The Texas Observer

July 18, 1969 Twenty-Five Cents A Journal of Free Voices A Window to the South The Texas Observer A Warning from California Voters of Texas: Look Before You Leap In a couple of weeks Texas will make a 1952. It was his knowledge which powered revenues, through the sale of water and decision about water that California made the battle in the U.S. Senate in 1959 by power. In other words, it will pay for several years ago. In 1960 Californians which Sens. Paul Douglas and Wayne Morse itself." (The underscoring was in the committed themselves in a public election prevented the 160-acre law from being voters' guide.) The taxpayer, it was made to pay for a state water program, despite abandoned in the California water pro- to appear, would feel nothing. the availability of an interest-free federal gram. Professor Taylor has written many Although the project would take north- water program. From California's experi- articles on the 160-acre law and the Cali- ern California water and deliver it to ence, it is not too late for Texans to fornia water plan for law journals and southern California, the argument for made learn—much as a member of a family other scholarly periodicals and has testified it appear that both regions would gain, and watches his brother make a mistake and at many congressional hearings on these neither would suffer. The south was as- learns. subjects. He wrote the following explana- sured that "The tap will be open, and no The Texas and California situations are tion of the California water plan especially amount of political maneuvering can shut strikingly similar in other respects. There is for The Texas Observer. it off." The north was assured equally that "the water rights of northern California a surplus of water in East Texas and a Berkeley, Calif shortage of it in West and South Texas. In will remain securely protected." Every- California, there is an abundance of water On August 5 Texas voters will decide at body was assured that the state water in the north; in the south the state is a the polls whether to approve or disapprove project would "nourish tremendous indus- desert. The water plans in both states a $3.5 billion state water project bond trial and farm and urban expansion which simply move the surplus water to the dry issue. Before marking their ballots it may will develop an ever-growing source of areas. be worth their while to examine Califor- employment and economic prosperity." California's politics, too, have become nia's nine-year experience with a similar The climax of the argument for the bond increasingly like the politics of Texas. In issue was an alliterative attraction — "water both states big business interests control for people, for progress, for prosperity." the Legislature and the major cities and Paul S. Taylor Tucked in between arguments were threats agribusiness is squeezing the smaller that a "no" vote would "slow to a halt" farmers off the land. The California water state water project and bond issue. A water the development of the San Joaquin Valley plan was conceived in the midst ofa fight project can cost a lot of money and be a and "by 1965" begin the "return of [its] over the abolition of the federal law which big undertaking for a state, even for states cultivated areas to wasteland"; in southern limits the land that may be watered by as wealthy as Texas and California. Califor- California development "must wholly federally funded projects to 160 acres per nia's voters and taxpayers are finding out cease"; northern California would lack person, and the champions of the Texas that the cost of their project is a whole lot "desperately needed flood control." water plan have declared this same purpose more than they were led to expect when — the abolition of the water sharing law in they gave it original approval. TO BE SURE, there was also the "state water program." Californians narrowly approved a $1.75 argument against the bond issue. Tempe- The Californian who best understands billion bond issue to finance a state water rate and analytical in tone, it cautioned this subject from the viewpoint of the project in 1960. The public relations pill that the interest carrying charge on the public interest is undoubtedly Paul S. that helped it to go down was sugar-coated; $1.75 billion bond issue "could impair the Taylor, professor emeritus of economics at everything was made to appear rosy. The credit of the entire state of California." It the University of California at Berkeley. He argument for the bond issue placed in the warned that the state project "fails to was consultant to the office of the secre- hands of every voter assured blandly that insure enough water for the north," that tary of interior and the Bureau of Reclama- "The program will not be a burden on the the funds provided might prove insufficient tion, successively, during the Democrats' taxpayer; no new state taxes are involved; for acknowledged needs, and that "it might period in Washington between 1943 and the bonds are repaid from the project very well be less costly" to develop the state's waters in other ways. The 'other' project may be abruptly halted in Septem- nia voters in 1960 that northern water ways were unspecified, but certainly did ber because the state can't find a market rights would be "securely protected" is not exclude the precedent established by for its voter-approved 5% bonds." now being challenged. The Daily Com- two huge federal reclamation projects — When the state water project was 'sold' mercial News opened one of its 1968 series Colorado River and Central Valley — of to the voter in 1960, the interest charge of articles on the water project with this which California already was the benefici- on bonds was estimated at 4%. In June, assertion: "The blank check the voters ary. An evaluation of the state's water 1969, State Sen. Gordon Cologne was handed the California water project by plans by Charles T. Main, Inc. contained seeking legal authorization to raise the approving the $1.75 billion bond issue in the caution — phrased mildly — that "In interest rate on state general obligation 1960 to upset nature in northern California deciding whether to undertake construc- bonds to 7%, and to issue "anticipatory for the benefit of promoters in the Los tion of this project, the state must be notes" at 7% "to meet the immediate Angeles area will go up at least another prepared to assume the risk that it might financial crisis of the north-south water billion. Project officials have just figured not be completely reimbursed during the project." that the cost of diverting water south now bond repayment period, which runs to the Awareness of the fiscal defects in the stands at $2.78 billion." Apparently to this year 2040." This caution reached the State state water plan has been growing for some day nobody has yet carried the news to Department of Water Resources barely five time. Under the title "There Goes Another Californians that in 1958 and 1959 three or six weeks prior to the balloting, and its $1 Billion, Calif. Water Project Costs Soar California senators and a governor prom- message never really reached the voters. Beyond Original Estimate," the Daily Com- ised Congress (yes, it's printed in the The California Labor Federation and mercial News of San Francisco on July 17, Congressional Record) that the people of State Grange, among others, opposed the 1968, exposed the fact that the original California will pay $11 billion or more to water project and bond issue, and their $1.75 billion figure was a very misleading build the state water project! efforts held the majority needed for ap- measure of cost. Revenues from tidelands proval of the bond issue to a narrow oil, some of these earmarked for building margin. Perhaps the billboards saying construction for higher education, have THIS PROJECT, says the Com- simply that "California Needs Water," and been diverted to feed the water project; the mercial News, is "not only out of money the bare symbol of the drip from a budgets of the state college system and the but it is out of water, the Contra Costa household faucet sufficed to by-pass analy- University of California have been sharply County water agency contends and others sis and debate, and so to carry the day. cut — the latter by $46 million in a single declare that contamination of San Francis- Now, nearly nine years later, the truth is year; and the programs in mental health co Bay and the Delta are certainties with emerging to public view. California has and medical care of the poor have been northern California water being exported been unable to complete the marketing of similarly reduced to speed construction of for the benefit of land developers and the $1.75 billion water bond issue. There the water project. Proposals are being others in the Los Angeles area." The are no takers, notwithstanding that the full pressed currently to impose tuition charges damage done to the environment by the credit of the state stands behind it. On upon students in the state university state water project evidently is having June 18, 1969, the San Francisco Chroni- system to offset in part the legislative cuts enough political impact to worry those cle reported under the headline "Bond favoring water development above educa- who may have overlooked this in their Snag in Huge Water Project" that "Work tion.

Load more