Title: Headlines From Alert - November Initiative Watch - Voters Have Chance to OK Funding for Safe, Reliable Water
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004654/00001
 Material Information
Title: Headlines From Alert - November Initiative Watch - Voters Have Chance to OK Funding for Safe, Reliable Water
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: California Chamber of Commerce
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Headlines From Alert - November Initiative Watch - Voters Have Chance to OK Funding for Safe, Reliable Water (JDV Box 70)
General Note: Box 24, Folder 4 ( Water Supply Issues - Linking Water Supply Planning and Land Use Planning ), Item 17
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004654
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text




California Chamber of Commerce Alert Headlines Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 1 of 2



CALIFORNIA CHAMBER of COMMERCE 7






HEADLINES FROM ALERT

CALIFORNIA Cl AMBER OF COMMERCE AUGUST 9, 1996

November Initiative Watch
Voters Have Chance to OK

Funding for Safe, Reliable Water

For a number of years, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has been warming that water
supply problems are growing and could do major harm to the state's economy and environment.

In response, a broad-based coalition, including the California Chamber, is supporting Proposition 204, a
November ballot measure to generate S995 million in bond funding for projects to assure a safe, clean and
reliable water supply for Californians.

Background
Growth in both the state's population and environmental water needs means the state could face routine water
shortages by the turn of the century, unless something is done, according to DWR. These water shortages
would be triple the shortfalls Californians experienced at the height of the 1987-92 drought, when mandatory
conservation and water rationing were common in many areas of the state.

During a drought year, the impact of the water shortfall would double. DWR projects that by 2020, water
shortages could exceed the amount of water con-sumed today in all the state's urban areas.

Bond Funding
The money raised by Proposition 204 would be allocated as follows:


$390 million for measures defined by the CALFED process to restore and improve fish and wildlife
habitat in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, source of drinking water for 22
million residents and tens of thousands of farms and businesses throughout the state.
$ 193 million for ongoing programs in the Bay-Delta watershed and administrative expenses of
CALFED) studies and planning activities.
S235 million for loans and grants to improve water quality and promote water recycling and reuse.
$ 117 million to find projects statewide that will enhance water supplies, improve water management
and demand management.
$60 million to find the state's slhre of the non-federal costs of flood control and prevention projects
for claims on hand up to June 30, 1996.

Bencfils
Supporters of Proposition 204 describe it as the foundation for a comprehensive and lasting solution to the
state's water quality and supply needs. Benclits of the measure include:


10/25/96


11:25:39 AM









California Chamber of Commerce Alert Headlines Microsoft Internet Explorer


I helping meet sale drinking water standards by preventing pollution in source water supplies.
Restonng the ecological health of the Bay-Delta.
Making more water available to meet the state's growing needs through conservation and recycling, as
well as planning for potential new reservoirs and delivery systems to capture water in wet years for
use during droughts.
Providing for cleanup of the state's waterways.
Allowing the completion of local flood protection projects.
Providing a reliable water supply to protect existing jobs, encourage new businesses and create new
jobs.
Ensuring existing water supplies are used to the uillest by landing local conservation and recycling
projects.
Protecting critical fisheries, wildlife, wetlands and other natural habitats, including the San
Francisco/Sacramento Bay-Delta estuary and Lake Tahoe.
Providing for repairs and improvements to critical levees to help prevent catastrophic failures in a
najor earthquake.

Staff Contact: Valerie Nera


Copyright v6 1996, Califoiia Chamber of Commerce


11:25:39 AM


HoE


Page 2 of 2


10/25/96









California Chamber of Commerce Commentary Microsoft Internet Explorer


CALIFORNIA CHAMBER of COMMERCE






COMMENTARY

CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AUGUST 16, 1996


Invest in Safe Water Supply: Yes on 204

By Thomas S. Maddock

The Calilomia economy, jobs and quality of life depend on a sale, reliable and sufficient water supply. But
unless we act now, the state's residents, businesses and furms Ifce a future of chronic water shortages and
potentially unsafe supplies.

Our vowing population and increasing environmental water needs will lead to tremendous shortfalls by the
turn of the century, according to the California Department of Water Resources.

