California's inventory of public works includes 32 lakes and reservoirs, 660 miles of canals and pipelines, and 1,595 miles of levees.

Then there's the 50,000 "lane miles" of highways, nine toll bridges and 192 higher education campuses and satellites.

Not to mention the 1.4 million acres of parkland, 33 prisons and 8.5 million square feet of state-owned office space.
All of this falls under the rubric of "infrastructure." And, according to many experts, it's in bad shape.

The state has been living off the big investments in public works made in the 1950s and '60s, they say. But now the account has run dry, leaving a backlog of maintenance. In the meantime, a growing population requires new roads, parks and water lines.

Enter Proposition 53, a constitutional amendment that will appear on the Oct. 7 recall election ballot.

The measure would require a percentage of the state's general fund -- growing over eight years to as much as 3 percent -- to be set aside for maintaining and building public works.

A complicated set of triggers would eliminate or reduce the state's contribution to the infrastructure bank when tax revenues were stagnant or dropping, or the state was spending more than a certain percentage of its budget to pay off bonds.

The fund would be split 50-50 between the state and local governments but would not go to public schools, which in recent years have benefited from multibillion-dollar bond issues.

Proponents say it's the best way to guarantee that public facilities aren't forgotten in the hurly-burly of issues that seem more pressing.

"The economy can't function if we don't rebuild aging infrastructure and build facilities for an ever-increasing population," said Bill Hauck, president of the California Business Roundtable, which is supporting the measure.

Critics see in Proposition 53 another in a line of budget gimmicks that hamstring the governor and Legislature, making it harder to deal with shifting priorities and the ups and downs of fiscal fortunes.

"The problem is, it doesn't say what you need to cut to get there ... ," said Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project, a Sacramento-based research group focusing on policies affecting low-and middle-income people. "That's the inherent problem with ballot-box budgeting: You get your cake, but you don't have to face the consequences."

The constitutional amendment was proposed last year in a bill -- ACA 11 -- by Assemblyman Keith Richman, R-Northridge. It stalled in committee but won sudden approval as part of a budget deal in the Assembly in August 2002.

It was supposed to be on the ballot in March 2004, the next scheduled statewide election. But when the gubernatorial recall election qualified for the ballot, Proposition 53 was included, forcing both sides to plan for a compressed campaign.

In mid-June, the initiative's proponents decided the recall vote was a certainty and hunkered down for a fall election, said Dan Pellissier, campaign manager for the measure.

Because of the compressed timeline, the proponents will depend on existing networks, such as the League of California Cities, to get out the message.

"It doesn't provide much time to generate campaign support, campaign contributions," Hauck said. "And it goes on a ballot where the attention is focused elsewhere. But you have to play the hand you're dealt."

Cities and counties -- which would get half the money -- are supporting the proposition, as are construction unions and contractors who would stand to get work from public facilities contracts. Business associations are also backing it.

It's opposed by the Congress of California Seniors and the Service Employees International Union, which represents many public employees. Teachers and other school officials are also expected to oppose it. Barbara Kerr, president of the California Teachers Association, could not be reached for comment last week.

These groups have a common concern: that money dedicated to public facilities will starve other state operations and public employee salaries.

"This, if passed, will further restrict the flexibility of the Legislature in dealing with programs," said William Powers, legislative director of the Congress of California Seniors and one of the signers of the opposition ballot argument. Among the operations that could be squeezed, he said, are nutritional programs for seniors, health care, and grants for aged, blind and disabled people.

"This was the product of a miserable deal to get a miserable budget," said Lenny Goldberg, executive director of the California Tax Reform Association and the other signer of the opposition argument. "It was another piece of political shenanigans."

In recent years, the state has chosen to spend more on education than required under Proposition 98, the 1988 initiative that guaranteed schools a minimum share of state revenue.

If Proposition 53 passes, Goldberg said, "it will come out of education and make Proposition 98 a ceiling, not a floor."

Ross, of the California Budget Project, said the triggers meant to reduce the state's obligation in lean years are far from perfect.

According to figures from the non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office, she said, "transfers would have been required even in the depths of the budget crisis in the early 1990s."

Proponents said they are expecting what they describe as "scare tactics" from teacher and public employee unions, similar to the arguments they made against Proposition 42, which dedicated gasoline sales tax to transportation.

"It's all about scaring people," Pellissier said. "It would be malpractice for us not to assume that would happen again."

Proponents bolster their argument by pointing to a host of problems that can be blamed on not spending enough on public facilities, from beach closures caused by overflowing or leaking sewage to traffic jams on neglected highways.

In some rural counties, officials have chosen to convert paved roads back to gravel because they lack the money to maintain them, said Mike Kashiwagi, Elk Grove's manager of building and engineering. A 1999 survey found that cities and counties had an $11 billion backlog in street repairs and needed an additional $14 billion to make roads safer.

The challenge in this election, proponents say, will be to get voters to understand the importance of public facilities.

"To me, the challenge is relating those leaking pipes to how it affects public safety, economic development and the quality of life," Kashiwagi said.