BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 2XXXXXXX|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 2XXXXXXX
Author: Cogdill (R), et al
Amended: 11/2/09
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SUBJECT : Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply
Act of
2010: water quality control plan
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill enacts the Safe, Clean, and Reliable
Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, which, if approved by
the voters, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount
of $9.99 billion pursuant to the State General Obligation
Bond Law to finance a safe drinking water and water supply
reliability program. This bill provides for the submission
of the bond act to the voters at the November 2, 2010,
statewide general election.
ANALYSIS : The following is an analysis of SB 2XXXXXXX
provided by the Senate Natural Resources and Water
Committee:
This bill enacts the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking
Water Supply Act of 2010, and sends to the voters for
approval at the November 2, 2010, statewide general
election a $9.99 billion bond measure. The bill also
implements a specified strategic plan relating to the
CONTINUED
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
2
sustainable management of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta;
however, this policy change is not discussed in this
document.
This bill proposes funding for a variety of purposes,
including water supply reliability, delta sustainability,
water system operational improvement, conservation and
watershed protection, groundwater protection, and water
recycling. The allocations are summarized in Figure 1 and
a brief summary of each is included below; however, a few
general provisions of the bill are worth noting here.
First, as is somewhat customary, this bill caps bond funds
available for administrative costs at five percent of the
amount awarded to a program. Similarly, the bill places a
10-percent cap on project planning and monitoring costs.
Second, the bill specifies that none of the bond funds
shall be used to pay for the design, construction,
operation, or maintenance of Delta conveyance facilities.
Third, this bill creates at least two bond issuance
"traunches" by authorizing the sale of no more than half of
the bonds ($4.7 billion) before July 1, 2015. Finally, the
bill requires non-state cost shares to match many of bond
fund allocations.
1. Water Supply Reliability . The bill provides $1.1 billion
for competitive grants and expenditures to improve
integrated regional water management; $400 million for
local conveyance projects; and $400 million for local
drought relief projects.
A. Integrated regional water management funding is
tied to implementation of an adopted integrated
regional water management plan (except for $200
million that is set aside for interregional projects)
and requires a 50-percent local cost share unless the
project is to benefit a disadvantaged or economically
distressed area. The bill specifies the share of
$900 million to be allocated to each of twelve
regions. Of the $200 million set aside for
interregional projects, $50 million is to be used for
recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement at State
Water Project facilities.
B. Local conveyance projects must be consistent with
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
3
an adopted integrated regional water management plan,
must provide specified benefits (e.g., mitigate
conditions of groundwater overdraft, or improve water
security from drought or natural disasters), and
require a 50-percent non-state cost share of unless
the project is to benefit a disadvantaged or
economically distressed area.
Figure 1 - Allocation of Bond Proceeds under SB 2
------------------------------------------------------------
|Purpose | Amount (in |
| | millions) |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
|Water Supply Reliability | $1,900|
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Integrated regional water management | ($1,100)|
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Local regional conveyance projects | ($400)|
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Local drought relief projects | ($400)|
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
|Delta Sustainability | $2,000|
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Public benefits - including water | ($500)|
| supply protection; water flow/quality | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Delta protection, conservation, and | ($1,500)|
| restoration projects (no lead agency | |
| specified) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
|Water System Operational Improvement* | $3,000|
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
|Conservation and Watershed Protection | $1,500|
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Invasive species control (Dept of | ($65)|
|Fish & Game) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Coastal county watersheds (State | ($200)|
|Coastal Conservancy) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Water for migratory birds (Wildlife | ($20)|
|Conservation Board) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Protection/restoration of watersheds | ($100)|
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
4
| for endangered and threatened species | |
| (Wildlife Conservation Board) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Various conservancies (various | ($400)|
| conservancies) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Forest fuel reduction (Department of | ($100)|
|Forestry & Fire Protection) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Klamath River dam removal (Resources | ($250)|
|Agency) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Siskyou County economic development | ($10)|
|(BT&H Agency) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Waterfowl habitat (Dept of Fish & | ($5)|
|Game) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Salmon fish passage (Resources | ($60)|
|Agency) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Unallocated | ($290)|
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
|Groundwater Protection and Water Quality | $500|
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Groundwater cleanup for drinking | ($170)|
|water (Dept Public Health) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Disadvantaged communities (Dept of | ($45)|
|Public Health) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Small community wastewater treatment | ($95)|
| (State Water Resources Control Board - | |
| SWRCB)) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Stormwater management (SWRCB) | ($145)|
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Ocean protection (State Coastal | ($45)|
|Conservancy) | |
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
|Water Recycling | $500|
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
| Water recycling projects | ($250)|
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
5
| Water conservation and efficiency | ($250)|
|------------------------------------------+-----------------|
|Total |$9,400 |
| | |
------------------------------------------------------------
*Continuously appropriated to the California Water
Commission (all other amounts subject to legislative
appropriation to the Department of Water Resources (DWR)
unless an alternative lead agency is identified).