Proposition 204, the Sale, Clean Reliable Water Supply Act on the November ballot, provides the foundation
for a comprehensive, lasting solution to the state's water supply problems.

State Treasurer Matt Fong says the $995 million Proposition 204 will make available for the state's water
supply and delivery system "a very prudent investment to sustain and expand California's $750 billion
economy. This is a vital investment in our state's future."

Proposition 204 will benefit all Californians. Not only does it ensure safe drinking water, it also increases
water supplies, prevents water pollution and encourages water conservation and recycling. The measure
protects vital areas of the state against floods, as well as provides for repairs and improvements needed to
protect our water delivery system against failure in case of an earthquake.

The reliable water supplies made possible by Proposition 204 will protect existing jobs, encourage new
businesses and create new jobs.

In addition, Proposition 204 helps protect critical fisheries, wildlife, wetlands and other natural habitats,
including the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Bay-Delta is one of the state's most
important environmental resources and the source of drinking water for more than 22 million Californians.

If Proposition 204 does not pass, the result could be devastating for Califomia. Our drinking water supply will
degenerate. Chronic water supply shortages would lead to lost jobs and lost revenue due to decreased
industrial and agricultural production. Water shortages also could destroy billions of dollars worth of
homeowner investment in landscape, agricultural investment in permanent crops and industrial investment in
plant equipment. Natural habitats would be hurt, and fewer recreational opportunities would be available on
the state's waterways.

Proposition 204 does not increase taxes; it simply uses existing revenues to improve the state's water supply
system. Tlhe measure also is cost effective because it generates federal matching dollars to help solve high
priority state and local water problems.

Contrary to what opponents say, Proposition 204 is not about more government intervention. It was developed


11:43:52 AM


Page I ot'2


10/25/96









California Chamber of Commerce Commentary Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 2 of 2

by a broad and diverse coalition of businesses, fanners, environmentalist and local water officials irom all
regions of the state who are concerned about solving problems.

The coalition worked hard to develop Proposition 204 because Culilbmia cannot albord to wait; the last major
investment in the state's water supply system was 36 years ago. Please join the Calil'omi Chamber in
supporting Proposition 204. Vote "yes" to invest in a safe water supply for California's fiture.

Thomas S. Maddock, chair of the California Chamber's Water Resources Committee and a member of the
Chamber Board, is chairman of Boyle Engineering Corporation, Newport Beach.


Copyright O 1996, Calilbmia Chamber of Commerce


11:43:52 AM


10/25/96








State Water Project Financing Microsoft Internet Explorer


California Department of Water Resources







State Water Project

Financing

Financing
Funds from the sale of general obligation and revenue bonds have provided about 75 percent
of financing for construction of the State Water Project. Full repayment of these bond funds is
being made by Project beneficiaries, rather than by the general taxpayer.

Other funding sources have included tideland oil revenues, investment earnings, legislative
appropriations for recreation, federal flood control payments, and water contractor advances.

Currently, short-term financing is obtained by commercial paper notes which are replaced
periodically by long-term revenue bonds.

Annual Costs

Annual costs include the salaries of a diversified team of engineers, biologists, specialists in
water development and power generation, hydroelectric plant technicians, and civil
maintenance workers, as well as expenses (equipment, supplies etc.) required to operate and
maintain SWP facilities. Annual costs also include power purchases, exchanges and sales.

Operations and maintenance costs average $160 million a year; while power costs which
depend upon the amount of water delivered in a year can vary from $20 to $100 million
annually. In addition to these costs, the SWP is required to make annual principal and interest
payments on the bonds used to finance construction.

Repayment of SWP Costs

The 29 water contractors repay all water supply related costs of the SWP. These represent
about 94 percent of the annual costs for operation and maintenance of SWP facilities. The
remaining costs are funded by the federal government for joint operation of San Luis facilities
(3 percent) and State general funds for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement (3
percent).

Contractors also repay with interest about 89 percent of SWP capital expenditures made
through 1995. Repayment of the remaining 11 percent comes from the federal government for


6:22:02 PM


Page 1 of 2


10/23/96








State Water Project Financing Microsoft Internet Explorer


flood control (2 percent) the State general funds for recreation and fish and wildlife
enhancement (5 percent), and the rest from miscellaneous sources.

