Truth is often said to be the first casualty of war. The same can be said for political campaigns.

Just look at the debate already over an initiative to repeal Tucson's garbage pickup fee, prohibit "toilet-to-tap" drinking water and limit future water connections, despite it having only been certified for November's ballot for a week.

Repealing the garbage fee will gut the city's police and fire departments. All home building will cease by 2009. We're on the verge of a water crisis. The initiative is too wide-ranging and is illegal. Government coffers will be savaged by the drop in taxes and impact fees from growth.

All of these claims have been leveled already in the embryonic stages of the campaign. But an Arizona Daily Star examination indicates they share a common characteristic: they're either misleading or outright wrong.

Political pollster Margaret Kenski said she would expect more of the same type of claims from now until November.

"There's going to be assertions and counter-assertions," Kenski said, adding that much of it will be by direct mail, along with some limited television advertising. "A lot will depend on whose direct mail is … most effective."

Kenski said the outcome will hinge on which assertions voters find to be the most credible.

Expect developers, builders and business interests to raise large amounts of money to beat the initiative led by former state lawmaker John Kromko because those groups are concerned about its effects, predicted pollster Pete Zimmerman, who added that he anticipates he will be hired to work on the campaign.

State Rep. Jonathan Paton said he expects not just builders but the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, and potentially the police and fire unions, to line up against the initiative. "I think everyone's going to do everything they can because it affects the whole community," Paton said. "It has something for everybody to dislike."

Mayor Bob Walkup: Repealing the garbage fee will gut the police and fire staffs.

Conclusion: Some truth, but not entirely true.

Last week Walkup said the $24 million loss from cutting the garbage fee would cut into the city's personnel, especially in the Police and Fire departments. "That would be devastating to us. That would set us back 10 years," Walkup added.

But Kromko and others questioned why the cuts would have to come from police and fire — services most citizens consider government's most important functions.

"That's the standard thing," Kromko said. "Sure they are going to say it will take cops off the street," he said, calling it a "scare tactic."

When the garbage fee was enacted, Walkup said the money it saved from the general fund was put toward police and fire. But that doesn't mean police and fire have to get cut if the funding is removed, Kromko said. "What happens to public safety is another decision down the road."

In reality, said Finance Director Jim Cameron, Police and Fire departments are the last to get cut during tough budget times.

"If you look at our history, we have tried to spare police and fire" from cuts, Cameron said. "We've always gone looking for savings from other parts of the city."

But he warned that past cuts to other departments will make it harder to avoid police and fire cuts entirely next year, if the initiative passes.

"You would have a difficult time not hitting public safety" at all, he said, noting police and fire consume nearly 50 percent of the city's $493 million general fund.

Walkup later backed off his comments somewhat, saying the loss in revenue would hit all departments, not just police and fire, and cost 300 jobs.

"It would amount to about 300 people. I can't imagine it wouldn't affect all departments," he said.

The Southern Arizona Home Builders Association: All home building will cease by 2009.

Conclusion: False.

Lori Lustig, government liaison with the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association, said initiative limits on new water connections when the supply runs low would allow only 9,000 more houses to be built in the Tucson Water service area, and would stop the home-building industry in metro Tucson by 2009.

"We're estimating one year until build-out," Lustig said last week.

However, Tucson Water Spokesman Mitch Basefsky said the region wouldn't reach the thresholds in the initiative for "a minimum of 10 years."

Kromko's initiative calls for a moratorium on water connections when Tucson Water delivers 140,000 acre-feet of water annually. An acre-foot of water serves about three homes, Basefsky said.

It delivered 125,000 acre-feet of water in 2006, and despite new growth, Tucson Water has delivered less water this year than last, probably because of conservation, Basefsky said. He estimated that it would take 45,000 homes to get to the moratorium, not the 9,000 cited by SAHBA.

Lustig said SAHBA's estimate was based on different, more conservative, projections. "I don't know which numbers are correct," she said, while adding that she couldn't dispute Tucson Water's figures.

The initiative is illegal because the issue is too wide-ranging.

Conclusion: Not true. The state limits what can be included in its initiatives; the City Charter does not.

Several people have said Kromko's initiative is not legal because it encompasses several issues, and state law says initiatives can only cover one subject.

City Attorney Mike Rankin said "the single subject rule applies to an amendment to the Arizona Constitution."

"That rule has never been extended to a city charter," Rankin said. "It would be a new issue for the court to address."

Kromko said his petitions don't violate the single subject rule anyway because, "I'm not the one that put the garbage fee on the water bill."

Kromko says the city is nearing a water crisis.

Conclusion: Not true, at least not yet.

Last week, Kromko said, "It is possible we're heading towards a water crisis."

He clarified his position this week, saying, "In eight to 10 years, they are going to need to start restricting the water they distribute."

But Basefsky of Tucson Water said earlier this month that the state gave the city a designation that had a supply of 184,000 acre- feet available for the next 100 years. That's 44,000 acre-feet above the threshold for cutoff in Kromko's initiative, and nearly 60,000 acre-feet above the current water-usage levels.

The initiative would decimate government coffers by paring taxes and impact fees.

Conclusion: Possible, but if so, not for years.

Paton, who represents Tucson's East Side, said the initiative would force huge cuts in construction, causing job losses and cutting tax revenue at the city, county and state levels. It would also cut impact-fee money at the local level, he said.

But if the building moratorium doesn't take effect for a decade, then impact to government budgets wouldn't take effect for 10 years either. The impact-fee argument is offset by the fact that impact fees are to pay for new growth — and if there's no new growth, then the city wouldn't need the fees.

University of Arizona senior research economist Alberta Charney said she can't predict whether a building moratorium would hurt the economy here in 10 years. Obviously builders would be hurt, she said, but there are too many other economic factors to determine now what the outcome would be.

In addition, she said, the deadline could cause a surge of building before the moratorium hits.

Builders would also change their behavior, Charney said, and would likely combine new or existing multifamily units onto one water connection as a way to get around the moratorium.

● Contact reporter Rob O'Dell at 573-4240 or rodell@azstarnet.com.