C. Local drought relief projects must be consistent
with an adopted integrated regional water management
plan, and must include one or more of certain
specified types of projects (e.g., water efficiency
and conservation projects, water recycling and
related infrastructure, stormwater capture, or
groundwater cleanup). Additionally, projects must
provide a sustainable water supply that does not
contribute to groundwater overdraft or increase
surface diversion, and must be capable of being
operational within two years of receiving funding.
Applicants that can demonstrate substantial past and
current investments in conservation and local water
projects are to receive funding preference; however,
a 50-percent non-state cost share is also required
unless the project is to benefit a disadvantaged or
economically distressed area (with no more than $50
million eligible to be awarded to disadvantaged
communities and economically distressed areas
experiencing economic impacts from drought and from
disruptions in delivery from the State Water Project
and the federal Central Valley Project). For the
purposes of this pot of funds, the bill specifies
that "drought relief projects" include those that
mitigate the impacts of reduction in Delta
diversions.
2. Delta Sustainability . The bill provides (1) $500 million
for projects that provide public benefits and support
Delta sustainability options; (2) $1.5 billion for Delta
protection, conservation, and restoration projects.
A. Projects that provide public benefits and support
Delta sustainability options, include projects and
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
6
supporting scientific studies and assessments that
meet specified requirements (e.g. improve levee and
flood control facilities; or assist in preserving
economically viable and sustainable agriculture and
economic activities in the Delta; or provide or
improve water quality facilities and other
infrastructure). Project grant awardees may include
Delta counties and cities. The bill specifies that
at least $50 million is to be available for matching
grants for improvements to wastewater treatment
facilities upstream of the Delta to improve Delta
water quality. Additionally, a project receiving
funding from this pot would only be eligible for
other bond funding pursuant to SB 2 to the extent
that combined state funding from this pot did not
exceed 50 percent of total projects costs.
B. Delta protection, conservation, and restoration
project funds are intended to enhance the
sustainability of the Delta ecosystem and, among
other things, may develop and implement the Bay Delta
Conservation Plan, reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from exposed delta soils, or reduce the impacts of
mercury contamination of the Delta and its
watersheds. Funds are to be made available to, among
other entities, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Conservancy (subject to its establishment in other
legislation).
3. Statewide Water System Operational Improvement . The bill
continuously appropriates $3 billion to the California
Water Commission (Commission) for public benefits
associated with water storage projects that (a) improve
the operation of the state water system; (b) are cost
effective; and (c) provide a net improvement in ecosystem
and water quality conditions. The Commission is to
develop and adopt, by regulation, methods for
quantification and management of "public benefits," in
consultation with DWR, the Department of Fish and Game,
and the SWRCB. Eligible public benefits include, but are
not limited to, ecosystem improvements such as
temperature and flow improvements, water quality
improvements in the Delta or other river systems, flood
control benefits, or recreational purposes.
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
7
Project selection is to be competitive and based on a
public process that ranks potential projects based on the
expected return-on-investment as measured by the
magnitude of certain public benefits criteria, as
specified. Eligible projects include (a) surface storage
projects identified in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program
Record of Decision (ROD), dated August 28, 2000; (b)
groundwater storage projects and groundwater
contamination prevention or remediation projects that
provide water storage benefits; (c) conjunctive use and
reservoir reoperation projects; and (d) local and
regional surface storage projects that improve the
operation of water systems in the state and provide
public benefits.
