BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: SB 848 HEARING: 2/26/14
AUTHOR: Wolk FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 2/20/14 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Grinnell
SAFE DRINKING WATER, WATER QUALITY, AND WATER SUPPLY ACT OF
2014 (URGENCY)
Replaces current $11.1 billion water bond with $6.825
billion one; allows Legislature to reallocate previously
authorized water bonds.
Background and Existing Law
I. Bond Acts. When public agencies issue bonds, they
essentially borrow money from investors, who provide cash
in exchange for the agencies' commitment to repay the
principal amount of the bond plus interest. Bonds are
usually either revenue bonds, which repay investors out of
revenue generated from the project the agency buys with
bond proceeds, or general obligation bonds, which the
public agency pays out of general revenues and are
guaranteed by its full faith and credit.
Section 1 of Article XVI of the California Constitution and
the state's General Obligation Bond Law guide the issuance
of the state's general obligation debt. The Constitution
allows the Legislature to place general obligation bonds on
the ballot for specific purposes with a two-thirds vote of
the Assembly and Senate. Voters also can place bonds on
the ballot by initiative, as they have for parks, water
projects, high-speed rail, and stem cell research, among
others. Either way, general obligation bonds must be
ratified by majority vote of the state's electorate.
Unlike local general obligation bonds, the state's
electorate doesn't automatically trigger an increased tax
to repay the bonds when they approve a state general
obligation bond. Article XVI of the California
Constitution commits the state to repay investors from
general revenues above all other claims, except payments to
public education. California voters approved $38.4
billion of general obligation bonds between 1974 and 1999,
SB 848 - 2/20/14 -- PageB
but approximately $95 billion since 2000.
Bond acts have standard provisions that authorize the
Treasurer to sell a specified amount of bonds, and
generally include several uniform provisions that:
Establish the state's obligation to repay them, and
pledge its full faith and credit to repayment,
Set forth issuance procedures, and link the bond
act to the state's General Obligation Bond Law,
Create a finance committee with specified
membership, chaired by the State Treasurer,
Charge the committee to determine whether it is
"necessary or desirable" to issue the bonds,
Add other mechanisms necessary for the Treasurer
and the Department of Finance to implement the bond
act, including allowing the board to request a loan
from the Pooled Money Investment Board to advance
funds for bond-funded programs prior to the bond sale,
among others.
In bond acts, the Legislature generally:
Sets forth categories of projects eligible for bond
funds, such as library construction or school facility
modernization,
Chooses an administrative agency to award the
funds, such as the State Librarian or the State
Allocation Board,
Sets the criteria to guide the administrative
agency's funding in each category,
Enacts enforcement and audit provisions, and
Provide for an election to approve the bond act.
Should the voters approve the bond act, the Legislature
then appropriates funds to the chosen state agencies to
fund projects consistent with the criteria, generally as
part of the Budget Act. The Department of Finance then
surveys departments to determine need for bond funds based
on a project's readiness, and then asks the Treasurer to
sell bonds in a specified amount. After the bond sale, the
Department of Finance determines which bond acts and
departments receive bond proceeds.
The Legislature has enacted several bond acts through the
years to fund water projects in the following total
amounts:
California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1976
($172 million),
SB 848 - 2/20/14 -- PageC
Clean Water and Water Conservation Bond Law of 1978
($375 million),
California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1984
($75 million),
Water Conservation and Water Quality Bond Law of
1986 ($150 million),
California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1986
($100 million),
California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1988
($75 million),
Water Conservation Bond Law of 1988 ($60 million),
Clean Water and Water Reclamation Bond Law of 1988
($65 million),
Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act of 1996
($995 million),
Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply,
Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act
(2000) ($1.9 billion),
Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air,
and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 ($2.1
billion),
California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe
Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002
($2.6 billion), and
Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act
of 2006 ($4.1 billion).
Additionally, voters have also approved the following bond
acts that funded water projects by initiative in the
following total amounts.
Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and
Beach Protection Act of 2002 ($3.4 billion), and
Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply,
Flood Control, and River and Coastal Protection Bond
Act of 2006 ($5.4 billion).
