Future water district bond still needed
January 2007

By: Charley Wilson
President, Santa Margarita Water District Board of Directors

During last November’s election, many of us at the Santa Margarita Water District kept a close eye on how California voters reacted to a comprehensive bond package backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger – initiatives intended to repair and fortify California’s aging infrastructure. Among the many measures approved were two water-related bonds, Proposition 84 and Proposition 1E.

Political ads about the election were abundant and sometimes confusing, so you aren’t alone if you missed some of the important details about Proposition 84, the Clean Water and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, and Proposition 1E, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006. Proposition 84 will provide billions in funding for important water reliability and flood control programs statewide and Proposition 1E will provide an additional $4.1 billion in bond funding exclusively for previously neglected levees and other flood control infrastructure and programs.

While aspects of both approved propositions are important to our state’s water supply development and reliability, many water leaders feel strongly that a future water bond is needed if we are to continue to meet the state’s growing demand for water. This bond would have to include the proper balance of surface storage, new water supplies, and water conservation and reuse. Santa Margarita Water District supports this approach.

Building new surface storage reservoirs has drawn strong opposition from the majority of the California Legislature, primarily for environmental reasons and concerns about growth. Proponents of surface storage note that California is adding 500,000 new residents each year, so conservation and reuse alone will not solve our water supply needs. New storage facilities can be built to address environmental concerns, and must be built to meet growing demand.

Unfortunately, it appears that most of the Legislature continues to have a strong sentiment against a balanced approach, so legislation allowing new reservoirs will not be passed for consideration by California voters. Instead, the organizations that would stop these projects tend to have the monetary resources to qualify and promote propositions with names that imply water supply improvements and ballot statements that mention water – a strategy that has worked to pass previous measures that include programs and projects that accomplish attractive environmental goals, but don’t address the state’s real water needs. The solution to this problem is a better-informed public, which columns like this are intended to create.

While some of the benefits from the recently passed propositions will trickle down to SMWD, local residents would be better served by understanding and backing the need for more balanced legislative initiatives and propositions. Not unlike a financial investment portfolio, our customers will derive more benefit and water supply reliability by a diversified water investment portfolio rather than counting on conservation and reuse practices that someday, in the absence of developing new supplies, will transcend into water shortages.

Substantive policy changes take time, and while we wait for more significant assistance from Sacramento, SMWD will apply for grants provided by the recently approved November propositions. In previous years, SMWD has received money for repairs and new construction projects through Proposition 50, a previous bond measure similar to Propositions 84 and 1E.

As the second-largest water district in Orange County, SMWD representatives will continue to lobby for the critical policy changes needed to meet the water needs of thousands of area residents. With our work and the work of other water districts throughout the state, we hope that 2008 will bring a water bond that includes provisions for agriculture water conservation, urban water conservation, water recycling, desalination, water quality projects – and new surface storage and water infrastructure.

# # #