Posted on 11/17/2006 2:27:18 PM PST by calcowgirl
In the Delta, major investments are likely to wait at least a year pending a new "Delta Vision" process -- the latest effort to figure out how best to manage a troubled river delta that serves as one of the state's most important sources of drinking water and wildlife habitat.
The proceeds from Proposition 1E bonds could be spent fortifying Delta levees that protect farmland, houses or water delivery channels. Money could even be spent to purchase land and create flood bypasses.
And in the more populated -- and quickly growing -- Central Valley, a debate is already brewing over whether to protect existing housing or new developments in floodplain areas.
"It's very important that this money does not go to subsidize development," said Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis.
Wolk, who chairs the Assembly committee on water, parks and wildlife, said the money should first go to protect existing homes in cities such as Sacramento, Stockton and Rio Vista. But she said lawmakers will be pressured by builders to beef up other levees so that new areas can be opened up to development.
She vowed to push legislation that would prevent that from happening. A series of bills meant to restrict floodplain development failed during the last session.
Tim Coyle, executive vice president of the California Building Industry Association, said the bond funds should be combined with developer money to expand the number of levees that can be improved.
"You can't draw arbitrary lines that say no levee protection here because we're anti-growth," Coyle said. "I think we've got to look at how we can leverage the Prop. 1E money."
Wolk said she wants the Legislature to have a flood management plan and clear spending priorities in place when it comes time to appropriate bond money to ensure it is spent well.
Supporters of Wolk's approach say voters clearly intended the money be spent to protect existing housing.
"The reason people voted for Proposition 1E was to prevent a Katrina-type disaster from happening in California," said John Cain, a restoration ecologist at the Natural Heritage Institute, a conservation group.
The state's flood management system depends on the occasional failure of the weakest levees -- which often protect farmland -- to reduce the strain on stronger levees that protect housing. Allowing new homes on farmland could put more pressure on other levees and jeopardize the safety of existing homes, Cain said.
He suggested bond proceeds be used to buy land behind key levees that serve as safety valves, such as the Yolo bypass west of Sacramento.
"The goal is not to prevent the levees from failing. The goal is preventing huge property losses associated with floods," Cain said.
The bond proceeds will be administered by the Department of Water Resources, which so far has not taken a position on levee priorities.
"We certainly haven't made any decisions on, say, developed versus undeveloped," said spokeswoman Sue Sims. "That's one of the things that's going to emerge in the coming months."
Sims said a bond expenditure plan would be submitted to the Legislature in January along with the governor's budget. That plan will likely be revised by lawmakers.
The water resources department also will likely be forced to be more efficient with its use of bond funds in the future.
Earlier this year, auditors in the state Finance Department criticized the agency for failing to fix accounting issues that had been reported in earlier audits.
Lawmakers this year passed legislation that requires the department to spend no more than 5 percent of bond proceeds on unspecified operations. The department has spent well over that amount in several recent programs, including spending 13 percent of bond funds meant for a water quality program on state operations, according to figures tabulated by legislative aides.
"It hasn't been a stellar history of dollars getting to projects," said Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, who authored the bill limiting operations costs for bonds.
"We think this money is probably going to other things in the department that aren't included in the bonds," he said.
We are starting to see indications of how the administration will fund the General Fund deficit:
"It hasn't been a stellar history of dollars getting to projects," said Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa... "We think this money is probably going to other things in the department that aren't included in the bonds," he said.
WOOHOO! Free money!
How can dedicated, borrowed money can be used to fund on-going, routine government activities? The process is simple.
Money is earmarked for a specific project and disbursed to an operating department who has reponsibilies for the completeion of that project. That department then applies those funds to an operating divisons within the department which will participate in the specified project.
At budget request preperation time, the head of that deparment reduces his General Fund requests for the next fiscal year by the amount of the bonding disbursement and sends the request on to the executive. The executive approves that department's reduced budget request and then claims reductions in spending for that department, although the bonding proceeds were, in fact, used to underwrite routine operating division responsibilies along with the specific needs of the project.
The only ones who were fooled were the terminally stupid who, incredibly, still trust the government at any level. Anybody voting "Yes" on the bond propositions has demonstrated a truly staggering intellectual deficit.
CARB, the nation's largest and most influential state environmental regulatory agency, has about 1,000 employees, including scientists and engineers who, working there in the 1960s, helped design the nation's pioneering antismog program. The agency enjoys enough bipartisan political support that when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced in August that California would impose the nation's first broad cap on greenhouse-gas emissions, the state Legislature simply set deadlines for reducing emissions and left it mostly up to CARB to figure out how to do it, telling the agency to prepare regulations by 2012. California's goal is to cut emissions by about 25% by 2020.To flesh out California's law, Dr. Sawyer, who was appointed by Mr. Schwarzenegger in December, says he will push every approach that is cost-effective. He plans to send staff members to the United Kingdom and Japan to see how their pioneering regulatory programs work. He plans to hire 100 experts, including economists who will develop computer models of the state's past and future emissions. He is also looking for specialists who can design an emissions-trading program tailored to California's economy.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has successfully used emissions trading to get coal-fired utilities to curb sulfur-dioxide emissions, which cause acid rain. The government puts a cap on allowable sulfur-dioxide emissions, issuing credits needed for each ton of pollutants. In emissions trading, a company that reduces emissions below its assigned cap can finance its efforts by selling excess credits to companies that may need them to cover their own emissions.
(snip)
California's legislature has left it up to CARB to determine whether and how to use emissions trading; Dr. Sawyer says it is a tool he wants to use, designed in a way that makes trading possible beyond the state's borders. "It is essential that what we do will be compatible with other states, nationally and internationally," he explains. "We definitely anticipate trading across boundaries. California can't solve this alone."
One might ask, how will they afford this? Simple! Proposition 1B, the "Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006," conveniently referred to as a "transportation" bond! From the legislation just passed:
(2) One billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) shall be made available, upon appropriation by the Legislature and subject to such conditions and criteria contained in a statute enacted by the Legislature, to the State Air Resources Board for emission reductions, not otherwise required by law or regulation, from activities related to the movement of freight along California's trade corridors. Funds made available by this paragraph are intended to supplement existing funds used to finance strategies and public benefit projects that reduce emissions and improve air quality in trade corridors commencing at the state's airports, seaports, and land ports of entry.
Bump! Agreed.
Prop 37 promised to supplement California's education budget. Prior to Prop 37, all education expenditures were funded from tax revenues.
During the first few years of the lottery, its proceeds did supplement educational budgets but as time passed, the state legislature and two, Republican governors came to see these gambling proceeds as a primary source of revenue and adjusted General Fund contributions accordingly. Specifically, they used the amount of forecast lottery proceeds to reduce General Fund contributions to the education budget. By 1995, lottery proceeds were no longer supplemental. They were now primary and no additional benefit to public education was accrued.
Within 10 years of the passage of Prop 37, the monies that the lottery generated were being taken away from education to be used for other purposes. Prop 37 became an ordinary tax revenue, directed to the General Fund. The California State Lottery Education Fund, a protected lock box, became an accounting gimmick.
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.