The Legislature enacted the Safe, Clean, and Reliable
Drinking Water Supply Act (SBx7 2, Cogdill, 2010), which
directed the Treasurer to sell $11.14 billion in bonds to
fund drought relief, water supply reliability, Delta
sustainability, statewide water system operational
improvement, conservation and watershed protection,
groundwater protection and water quality, and water
recycling. The SBx7 2 bond provides $455 million for
drought relief, $1.05 billion for water supply reliability,
$2.25 billion for delta sustainability, $3 billion for
statewide water system operational improvement, $1.785
SB 848 - 2/20/14 -- PageD
billion for conservation and watershed protections, $1
billion for groundwater protection and water quality, and
$1 billion for water recycling programs.
On February 26, 2013, this Committee and the Committee on
Natural Resources held a joint informational hearing
entitled "Overview of California's Debt Condition: Priming
the Pump for a Water Bond," where representatives from the
Treasurer's Office and Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO)
provided testimony relating to the state's general
obligation debt condition and the potential effects of
altering the SBx7 2 bond. A recording of the hearing and
related documents are available online:
http://sntr.senate.ca.gov/informationaloversighthearings
While the joint hearing provided significant data regarding
the state's debt condition, since that time, updated
information as of January 1, 2014 shows a total of $127
billion of authorized debt, $75 billion of which is
outstanding, meaning the state issued the bonds and is
currently repaying them, and $27.5 billion authorized, but
not yet issued, according to the State Treasurer.
California paid approximately $4.7 billion from general
revenues to service that debt in 2012-13, $5.9 billion in
2013-14, and will pay $6.3 billion in 2014-15, according to
the Department of Finance. However, these amounts are
offset by payments of around $1 billion from other sources,
such as truck weight fees.
The Legislature initially placed the SBx7 2 bond on the
November, 2010 ballot, but later moved it to November, 2012
(AB 1265, Caballero). In 2012, the Legislature again moved
the measure to the November, 2014 ballot (AB 1422, Perea,
2012). Concerned that the voters may not approve the $11.1
billion bond, the author wants to replace the measure with
a $6.825 billion bond to submit for voter approval in
November, 2014.
II. Reallocating Previously Authorized Bond Funds. Four
previously enacted bond laws, the California Safe Drinking
Water Bond Law of 1986, the California Safe Drinking Water
Bond Law of 1986, the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply
Act of 1996, and the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and
Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond
Act of 2000 contain authorizations for approximately
$230,000 in bonds that have not yet been issued.
SB 848 - 2/20/14 -- PageE
Proposed Law
I. Bond Act. Senate Bill 848 repeals SBx7 2, and instead
enacts the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Water
Supply Act of 2014, which allows the Treasurer to issue
$6.825 in bonds to fund the Act's purposes upon voter
approval.
In summary, the measure allocates $900 million for safe
drinking water and water quality projects, $2 billion for
water supply enhancement projects, $1.2 billion for the
Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, $1.7 billion in watershed and
ecosystem improvements, and $1.025 billion in water storage
projects. For a more specific inventory of funding and
conditions, see the Committee on Natural Resources
Analysis:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb
_848_cfa_20140207_093744_sen_comm.html or the Committee on
Environmental Quality's Analysis:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb
_848_cfa_20140218_111915_sen_comm.html .
SB 848 includes standard provisions from bond acts, and
incorporates other provisions from the General Obligation
Bond Law by reference, except for its provisions that limit
the use of the proceeds from the sale of bonds. The bill
creates a finance committee to determine whether it is
necessary or desirable to issue the bonds. The committee
consists of the following members (or their designated
representatives):
The State Treasurer, as chair,
The Director of Finance,
The Controller,
The Director of Water Resources, and
The Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency.
The measure allows the Department of Water Resources to
request a loan from the Pooled Money Investment Board.
II. Accountability, Oversight, and Clarifications. Senate
Bill 848 directs the proceeds of bonds sold to be deposited
in the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Water Supply
Fund of 2014, created by the bill. The Legislature must
appropriate funds according to the bill's purposes.
