The city unleashed a nightmare scenario Wednesday, detailing what it believes would be the dire effects of a November ballot initiative to repeal the garbage fee and limit new water connections.
Although legally the city of Tucson can't use its resources to lobby against an initiative, it issued three informational memos on the consequences it says would occur if Proposition 200 passes.
Among the conclusions of City Attorney Mike Rankin: The cutoff in new water connections would come years earlier than the 12 years estimated previously.
Proposition 200 requires the city to stop new connections when the estimated demand for water reaches the reliable supply. Because Rankin interprets the word "water" in the initiative to mean both potable and reclaimed water, that could come in as little as a year or two if drought conditions become more severe.
People are also reading…
Rankin also affirmed the position of opponents that passage of the initiative would force the city to cut off water to the University of Arizona, the Veterans Affairs hospital and University Medical Center because they are considered "water providers" under state law. He also concluded that water would have to be cut off to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, the Winterhaven neighborhood and the Marana and Oro Valley water departments.
However, Rankin said that before cutting off the water to those entities, the city would ask a judge to decide if that's the correct legal interpretation of the initiative, written by former state lawmaker John Kromko.
Kromko ripped the city officials, particularly Rankin, saying the city is using its resources to fight a ballot measure, which is illegal under state law.
"It's totally unethical for a city attorney to write such a thing," Kromko said, because it was written on city time, meaning public money was used to produce it. "Their whole purpose is to influence the result of the election. That's illegal."
Kromko said the city's job is to remain neutral on ballot measures, and he added, "These people fight against the public."
In a separate series of memos, city Finance Director Jim Cameron said the repeal of the garbage fee would cut $24 million from the city's budget.
It wouldn't cut existing services, he said, but it would derail the hiring of 80 police officers and 25 firefighters, and prevent 16 miles of road paving planned over the next two years as called for in the city's 10-year budget plan. Cameron also said the garbage-fee repeal could reduce the chances of the city's credit rating being upgraded.
Rankin said Kromko is correct that the city "can't use its resources to influence the outcome of an election." But he said city officials can "absolutely" talk about Proposition 200's effects. He said it's about factual statements versus advocacy.
In Rankin's legal opinion, he cited case law that states reclaimed effluent is in fact considered "water" under state law. For that reason, he said, Kromko's initiative refers to both reclaimed and drinking water when its says new water connections will cease once the city delivers 140,000 acre-feet a year, or enough water for 420,000 households.
"If he's using 'water' generically, it means drinking water and reclaimed water," Rankin said. "Arizona case law backs that up. If you just say 'water,' it includes effluent."
In fiscal year 2005-06, Tucson Water delivered 137,000 acre-feet of potable and reclaimed water combined, allowing only a small cushion until the new water connections are ceased if the ballot measure passes. Tucson Water Director David Modeer said water use in the 2006-07 fiscal year actually dropped, to about 135,000 acre-feet, because of a more plentiful 2006 monsoon season.
Kromko said "it's perfectly clear we mean drinking water" in the proposition, adding that it's so clear that no opponent brought up such an argument, despite the petition's being circulated for six months already. "They never thought of this until now," Kromko said. "They're grasping at straws."
If the definition of water is limited deliveries of potable water, the cutoff would be about 12 years in the future.
Although the proposition says the city can't provide water to other "distributors," the word "distributor" is not defined in state water law. So Rankin said the "closest analogue" to "distributor" in state law is "provider." The UA, UMC and the VA hospital, plus Winterhaven, D-M and the Marana and Oro Valley water utilities, are considered "water providers" under the law. Therefore, he contends, they would have to be cut off.
Larry Hecker, who heads the No on Prop. 200 campaign, said Rankin's opinion confirms what his group said about the proposition two weeks ago.
Kromko countered that "it's perfectly clear what this means," calling the "water provider" argument "outrageous."
Watch proponents and opponents of Proposition 200 discuss the issue at azstarnet.com/video.
Prop 200 videos
In separate sessions, the Arizona Daily Star editorial board met with John Kromko, author of Proposition 200, and with members of a committee opposing the initiative. View video excerpts from the meetings, comparing statements on the following topics:
