An initiative to repeal Tucson's garbage pickup fee, prohibit "toilet-to-tap" drinking water and limit future water connections has enough signatures to be placed on November's ballot.

Tucson City Clerk Kathy Detrick verified Thursday the initiative dubbed the "Tucson Water Users Bill of Rights" has the needed 11,615 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

However, City Attorney Mike Rankin said there still could be a legal challenge to the initiative, either by the city or a third party, because of legal issues with the wide-ranging proposal — a highly unusual statement for the city attorney to make once a measure has been certified for the ballot.

Rankin said there are potential legal issues. Among them, he said the initiative is too broad and it effectively creates a moratorium on building permits, which he said is only allowed by state law under certain conditions.

But initiative organizer John Kromko said he doesn't think the courts would overturn the ballot measure, adding he is feeling good about the petitions considering "how thoroughly the city went over them."

"Everybody can see it is possible we're heading towards a water crisis," the activist and former state legislator said, adding that the City Council doesn't have "the courage to face it."

The prospect that the initiative will reach voters is touching off widespread opposition from elected officials, businesses and home builders because of its limits on future water connections to preserve supply for existing customers.

Limits on water connections would mean limits on future home building, a major Southern Arizona industry.

Builders' opposition stems from thresholds for new water connections in the initiative that would only allow 9,000 more houses to be built in the area served by Tucson Water, effectively stopping the home building industry in metro Tucson by about 2009, said Lori Lustig, government liaison with the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association.

"It's not good," Lustig said. "We're estimating one year until build out."

The initiative calls for a halt to new water connections once Tucson Water delivers 140,000 acre-feet a year, and the utility delivered 125,000 acre-feet in 2006, said Tucson Water spokesman Mitch Basefsky.

State Rep. Jonathan Paton, who represents Tucson's East Side, was more blunt. He said builders are talking about an "apocalypse" for their industry. "They are genuinely freaked out about it."

Paton said "without a water permit, you can't build a house" and that would mean the "end of their capacity for construction of homes."

Paton said that would cause a huge loss of construction jobs, much less city, county and state tax revenue and losses of impact-fee money at the local level. Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup agreed.

Kromko said the builders are using scare tactics and "are getting a little hysterical."

In addition to repealing the city's controversial $14-a-month garbage pickup fee, the initiative would mandate that current garbage and water service levels be provided in perpetuity and would block the city from adding more unrelated charges to water bills.

Kromko mounted a successful petition drive in 1986 called the Neighborhood Protection Act, which once approved by voters required a public vote on any new limited-access roadways or grade-separated intersections.

He was part of a group that sued Tucson Water in 1999 claiming its publicity campaign to enhance its image was illegal; a judge rejected the suit. He failed in a petition drive to repeal the garbage fee in 2005.

Kromko said he brought back the garbage-fee repeal because the current council failed to act on it, despite the fact that the electorate gave a clear sign it was against the garbage fee when two council incumbents who were behind the fee were bounced from office in 2005.

City officials and local politicians are voicing concern the repeal of the garbage fee would cut about $24 million annually from the city budget, which they say will result in higher taxes and fees, or cuts in services, employees or salaries.

Walkup said the $24 million 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 said.

Councilwoman Nina Trasoff, who rode the anti-garbage-fee outrage into office in 2005, said she still supports reducing the fee but is unsure by how much it could be cut.

Trasoff said Kromko's initiative is unfair because it lumps unrelated issues together. In fact, Trasoff questioned why such a wide-ranging initiative would be allowed by the city when it would not be allowed at the state level because it touches more than one issue.

"I don't think it's a healthy way to do votes," she said.

Councilwoman Karin Uhlich, who was also elected with the help of garbage-fee opponents, said in an e-mail statement she feels the garbage fee was hiked by too much and was implemented too fast. But she added that voters should be able to decide "on individual issues rather than be put into the all or nothing position posed by this ballot measure."

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

For more Arizona news, visit www.azstarnet.com or www.azfamily.com.

©The Arizona Daily Star, 2006