SacBee’s Capitol Alert is reporting that the size of a "comprehensive water solution" package is well over nine billion (with a b) bucks. That is a lot of money – and a lot of borrowing.
There are a lot of water-related policy aspects at play, and not being a water policy expert, I will leave that to others to sort through.
But I do have some concerns about the size of the package in terms of raw dollars. It seems vastly expensive. I guess the first question would be how much of that package is made up of lease revenue bonds that SHOULD come to a vote of the people but often don’t. The embarrassing approval of those prison-bonds without voter approval comes to mind. There’s been plenty of time since then to put them to a vote of the people for ratification — but, I digress…
To keep me and those taxpayer advocates that I know from opposing the "comprehensive water solution" on amount-of-spending grounds, there is a very simple test that must be applied:
1. HOW MUCH INFRASTRUCTURE DO WE NEED TO BUILD?
We need to have trustworthy water policy experts who are not in the employee of state government walk us through how much spending is necessary to actually build the necessary dams and conveyance systems. Then we need to see that wherever possible, this infrastructure is being paid for with revenue bonds (i.e… paid for by those using the stored or conveyed water).
2. HOW MUCH ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION WORK IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO BUILD NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE?
Again, trustworthy environmental policy experts who are not state employees need to make it clear how much mitigation is really required here in order to get the approvals for infrastructure to be built.
DOES EVERY LINE ITEM OF SPENDING IN THE PROPOSED PACKAGE GO TO FUND EITHER ITEM #1 OR ITEM #2 ABOVE?
If the answer is yes, we are off to the races on a water-solution that everyone can unite behind. Every line item of spending should be marked as "1" or "2" depending on which item above is applicable to justify it. If neither number applies, that line item should be deleted.
I "get it" that many out there would like to do amazing, wonderful things in and to the Delta. Beyond 1 or 2 above, such elective spending must wait until the economy is better before being presented to voters.
IF THIS PROPOSAL ASKS CALIFORNIANS TO BORROW HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OR EVEN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO FINANCE PROJECTS THAT ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS WOULD LIKE TO DO, BUT ARE NOT ESSENTIAL TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF WATER AVAILABILITY FOR PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES, IT’S APPROVAL BY THE VOTERS WILL BE IN SEVERE PERIL.
Shame on any member of the legislature that votes to place a massive spending bill before the voters that does not conform to the strict criteria above.