Posted on 07/15/2006 11:32:09 AM PDT by calcowgirl
California voters will be asked to approve a $4.1 billion levee bond in November. The figure represents a compromise between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had sought about $6.5 billion, and Democratic lawmakers, who had wanted to spend about half that.
THE PROBLEM:
_ Levee system: A fragile network of 2,300 miles of levees in the state's Central Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is in need of major repairs. The system includes 1,600 miles of levees that were reinforced in the 1960s and 1970s and 700 miles that amount to little more than grassy berms. It was built more than 100 years ago to reclaim marshland for farming. But with rapid growth, the levees now protect hundreds of thousands of homes from Redding to Bakersfield, as well as the drinking water for 22 million residents from Silicon Valley to Los Angeles.
_ Most at risk: The state's capital is one of the most vulnerable areas. Experts say a 6.5 magnitude earthquake or flooding from winter storms could submerge large sections of downtown Sacramento, its suburbs and airport under as much 26 feet of water. In a worst-case scenario, much of the state's drinking water supply also would be ruined for up to three years.
_ The cost: Experts say it would be too expensive to fix all 2,300 miles of levees, but they say fortifying the most critical sections could drastically improve flood protection around Sacramento and other urban areas, as well as add security for the water supply. A catastrophic failure of the levees - which now provide less than half the flood protection of those that failed after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans - could cost the state hundreds of billions of dollars in damages.
THE BOND:
_ What it would do: The bond would provide the largest investment to date in strengthening California's levees. The bulk of the money, $3 billion, would go to evaluating, repairing and replacing levees and other flood-control devices. The bond also could harness billions in federal matching dollars to bolster levees and prompt more measured growth in flood-prone areas.
_ The questions: The measure provides few details about how, when and where the money would be spent. It offers only general guidelines subject to wide interpretation by lawmakers during the state's annual budget process.
Most of the repairs also would not begin until the end of the decade, after the state conducts an extensive evaluation of its levees. Critics worry that without strict guidelines, lawmakers could use those studies to justify funneling money to pet projects in their districts. That could limit funding for the repairs scientists say are most needed and even allow developers to build more homes in the potential path of floodwaters.
THE SPENDING:
_ $3 billion will go to "evaluate, repair, rehabilitate, reconstruct or replace levees, weirs, bypasses" and state water facilities. The bond leaves the decisions for spending that money up to the governor and lawmakers during the politically charged annual budget process.
_ $500 million will be used to pay for the state's share of local flood control and flood prevention projects that it has underfunded since 2001. Critics say bond funds are a poor way for the state to pay off old debts given the high interest costs.
_ $300 million for storm water flood-management grants.
_ $290 million for the protection, creation and enhancement of flood-protection corridors and bypasses, including buying private property and development rights and updating flood maps.
That money could be used to disproportionately benefit developers and homeowners. The bond allows the state to pay off developers and buy out homeowners where it deems the cost of maintaining levees would be too high.
SACRAMENTO - State lawmakers are betting that voters eager to avoid a Katrina-style disaster in California will rally behind a $4.1 billion bond on the November ballot to shore up the state's fragile levees.
While few experts disagree that California needs to rebuild its aging levee system, an Associated Press review of the bond has found the measure requires voters to take a leap of faith that the state will spend the money the way lawmakers have promised.
An extensive examination of the measure, reviews of state and federal studies, and interviews with two dozen water experts, lawmakers and environmentalists have revealed the bond lacks core details about how, when and where the money should be spent.
Lawmakers rushing to assemble the bond as part of a wider package of public works improvements on the November ballot largely avoided those tough questions, leaving the details to future lawmakers.
Without those components, the bond measure fails to answer how soon the hundreds of thousands of Central Valley residents and the critical freshwater supply guarded by 2,300 miles of levees might be protected.
In what some experts say is the bond's most open-ended question, it provides little more than a sketch for how the state would rank and allocate billions of dollars for levee projects. At best, experts say, the process would be based on scientific studies but still run the risk of becoming politicized. At worst, it could allow deep-pocketed developers to sway decisions and build even more homes in flood-prone areas.