Other funding requirements for water system operational
improvement projects include the following:
A. No project may be funded that does not provide
ecosystem improvements that are at least 50 percent
of total public benefits.
B. By January 1, 2018, a project must meet all of the
following conditions to be eligible for funding: (1)
all feasibility studies are complete and draft
environmental documentation is available to the
public; (2) the Commission finds the project is
feasible and will advance certain long-term
objectives in the Delta; and (3) commitments are in
place for not less than 75 percent of the nonpublic
benefit cost share of the project. If a project
fails to meet these conditions in a timely manner
because of litigation, the Commission must extend the
deadline accordingly.
C. Except for the costs of environmental
documentation and permitting, no funds are to be made
available for projects before December 15, 2012.
D. Except for environmental documentation and
permitting projects (mentioned above), the public
benefit cost share of the project may not exceed 50
percent of total costs.
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
8
The bill also specifies that:
1.A joint powers authority subject to this section of the
bill shall own, govern, manage, and operate a surface
storage project.
2.Surface storage projects receiving funding may be made a
unit of the Central Valley Project.
3.Funds approved for surface water storage projects
consistent with the CALFED Program ROD, dated August
2000, may be provided to local joint powers authorities,
as specified.
Finally, this chapter of the bill (addressing statewide
water system operational improvements) may only be
amended by voter approval or a two-thirds vote of both
houses of the Legislature.
4. Conservation and Watershed Protection . The bill provides
$1.5 billion for watershed protection and restoration
projects to be allocated to each of at least 11 different
pots (as detailed below), and requires that amounts
allocated to projects in certain watersheds must be used
in a manner consistent with specified plans or programs
associated with that watershed.
A. Invasive species control funding ($65 million) is
to be administered by the Department of Fish and
Game, with $35 million to be made available for
grants to public agencies to pay for capital
expenditures associated with invasive species control
(e.g., chlorination facilities, habitat
modifications, or monitoring equipment). The bill
also specifies that the California Conservation Corps
or community conservation corps are to be used for
restoration and ecosystem protection projects
whenever feasible.
B. Coastal county watersheds funding ($200 million)
is to be administered by the State Coastal
Conservancy, with not less than $20 million to be
made available for grants to San Diego County and $20
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
9
million for the Santa Ana River Parkway.
C. Water for migratory birds funding ($20 million) is
to be administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board
(WCB)-either directly or via grants-for acquisition
of water rights and the conveyance of water for the
benefit of migratory birds on wildlife refuges and
wildlife habitat areas (subject to applicable federal
laws). The bill specifies that all costs associated
with acquisition of water rights by the WCB must be
paid out of the funds designated for the WCB (i.e.,
no other funding streams may be used to supplement
the costs of acquisitions funded by this bond).
D. Protection/restoration of watersheds for
endangered and threatened species funding ($100
million) is to be administered by the WCB consistent
with specified portions of the Fish and Game Code
(including requirements to implement or develop a
natural community conservation plan).
E. Various conservancies are to receive specified
portions of a $400 million allocation. The
allotments are as follows:
(1) $75 million to the San Gabriel and Lower Los
Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (for projects
in the San Gabriel and Los Angeles River
watersheds subject to the San Gabriel and Los
Angeles River Watershed and Open Space Plan and/or
the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan)
(2) $10 million to the Baldwin Hills Conservancy
(3) $15 million to Santa Monica Bay watershed
projects
(4) $50 million to the State Coastal Conservancy
(for coastal salmon restoration projects)
(5) $100 million to the Lake Tahoe Conservancy
(for the Lake Tahoe Environment Improvement
Program)
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
10
(6) $75 million to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy
(for various purposes, as specified)
(7) $75 million to Salton Sea restoration
projects
F. Forest fuel reduction funding ($100 million) is to
be administered by the Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection for direct expenditures or grants for
fuel treatment and forest restoration projects to
protect watersheds tributary to dams or reservoirs
from adverse impacts of fire and erosion, to promote
forest health in those watersheds, to protect life
and property, to provide for climate change
adaptation, and reduce total wildfire costs and
losses. The funds are to be allocated as follows:
(1) $67 million for technical assistance and
grants to public agencies and nonprofits for the
purpose of fuel treatment.