All contractors pay the same charge as a rate per acre-foot for the cost of constructing and
operating facilities which develop the SWP water supply. In addition, each contractor pays a
transportation charge which covers the cost of facilities required to deliver water to its service
area. Thus, the contractors more distant from the Delta pay higher transportation charges than
those near the Delta.

Full payments are made each year for fixed SWP costs regardless of the variations in water
deliveries that occur from year to year. Fixed costs include those for operation, maintenance
and debt service. Contractors also pay costs which do vary depending on the amount of water
delivered during the year. These include the costs for energy used to pump water to their
aqueduct turnout locations.

For more information about these subjects, contact the DWR Office of Water Education

About DWR I What's New At DWR? I Water Conditions I

CA Water Map I CA Water Info I State Water Project

Index I Search


Return to the DWR California Water Page -


10/23/96


Page 2 of 2


6:22:02 PM







Contact Information for DWR Microsoft Internet Explorer


California Department of Water Resources







For More Information .....

For more information about the Department of Water Resources and water-related subjects,
contact the DWR Office of Water Education at:

Office of Water Education
California Department of Water Resources
1416 9th Street, Room 1104-1
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 653-6192
FAX: (916) 653-4684

About DWR I What's New At DWR? I Water Conditions
CA Water Map I CA Water Info I State Water Project
Index I Search

'I---..- I
Return to the DWR California Water Page I-:--




CA STATF


prop 2zo


6:21:09 PM


Page 1 of 1


10/23/96








State Water Project Overview Microsoft Internet Explorer


California Department of Water Resources







State Water Project

Overview

Scope

The California State Water Project is a water storage and delivery system of reservoirs,
aqueducts, powerplants and pumping plants. Its main purpose is to store water and distribute
it to 29prban and agricultural water suppliers in Northern California, the San Francisco Bay
Area, the San Joaquin Valley, and Southern California. Of total Project deliveries,
approximately 40 percent is used to irrigate farmland, and 60 percent goes to meet the needs
of the State's growing population.

The Project makes deliveries to two-thirds of California's population. It is maintained and
operated by the California Department of Water Resources.

The Project is also operated to improve water quality in the Delta, control Feather River flood
waters, provide recreation, and enhance fish and wildlife.

History

In 1960, California voters approved the $1.75 billion bond issue to begin building the State
Water Project. The Project was designed and constructed by the Department of Water
Resources. By 1973, the initial facilities were completed and water delivery to southern
California began.

Size

Today, the Project includes 29 storage facilities, reservoirs and lakes; 18 pumping plants; 4
pumping-generating plants; 5 hydroelectric power plants; and about 660 miles of aqueducts
and pipelines.
The Project provides supplemental water to approximately 20 million Californians and about
1.2 million acres of farmland.

For more information about these subjects, contact the DWR Office of Water Education


6:18:00 PM


Page 1 of 2


10/23/96








State Water Project Overview Microsoft Internet Explorer


About DWR I What's New At DWR? I Water Conditions I

CA Water Map I CA Water Info I State Water Project

Index I Search


Return to the DWR California Water Page 'I


10/23/96


Page 2 of2


6:18:00 PM







About the Author California Water Law and Po... Microsoft Internet Explorer


About the Author


California Water Law and Policy

by
Scott Slater

Scott S. Slater is a member and shareholder in the law firm, Hatch and Parent.
He is an honors graduate from the University of Redlands where he received
bachelor's degrees in Political Science and Geology. He attended the University
of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, graduating with the Order of the Coif
distinction. Mr. Slater is currently an Adjunct Professor of Water law and Policy
at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He also frequently lectures for the
Association of California Water Agencies, the University of California Extension,
and various public interest seminars.

[Return to catalog pagel


01996, Michie
701 E. Water Street
CIrH\TEH Charlottesville, VA
MIC IL (800) 542-0957
Wehmasterfii)michie. com.


