflecting a different political environment.”

Pumping groundwater in a farm field.Water bonds regularly appear on the ballot (sometimes in June and November) because bond financing is seen as necessary to deal with water issues in a state as large as California. The recent spate of large water bonds can be traced to 1996’s Prop. 204, which authorized $995 million to help restore and improve the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay ecosystem, boost wastewater treatment, water supply and conservation and help with local flood control and prevention.

“Bonds are used in different ways,” said Chappelle with PPIC. “Sometimes they are used to incentivize large infrastructure projects that wouldn’t be able to get off the ground without state support and sometimes they are used to motivate new types of projects that local agencies haven’t been investing in yet.”

“Given the need we have for water management, you couldn’t have gotten it on one bond.”
~ Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies.

 Voters last approved a water-related bond in 2014, when they passed Prop. 1, which included $2.7 billion to fund the public benefits portion of new surface storage projects. Disbursement of the storage funds is subject to the California Water Commission’s approval, and the agency has been criticized by some parties for its initial decision not to award funding for the proposed Sites Reservoir in Colusa County and Temperance Flat upstream of Friant Dam near Fresno.

Chappelle said the high bar set by the Water Commission was by design.

“Anyone who read or understood the original language of Prop. 1 probably is not that surprised because they set a pretty rigorous process by which money was going to be passed out,” she said. “The fact that it’s taking a while is because they are following the letter of the original bond language.”

Salton SeaThe two bonds of 2018 do not include any money for new surface storage. Among Prop. 68’s supporters is the San Diego County Water Authority, which is keenly interested in seeing the state follow through on its commitment to restore the Salton Sea.

“Robust Salton Sea funding in this bond measure is significant for San Diego County because it supports agreements that generate substantial water supplies for our region,” Mark Muir, chair of the Water Authority’s board of directors, said in a March 22 statement. “The bond would help the state meet its obligations for Salton Sea restoration and allow our region to compete for other funds to further enhance water supply reliability and local watersheds.”

The $750 million allocated in the November bond to deal with subsidence issues in the San Joaquin Valley is crucial because of the need to move water for groundwater replenishment as part of SGMA, Quinn said. Beginning at Millerton Lake east of Fresno, the 36-mile Madera Canal moves water north to augment irrigation capacity in Madera County while the 152-mile Friant-Kern Canal moves water south to Fresno, Tulare and Kern counties.

“Both of these canals have been seriously impacted by subsidence,” Quinn said. “The Friant-Kern Canal has lost an amazing 60 percent of its capacity to deliver water. These funds will help raise the canals and restore the ability to deliver replenishment water.” 

Water line installation in East PortervilleThe two bonds together designate more than $1 billion for the clean drinking water needs of disadvantaged communities, something ACWA endorses. The group would rather see the bonds fund this issue instead of a plan by the Brown administration to establish a tax on drinking water of 95 cents per month to help repair the hundreds of mostly small public water systems with unsafe tap water.

“We want to solve the problem and we want to minimize the desire people have for a tax on drinking water,” Quinn said.

Unknown is whether voters will experience bond fatigue with two multibillion-dollar measures facing them in June and November. SB 5 was opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which generally opposes the use of large state bonds to finance projects. While not formally opposing SB 5, the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, a group of south-of-Delta water contractors, last year issued a release saying that SB 5’s funding allocation of $1.5 billion for water “is woefully inadequate.”

While voters have a history of supporting water bonds, Chapelle noted that Prop. 1 passed during a protracted drought when water was viewed as one of the most important issues in California. “That is not currently the case anymore,” she said. A drought-busting winter in 2017 refilled many of the state’s depleted reservoirs and late season snow and rain in 2018 likely prevented the return of an official drought.

Gerald MeralMeral said voters have a history of passing two bonds in the same year and that the issue with the Water Commission and storage funding will soon be resolved.

“I think by July they [the Water Commission] will make some awards,” he said. “I would be clearly surprised if they didn’t.”

Quinn, a veteran of California water policy, said times have significantly changed since the days when the primary focus in the state was completion of a major infrastructure project like the State Water Project. The emphasis now is developing sustainable water supplies at the regional level with financial help from the state.

“It turns out that about every four years we pass a new bond that infuses some public dollars, which always leverages a lot more local money and the voters have overwhelmingly supported them,” he said. “This is what has kept the wolves away from California’s door for 25 years – public investment stimulating local investment in a different direction of water management and I believe it is now time for another infusion of that public investment.”

Comparing Water Bonds

(In millions)

Funding Category Proposition 68   November Bond 
  (June ballot)  
Forest Protection $110 $120
Recycled Water and Desalination $80 $800
Safe Drinking Water (and Wastewater) $330 $750
SGMA Implementation $50 $640
Conservation $20 $365
Flood Management $550 $500
Stormwater $100 $400
Oroville Dam Safety $0 $222
Madera & Friant-Kern Canals Improvements $0 $750
Total for these funding categories $1,240 $4,547
Total bond proposal $4,100 $8,900
The Association of California Water Agencies developed this chart to compare the two statewide bond measures, for the June and November ballots, on key funding areas.
  • Print-friendly

Referring Pages

Share this page

  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Sent to a friend.
Print-friendly

Related Links

Western Water April 6, 2018 California Water Bundle Gary Pitzer
California Water bundle
Maps & Posters November 27, 2017

California Water Bundle
Special discount price for California water map and Layperson's Guide to California water

The California water bundle features our California Water Map and our updated and redesigned Layperson’s Guide to California Water, giving you the resources you need to understand water in the Golden State.

Regularly priced at $22 for the map and $18 for the guide, this bundle allows you to purchase both of these high-quality products for $35. Please note they ship separately.

  • Read more
Back
This item appears in:
  • Topic: Legislation — California and Federal
  • Western Water News
  • Topic: Ecosystem
  • Topic: Stormwater
  • Topic: Flood Management
  • Topic: Groundwater
  • Topic: Salton Sea
  • Topic: Water Quality
  • Topic: San Joaquin Valley
  • Topic: Sierra Nevada
  • Topic: Surface Water
  • Topic: Watershed
  • Topic: Southern California
  • Topic: Wetlands
  • Topic: Water Conservation
  • Topic: Water Recycling
Footer pod May 20, 2014

Water Education Foundation

Copyright © 2023 Water Education Foundation. All rights reserved.

The Water Education Foundation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt, 501(c)3 organization, federal tax ID #942419885.

Privacy Policy

Donor Privacy Policy

  • Read more
Footer pod May 20, 2014

Contact Information

2151 River Plaza Drive, Suite 205
Sacramento CA 95833

Telephone (916) 444-6240

Contact Us via email

  • Read more

Quicklinks

Footer quicklink May 20, 2014

Contact Us

  • Read more
Footer quicklink May 20, 2014

Donate Today

  • Read more
Footer quicklink May 20, 2014

Tours

  • Read more
Footer quicklink May 20, 2014

Newsletter Signup

  • Read more
Footer quicklink May 20, 2014

Foundation News

  • Read more
Footer quicklink May 20, 2014

Calendar

  • Read more

Log in

  • Create new account
  • Request new password

Commands

  • Support portal
  • Log in