1. Paying for Water in California: Prop 218 Caitrin Chappelle, Associate Center Director April 28, 2015 Supported by the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation

2. The current drought highlights the crucial role of our water system 2  California’s economic, social, and environmental health all rely on a well-managed water system  A key ingredient for success is adequate funding

3. Local agencies raise most of the $30+ billion spent annually 3 SOURCE: Author estimates (various sources)

4. 4 Three constitutional reforms have made it harder to pay for local water services 197819962010 Prop 13Prop 218Prop 26 Property taxes reduced Local special taxes require 2/3 voter approval State taxes require 2/3 legislative approval* * Ballot measures can still pass with simple majority (50%) of state voters General taxes no longer available to special districts Local property-related fees/assessments: 1.Property-owner protest hearings 2.Strict cost-of-service requirements 3.Floods and stormwater: new charges require 50% vote by property owners or 2/3 popular vote Stricter requirements on local non-property related fees and state regulatory fees (more likely to be taxes) Stricter cost-of-service requirements for wholesale agency fees

5. Urban water and wastewater utilities are in relatively good fiscal health  Usually can raise rates to meet needs  Investments have improved urban drought-resilience  But looming concerns: –Rising costs (treatment standards, aging infrastructure, Delta) –Legal obstacles to conservation pricing, portfolio-based management, lifeline rates 5 Source: Capital needs estimates from EPA Clean Drinking Water Survey (2013) and Clean Watershed survey (2008)

6. San Juan Capistrano Case  Good news: The judge rejected the notion that recycled water costs couldn’t be spread among all users.  Bad news: The ruling will significantly complicate tiered pricing. Tiered rates can be consistent with Prop 218, if agencies face increasing marginal costs for higher levels of supplies. But this isn’t a precise science.  Next steps: many rate structures are vulnerable, agencies need to make better cases, reform? 6

7. We face debilitating funding gaps in other areas 7 Overall grade Annual gap ($ millions) Water supplyPassing (mostly)— WastewaterPassing (mostly)— Safe drinking water (small rural systems) Failing$30–$160 Flood protectionFailing$800–$1,000 Stormwater managementFailing$500–$800 Aquatic ecosystem management Failing$400–$700 Integrated managementOn the brink$200–$300 Total Annual Gap: $2 – $3 Billion

8. Stormwater management has been most hindered by constitutional reforms  New and growing regulatory mandate to manage pollution, not just drainage  Any new charge requires a vote – often at 2/3 supermajority – and beneficiaries are usually downstream  Costs are rising as regulations get stricter 8 The Los Angeles River watershed is expected to reach “zero-trash”

9. Stormwater capture is an example of integrated water management  Addresses pollution  Augments water supply  Success requires –Breaking down management silos –Raising funds  Water bills can pick up part of the tab (for water supply benefits) 9 Green Streets in Burlingame

10. California needs to look beyond state bonds to close funding gaps Gap area Annual gap ($ millions) One-time infusion from Prop 1 ($ millions) Other long-term funding options Safe drinking water in small rural systems $30–$160$260*  Statewide surcharges on water, chemical use Flood protection $800–$1,000$395  Developer fees  Property assessments  Special state, local taxes Stormwater management $500–$800$200  Developer fees  Property assessments  Special state, local taxes  Surcharges on water, chemical, or road use Aquatic ecosystem management $400–$700$2,845**  Special state, local taxes  Surcharges on water use, hydropower production Integrated management $200–$300$510  Special state, local taxes  Surcharges on water use 10

11. Transparency and integration are key  Local agencies can make a better case –Communicate costs and needs to ratepayers –Integrate to boost performance and funding options  State and federal agencies can help reduce costs –Get integrated –Improve regulatory efficiency –Crunch the numbers (models, data, analysis) 11

12. Constitutional reforms may be needed  Allow portfolio-based water pricing  Treat stormwater as regulatory fee  Treat floods like water and sewer  Allow lifeline rates  Lower voting thresholds for special taxes 12

13. The drought opens windows of opportunity for local and statewide action 13 Source: PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and their Government

14. Thank you! 14 More information at www.ppic.org/waterwww.ppic.org/water

15. Notes on the use of these slides 15 These slides were created to accompany a presentation. They do not include full documentation of sources, data samples, methods, and interpretations. To avoid misinterpretations, please contact: Caitrin Chappelle: 415-291-4435, chappelle@ppic.org Thank you for your interest in this work.