(2) $25 million for technical assistance and
grants and loans for fuel treatment and
reforestation projects to eligible landowners, as
specified, consistent with the California Forest
Improvement Act of 1978.
G. Klamath River dam removal funding ($250 million)
is to be available if, and when, a dam removal
agreement has been executed between the relevant
parties, appropriate determinations have been made by
California, Oregon, and the United States under the
agreement, ratepayer funds required by the agreement
have been authorized and provided, and all other
agreement conditions have been met.
H. Siskyou County economic redevelopment funding ($10
million) is to be available, with up to an additional
$10 million available to the county upon submission
of materials to the Secretary of Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency demonstrating that
more is necessary to offset the removal of the dams.
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
11
I. Water fowl habitat funding ($5 million) is to be
administered by the Department of Fish and Game for
the purposes of implementing the California Waterfowl
Habitat Program, the California Landowner Incentive
Program, and the Permanent Wetland Easement Program.
J. Salmon fish passage funding ($60 million) is to be
administered by the Natural Resources Agency for
specified projects authorized in the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act that improve salmonid fish
passage in the Sacramento River watershed.
K. The bill leaves $290 million of the monies for
conservation and watershed protection unallocated.
5. Groundwater Protection and Water Quality . The bill
provides $500 million for groundwater protection and
water quality, including (a) $170 million for groundwater
cleanup for drinking water; (b) $45 million for safe
drinking water in disadvantaged communities; (c) $95
million for wastewater treatment in small communities;
(d) $145 million for stormwater management; and (e) $45
million for ocean protection.
A. Groundwater cleanup for drinking water funding is
to be administered by the Department of Public Health
(DPH) for direct expenditures, grants, and loans for
projects to prevent or reduce contamination of
groundwater that serves as a source of drinking
water. Projects are to be prioritized based on the
threat posed by the contamination, the potential for
it to spread, the potential of the project to enhance
the local water supply reliability, and the potential
of the project to increase opportunities for
groundwater recharge and optimization of groundwater
supplies. The bill requires the DPH give special
consideration to other specified factors (e.g., the
need to import water in the absence of remediation;
or the degree to which the project will serve and
economically disadvantaged or distressed community).
Of the $170 million available in this section of the
bill, $130 million is to be allocated as follows:
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
12
(1) $80 million to projects that meet all other
requirements, but also (a) are part of a basinwide
management and remediation plan for which federal
funds have been allocated; and (b) the project
addresses contamination identified on lists
maintained by the Department of Toxics Substances
Control or the National Priorities List, as
specified.
(2) $50 million to the DPH for grants and direct
expenditures to finance emergency and urgent
actions on behalf of disadvantaged and
economically distressed communities to ensure safe
drinking water supplies.
B. Safe drinking water in disadvantaged communities
funding is to be administered by DPH for grants and
direct expenditures to finance emergency and urgent
actions on behalf of disadvantaged communities to
ensure that safe drinking water supplies are
available.
C. Small community wastewater treatment funding is to
be administered by the SWRCB for grants for small
community wastewater treatment projects to protect
water quality that meet the following criteria: (1)
the project is for specified wastewater treatment
infrastructure; (2) the project will service a
community of no more than 20,000 people; and (3) the
project meets other standards that may be established
by the SWRCB.
D. Stormwater management funding is to be
administered by the SWRCB for competitive grants and
loans for stormwater management and water quality
projects that assist in compliance with total maximum
daily load implementation plans are consistent with
all applicable waste discharge permits. Eligible
projects include facilities and infrastructure (e.g.,
detention and retention basins; dry weather diversion
facilities, trash filters, and screens; or treatment
wetlands creation and enhancement). Competitive
grants shall be considered based on the following
criteria:
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
13
(1) Water quality benefits
(2) Cost effectiveness
(3) Public health benefits
Except for disadvantaged and economically distressed
communities, the projects must provide at least a 50
percent local cost share for grants funds. Finally,
local public agencies and joint powers authorities
are eligible recipients.