"The bond is asking for a lot of money and not providing a lot of policy about how that money will be spent," said Mindy McIntyre, a water specialist with the nonprofit Planning and Conservation League, which is pushing lawmakers to pass legislation to prioritize bond expenditures.
The measure's authors say that by its sheer size the bond would go a long way in boosting flood protection and securing the water supply for 22 million state residents from Silicon Valley to Los Angeles - nearly two-thirds of the state's population.
But even the measure's supporters acknowledge that the process for developing the levee bond, which was hammered out in the hours leading up to a 3 a.m. vote, has left the ballot measure with numerous holes. It provides money without a comprehensive plan for how it is to be spent.
"Does (the bond) put the cart before the horse? You could ask that," said Assembly Budget Chairman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, who helped craft the plan. "Some of us would have liked to have seen many other decisions taken in tandem with this, but many lawmakers felt it was more important to get the bond out there on the ballot and take advantage of a rare window of public awareness because of the Katrina disaster."
---
The levee measure is part of a $37.3 billion public works bond package the Legislature placed on the November ballot and that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is supporting as a centerpiece of his re-election campaign. The other three measures would provide money for transportation, schools and affordable housing.
Laird said he believes bills now working their way through the Legislature could help provide laws making sure the bond money is not spent to promote development in flood plains, although the outcome of those bills is uncertain. Schwarzenegger's office already has indicated he would veto a bill seeking to reform the state Reclamation Board, which will have a central role in deciding how some of the bond money is to be spent. The bill would limit his power to make appointments to the board.
"The proposal does not include everything that needs to be done, but I think it will be trumped by the fact that it is the only thing that will kickstart the prevention of a disaster," Laird said. "Just because we've ignored the levees for so long doesn't mean we don't have to start somewhere."
Among the problems revealed in the AP analysis:
_ The eight-page measure provides scant direction for how $3 billion would be spent on levee repairs in the Central Valley, an area stretching roughly 500 miles from Redding to Bakersfield.Schwarzenegger and key Republican and Democratic lawmakers who support the bond stress that it would provide more state money than ever before for levee repairs, boosting flood protection for hundreds of thousands of homes._ It leaves decisions for prioritizing and financing projects largely up to the governor and lawmakers during the politically charged annual budget process. That process carries the potential for lawmakers to allocate some of the money for pet projects in their districts instead of the levee repairs that scientists deem most effective.
_ A five-year levee evaluation, which could determine where development should be curbed and what cities might face higher flood insurance, would be vulnerable to influence by special interests.
_ Taxpayer money could be used to benefit developers and homeowners. The bond allows the state to pay off developers and buy out homeowners where it deems the cost of maintaining levees would be too high. Its language also is short on details about how the state will determine the value of that land.
_ At least $500 million of the bond money would go to pay off and continue funding local flood control efforts that the state has underfunded since 2001. Critics say bond funds are a poor way for the state to pay off old debts given the high interest. The levee bond will cost taxpayers nearly $1 dollar in interest for every dollar spent.
They also said it will provide enough funding to secure the water source for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, the twin delivery systems that supply fresh water to 3.7 million acres of farmland and two-thirds of the state's population.
Studies have shown that large parts of the levee system in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta could crumble during an earthquake of magnitude 6.5 or greater. That would inundate the river system with salt water and render the state's key water source undrinkable for up to three years.
"None of this money will be spent willy nilly or without some formal review," said Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, who helped write the measure. "There isn't enough money in the world to fix the delta, so prioritization is essential. We have to pick the levees where people are most at risk."
As the bond is written, however, many of the major decisions about which levee sites would receive funding would not be decided until the end of the decade, after a study period that could last up to five years.
That could mean many of the lawmakers who crafted the bond would not be around to make sure the funds are spent as promised.
Wolk and others say that ideally the bond would have included more details. But because California has neglected the problem for decades, it doesn't yet have the necessary data to determine how best to fix the system, she said.
---
The bond provides no guarantees that would prevent lawmakers from earmarking the money for pet projects in their districts.
In one illustration of the vagueness of its wording, the bond states that repairs should be focused on communities of "more than 10,000 people." That figure is relatively meaningless because dozens of towns and cities meet that description in the Central Valley.
