Posts

One Less Tax. California Lawmakers Move To Reject Gavin Newsom’s Water Fee

A Senate budget subcommittee rejected Gov. Gavin Newsom’s water tax plan on Wednesday, instead recommending finding $150 million elsewhere to finance a safe and affordable drinking water fund. Newsom proposed the tax in his January budget to help communities clean contaminated water systems. His May budget revise also included a fee to address the statewide problem that affects one million Californians.

Gavin Newsom Budget Calls For Drinking Water Tax To Help Poor Communities

Tackling what promises to be a controversial issue, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed a tax on drinking water Thursday to help disadvantaged communities clean up contaminated water systems. Newsom’s plan for a “safe and affordable drinking water fund,” included in the new governor’s first budget proposal, attempts to revive an idea that died in the Legislature last year. A McClatchy investigation last year showed that at least 360,000 Californians rely on water that does not meet state standards for toxins. McClatchy also found that 6 million Californians have water providers that have violated state standards at some point since 2012.

OPINION: The Observer: Keeping Both Eyes on Statewide Drinking Water Tax

With the state legislature returning from summer recess, the proposal to impose a statewide tax on drinking water could return before the end of the current legislative year on August 31.

The proposed tax on drinking water was introduced in 2017 by Sen. Bill Monning (SB 623). The primary purpose of the bill was to fund solutions in some disadvantaged communities without access to safe drinking water, which are primarily located in rural areas in the Central Valley. In September of 2017, the Assembly Appropriations Committee moved the bill to the Assembly Rules Committee, where it currently remains as a two-year bill. The proposal would have generated roughly $110 million per year through a 95-cent monthly fee on home water bills as well as taxes on businesses of up to $10 per month. Another $30 million would come from higher fees on agricultural and dairy businesses, industries whose chemicals contribute to the problem of contaminated groundwater.

OPINION: Deconstructing The Opposition To The California Water Fix

Here we go again.  There’s nothing better than California water politics to prove the sagacity of French writer Alphonse Karr’s immortal quip: “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” (“The more things change, the more it’s the same thing.”) Last week the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Board voted for a second time to finance the Delta tunnels, aka the California WaterFix.  (Applying an abundance of caution, the Board decided to re-vote to preclude the impacts of a number of unsubstantiated allegations from WaterFix opponents such as purported Brown Act violations and other sundry sins, crimes and misdemeanors).

Supervisor Kristin Gaspar, chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, officials from the San Diego County Water Authority and several of its member agencies, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, the Industrial Environmental Association, and more than 30 agencies and organizations have voiced strong opposition to any effort by state legislators to impose a drinking water tax.

San Diego Coalition Remains Vigilant on Water Tax

Due in part to vigorous statewide opposition by a coalition of business, civic, and water industry officials, a proposed $135 million per year tax on drinking water in California has failed to advance in the state Legislature. But opponents of the bill said their victory should be considered temporary, and the anti-water-tax coalition in San Diego County remains on alert for attempts to revive the proposal.

In June, the legislative Budget Conference Committee failed to approve a Brown Administration budget trailer bill that included the water tax, and the trailer bill was not a component of the final state budget package passed by the Legislature on June 14. The proposed drinking water tax would have raised about $135 million a year to help provide clean, safe water in disadvantaged communities, mostly in the Central and Salinas valleys, where groundwater has been contaminated by farming operations.

Tax proponents likely to renew efforts in August

Tax proponents are likely to renew their efforts to advance another water tax proposal in August, the final month of the legislative session. Several legislative vehicles could allow them that opportunity.

Regional leaders in San Diego understand the need to improve water quality in poor, rural areas of the state. However, they say that should be done without adding another tax burden to residents who live in one of the nation’s most expensive states. They have also said the tax undermines access to the very thing it aims to support – clean water – by making it more expensive.

In addition, there is a major concern with the lack of administrative infrastructure – including appropriate managerial, technical, financial, and operational expertise – within the communities and regions suffering from poor groundwater quality. Without the appropriate governance structure or administrative infrastructure in place to make lasting improvements, the proposed water tax will not provide a lasting solution.

Supervisor Kristin Gaspar, chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, officials from the San Diego County Water Authority and several of its member agencies, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, the Industrial Environmental Association, and more than 30 agencies and organizations have voiced strong opposition to any effort by state legislators to impose a drinking water tax.