Additionally, the measure:
Caps, at 5%, an agency's costs of administration,
Caps, at 10%, an agency's finance, planning, and
SB 848 - 2/20/14 -- PageF
monitoring costs necessary for the successful design,
selection and implementation of projects, as defined,
Provides that the Administrative Procedures Act
doesn't apply to the development of the bill's
programs,
Directs agencies to develop project solicitation
and evaluation guidelines prior to disbursing grants
or loans, although agencies may use previously
developed guidelines,
Requires agencies to conduct three public meetings
to consider public comment prior to disbursing funds,
and publish the above required guidelines on their
websites 30 days prior to any meeting,
Requires projects funded with bond proceeds to
promote priorities contained in the Governor's State
Environmental Goals and Policy Report, as well as
sustainable communities strategies required by SB 375
(Steinberg, 2008).
Directs the Wildlife Conservation Board to achieve
its objectives on public lands or with voluntary
projects on private land to the extent feasible, and
allows the Board in consultation with the Department
of Fish and Wildlife to use funds to pay landowners
for specified purposes. Funds cannot be used to
reduce any party's mitigation responsibilities.
Allows the Delta Conservancy to develop and
implement a competitive habitat credit exchange
mechanism,
Requires the Conservancy to coordinate, cooperate,
and consult with the city or county in which a grant
is proposed, and to only make acquisitions from
willing sellers. The Conservancy must require local
grantees to demonstrate how local economic impacts
will be mitigated.
Bars bond funding from being used to acquire land
by eminent domain.
Directs agencies to use the California Conservation
Corps or certified community conservation corps for
restoration and ecosystem protection projects where
feasible.
Requires the State Auditor to conduct an annual
programmatic review and expenditure audit, and report
findings annually on or before March 1st.
Prohibits funds from being used to support or pay
for the costs of environmental mitigation or
compliance obligations except as part of environmental
mitigation of projects financed by the bond, or for
SB 848 - 2/20/14 -- PageG
the acquisition or transfer of water rights except for
permanent dedication under specified circumstances.
Provides that bond funds cannot be used for the
design, operation, construction, maintenance, or
mitigation of Delta conveyance facilities.
Limits applicants to public agencies, nonprofit
organizations, public utilities, mutual water
companies, and Indian tribes having a federally
recognized governing body, as defined. Projects
proposed by public utilities regulated by the
California Public Utilities Commission or mutual water
companies must have a clear and definite public
purpose and benefit the customers of the water system.
States that the bond act does not diminish, impair,
or otherwise affect in any manner any water rights or
protections.
Says that an area that uses water diverted and
conveyed from the Sacramento River hydrologic region
for use outside that region or the Delta shall not be
deemed to be immediately adjacent to or capable of
being conveniently supplied with water by virtue of
that diversion or conveyance that may be built for
that purpose after January 1, 2014.
Provides that the bond act doesn't supersede,
limit, or modify the applicability of Chapter 10 of
the Water Code, the state board's authority or
regulation of diversion and use of water, that of the
courts, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act,
or the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
III. Reallocating Previously Authorized Bond Funds. Senate
Bill 848 allows the Legislature to appropriate funds from
the Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1986, the California
Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1986, the Safe, Clean,
Reliable Water Supply Act of 1996, and the Safe Drinking
Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and
Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 for water supply grants
and expenditures upon voter approval.
IV. Other Provisions. SB 848 clarifies that bond proceeds
are not subject to the "Gann Limits" on government spending
(California Constitution, Article XIIIB). The measure also
makes legislative findings and declarations, and defines
many of its terms. The bill also contains an urgency
clause with specific facts justifying the urgency.
SB 848 - 2/20/14 -- PageH
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill . According to the Author,
"California faces critical water challenges in the next
decade. Legal battles and controversial projects have
slowed the response to the ecosystem crisis in the Delta.
Small communities throughout the Central Valley lack access
to safe drinking water. Our cities face some of the
highest flood risks of any metropolitan areas in the
country. Climate change is stressing water supplies
throughout California. Funding to meet these water
challenges is dwindling. Yet, controversy and lack of
fiscal restraint have resulted in water bond proposals that
are not viable and cannot be supported by California's
voters. SB 848 is a $6.8 billion water bond that focuses
on California's most critical and broadly supported water
needs: regional and local water supplies throughout the
state; critical drinking water needs; delta ecosystem
restoration and stronger levees to improve water delivery;
groundwater and surface water storage that provide public
benefits; and better flood protection. SB 848 would
replace the $11.14B, pork-filled water bond currently
slated for the 2014 ballot-which is too expensive and too
controversial to ever pass with the voters.