6:12:30 PM


10/23/96


Page 1 of 1


IDilogue I U Hom


Iwnfomirrrmli :Mii.iWr






liln I i k I lki. tf i i 1 11 1 C 3 -168 L i -1 U t' h k I

CALIFORNIA


FACTS ABOUT PROPOSITION 204



Q. WHAT IS PROPOSITION 204?

A. Proposition 204-the Safe. Clean. Reliable Water Supply Act-is a proposal on
the November 1996 general election ballot to authorize 5995 million in general
obligation bonds for an array of water programs The measure would fund a
variety of Delta improvements and Iccal programs designed to address California
water needs.

Q. HOW WOULD THE FUNDS BE INVESTED?

A. Proposition 204 would provide S390 million for the CALFED Bay-Delta
Ecosystem Restoration Program. S235 million for clean water and water
-recycling.S 193 million for the State's share of Bay-Delta improvements under the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) and other State-federal
programs. 5117 million for water supply reliability and S60 million for flood
control. (See below for a more detailed description of programs designated to
receive Prcposition 204 funds.)

Q. HOW DID PROPOSITION 204 QUALIFY FOR THE BALLOT?

A. Proposition 204 qualified for the ballot through passage of Senate Bill 900.
authored by Stale Senator Jim Costa (D-Fresno). The bill passed with
bipartisan support in both houses of the Legislature. The Assembly vole on
SB 900 was 74-4. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 33-4. On July 11. it
was signed into law by Governor Pete Wilson.

Q. HOW WAS THIS PROPOSAL DEVELOPED?

A. During 1995 and 1996. Senator Costa met with many groups interested in the
Delta and water issues. These groups included business, labor, agriculture and
environmentalists. The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources.
chaired by Senator Costa. held four joint interim hearings with the Assembly
Committee on Water. Parks and Wildlife throughout the State to receive input on
how to develop the water bond plan.

After these interim hearings and during the Legislative session, numerous
meetings wereheld at which many parties expressed their interests.










EDUCATILIN ID:916-653-4684 OC1 23'96 15:27 Nu.032 !.02



Q. WHERE CAN VOTERS OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION ABOUT
PROPOSITION 204 AND THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THIS
PROPOSAL?

A. Voters may obtain more information about Proposition 204 by consulting the
1996 General Election Ballot Pamphlet distributed by the Secretary of State.
Computer users can obtain that information by accessing the Secretary of
State's home page (http://www.ss.ca.gov).

The ballet pamphlet information on Proposition 204 includes arguments for and
against this proposal.

Q. WHAT ARE THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSITION 204?

A. Tbis measure authorizes the State to sell SS95 million of general obligation
bonds. General obligation bonds are backed by the State, meaning that the
State is required to pay the principal and interest costs of these bonds. General
Fund revenues would be used to pay these costs. General Fund revenues come
primarily from State personal and corporate income taxes and sales tax. The
measure specifies conditions under which the funds are available for loans.
including the terms for interest and repayment of loans. Typically. these types of
bonds are repaid over a 25 year period.

The Legislative Analyst reports that if all the bonds authorized by this measure
are sold at an interest rate of 6 percent. the cost would be about $1.8 billion to
pay off bcth the principal (SS95 million) and interest (5776 million). The average
payment for the principal and interest would be about 571 million per year.

Q. WILL PROPOSITION 204 HELP DEVELOP FUTURE WATER SUPPLIES?

A. Water supply reliability is addressed by many Proposition 204 programs. A
variety cf measures-including water conservation, water recycling and water
development-can help to meet California's future water needs. Proposition 204
provides funding for several of these efforts. It also declares the importance of
the Bay-Delta to the environment and the economy, and as a vitally important
source of water for Californians.

Q. HOW DOES PROPOSITION 204 RELATE TO CALFED EFFORTS IN THE
DELTA?

A. Though Proposition 204 is separate from the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, which
is developing some long-term solutions to Delta water problems, it is designed to
support CALFED solutions to Delta water challenges. Proposition 204 does not








WAIEk EDUCRTIUN 1D:916-653-4684 UCT 23'96 15:2/ Nc,.03( 2 P. F0



authorize implementation of the CALFED program, but would be a source of
funding for some of the programs expected to emerge from the CALFED effort.
These would include management, restoration and enhancement of fish and
wildlife habitats, improved fish protection, acquisition of water for instream flow
improvements, and improved management of introduced species.

