Metropolitan News-Enterprise


Thursday, March 15, 2018


Page 9



Loss of Local Control a Big Issue in New Water Tax Fight




Throughout his tenure as governor, Jerry Brown has consistently pursued new revenue for transportation, housing and water. The Legislature, whose default reaction to any problem is to raise taxes on middle-class Californians, has only been too happy to oblige. As a result, California drivers were hit last year with an annual $5 billion gas and car tax and property owners were burdened with a new tax on real estate recording documents to fund affordable housing. As if those tax hikes were not bad enough, now comes the third in a trifecta of tax insults: a new tax on water used by homes and businesses. Thatís right, the Legislature is preparing to tax a public good that is essential to life, a precedent-setting tax that is unheard of anywhere else in the nation.

Supporters of the bill will argue that the tax is needed because roughly one million people (mostly in the Central Valley) donít have access to consistently clean drinking water. This is a legitimate problem due to decades of neglecting basic infrastructure, contamination of water supplies and the failure to make access to water delivery the priority it deserves.

But raising taxes is the wrong solution to this problem. It is unconscionable that California, which has a record-high $130 billion General Fund budget with a $6 billion surplus, canít provide clean drinking water to a million people using existing resources. Is this not the first role of government, providing a public good essential to life? Moreover, why should taxpayers in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento have to pay higher water bills for a problem that is mostly limited to groundwater contamination in the Central Valley?

Most Californians havenít even heard of this proposed tax hike. But thatís only because the Legislature is going out of its way to keep it hidden. Originally introduced as Senate Bill 623, the bill failed to advance last year because of widespread opposition. Nearly all residential homeowners would pay a dollar a month if this tax went through.

The tax works on a sliding scale based on meter size ó heavy commercial and industrial water users could pay up to $10/month. Not content to just abandon the bill, the governor has now decided to drop this tax in a budget trailer bill. These bills, often dozens of pages long with multiple topics, is the perfect place to hide a tax. If the bill moves forward, taxpayer advocates will watch carefully to ensure that the two-thirds vote requirement for tax hikes is enforced. Because most budget bills only need a majority vote, a lawsuit will quickly follow if the higher threshold is not met.

Our concern is that the governor has become so obsessed playing the ďhide the taxĒ game that he hasnít bothered to look at other alternative funding sources to solve this problem. If using a $6 billion surplus is off the table, thereís an option to tap into federal funding which is available for precisely this purpose. Or there are billions of dollars of unspent bond funds, including the recently voter-approved Propositions 1 and 84 that can be used to provide clean drinking water. Bond dollars are perhaps the best vehicle to provide major infrastructure improvements needed in the Central Valley.

And speaking of the Central Valley, that is where most of the construction activity is taking place on Americaís biggest boondoggle ó high-speed rail. That ill-fated project is sucking up billions in cap-and-trade dollars. Wouldnít it be better to divert that funding to something as important as clean water?

Fortunately, there is a large and growing coalition pushing back against the proposed tax. For example, the Association of California Water Agencies and hundreds of local water agencies across California oppose the water tax because it deprives them of local control. The statewide tax would represent a diversion of local ratepayer dollars to an out-of-control state bureaucracy that has little accountability. Local water agencies, while certainly not perfect, are better suited to manage their funds without giving statewide taxpayer subsidies to Sacramento.

The passage of a statewide water tax would establish a dangerous precedent. If it passes, does anyone seriously believe that Sacramento politicians and bureaucrats will be satisfied? We donít.


Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company