SB 848 doesn't fund everything. It doesn't fund enormous
tunnels or large projects that lack consensus. But it does
fund a great number of water supply improvements for every
community in the state, including new water systems,
surface and groundwater storage projects, groundwater
cleanup, recycling and conservation. Only the most
fiscally competitive projects will be funded. SB 848
focuses on financing the most cost-effective local and
regional projects, projects that will provide greater water
supply independence and self-reliance while delivering a
more clean and reliable supply of water for all of
California's communities."
2. Sixteen tons . Debt is an essential part of almost every
government, business, and personal balance sheet, as
borrowers seek funds from lenders in exchange for a future
commitment to repay them. However, evaluating the State's
SB 848 - 2/20/14 -- PageI
general obligation debt is difficult; both the State
Treasurer and the Legislative Analyst's Office suggest
there's no correct amount. Instead, experts suggest that
states should look at three criteria: affordability,
comparability, and optimality<1>:
California's debt is affordable; the State Treasurer
estimates that the state will spend 7.7% of General Fund
revenues on debt service in 2012-13. However, these costs
reduce the funding that is available for other priorities.
Debt service is one of the fastest growing state costs,
expected to reach $8.6 billion in 2017-18 assuming no new
authorizations, according to the Governor's Five-Year
Infrastructure Plan. The Plan proposes no new general
obligation bonds, instead relying on more limited
lease-revenue bonds because of the increased debt burden.
California's comparability to other states is less
favorable. The State Treasurer's Debt Affordability Report
contains the following chart:
------------------------------------------------------------
|Debt Ratios Of 10 Most Populous States, Ranked By Ratio Of |
|Debt To Personal Income |
| |
------------------------------------------------------------
|----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------|
| State | Moody's/ |Debt To |Debt Per | Debt As A |
| | S&P/ |Personal|Capita(b)| % |
| | Fitch(a) | | | Of State |
| | |Income(b| | GDP(b)(c) |
| | | ) | | |
|----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------|
|Texas |Aaa/AA+/AAA| 1.5% | $580 | 1.16% |
| | | | | |
|----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------|
|Michigan |Aa2/AA-/AA | 2.2% | $800 | 2.05% |
| | | | | |
|----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------|
|North Carolina |Aaa/AAA/AAA| 2.4% | $853 | 1.89% |
| | | | | |
-------------------------
<1>
Robert Wassmer and Ronald Fisher "Debt Burdens of
California State and Local Governments: Past, Present and
Future." As requested and supported by the California Debt
and Investment Advisory Commission. July 2011.
SB 848 - 2/20/14 -- PageJ
|----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------|
|Pennsylvania |Aa2/AA/AA+ | 2.8% | $1,208 | 2.66% |
| | | | | |
|----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------|
|Ohio |Aa1/AA+/AA+| 2.8% | $1,047 | 2.50% |
| | | | | |
|----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------|
|Florida |Aa1/AAA/AAA| 2.8% | $1,087 | 2.78% |
| | | | | |
|----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------|
|Georgia |Aaa/AAA/AAA| 3.0% | $1,061 | 2.51% |
| | | | | |
|----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------|
|Illinois | A3/A-/A- | 5.7% | $2,526 | 4.85% |
|----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------|
|California | A1/A/A | 5.8% | $2,565 | 4.98% |
|----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------|
|New York |Aa2/AA/AA | 6.3% | $3,174 | 5.36% |
-----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
|Moody's Median All States | 2.8% | $1,074 | 2.47% |
| | | | |
|-----------------------------+--------+---------+-----------|
| | | | |
|Median For The 10 Most | 2.8% | $1,074 | 2.59% |
|Populous States | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
| |
|(a) Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch Ratings as of |
|September 2012. |
| |
|(b) Figures as reported by Moody's in its 2012 State Debt |
|Medians Report released May 2012. As of calendar year end |
|2011. |
| |
|(c) State GDP numbers have a one-year lag. |
| |
| |
------------------------------------------------------------
Determining optimality or whether government is investing
in the quantity and quality of public capital desired by
residents, and financing the appropriate share with debt,
is very difficult. LAO recommends that the Legislature
SB 848 - 2/20/14 -- PageK
consider the recently released Five-Year Infrastructure
Plan as a starting point to developing a coordinated
approach to infrastructure funding, and establish a
committee to focus on statewide infrastructure. In the
water area, LAO recommends:
Reduce infrastructure demand,
Ensure that beneficiaries and polluters pay,
Decide on a mix of state funding mechanisms and
sources, and match them with each activity,
Use bond funds for large capital projects that meet
a need over several decades, and
Determine relative priority for water
infrastructure as part of the state's total need.
