Proposition for $3.44 billion water supply improvements highlights ballot choices
By Maya Minwary–Assistant Lifestyles Editor &
Nicholas Julian–Staff Writer
Malibu’s Surfrider Beach is notorious for its high levels of bacterial contamination and ongoing health hazards to the thousands of beach enthusiasts, who travel there each year. Several water bonds have been proposed to improve the quality of Malibu’s beaches for the past several elections. This year is no exception.
On the general election ballot this November is yet another proposition to improve the water of Malibu. Proposition 50 intends to provide a clean, reliable and safe water supply for California’s families and future, according to advocates of the initiative.
Proposition 50 is the third water environmentalist-backed bond in six years. The proposition will cost approximately $3.44 billion, the state’s largest initiative, which the state could sell in forms of bonds. The state will use the bonds for developing a better water quality, supply and reliability, while also protecting coastal land and its acquisitions.
Malibu could possibly benefit from this initiative with state funding for coastal protection and water resource programs. According to the State Water Initiative Board, the fund would be used to keep the wetland and natural water habitats protected at the same standards of today for years to come. These programs would alleviate the high bacterial contamination by keeping large amounts of raw sewage and pollution out of the coastal waters and the beaches, advocates of Proposition 50 say.
“How exactly the funds are allocated, if the prop passes, won’t be determined until a later date,” Malibu Watershed Creek Coordinator Melissa Cole Johnson said. “If it works like Prop 40 (a similar measure to proposition 50, passed in March this year), a state assembly member will put together a report about which agencies will receive the funds and more specifics on how it will be spent. Therefore, we won’t know its exact effects on the Malibu Creek watershed until, one, the Proposition passes; two, it’s determined which agencies will handle the funds; three, Malibu Creek Watershed organizations and agencies write specific proposals and are awarded funds.”
In past years Malibu has faced much scrutiny for its lack of a public sewage system. The current septic plant that Malibu residents utilize, the Tapia treatment plant, has been accused by critics as being responsible for the contamination of Malibu’s ocean water. Other factors of contamination are coastal runoff, bird droppings and equine manure.
There is a long list of supporters lobbying for the water bond to pass the ballot in November.
One organization backing Proposition 50 includes the HACH Corp. The company, which manufactures and distributes analytical instruments used to test the quality of water, contributed $10,000 to promote Proposition 50 earlier in October.
Although the Malibu Creek Watershed Council does not contribute funds for the proposition, “We do encourage each other to advocate for the bond wherever possible,” Johnson said. “This means writing letters of support from our various agencies, posting information at public counters, perhaps sending information out to public constituents.
“The Malibu Creek Watershed Advisory Council is wholly supportive of Prop 50
because of its potential impact on local water quality,” Johnson continued. “Most watershed projects cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. Without state and federal funds, most of these projects would not be possible, despite local jurisdictions putting in millions of dollars worth of matching funds.”
The list of contributors also includes the AFL-CIO, the Surfrider Foundation, and the Women’s Cancer Resource Center. Although the list of supporters is extensive, not all claim stake to the etnire bill because of the proposition’s complexity.
“It’s filled with too many different issues,” said Karin Moran, an environmentalist publicist for the Surfrider’s foundation’s international headquarters. “We support the proposition in part, but we cannot completely take a stance on it since it touches on so many topics. We do, however, support the wetlands restoration language.”
Opponents of Proposition 50 are skeptical about how the money will be handled. They argue that it could potentially benefit special interests groups who have contributed significant amounts of money to the bond rather than ease the water crisis in California.
“It’s called a water bond, but there’s no storage in it,” said Jeanne Cain, vice president for government relations for the California Chamber of Commerce.
While proponents say Proposition 50 will not raise taxes, opponents have a different point of view. They say that Proposition 50 will cost Californians a total of $5.7 billion ($3.44 billion principle and $2.24 billion in interest), which equates to $227 million each year for the next 25 years that Californians will have to pay back.
In addition to Proposition 50, there are six other bonds in the November election.
Proposition 46 seeks to provide emergency housing and shelter for battered women, low-income elderly people and homeless families with children.
Proposition 47 will issue $13.05 billion to provide funding for necessary education facilities to relieve overcrowding and repair deteriorating schools. The funds will also be used to help all public school systems in California from elementary schools to city and state universities and colleges.
Proposition 48 will amend the Constitution to delete references to municipal courts.
Proposition 49 will provide an additional $455 million to before and after school programs to provide tutoring, and other educational enrichment programs.
Proposition 51 will redirect specified general fund revenues generated from the sales tax and release to transportation related purposes.
Proposition 52 is aimed at changing the current voter registration process in California. This proposition would allow people to register to vote on Election Day if eligible. This proposition would also increase penalty on voter registration fraud.
October 31, 2002