HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 7 WTR RESOURCES 09-07-82A ~~ CONSENT CAr,W, NDAR
I~'rt: AUGUST 24, 1982 Inter-Corn
TO:
WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 13 - WATER RESOURCES, STATUTORY INITIATIVE
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Tustin City Council, at their meeting of
September 7, 1982, adopt the attached resolution opposing Proposition
No. 13, the initiative measure entitled "Water Resources, Statutory
Initiative."
BACKGROUND:
Proposition 13 is an initiative which affects the water supplies of the
entire state and places the control of said waters in the hands of the
State Water Resources Control Board.
Some of the key concerns of local water agencies are as follows:
· Substantial increase in water r~tes.
· Unavailability of water supplies for residential, industrial, and
agricultur~l water users.
· Possible increase of unemployment in all segments of California's
economy.
· Restricted ability of local agencies to meet the water needs of the
people.
· Establishment Of a water policy that prioritizes fish and wildlife
ahead of people and food.
· Provides authority and control to unelected State officials to
determl ne w~ter policy.
· EliEki~tion of "Life Line" water r~tes for the poor and elderly.
This initiative is a step to centralize control over public water suply
responsi bi li ti es.
Attached for the Council's information is a copy of a' resolution and a
compilation of the final ballot agrument against Proposition 13.
BOB LEDENDECKER
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/
CITY ENGINEER
db
Attachment
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
RESOLUTION NO. 82-75
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING PROPOSITION 13, THE INITIATIVE
MEASURE ENTITLED "WATER RESOURCES, STATUTORY
INITIATIVE."
WHEREAS, this initiative measure (Proposition No. 13) would have a
detrimental effect on water supplies in all parts of the state and allow the
State Water Resources Control Board to control California's economic future;
and
WHEREAS, the measure would limit utilization of additional amounts
of California's water resources and impose legal and administrative
inefficiencies on present water supply management by transferring ultimate
control over community water supplies throughout the state, from local
government to Sacramento; and
WHEREAS, provisions of this measure could impede new water projects
unless communities adopt water pricing, reclamation and conservation programs
that the State deemed cost-effective and block any interbasin transfers until
a management program approved by the State Water Resources Control Board was
implemented; and
WHEREAS, the initiative would have state-wide growth control
implications by requiring local economics be based on reliable long-term
water supplies without recognizing that the State Water Project is not yet
assured of producing the contracted obligations to localities due to actions
of State Water Project opponents; and
WHEREAS, the "reduction of demand" provisions of the initiative
could be used as a basis to limit the amount of land subject to irrigation,
or the kinds of crops which could be planted; and
WHEREAS, the initiative would give use of water for fish and
wildlife priority over all other uses because the State Water Resources
Control Board could only grant appropriations for water if there were no
impact on fish or wildlife or such impact is offset;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tustin City Council opposes
Proposition 13, the Water Resources, Statutory Initiative, on the November 2,
1982 ballot because (1) it would destroy California's ability to analyze and
balance competing uses of water, particularly man's consumptive needs, as
required under current law and (2) it would grant the State Water Resources
Control Board total authority over local water use and authority to set water
and tax nates.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Tustin City Council urges all
voters to reject this measure as a plan detrimental to their own interests
which could cause widespread unemployment and economic hardship, food
shortage, and sanitary problems resulting from water curtailment.
28
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Tustin, California, held on the day of , 1982.
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
Proposition 13 is the most ILL-CONCEIVED, COMPLEX, WASTEFUL, and ECONOMICALLY
DEVASTATING measure ever proposed to California voters.
We know that's a pretty strong statement. But it's true.
It is a radical revision of our water laws. It places unprecedented control
of your rights to ~me water in the hands of appointed bureaucrats. It is so
COMPLEX that it virtually assures us taxpayers of lengthy and costly court
battles. It RESTRICTS the full utilization of a $360 million dam that is
already completed--ready to provide needed water and emery to Californians.
And, the HIDDEN COSTS to taxpayers and consumers are enormous because WATER
RATES AND FOOD COSTS WILL SKYROCKET.
Farmers, business people, taxpayer and consumer groups all agree, Proposition
13 is too COMPLEX, too WASTEFUL and establishes too much BUREAUCRATIC CONTROL
over our water future.
Please consider these FACTS before you vote.
VERY SIMPLY, Proposition 13:
* WILL increase water rates substantially.
* WILL threaten the availability of water supplies to residential,
industrial and agricultural water users.
* WILL restrict the full use of the New Melones Dam.
* WILL dramatically worsen unemployment throughout all segments of
California's economy.
* WILL give unprecedented authority and control to unelected bureau-
crats to deteruuine water policy.
* WILL restrict the ability of responsible local a~encies to meet the
water needs of the people they serve.
* WILL establish a water policy that puts an absolute priority on
fish and wildlife ahead of people and food.
* WILL encourage costly and lenRth¥ court battles over water
supplies.
* WILL eliminate "Life-line" water rates for poor and elderly
Californians.
At a time when all Californians are facing critical water problems, we need to
recognize the need for more water development. But, if Proposition 13 passes,
California's available water resources will be more scarce than ever before.
In FACT, this initiative demands that the delivery of water be limited and
curtailed until certain R~STRICTIVE, BUREAUCRATIC, and UNREALISTIC guidelines
are met. AND THE WATER WE ARE ALLOWED TO GET will be substantially more
expensive.
IMAGINE how food prices will skyrocket if water prices to farmers are increased
3 to 5 times: Economists end consumer experts agree that this is a certain
result if Proposition 13 passes.
(over)
DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO YOU that supporters of this measure are asking us to let
sit idle a fully completed, $360 m/lllon dam when the need for more inexpensive
sources of energy is so acute?
In s,m-,ary, this radical water reform proposal would have a disastrous impact
on all Californians. HIGHER WATER BILLS. MORE BUREAUCRACY. HIGHER FOOD
PRICES. LESS WATER. LESS ENERGY. LESS ECONOMIC PROSPERITY. These are the
certain results if Proposition 13 were =o pass.
State water policy is at a critical crossroads since the defeat of Proposition
9 in the June primary. For our future, we need =o continue on a steady course
of more careful study, and expert evaluation.
That's why we must reject =his radical and naive measure.
We strongly urge you =o VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 13.
JOHN THURMA~
CHAIPdIAN
ASSEMBLY COIdMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
SHIRLEY CHILTON
PRESIDENT
CALIFOP~,~IA CHAMBER OF COM~RCE
HENRY VOSS
PRESIDENT
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
7/6/82