"There really is a stunning lack of detail in the bond. It's absolutely unconstrained," said Jeffrey Mount, a nationally recognized flood control expert and a former member of the state board overseeing California's levees. "My biggest fear is that this will become a subsidy for spectacular development on the flood plain."
The state Department of Water Resources is not taking an official position on the bond because it considers it a political cause backed by the governor and legislative leaders. But Deputy Director Les Harder said that if voters approve the measure, money likely would be spread out to help communities wherever flooding is a danger and would not be concentrated only in the biggest cities.
"Every urban area up against a river in the Central Valley will probably have some money," he said.
Such broad promises are causing concern for hydrologists, environmentalists and others who fear the state will lack focus when it's time to spend the money or that the legislative process will open the door to lobbyists for housing developers and other interests.
McIntyre, of the Planning and Conservation League, said the governor and Legislature must pass laws establishing a clear framework for spending the money if the public is to feel comfortable with the levee bond. Experts agree that most of it should go to protecting existing cities and towns that are most at risk of a catastrophic flood.
Wolk and other lawmakers are pushing a package of bills through the Legislature that would begin to do that.
The bills would make local communities more accountable for allowing new development in flood plains and revamp the state Reclamation Board, which critics charge is currently pro-development and would have a greater say in flood decisions after the infusion of bond money.
---
In one of its few clear provisions, the bond calls for developing California's first comprehensive road map for flood control and water supply.
Water experts have lobbied the state and federal governments for decades to pump more money into a levee network that in some places near Sacramento resembles little more than mounds of dirt. Yet it has been years since the levees have been fortified.
Raymond Seed, a civil engineer who headed a team of investigators in New Orleans for the University of California at Berkeley, said California has little choice but to start from scratch and begin methodically mapping its levee problem, even if that delays major renovations a few more rainy seasons.
"The bond money is wrapped up in good plans with regard to diligence," Seed said. "It's extremely prudent to plan well, engineer well, check everything twice and build it properly."
Others worry that while the lengthy review process is conducted, tens of thousands of homes will continue to be built in flood-prone areas. It also could give developers years to lobby lawmakers to prioritize levee projects in their favor.
Given the lack of details in the levee bond, the decision facing voters could be a tough one, said David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University who has written several books about California's initiative process.
He said similar questions about how bond money will be spent surround the three other infrastructure measures on the ballot.
"Ballot measures have been specific and narrowly targeted to provide tangible benefits," he said. "In November, the ballot measures are not following that playbook. It's a new playbook and an expensive experiment."
This is a propaganda piece for the pro-spenders: see how good we are? we could have decided to spend twice as much!
Real questions:
What is the current existing obligation by year for California taxpayers for the next 20 years?
How much of that has been added in the last 5 years?
How much additional current expenses have been added to the long-term debt?
Show me a detailed breakdown of where all current long term debt payments money is going, including a separate item for interest.
Show me a list of State income by year for the last 10 years.
Show me a list of expenditures in the last 10 years. include both cash payments and added debt.
Answer these really simple questions, and we'll talk about a new $4.1 billion bond proposal...
The Transportation Bond, a whopping $18 Billion dollar package, is much the same. Lots of money, lots of generalities, but no specifics on HOW it will actually be spent.
The AP article does start to expose some of this:
• But even the measure's supporters acknowledge that the process for developing the levee bond, which was hammered out in the hours leading up to a 3 a.m. vote, has left the ballot measure with numerous holes. It provides money without a comprehensive plan for how it is to be spent.• "Does (the bond) put the cart before the horse? You could ask that," said Assembly Budget Chairman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, who helped craft the plan. "Some of us would have liked to have seen many other decisions taken in tandem with this, but many lawmakers felt it was more important to get the bond out there on the ballot and take advantage of a rare window of public awareness because of the Katrina disaster."
• Laird said he believes bills now working their way through the Legislature could help provide laws making sure the bond money is not spent to promote development in flood plains, although the outcome of those bills is uncertain. Schwarzenegger's office already has indicated he would veto a bill seeking to reform the state Reclamation Board, which will have a central role in deciding how some of the bond money is to be spent. The bill would limit his power to make appointments to the board.
If this proposal does anything other than fix levees, I will do everything in my power to kill it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.