Q. DOES PROPOSITION 204 PROVIDE FUNDING FOR A PERIPHERAL CANAL?

A. Proposition 204 does not provide funding for a Peripheral Canal, nor for any water
conveyance facility in the Delta which may be proposed as a part of the longterm
solution being developed by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

Q. DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES SUPPORT
PROPOSITION 204?

A. With the approval of the Gcvernor's cff.ce, the Depar;ment of Water Resources
supposed SB 900, the legislation which put the water bond proposal on the 1996
election ballot for a decision by the voters.

The Department of Water Resources officially supports Proposition 204 because it
will provide funds for: (1) ecosystem restoration programs in the Delta. (2) the
State's share of costs for programs under the federal Central Valley Project
Improvement Act. (3) non-State Water Project costs for the South Delta Barriers
Program, (4) Delta levee rehabilitation. (5) groundwater conservation programs
and. (6) other programs that improve water supply and reliability in California.

Q. WHAT ROLE WILL THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES PLAY IN
IMPLEMENTING PROPOSITION 204?

A. Proposition 204 provides that the Department of Water Resources-along with the
Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB)-will implement many programs funded by
the S995 million bond proposal.

DWR's assignments: Helping in Bay-Delta improvement projects under the
CVPIA. assisting on several CALFED Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration efforts,
working on water conservation and water recycling programs, assisting in water
supply programs and administering local flood control and prevention efforts in
several counties.


Y








U i:916-653-4684 njCT 2 3L : 9 E,


Q. SPECIFICALLY, WHAT PROGRAMS WILL PROPOSITION 204 FUND?

A. Proposition 204 would authorize general obligation bonds for 20 programs in
these broad areas: Delta restoration, clean water and water recycling, and water
supply and water resources programs.

Programs funded by Proposition 204 are:

CALFED Bay-Delta Ecosyterm Restoration $390 million.

These funds would be dedicated to projects identified in the
final programmatic EIS/EIR for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and
are considered eligible under Prop. 204. Water conveyance facilities
are not eligible projects for these funds. The Resources Agency would be
designated to administer these funds.

Clean Water and Recycling Program $235 million.

These funds would be distributed among the following
seven programs:

State Revolving Fund Loan Program S80 million. Administered
by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the program would
receive these funds to continue loans for building wastewater treatment and
pollution control projects.

Water Recycling Loan Program $60 million. This loan program would
provide loans at a reduced rate of interest for eligible water recycling projects.
This program is operated by the SWRCB.

Small Communities Grant Program S 30 million Administered by
the SWRCB. these grants would be available for communities up to 5,000
population for wastewater treatment and pollution control projects. The
participating communities must meet an economic needs test.

Drainage Management S30 million. The SWRCB would use $27.5
million of these funds for low-interest loans of up to S5 million to local agencies
for construction of drainage management units. The remaining 52.5 million
would be used for grants to local agencies for cost sharing under a Salton Sea
research project.

Delta Tributary Watershed Proaram $15 million. The SWRCB would use
these funds to preserve and protect watersheds draining into the Delta. The

4


I C: 2b I JU 7 1, 0 'l


iA I E k E DUC ili T I ON







15:29 Nu.052 P.05


ID:916-653-db8a OJCT 23'96


board would receive applications and consult with the Department of Fish and
Game and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Saltwater Intrusion Control 510 million. This low-interest loan program,
administered by the SWRCB, would fund local projects considered necessary to
cost-effectively protect groundwater from seawater intrusion.

I ake Tahoe Water Quality S10 million These funds would be used by
the Califoria Tahoe Conservancy for grants to public agencies or by the
Conservancy for projects, including control of soil erosion, watershed
restoration and environmental preservation.