E. Ocean protection funding is to be administered by
the State Coastal Conservancy for projects that meet
the requirements of the California Ocean Protection
Act, with funds to be allocated by the Ocean
Protection Council to public agencies for projects to
protect and improve water quality in areas of special
biological significance.
6. Water Recycling . The bill provides $500 million for
water recycling, including (a) $250 million for water
recycling and advanced treatment technology projects; and
(b) $250 million for water conservation and efficiency
projects and programs.
A. Water recycling and advanced treatment technology
funding is to be available for grants and loans for
projects including, but not limited to, contaminant
and salt removal projects, dedicated distribution
infrastructure for recycled water, and groundwater
recharge infrastructure related to recycled water.
Projects are to be selected on a competitive basis
considering specified criteria, such as water supply
reliability improvement, water quality and ecosystem
benefits related to decreased reliance on diversion
from the Delta or instream flows, and cost
effectiveness.
Not less than 40 percent of the funds are to be
available for grants for advanced treatment projects
that produce at least 10,000 acre feet of water per
year, and projects must have at least a 50-percent
local cost share (except for disadvantaged or
economically distressed communities).
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
14
B. Water conservation and efficiency funding is to be
available for direct expenditures, grants, and loans
for urban, and agricultural projects and programs
including, as specified. For urban/regional
conservation projects and programs, priority is to be
given for various specified reasons, including
whether a conservation effort is not otherwise
locally cost-effective. Grants and loans are to be
awarded in a competitive process that considers as
primary factors the local and statewide conservation
and water use efficiency benefits of the measures
proposed. Additionally, agencies that are required
to implement only limited conservation requirements
under specified law are not eligible for this
funding.
Overview of General Obligation Bonds and State Bond Debt
and SB 2 (7th Extraordinary Session) Debt Service
Implications and Considerations
Overview . Bond financing is a type of long-term borrowing
that the state uses to raise money for various purposes.
The state obtains this money by selling bonds to investors
and, in exchange, agrees to repay the investors their
money, with interest, according to a specified schedule.
This approach is traditionally used to finance major
capital outlay projects (e.g., roads, educational
facilities, prisons, parks, water projects, and office
buildings)-projects that generally provide services over
many years, but whose up-front costs can be difficult to
pay for all at once.
General obligation bonds (GO bonds) must be approved by the
voters and are most often paid off from the state's General
Fund, which is largely supported by tax revenues. Because
GO bonds are guaranteed by the state's general taxing
power, they provide investors with greater certainty of
return on their investment, and generally require a lower
interest rate, compared to other debt instruments available
to the state (e.g., lease-revenue bonds or traditional
revenue bonds). However, GO bond repayments are essentially
the first funding priority of the General Fund (after K-12
education) and, for this reason, bonded debt service takes
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
15
precedence over other spending priorities, be they
education, health, social services, prisons, etc.
SB 2 Debt Service Implications and Considerations . The
state's cost for using bonds depends on a number of
factors, including the amount sold, their interest rates,
the time period over which they are repaid, and their
maturity structure, but a useful rule of thumb is that each
$1 borrowed will cost the state about $2 (assuming a bond
issue carries a tax-exempt interest rate of 5 percent and
level payments are made over 30 years). This cost,
however, is spread over a 30-year period, so the cost after
adjusting for inflation is more like $1.30 for each $1
borrowed. Thus, unadjusted for inflation, the $9.4 billion
bond contained in SB 2xxxxxxx (henceforth, SB 2 or "the
bill") would cost the state roughly $18.8 billion over the
next 30 years (or $12.2 billion adjusted for inflation-that
is, in "2009 dollars"), requiring annual payments in the
neighborhood of $600 million to $675 million.
To put this in the larger context, according to the latest
data from the Department of Finance (DOF), total annual
debt service for the current fiscal year (2009-10) is
approximately $6 billion. This equates to a debt-service
ratio (DSR) of approximately 6.7 percent-meaning that $6.70
out of every $100 in annual state revenue must be set aside
for debt-service payments on bonds. Recognizing that there
is currently over $130 billion of outstanding bonds and
authorized, unissued bonds, and making certain assumptions
about their future issuance, DOF estimates that in the
absence of additional bond authorizations (e.g., SB 2), the
state's DSR will continue to rise for several more years
before peaking at around 9.4 percent of revenues, in fiscal
year 2014-15 (see Figure 1 below).
