Some voters might do a double-take next week when they see Proposition 13 on the ballot. But it’s not the same one that sparked a nationwide tax revolt in 1978.

The latest Prop. 13 is the largest water bond in state history, providing nearly $2 billion for a smorgasbord of infrastructure and related environmental projects.

The measure was placed on the ballot last year with the approval of the state Legislature and Gov. Gray Davis, and has a broad array of backers, including businesses, environmentalists and farmers who see it as a vital step toward ending state water wars.

“Right now, we run the risk of being short of water for business, agriculture and habitat conservation during a dry year. And if we have a series of dry years, there could be severe water rationing,” said Valerie Nera, a lobbyist on agriculture and resources issues for the California Chamber of Commerce. “This measure would go a long way toward alleviating that risk.”

But opponents say it’s simply too expensive. They believe such projects should be funded out of existing general fund dollars or at the local level.

“Bond financing is the most expensive way to finance government projects; it almost doubles the cost,” said Ted Brown, the Southern California vice chairman of the Libertarian Party who is also a candidate to unseat incumbent Rep. James Rogan, R-Glendale. “There’s a budget surplus of at least $6 billion this year. Why don’t our state leaders earmark some of that surplus to these projects, if they are so desperately needed?”

Brown was also skeptical of the broad coalition backing the initiative.

“When government leaders, big business and big labor come together on something like this, I know it’s time to hold onto my wallet,” he said. “Remember, we passed a $1 billion water bond just four years ago, on the 1996 ballot. Where did all that money go?”

Brown pointed out that the five different bond measures on the upcoming ballot total $4.7 billion, which would cost $8 billion to repay over the next 25 years.

Proponents counter that, given all the other demands on the surplus dollars, it would not be politically feasible to get projects funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. They also note that the state’s total annual bond payments, even with these latest measures, would still amount to less than 6 percent of the annual state budget, which is the threshold used by the bond rating agencies to trigger debt reviews.

“It’s like buying a home. You can’t afford to pay the entire cost up-front, so you take out a mortgage,” said Leslie Friedman Johnson, water program director for the California branch of the Nature Conservancy. “These are essential programs that need to be funded now. We are expecting another 15 million people in this state over the next 20 years, and they are going to need access to water.”

But the main reason this measure has received such strong backing from Nature Conservancy environmental groups is that it does not call for huge dams or reservoirs that they see as damaging to the environment.

And though they believe such projects are ultimately necessary, business groups signed on because they see this as a critical step toward ensuring a safe, reliable water supply.

“We view more dams and reservoirs as necessary in the long run, but politically that can’t be done right now,” Nera said. “First, we must show that every other step has been taken, from recycling to conservation, to show that we are making the best use of the water we already have.”

Proposition 13 backers are counting on the strong economy to boost voters’ generosity. So far, there has been no polling on the measure to see if voters now preoccupied with education would be willing to fork over the billions of dollars requested.

However, there has been some polling on Proposition 12, a $2.1 billion bond measure to expand and restore state parks; it garnered 62 percent support in a recent California Field Poll.

As for Proposition 13, the funds would largely be split between the crucial San Francisco Bay-Sacramento River Delta region through which much of Southern California’s water passes and the L.A. area. The Bay-Delta funds include dollars for ensuring adequate water levels to protect fish populations like the endangered Delta smelt.

A nearly equal amount $470 million would be set aside for watershed protection, with about half of those funds going to the Inland Empire. In all, the five-county Southern California area would receive about $1.2 billion, or 60 percent of the funds, a share roughly proportional to its population.