The third in the series, Prop 6, labeled SJR 1. I have to confess that this one I cannot make heads or tails of. The legalese is tripping me up, and I’m just not sure what it means. This is also the most controversial of the proposals, so I would like to understand it.
SJR 1 would create a State Water Implementation Fund as a special fund inside the state treasury and outside the General Revenue Fund. Money in the fund would be administered by the Texas Water Development Board and would be used to implement the state water plan, as adopted by general law, by TWDB.
The proposed amendment would read on the ballot:
That doesn’t sound that complicated, but the devil is in the details. I’m trying to read the summaries and analysis linked above, but I get lost in all the details about general obligation bonds and bond enhancements and related credit agreements.
As I understand the proposal, the existing Texas Water Development Board is charged with overseeing a plan to ensure Texas has adequate water resources for the future. Given the existing statewide drought that has been ongoing for a couple of years and projected water use for the growing population, the Board has a challenge to ensure that projects are created to protect the necessary water supplies.
This proposal authorizes the creation of two new funds under the authority of this Board. These funds would be separate from the General Funds, and thus would gain some legal advantages for the State. The proposal also would take money from the Rainy Day Fund and transfer it as seed money to the funds. This would be considered taking money previously intended for these activities and putting it under the Board’s controls.
Opponents of the proposition argue the rainy day fund should not be used to create the two new funds, and that any new funds should come from general funds. They think taking money from the rainy day fund will affect the state’s credit rating, as well as reduce resources for a potential future emergency (like a hurricane). They argue doing so is an accounting trick to avoid a constitutional limit on spending. They also argue the funds are unnecessary, as there already exit two dedicated water development funds and several financial assistance programs for water infrastructure administered by the Board.
Unfortunately, both sides just blindly claim it will or will not affect the state’s credit rating. There is no justification for either position.
Also, what is the need for these new funds? Are there existing funds? If so, how do these new funds differ, what would they allow that isn’t already possible?
Like I said, the nuts and bolts of the proposal are making my eyes glaze over without making sense to me (just what the funds are doing, how they get the money, etc). Something about issuing bonds and ensuring they have funds to cover the bonds. At this point I don’t understand enough to support the proposition, but I would like to try.