BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 157
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 10, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared Huffman, Chair
AB 157 (Jeffries) - As Introduced: January 19, 2011
SUBJECT : Water Bond: 25% reduction
SUMMARY : Reduces the water bond scheduled for the November
2012 general election by twenty-five percent across-the-board.
EXISTING LAW: Authorizes the issuance of $11.14 billion in
general obligation bonds if approved by the voters in the
November 2, 2012 statewide general election.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : On October 11, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger issued
a proclamation convening the Legislature to meet in
extraordinary session to take up issues related to protecting
and restoring the Delta ecosystem and improving water
reliability and management, including addressing water
conveyance, storage, conservation and groundwater and
considering a general obligation bond.
SB 2 X7 (Cogdill), Chapter 3, Statutes of the 2009-10 Seventh
Extraordinary Session, passed in November 2009, formed part of
the historic five-bill package adopted in that session and
called for the Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply
Act of 2010 (Water Bond) to be placed on the November 2010
ballot. If approved by the voters, SB 2 authorized the issuance
of $11.14 billion in general obligation bonds for a wide range
of projects and purposes.
However, on August 5, 2010, an existing bill, AB 1265, was
gutted and amended to move the Water Bond to the 2012 general
election. At that time, supporters of AB 1265 stated that
"given the current economic climate and the need to focus on the
state's dire budget shortfall, we recognize that the decision
�to delay the bond vote] is intended to maximize chances of
success for the water package over the next decade."
Detractors, such as the Los Angeles Times, stated it another way
advising that the "governor and the Legislature did the smart
thing politically by removing their pork-stuffed water bond
proposal from the voters' grasp in November." The San Francisco
AB 157
Page 2
Chronicle echoed this sentiment when it stated that the bond had
"come under increasing criticism because of its cost, the
inclusion of $2 billion in earmarks that opponents call pork,
and a provision that would allow private corporations to own and
operate taxpayer-built reservoirs and other water storage
projects." The Chronicle acknowledged that AB 1265 both changed
the timing of the Water Bond vote and removed the for-profit
entities provision.
Supporting arguments : The author of this bill states that water
"storage, recycling, groundwater programs, and environmental
projects would all be equally reduced, keeping any of the
multitudes of interested parties involved in the �SB 2]
agreement from being unfairly targeted for disproportionate
reductions. And while a 25% reduction is significant, no program
would be defunded entirely. Given our political and economic
realities, I do not believe this is a choice between receiving
$11.14 billion in funding or something 25% less, but rather a
choice between a modestly smaller bond and the failure of a
larger bond, leaving no funding at all."
Opposing arguments : Some opponents state that AB 157 would
reduce the total amount of the Water Bond and thus "result in a
corresponding reduction in funding available for important water
resources projects promoting conservation, recycling, stormwater
capture, and groundwater cleanup." In particular, one group is
concerned about a 25% reduction of the $3 billion continuously
appropriated for surface storage projects and finds it "unlikely
that $2.25 billion would be sufficient to make progress on
multiple large-scale projects." Opponents add that "the Water
Bond was the result of intensive and complex negotiations on the
2009 Comprehensive Water Package (Delta Package) and reflected a
bipartisan consensus around the State's infrastructure needs and
priorities. Attempts to change the scope of the Water Bond
could damage this consensus, negatively affect its chances for
voter approval, and undermine support for the negotiated
policies contained in the Delta Package, many of which are in
the beginning stages of implementation."
Other opponents "believe that an $8.36 billion bond still
represents an unacceptable level of new debt, since it will
require a General Fund diversion of nearly a half-billion
dollars each year to repay." These opponents also "continue to
have significant concerns with the priorities and criteria in
the bond; and these concerns have only increased with time. By
AB 157
Page 3
the November 2012 election, this bond language will be three
years old. In this three year period our understanding of what
is needed and how it can be financed will be further informed by
several ongoing processes, including the Delta Plan and new
information on conservation achievements and potential."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
Association of California Water Agencies
BIOCOM
California Farm Bureau Federation
City of Los Angeles
Clean Water Action
Food and Water Watch
Friant Water Authority
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
Western Growers
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096