Voters may feel deja vu when they ponder Proposition 84 on the Nov. 7 ballot, because like five other bond measures in the last decade, it promises clean water, flood control, better parks and coastal protection. And like the last water bond to go before voters, in 2002, Proposition 84 was written by a Sacramento lobbyist whose clients are land preservation and environmental groups that stand to win public money for pet projects through the measure.

If passed, the initiative would help fund capital projects over the next decade or so. It would shunt money to several state agencies, which would weigh competing proposals from cities, counties, water districts, conservancies and other groups and decide which to fund. Past bond money has helped purchase the 32-acre Cornfield property near downtown Los Angeles, paid for repairs to Big Tujunga Dam and built basins to help refill aquifers in Clovis, among hundreds of projects. Of the $11 billion that Californians have borrowed over the last decade through five water, parks and natural resource-related bonds, less than $1 billion remains. Proposition 84 carries the highest price yet: $5.4 billion in principal. The cost is more than $10 billion when interest on the 30-year bond is included.

It s not clear voters will pony up again for pipes, parks and flood protection when there are four other statewide bonds totaling $37 billion on the November ballot — including a $4.1-billion flood-control bond. In an August poll, Proposition 84 trailed the other bond measures, with 40% of those surveyed saying they would vote for it, according to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

The other measures, written by the Legislature, each had at least 50% approval. Proposition 84 was written by Joe Caves, a lobbyist whose clients include the Big Sur Land Trust, California State Parks Foundation, National Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy and the Peninsula Open Space Trust in Menlo Park. California s political leaders support the measure, saying it will rescue wild lands and increase water supplies as California adds tens of millions of residents.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and top Democrats have endorsed it; other backers include dozens of water districts, more than 100 conservation groups, the California Chamber of Commerce and many cities, counties and labor unions. "It puts money into the hands of locals," said Steve Hall, executive director of the Assn. of California Water Agencies, "and locals for the last 20 years are the ones who have developed the water. "We ve added the equivalent of a new California Aqueduct" in the last 10 years, Hall said. "Thats huge, and this is the kind of money that helps do that."

The biggest contributor to the Yes on Proposition 84 campaign is the Nature Conservancy, a nonprofit organization that frequently uses state bond money to help purchase and preserve land. It has given at least $1.6 million to the campaign. Other groups that stand to gain from the bond also have donated to the campaign. The California Assn. of Local Conservation Corps gave $70,000; the bond earmarks $32.5 million to local conservation corps. An additional $100 million of the bond would be directed to museums, aquariums and other such institutions; the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles and the manager of the Monterey Bay Aquarium have each donated $100,000.

There is no organized opposition raising money against Proposition 84. "There s such a huge amount of money at stake and there are so many people that are going to benefit from the largess that there s very little opposition," said one foe, Jim Uhler, spokesman for the National Tax Limitation Committee in Roseville. His 30-year-old nonprofit group, which sponsored the 1990 initiative that imposed term limits on the Legislature, called Proposition 84 part of a pattern of "self-serving, self-enriching" ballot measures. "There are a lot of earmarks" for those who qualified the measure for the ballot, said Uhler.

Caves said Proposition 84 details no specific projects and gives the Legislature oversight of most of the $5.4 billion, which must be appropriated as part of the annual budget. The exception is several hundred million dollars that would go directly to the Department of Water Resources and Wildlife Conservation Board for flood-plain mapping, levee repairs and purchase or restoration of wildlife habitat.

Proposition 1E, the flood-control bond measure written by lawmakers on the November ballot, includes money for some of the same purposes.
(Por Nancy Vogel,Los Angeles Times, 04/10/2006)