New legislation offers help to boost clean drinking water access

There are other ways to help boost access to clean drinking water statewide. Assembly Bill 2050 offers a more systemic, long-term approach. AB 2050 would authorize the creation of small system water authorities that will have powers to absorb, improve, and competently operate noncompliance public water systems.

Co-sponsored by Eastern Municipal Water District and the California Municipal Utilities Association, AB 2050 approaches the challenge of unsafe and undrinkable water sources within disadvantaged communities in a more methodical and well-structured manner, acknowledging the need to first improve service delivery infrastructure and governance structure of failing and noncompliant water systems as a condition precedent to any broader funding solution such as a water tax.

 

San Diego County Water Authority Logo Stacked Tagline

Region United To Oppose State’s $135 Million Per Year Water Tax Proposal

San Diego, Calif. – Business, civic, and water industry officials from across San Diego County have joined forces to oppose a proposed $135 million per year tax on drinking water in California that would harm ratepayers and likely result in a flood of additional taxes on the state’s most precious natural resource.

Water Authority Chairman Mark Muir (center) speaks to reporters at a news conference of regional leaders announcing their opposition to a proposed state water tax. Photo: Water Authority

San Diego County Coalition of Leaders Opposes Tax on Drinking Water

A coalition of business, civic and water industry officials from across San Diego County has joined forces to oppose a proposed $135 million per year tax on drinking water in California that would harm ratepayers and likely result in a flood of additional taxes on the state’s most precious natural resource.

During a news conference this morning at the County Administration Center, regional leaders offered other funding solutions to improve water quality in poor, rural areas of the state without adding another tax burden to residents in one of the nation’s most expensive states.

See video highlights of the news conference here.

Supervisor Kristin Gaspar, chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, joined officials from the San Diego County Water Authority and several of its member agencies, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, the Industrial Environmental Association, and several other groups. In all, more than 30 agencies and organizations across the region have signed a letter to legislative leaders opposing the drinking water tax plan.

Encinitas City Councilmember Mark Muir, chair of the San Diego County Water Authority’s Board of Directors and a member of the San Dieguito Water District Board, warned that the current water tax proposal would set a dangerous precedent. “It would be the camel’s nose under the tent; what begins as a modest increase could quickly grow larger and larger as more projects and programs try to get into the tent,” he said. “We’ve already seen proposals in Sacramento that could add more than $15 a month to residential water bills.”

The tax proposal is being advanced through Senate Bill 623 by state Sen. William Monning (Carmel) and a Brown Administration budget trailer bill related to safe drinking water. The drinking water tax would initially raise about $135 million a year to help provide clean, safe water in disadvantaged communities, mostly in the Central and Salinas valleys, where groundwater has been contaminated by farming operations. In addition, approximately $22 million would be generated by a tax on fertilizer and confined dairy facilities. State legislators are expected to vote on the tax by mid-June, though the issue could extend into late summer.

Read More:

Fox 5 San Diego: Local Leaders Protest Plan to Tax Tap Water

CBS 8 News: County Water Authority Opposes Drinking Water Tax

NBC 7 San Diego: Calif. Water Tax Proposal Faces Opposition From Local Leaders

KGTV 10 News: Proposed California Tap Water Tax Meets Opposition

KPBS Radio: San Diego Leaders Gather To Oppose Water Tax

Opposition is growing across California to the proposed state water tax. Photo: Pixabay/Creative Commons State water tax opposition

State Water Tax Opposition Grows Across California

San Diego, Calif. – Civic and business leaders statewide are increasingly expressing opposition to the proposed state drinking water tax.

They call on the state’s leaders to find a better way to fund clean water than adding a tax, as proposed by state Senate Bill 623 and the Brown administration’s Budget Trailer Bill. A chief concern is that a precedent-setting tax today would lead to more taxes on water in the future.

Here’s a sampling of anti-tax perspectives from around the state.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Sacramento: “It is unconscionable that California, which has a record-high $130 billion General Fund budget with a $6 billion surplus, can’t 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? The statewide tax would represent a diversion of local ratepayer dollars to an out-of-control state bureaucracy that has little accountability.”
John Coleman, past president, Association of California Water Agencies; board member, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland: The process through which this tax has been proposed is also problematic. Proponents have been planning to insert this tax for months, but kept all details under wraps until the last few weeks of session … To impose a statewide tax on Californians’ water bills would turn local water agencies into taxation entities that send money to Sacramento

The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board: Californians are told lawmakers can’t commit themselves to devoting a tiny fraction of the state budget to honor the intent of the measure, so a new category of taxation must be created. Baloney. Yes, of course, the water problem must be addressed — but with honesty, not subterfuge.