State Share of Bay Delta Improvements (CVPIA and other
State-Federal Programs) S193 million,

These funds would te distributed amcng six programs:

Central Valley Project Improvemrent Act (CVPIA $93 million
These funds would pay the State share of costs of projects required
by the CVPIA for fish and wildlife restoration actions. Funds would be
appropriated to DWR or the Department of Fish and Game (DFG).

Bay-Delta Aqreement Prcgram (Category IIl $60 million.
These funds would be appropriated to the Resources Agency for
non-flow projects identified by the SWRCB and earmarked in the Delta
Accord of December 1994. The Resources Agency would administer
these funds in a manner consistent with CALFED procedures for
Category III until the Legislature passes a law identifying another
entity to control the program.

Delta Levee Rehabilitation Program $25 million These funds
would be divided equally between levee subventions and special flocd
protection projects. These are programs currently administered by DWR.
Both programs would be required to meet long-term aquatic species
habitat improvement criteria, subject to DFG approval.

South Delta Barriers Program S10 million. Designed to help
improve Delta flows for fish and farmers, the South Delta Barriers would
increase dissolved oxygen levels for fish. stabilize water levels and improve
water circulation for agricultural diversions. These funds would be used by
DWR for mitigation of other than State Water Project and Central Valley
Project impacts in the South Delta. The DFG would be responsible
for determining that a net habitat benefit results from the expenditures.

5


WRTEk EDUCATIUN








ID:916-6RR C i3-4684 OCT 23?96


Delta Recreation S2 million The Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR) would administer these funds to provide public access to lands and water
of the Delta. Funds would go to public agencies and nonprofit organizations to
purchase voluntary easements for public access.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program S3 million These continuously appropriated
funds would be available to DWR for State operations of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program.

Water SuDDpy Reliability $127 million

These funds are allocated amcng five programs:

Water Conservation and Ground Water Recharge S30 million.
Using $25 million. DWR would continue its low-interest loan program for
groundwater recharge and water conservation outlay projects. The program
funds such projects as ditch lining, pipes, leakage reduction, on-farm, irrigation
systems and urban water conservation programs. The loan limit is $5 million.

The remaining S5 million would be available for grants to develop
supplemental water supplies, distribution systems and recharge facilities
in overdrafted watersheds for communities with an adverse impact from
base closures.

River Parkway Prcoram S27 million This program would fund
restoration and habitat projects along rivers and streams. Half the funds
would be invested close to major metropolitan areas. Potential beneficiaries
of the funding are: California Riparian Habitat Conservation Program, coastal
restoration projects at the Coastal Ccnservancy. San Joaquin River
Conservancy and Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.

Sacramenlo Valley Water Management and Habitat Mitigation
Measures 525 million The DWR would administer these continuously
appropriated funds for projects necessary to implement the SWRCB's 1995
Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan. The SWRCB would provide for
public review of programs and would review programs for consistency
with its WQCP. (These projects could not be related to the SWP and
CVP obligations in the Bay-Delta.)

Local Projects $25 million These funds would be available for grants
and low-interest loans to fund various stages of water development projects.
DWR would administer this program. An amount of $500,000 would be made
available for grants for feasibility studies. The remaining S24.5 million would


15 50 1- C I 0 3 2 P 0


WRITER EDUCAT 1 LINl







15:30UI u.03L2 .0'


ID:916-653-4684 UCI 23'96


be used for loans of up to $5 million to public agencies for construction and
loans up to S1 million for land acquisition.

Feasibility Projects 510 million Studies identified in this provision
include offstream storage upstream of the Delta, regional water recycling.
desalination and water transfer facilities for delivering Colorado River water.
DWR would administer this section.

Flood Control and Prevention 560 million,

The Department of Water Resources (DWR) would administer these
funds to pay the State's share of nonfederal costs of flocd control
prevention projects currently authorized and uncerway cr complete.
for which claims are on hand as of June 30. 19S6. DWR currently has
S157 million of claims on hand for this program The S60 million would
te distributed on a pro rata basis to the following counties: Contra
Ccsta. Fresno, Kern, Lcs Angeles. Orange. Riverside. San Bernardino.
San Diego and Santa Clara.

cOo

Prepared by Department of Water Resources
Office of Water Education


September 1996


iEfllR EDUCRTiONl




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs