Voters passed a $3.4-billion bond last fall after a powerful coalition of environmentalists, politicians, developers and water wholesalers promised that the money would help prevent a "looming water crisis" in California.
Backers said that Proposition 50, the "Clean Water and Coastal Protection Bond," would provide money to secure water supplies from terrorists and boost the reliability of waterworks, while preserving watershed areas and protecting rivers from pollution.
A year later, however, a sizable share of the largest water bond in California history is being siphoned off by Gov. Gray Davis and state legislators to treat a more pressing problem: the state's budget mess.
The spending plan approved by the California Legislature last week includes $1.7 billion from Proposition 50 and Proposition 40, a parks-bond measure approved by voters in 2000, according to the state's nonpartisan legislative analyst. Roughly $1.1 billion would come from Proposition 50. Most of the money would maintain ongoing water and conservation projects, help pay the salaries of more than 200 state employees, and fund existing grant programs.
Though the spending plan also directs Proposition 50 money to new expenditures, most of the money would not finance new projects and improvements, but rather keep programs afloat that previously had been funded through the budget and by earlier bond issues.
The story of Proposition 50 is a textbook example of the way in which politicians and special interests often appeal directly to voters to increase funding for popular causes -- while drafting legal fine print that allows the bond money to cover existing expenses. That frees up money originally intended for those programs to be used elsewhere, and prevents the programs from being discontinued during difficult budget times.
Regular Practice
Indeed, the practice is accepted as a fact of California politics among statehouse lobbyists and legislative staffers.
"Bonds, while they have the potential to increase spending, often just wind up being used to lock up existing spending levels," said Dan Jacobson, legislative director for the group Environment California.
"It's essentially like what happened to the money from the lottery," he added, referring to the lottery proceeds that California voters were promised would go to schools if they allowed the creation of the state lottery in 1985. "Yes, that money is now being used for education purposes. But it has allowed the state to use other revenues in other places instead of truly increasing [education] spending levels."