Haney Hong, president and CEO of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association: “Twenty percent of the funding for this correction for the water source, which is an important thing to do, comes from the polluters, and the rest, the 80 percent, comes from the rest of us in California. That’s not how this should work.”

Mark Muir, chair of the San Diego County Water Authority’s Board of Directors: “Make no mistake: This is a tax, and taxing Californians for something as essential as water does not make sense. It will increase the cost of water, making it less affordable. It also will place undo upward pressure on food prices. Call it a lose-lose for low-income residents – and everyone else.”

The Agoura Hills/Calabasas Acorn Editorial Board: “Water districts are caught in a squeeze between environmentalists who want the cleanest water possible released into the state’s waterways—a demand that comes at a high cost—and consumers who are tired of footing the bill … And all of this doesn’t even take into account the future cost of the twin tunnel megalith that will channel fresh water underneath the Sacramento Bay Delta for supposedly more efficient delivery to farms and urban areas in the South. What’s that going to cost? Customer costs are already too high.”

Assemblyman Philip Chen (Brea):Supporters of SB623 will argue that this legislation will help those who are poor, disadvantaged, and reside in rural areas. It does not … Adding a tax on drinking water will only make clean and safe water less affordable for all Californians. According to the California Tax Foundation, since the beginning of this year Sacramento lawmakers have introduced more than 90 bills that would cost taxpayers more than $370 billion annually in higher taxes and fees. Now these lawmakers want to add another tax but this time on your drinking water. Will there be anything that is not taxed in California?”

Seventy-three percent of Californians opposed the state water tax in a recent poll.

 

 

 

 

San Diego County Water Authority Board Chairman Mark Muir. Photo: Water Authority Historic water deal

Water Tax Proposal Remains Poor Policy

Like a bad penny, a plan to tax water keeps turning up in Sacramento.

That’s right: under two proposals circulating in the Capitol, California would start taxing the most fundamental resource on the planet. Such taxes would needlessly drive up costs for families already struggling to make ends meet and undermine the very goals that proponents profess.

Senate Bill 623 by state Sen. William Monning (Carmel) and a budget trailer bill supported by Governor Brown would add a tax to local residential and business water bills in the name of providing safe, clean drinking water to disadvantaged communities, mostly in the Central Valley.

There’s no question that some Californians in low-income, rural areas don’t enjoy the same level of safe drinking water delivered by the San Diego County Water Authority and its 24 member agencies. That’s why the Water Authority and many other water agencies statewide have made it a priority to promote sensible funding strategies to address this important issue. We are committed to delivering safe and reliable water, and we wholeheartedly support the goal of ensuring the same for all Californians.

Water tax proposal hurts the people it is intended to help

But taxing water isn’t the right approach.

Among the many problems with this is strategy is that it sets a bad precedent. California currently does not tax water or essential food products. However, even before the first proposed water tax has been voted on, two additional water tax proposals have already emerged in Sacramento. Both of those taxes would drive up water bills by as much as $15 to $20 each month.

The cost of living in California is already high, and taxing drinking water works against the very people that the funds are intended to help.

Of course, Californians overwhelmingly object to legislation that would create a new tax on drinking water, according to a recent poll of likely 2018 voters. In all, 73 percent said they opposed the Senate legislation. Over half said they “strongly opposed” the measure, while just 8 percent said they “strongly supported” it.

Thankfully, there are better alternatives.

California appropriately uses its general fund to pay for other important programs and social issues identified as state priorities, including public health, education, housing and disability services. The public supports using the general fund to pay for programs that serve and protect residents and communities in need.

Dozens of local water agencies, chambers and other groups have joined together to advance more appropriate funding solutions – a package that includes federal safe drinking water funds, voter-approved general obligation bond dollars, cap-and-trade revenues, agricultural fees related to nitrate in drinking water, and general fund money. With this approach, we can address an important issue for our state without adding a tax on our most precious natural resource.

 

 

State Bill Proposes First-Ever Tax on Drinking Water

The first ever proposed tax on water usage is making its way through the California State Assembly. SB623, the “Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund” bill, would charge every household in the state an additional 95 cents a month, which would pay to operate treatment plants in rural areas where water is polluted. Under existing law, the California Drinking Water Act requires that the State Water Resources Control Board provide resources ensuring drinking water safety, and the tax would supply money for the fund to finance water improvement projects throughout the state.