By way of comparison, based on the cashflow projections
contained in Appendix D, the DOF projects the $9.99 billion
in water bonds proposed under SB 2 would push peak DSR to
about 9.5 percent in 2014-2015, a debt burden increase in
that year of about 1.5 percent compared to the "allow
present trends to continue" scenario. Although, assuming
no other bond authorizations, the DSR would begin to
decline after 2014-15, staff notes that the "present trends
continuing" scenario would see a more rapid decline,
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
16
whereas the DOF projections for SB 2 would result in a
long-term DSR increase of around 7 percent for the
remainder of the forecast period.
----------------------------------------------------
| |
|Projected Infrastructure Debt-Service Ratios (DSRs) |
| |
|----------------------------------------------------|
| |
|(Dollars in Millions) |
| |
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
| | | | | |
| |Genera|Authorized Debt | | With SB 2xxxxxxx |
| | l | | | |
| | Fund | | | |
| | | | | (Water Bond) |
| |Revenu| | | |
| | esa | | | |
----------------------------------------------------
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| | | | | | | |
| | | Debt Service | DSR | | Additional | DSR |
| | | | | | Debt Service | |
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2009-10 |88,805 |5,945 |6.69% | |- |6.69% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2010-11 |90,656 |6,877 |7.59% | |- |7.59% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2011-12 |87,951 |7,549 |8.58% | |4 |8.59% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2012-13 |95,049 |8,121 |8.54% | |26 |8.57% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2013-14 |99,801 |9,208 |9.23% | |78 |9.30% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2014-15 |104,791 |9,825 |9.38% | |149 |9.52% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2015-16 |110,031 |10,054 |9.14% | |228 |9.34% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2016-17 |115,532 |10,254 |8.88% | |326 |9.16% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
17
| 2017-18 |121,309 |10,461 |8.62% | |427 |8.97% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2018-19 |127,374 |10,239 |8.04% | |523 |8.45% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2019-20 |133,743 |10,170 |7.60% | |607 |8.06% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2020-21 |140,430 |9,907 |7.06% | |650 |7.52% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2021-22 |147,452 |9,831 |6.67% | |677 |7.13% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2022-23 |154,824 |9,862 |6.37% | |677 |6.81% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2023-24 |162,565 |9,227 |6.01% | |677 |6.43% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2024-25 |170,694 |9,789 |5.73% | |677 |6.13% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2025-26 |179,228 |9,770 |5.45% | |677 |5.83% |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 2026-27 |188,190 |9,455 |5.02% | |677 |5.38% |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 2027-28 |197,599 |9,459 |4.79% | |677 |5.13% |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| 2028-29 |207,479 |9,330 |4.50% | |677 |4.82% |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
| |
----------------------------------------------------
| a DOF projections. |
|----------------------------------------------------|
| |
| |
----------------------------------------------------
The DSR is often used as a general indicator of a state's
debt burden and provides a helpful perspective on the
affordability of debt; however, it is important to note
that there is no "right" level for the DSR. Rather, the
right level depends on such things as the state's
preferences for infrastructure versus other priorities, and
its overall budgetary condition. The critical thing to
bear in mind is that each additional dollar of debt service
out of a given amount of revenues comes at the expense of a
dollar that could be allocated to some other program area.
Thus, the "affordability" of more bonds has to be
SB 2XXXXXXX
Page
18
considered not just in terms of their marketability and the
DSR, but also in terms of whether the dollar amount of debt
service can be accommodated on both a near- and long-term
basis within the state budget.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Per Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee
analysis)
Association of California Water Agencies
California Chamber of Commerce
California Cotton Growers Association
California Groundwater Coalition
California Farm Bureau
Friant Water Authority
Kern County Water Agency
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
State Building and Construction Trade Council of California
Wateruse Association
Westlands Water District
OPPOSITION : (Per Senate Budget and Fiscal Review
Committee analysis)
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California School Employees Association
Contra Costa Water District
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Friends of the River
Planning and Conservation League
Restore the Delta
Service Employees International Union
Sierra Club California
Yolo County Board of Supervisors
TSM:do 11/2/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****