3. Power to the people . SB 848 repeals the larger SBx7 2
bond, and replaces it with one $4.275 billion cheaper.
However, any debt analysis is contingent on whether voters
are more likely to approve this bond, the previous one, or
none at all: Should SB 848 be enacted, the voters will
decide whether to add $6.825 to the total of authorized
general obligation bonds, thereby limiting the amount
voters could add on top of California's current $127
billion total. However, the state won't incur any debt
should the Legislature choose not to replace the SBx7 2
bond, and voters reject it.
4. The good news . Investors ultimately determine a
state's creditworthiness and the interest rate paid on a
bond when they bid to purchase one. However, ratings
issued from the three major ratings agencies often inform
investors and then public regarding the investment risk of
purchasing a California general obligation bond. These
ratings change over time in response to a state's fiscal
situation and economy, among other factors. In January,
ratings agency Standard and Poor's raised the outlook on
the state's general obligation debt from stable to
positive, which often portends an upgrade, following on the
agency's boost for California from A- to A last year, as
well as Fitch's upgrade last August. However, the state
still has the second lowest rating in the nation.
5. The bad news . California has a distinct problem: of the
$127 billion that voters have authorized, almost $27
billion hasn't been issued yet. The state hasn't issued
almost $7 billion in transportation bonds, and $9.2 billion
in high speed rail bonds, because the projects haven't yet
received the needed approvals. Should the voters approve
SB 848 - 2/20/14 -- PageL
new general obligation debt for water, the state would
either have to sell sufficient debt to fund everything, and
increase debt service costs accordingly, or choose which of
these projects should be funded first.
6. Second thoughts . SB 848 allows the Legislature to
appropriate funds from four previously authorized bonds
with voter approval. The Legislature has given similar
authority with voter approval three times before:
AB 1168 (Greene, 1996), which voters approved as
Proposition 203.
SB 900 (Costa, 1996), which voters approved as
Proposition 204, and
AB 1584 (Machado, 2000), approved as Proposition
13.
SB 848 would allow the Legislature to appropriate from both
measures' bonding authority. Alternatively, the
Legislature can also return unissued bond authority to the
general fund. However, SB 848's specific language should
be conformed to the previous measures by amending the bill
to more closely resemble these previously approved measures
7. Technicals . The Committee on Natural Resources heard
SB 848 on February 11th, and the Committee on Environmental
Quality on February 19th. Given the bill's relatively
rapid movement, there may be technical and clarifying
amendments necessary in addition to the change recommended
in Comment #6.
8. Urgency . The California Constitution requires the
Legislature to approve bond acts by a 2/3 vote.
Additionally, SB 848 contains an urgency clause that
provides that the bill will take effect immediately if
enacted, not on the typical effective date of January 1,
2015.
9. Other measures . SB 848 is one of several water bond
proposals, including:
SB 927 (Cannella and Vidak) - amends the SBx7 2
bond, reduces the authorized amount from $11.1 billion
to $9.2 billion, and renames the measure the Safe,
Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2014.
SB 1080 (Fuller) - currently legislative intent
only.
SB 1250 (Hueso) - currently legislative intent
only.
