Californians to be asked to spend more during unprecedented.

Supporters of a proposed $11 billion water bond say the money is urgently needed to fix California's water supply problems, yet billions of dollars in previous bond money still hasn't been spent, according to the California treasurer.About half of the $20 billion in water and levee improvement bonds passed since 2000 was unspent as of July, according to the State Treasurer's Office most recent report on debt affordability. It is unclear how much of that money is actually available for new efforts, since lawmakers have appropriated billions for specific projects, according to Jason Dickerson, debt service analyst for the Legislative Analyst's Office.
Some of those commitments could be changed by lawmakers if they want to redirect funds or by voters if they revise earlier bond measures.
But projects also could already be under way with the expectation that they would be paid later when bonds are sold to investors, Dickerson said.
Despite that spending, bond supporters say more is needed and they will spend the next year making the case for the biggest water bond ever proposed.
"It really is a need for investment in the tens of billions of dollars in the next few decades," said Mark Cowin, deputy director of the Department of Water Resources.
"In light of population growth and climate change, we knew we've got to invest even more."
At $11.1 billion, the measure is twice as big as the last record-breaking water bond -- Proposition 84, the $5.4 billion bond initiative that passed in 2006, shattering the record set four years earlier with the $3.4 billion Proposition 50. If the slate of ambitious projects to reform distribution and improve supply sounds familiar, that's because it is. And no wonder: that new measure was written largely by lobbyist Joe Caves, who was a key player behind previous water bonds. Caves, whose biggest client is The Nature Conservancy, is a master broker who brings together environmentalists, business groups and various parts of the state that often have very different interests. He could not be reached Friday.
The bond measure, which will go to voters next November, was passed as part of a five-bill package to overhaul the state's water system. It includes $3 billion to build new surface or groundwater reservoirs, $455 million for drought relief projects and $2.25 billion for Delta projects. Supporters, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the sponsor of the bond measure, state Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, say the inclusion of $3 billion for new dams makes this bond measure important and different. "This is a comprehensive solution that takes into account all aspects of dealing with safe, reliable water," said Cogdill spokeswoman Sabrina Lockhart.Most of the other half of the bond is for programs that were funded by earlier bonds, including groundwater cleanup, water recycling, land conservancies and grants for regional water projects. Critics, including some environmentalists, contend that the state has overpromised water. They say the state's farms and cities must use less water, and the state cannot spend its way out of the problem with new dams, canals and other infrastructure.
"This bloated bond just throws money at water without the thoughtful stewardship the taxpayers deserve," said Jonas Minton, a water policy analyst at the Planning and Conservation League, a state environmental group.
State Treasurer Bill Lockyer recently sounded a warning that the state was issuing too much debt and water improvements should be paid mostly through rate increases.
"If we keep going down the road we're headed, debt service is going to devour more than 10 percent of general fund revenues in 2014-2015," said Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar. "That is unprecedented. We need to adopt a smarter, long-term approach to planning and financing infrastructure in this state."
If approved, an $11 billion bond could cost the state's general fund between $600 million and $800 million a year to repay once the money is fully accessed, the LAO said.
Local water agencies, meanwhile, have also been on an unprecedented spending spree to upgrade and maintain water infrastructure.
For example:
-- The Contra Costa Water District spent $450 million to build Los Vaqueros reservoir, which was completed in 1998.
-- The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California completed its $2 billion reservoir in 2002.
-- The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is in the middle of a $4.6 billion upgrade of its water system.
-- The East Bay's largest water district, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, is expected to complete a $922 million project with Sacramento County next spring to take water out of the Sacramento River.
In each of those cases, water agencies relied on ratepayers to make the investment.
"Those who need surface storage and have the ability to pay for it have done so," said Catherine Freeman of the Legislative Analyst's Office. "The state of California has been doing a lot of investing in infrastructure, and they've been doing it outside the general fund."
The result of California's wave of investment by ratepayers and taxpayers is several new regional reservoirs, groundwater storage and billions for water efficiency, conservation and recycling. Voters will have to decide if a massive slug of taxpayer-backed borrowing is the way to fix the state's continuing water problems.