PDA

View Full Version : Water Bonds....



Darian
11-11-2009, 09:18 AM
OK guys,.... Yesterday, the SacBee reported that the Guv signed a bill placing the bond issue to fund the latest water project on the ballot in next November's election.... The latest estimate of the dollar value of those bonds is $11 billion plus. :eek:

I'm going to make a last ditch attempt to state that any more bond issues will probably push this state's finances over the edge into de facto bankruptcy. As it currently stands, almost 50% of current general fund monies goes for service of bonded indebtedness (interest payments) and not all of the bonds authorized in prior elections have been issued, yet. No wonder there's no money left for governing this state. :rolleyes: Regardless of how you feel about state government, I urge all of you to take a long, hard look at this proposed bond issue, then vote your conscience. :nod:

Darian
11-26-2009, 11:08 PM
OK,.... Here's some more info on the "water bonds" for water infrastructure funding (The first isn't entirely related to the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan).

Bill no. SBx7-2 (Cogdill) was chaptered (3) in the statutes of 2009/10. This new law is titled the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Act of 2010 and contains a whole bunch of proposed water infrastructure and economic protection investment. The value of the bonds to be authorized in this law is $11.14 billion.

Bill no. SBx7-3 (Steinberg) was introduced in late October and is now in committee. The title of this bill is the same as SBx7-2 for now. This bill is the funding vehicle for the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan and other, related, water proposals. The value of the bonds to be authorized is $9.94 Billion, at present. If this bill passes, there will be approximately $21.0 Billion involved in these two infrastructure investments.

The Leg Analyst has made some comments about this in a fact sheet based on info obtained from the State Treasurers Office. As I understand it, if only one of these bond issues is authorized and sold, the service on the debt would amount to approximately $611 million per year. Maybe $1.2 Billion if both are authorized.

Now we come to the other proposals from the Administration that impact all of this. The Guv has a Strategic Growth Plan on the table that would require a $40.0 Billion infrastructure investment. Haven't looked at what is proposed but this one isn't related to Delta issues. This plan requires authorization to issue the bonds on a bi-ennial basis. The first year would be in the amount of $13.8 Billion and would grow every two years.

The Treasurer and the Leg Analyst have estimated that debt service on all of this (unissued bonds and proposed bond issues) would peak at approximately 10.6% of total General Fund revenues in the years 2017/18. Now 10% doesn't seem like much in that context but if we take into account that the lions share of General Fund revenues are encumbered or mandated expenditures (education, transportation, etc.), the amount of dollars available/discretionary in the fund are substantially reduced. That brings us closer to the 50% amount I mentioned in the earlier post.

In view of recurring budget deficits, this reliance on funding everything by authorizing bond issues is rapidly becoming a deadly burden on the General Fund. Service of bonded indebtedness impacts all state and local government program activities by reducing the amount of $ available to them. Reliance on federal "bail-out" or incentive money is a fleeting thing, as well.

huntindog
11-27-2009, 07:42 AM
i have not read much of the bill but I do know quite a few people in the bio field here in california. Those I know and trust are pretty pissed about this bill and say it does nothing to help fish, wildlife or the delta. It appears to be a giant pork barrel as much of the money goes to causes that are in no way shape or form related to water issues

Darian
11-27-2009, 01:09 PM
I wasn't aware of Cogdill's legislation until I started looking at Steinberg's bill. I still don't have a clear idea of what's going on, either. For each one of these to become operative, passage of SBx7-1 must pass. The titles of the two pieces are identical but they don't have the same content.... :confused: :confused: Guess I'll keep on digging.... :neutral: