It’s this strip of pastoral tranquility, some say, that is one of the biggest disasters-in-waiting in the state, one earthquake away from leaving 23 million people without drinking water and thousands stranded in a Hurricane Katrina-like flood. That’s because the gravel and rocks underneath the road make up a small section of the more than 2,000 miles of levees in California — a system that, according to scientists and government agencies, is in imminent peril.

This particular levee, separating the Upper Jones Tract farmlands from the Middle River, is an illustration of the gloomy scenarios painted by two bonds on the November ballot, Proposition 1E and Proposition 84. In 2004, for a reason that’s still unknown, the levee broke. A 300-foot stretch of road washed away and the waters flooded into the farms, burying the cornfields. The flood temporarily displaced residents, caused $100 million in damage, and directly threatened three East Bay Municipal Utilities District aqueducts carrying water to 1.3 million people in the East Bay. And as the fresh delta water rushed over the farmland, salty water from the Bay flooded in to take its place — leading the state to worry that the water would become undrinkably salty, thus forcing a halt to the pumps that send water from the delta to two-thirds of the California’s residents, including most of Contra Costa County.

Although the pumps never did get shut off, it was “touch and go,” Department of Water Resources spokesman Don Strickland said. Multiply the Jones Tract levee failure by 50 and you’ve got the reason the propositions ask voters to approve $5 billion in bonds for levee repair.

“If you have a big earthquake on the western side of the delta, which we think could happen, a whole lot of levees could fail, a whole lot of salt water would come in, and we’d have to shut down water for months if not years,” said Les Harder, the deputy director of public safety at the DWR. “It could be not only a state disaster, but given that $400 billion of the state’s economy relies on that water, a federal disaster.”

Harder said the state would probably need $12-13 billion to properly restore the levees to their original level of protection, with some upgrades. Most of the repair projects would focus on rebuilding eroded slopes by placing rocks on the water side of the levee. The DWR also attempts to build backup, or “setback” levees, to provide protection in case the original levee breaks.

Proposition 1E, the “Disaster Preparedness and Flood Control Bond Act,” would provide $4.1 billion. Proposition 84, a $5.4 billion umbrella bond to fund statewide water quality and environmental projects, would kick in another roughly $800 million. Put the two together, along with some federal funding, and “we’re looking at the first half of a 20-year effort,” Harder said. “It’s a major step in the right direction.”

Prop 1E is part of a $37 billion reconstruction package placed on the ballot by the Democrat-run legislature and with the endorsement of Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. But although the measure is widely popular in Sacramento, it has its critics at the California Taxpayer Protection Committee, which frequently provides the opposition to bond measures.

In his ballot argument against the measure, the committee’s executive director, Thomas Hudson, criticized the state for not providing controls on the funding and for trying to pay for repairs that ought to be funded by local or federal agencies.

“The state can’t take responsibility for every project in the state,” Hudson wrote. “If we don’t make them reprioritize their spending, our children will continue to foot the bill for their short-sighted planning and mismanagement.”

Hudson also wrote that the measure would mostly help benefit urban areas that draw drinking water from the delta, not the rural areas where the levees are located ⎯ an argument echoed by State Senator Jeff Denham, who cast the lone vote in the senate against placing Prop 1E on the ballot. Denham, a Republican from Merced, argued that the Central Valley would be best protected by new dams and water storage, which would better guarantee a safe water supply for his constituents.

“It doesn’t address the needs of the Central Valley,” said Denham’s campaign manager, Shant Apekian. “Senator Denham’s not necessarily against it in concept, it’s just frustrating when time after time bonds come up for flood protection and there’s no water storage.”

And some of the residents of Bacon Island Rd., at least, seemed not to share the state’s anxiety. One woman, answering the door at the river ferry where construction workers cross the river to continue repairs on the broken levee, pointed out the high-water mark, the top of an eight-foot-high road sign in the cornfield across from her house.

“But we’re up here pretty high,” she said, so the house was unaffected — although she did have to evacuate. As for the propositions on the ballot, she said, shaking her head, “I don’t keep up with that stuff at all.”