Prop. 55 Called a Trickle in Efforts to Upgrade Drinking Water Systems

State officials believe that as much as $1 billion is needed to upgrade antiquated drinking water systems and install equipment to remove contamination from local water supplies.

Compared to the need, Proposition 55, the $100-million drinking water bond issue on the Nov. 4 ballot, would do only part of the job of assuring all Californians that their drinking water is safe, according to the measure’s author, Assemblyman Jack O’Connell (D-Carpinteria).

“I started out with $800 million,” O’Connell said. “But we were competing with schools and prisons, and, given concerns over the state’s total bonded indebtedness, I’m pleased.”

Under the terms of the bond measure, the state Health Services and Water Resources departments would provide up to $25 million in grants to publicly owned water districts that have the most serious water contamination problems and cannot afford to make improvements on their own. Public and private water systems would also be eligible for low-interest loans of up to $5 million, largely repaid by fees charged to consumers. But state taxpayers would subsidize half of the interest rate.

Total Cost $165 Million

Over 30 years, the total cost to the state treasury would be $165 million, according to the legislative analyst.

Despite the sizable direct subsidy, proponents are optimistic that voters will approve the measure. The electorate has repeatedly shown its willingness to support bond issues for safe drinking water in the past, approving by substantial margins a $175-million measure in 1976 and then $75 million in 1984.

As a result, there is no organized campaign either for or against Proposition 55.

The Libertarian Party appears to be alone in publicly announcing its opposition, and four Libertarian candidates for state and federal office joined together to sign the arguments against the ballot measure in the official state ballot pamphlet.

As a matter of principle, the Libertarians oppose all four bond measures on the ballot--including those for schools, universities and prisons as well as drinking water, said Ted Brown, the party’s candidate for Congress in the 25th District. “Our main focus is that people can do for themselves,” Brown said. “They don’t need government to tell them what to do. Just about any service can be provided on the free market more economically and more efficiently.”

Of Interest to Everyone

But O’Connell, along with state water officials, stressed that the quality of drinking water is an issue of interest to everyone in the state. Without acceptable water supplies, industry would shun the state and neither tourists nor home buyers would know with certainty whether they could trust the water from local taps.

“All of us have to share the burden,” O’Connell said. “If someone gets an illness from unsafe water, we all pay. I’d rather put in the money at the beginning of the pipeline . . . rather than increase Medi-Cal payments because of problems at the other end.”

When voters approved the $75-million bond issue in 1984, public agencies and private water companies deluged state officials with applications for loans and grants.

The water suppliers--1,359 of them--asked for more than $825 million in help in repairing antiquated systems and in treating water contaminated with toxic chemicals, pesticides and bacteria. The state Department of Water Resources will soon exhaust most of the 1984 bond money after approving only 120 of the requests.

Highest priority has been given to the districts and water companies with the most severe contamination problems and the least ability to pay--mostly systems serving fewer than 600 customers.

Confronting the Problem

But increasingly, water agencies around the state have confronted serious problems with drinking water contamination. A state survey of wells showed that 18% were contaminated with industrial chemicals--one third of them at levels considered unsafe for drinking.

And even large, public water agencies are scratching to find the money needed for improvements.

For example, the City of Pasadena has been struggling to deal with industrial solvents that have been found to be at unsafe levels in two of 13 wells that provide about 30% of the water needed for its 140,000 customers. The city shut the wells down, and later applied for a loan from the 1984 drinking water bond act to pay for the equipment needed to strip chemicals from the water.

Its proposal, however, was ranked 380th on the priority list prepared by the state Department of Health Services--far too low to be considered because of the limited amount of money. The city’s water and power department has begun the work on its own, but would consider reapplying for state funds if the bond measure passes, said engineer Tom Underbrink.

Similarly, the investor-owned Southern California Water Co. has been forced to shut down wells in the San Gabriel Valley because of toxic contamination. The company, with 250,000 customers statewide, is able to go to the bond market to raise money to buy treatment equipment and to replace leaking pipes, but at a higher cost to customers than state-backed bonds, said Roscoe Anthony, a senior vice president.

The state Public Utilities Commission has urged the company to seek bond money in order to keep its rate increases to a minimum, Anthony said, but there has not been enough cash available.

If Proposition 65, the toxics initiative, passes, the state is planning to prepare a new ranking of water supplies competing for the limited funding. Daniel J. Corrigan of the Department of Health Services said that federal assistance to water suppliers has dropped by 50% in recent years. He said that applications for the new money are likely to approach $1 billion. “Voters need to realize we may be coming back again in a few years,” he said.