SB 848 - 2/20/14 -- PageM
SB 1370 (Galgiani) - repeals SBx7 2 bond, and
replace it with the Reliable Water Supply Bond Act of
2014, a $5.1 billion bond that funds three surface
water storage projects.
AB 1331 (Rendon) - repeals the SBx7 2 bond, and
replaces it with the Clean and Safe Drinking Water Act
of 2014, a $6.5 billion bond that finances a variety
of water resources related programs and projects.
AB 1445 (Logue) - repeals the SBx7 2 bond, and
replaces it with the California Water Infrastructure
Act of 2014, a $5.8 billion bond to finance public
benefits associated with water storage projects.
AB 2043 (Bigelow) - repeals the SBx7 2 bond, and
replaces it with the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Water
Supply Act, a $7.935 billion bond for drought relief,
water supply reliability, Delta sustainability,
statewide water system improvement, groundwater
protection and water quality, as well as a water
recycling, conservation, and efficiency program.
Support and Opposition (2/24/14)
Support : American Planning Association; Bay Area Open
Space Council; Big Sur Land Trust, California Association
of Local Conservation Corps.; California Association of
Resource Conservation Districts; California Trout (seek
amendments); Castroville CSD; City of Cloverdale; City of
Cotati; City of Healdsburg; City of Rohnert Park; City of
Sonoma; City of Ukiah; City of Watsonville; City of Santa
Rosa; Clean Water Action (seek amendments); Community Water
Center (seek amendments); Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors; County of Marin; County of Monterey; County of
Sacramento; County of San Joaquin; County of Santa Cruz;
County of Solano; County of Sonoma; County of Ventura;
County of Yolo; Davenport Sanitation District; Ecology
Action; Environmental Defense Fund; Freedom Sanitation
District; Friends of the Friends of the Desert Mountains;
Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District; Heal the Bay
(seek amendments); Hidden Valley Lake Water District;
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District; John J. Benoit,
Riverside County Supervisor; Land Trust of Santa Cruz
County; Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
(seek amendments); Marin Municipal Water District; Monterey
County Water Resources Agency; Napa County Resource
Conservation District; Natural Resources Defense Fund;
Nature Conservancy; North Bay Watershed Association; North
SB 848 - 2/20/14 -- PageN
Bay Water Reuse Authority; North Marin Water District;
Novato Sanitary District; Occidental CSD; Pajaro Valley
Water Management Agency; Peninsula Open Space Trust;
PolicyLink (seek amendments); Resource Conservation
District of Santa Cruz County; Russian River CSD; Russian
River Watershed Association;; Sacramento Regional County
Sanitation District; ; Santa Cruz County Resource
Conservation District; Santa Rosa Board of Public
Utilities; Sierra Club of California;; Solano County Water
Agency; Sonoma County Water Agency; Sonoma RCD; Sonoma
Valley CSD; Soquel Creek Water District; South Park CSD;
Town of Windsor; Trout Unlimited (seen amendments); Valley
of the Moon Water District;; Water Bond Coalition
Opposition : Association of California Water Agencies
(unless amended); Browns Valley Irrigation District (unless
amended); California Alliance for Jobs; California Building
Industry Association (unless amended); California Business
Properties Association; California Chamber of Commerce;
California Citrus Mutual; California Cotton Ginners and
Growers Association; California Farm Bureau Federation
(unless amended); Calleguas Municipal Water District
(unless amended); Castaic Lake Water Agency; City of
Corona; Dublin San Ramon Services District (unless
amended); Eastern Municipal Water District (unless
amended); Helix Water District (unless amended); Kern
County Water Agency; Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
(unless amended); Mesa Water District (unless amended);
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (unless
amended); Mojave Water Agency; Monte Vista Water District
(unless amended); Moulton Niguel Water District (unless
amended); Nisei; Northern California Water Association
(unless amended); Riverside Public Utilities (unless
amended); San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District;
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority; South Tahoe Public
Utilities District (unless amended); Southern California
Water Committee; Three Valley's Municipal Water District
(unless amended); Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water
District; Valley Center Municipal Water District (unless
amended); Western Agricultural Processors Association;
Western Growers Association; Western Municipal Water
District; Westlands Water District; Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa
Water Storage District.