Posted on 12/12/2006 9:16:58 PM PST by NormsRevenge
California should create a long-term plan to spend the nearly $5 billion in flood-control bonds approved in November so it doesn't squander the money, Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow said Tuesday.
"The point is, we can waste this money," Snow said during the first in a series of meetings designed to determine how best to spend the voter-approved windfall. "We need to implement programs right now, but we need to be mindful of developing a long-term plan."
The money comes from two water bonds on the Nov. 7 ballot. Proposition 1E was sponsored by the Legislature and governor and is intended to strengthen the state's fragile levee system. Proposition 84 was a water bond promoted by conservation groups that will provide $800 million for flood control, along with billions more for programs to improve water quality.
In writing Proposition 1E, lawmakers gave very little direction on when and how the $4.1 billion levee bond should be spent, according to an examination last summer by The Associated Press. That could lead to a politicized atmosphere in which lawmakers seek money for projects in their own districts, regardless of need. Housing developers also might profit by selling land to the state - paid through bond money - in return for not building in floodplains.
A month after voters approved the bond measure and the initiative, state water officials are grappling with how they will propose spending the money. They say the system needs at least $10 billion in improvements, double the amount approved by voters.
Their plans, which will develop over the course of the hearings, likely will be considered by the Legislature during the budget process.
A draft plan being presented this week to cities, counties, farmers and environmental groups outlines a schedule that allows immediate work on levees considered at risk for failure while the state assembles an overall flood-management plan.
"It's not enough to do the job," said Les Harder, the Department of Water Resources' deputy director. "We need to spend it wisely and strategically."
The state's flood-control system includes a network of 14,000 levees, many of which have been in disrepair for decades. Local reclamation districts, the state and the federal government have failed to spend the needed money to maintain the earthen levees that protect farmland and thousands of homes from floodwaters.
As the debate begins over how to spend the bond money, differences already have emerged.
On one side, environmental groups are urging the state water department to consider alternatives to strengthening levees, such as buying land for water bypasses. They also would like the state to give local governments incentives to prohibit new development behind fragile levees.
"Why spend all your money on levees if there's a better way to improve public safety?" said John Cain, director of restoration programs at the Natural Heritage Institute, a San Francisco nonprofit.
Others say Proposition 1E clearly requires the state to allocate $3 billion to bolstering the fragile levees in the Central Valley. To most Republicans, that means spending the money on the "bricks and mortar" of levee building rather than buying land.
Assembly Minority Leader Mike Villines, R-Clovis, said he has asked Democrats to do a legislative audit of the levee measure and the three other voter-approved infrastructure bonds, which will provide money for transportation, schools and housing.
"If we're talking about avoiding a Katrina issue, we ought to spend every penny on hardening levees, period," Villines said Tuesday during an interview in the capital bureau of The Associated Press.
He said building new bypasses similar to the Yolo Bypass, which funnels floodwaters around Sacramento, and creating new reservoirs should be part of the discussion.
In part, Department of Water Resources officials say there must be a better way to manage floods beyond continually repairing eroding levees. They say the state cannot afford the status quo. California this year spent $175 million patching up 33 critical erosion sites that covered just six miles of levees.
"We have 1,594 miles to go," Harder said. "We can't spend it the same way. We have to do something different."
In the end, the Legislature ultimately will address the unfinished business of the bonds, said Mark Baldassare, research director of the Public Policy Institute of California. Several lawmakers already have introduced bills seeking to revamp state flood policy.
"What the decisions are in how these moneys are spent in the next year are important," Baldassare said.
Have any bonds been sold? It is one thing for voters to pass a bond measure, another for spenders to dream up ways of spending, but quite another to sell Junk Bonds.
California Bond Ratings are not very good. Billions in debt, a democrat governor, assembly and state...most career spenders and politicians.
I wouldn't lend money to this state.
As he prepares for his second term, the governor said projects to store and move water must be a priority in the state's next set of public-works bonds.Schwarzenegger hailed voters' passage last month of $42 billion in bonds to rebuild roads, schools and other public facilities. He told the Farm Bureau gathering that he will insist that water facilities be a priority in future bond measures.
"Even though I want more infrastructure and to have more bonds approved, it would never happen unless above-the-ground water storage is part of this package and unless we also have conveyance," Schwarzenegger said.
The governor said he will work to continue a spirit of bipartisan cooperation in Sacramento after what he called one of the most successful legislative years in decades.
"In the Capitol there is a great mood with Democrats and Republicans," he said. "I think we will do a good job of following through and continuing this kind of bipartisan cooperation and getting things done."
No bond sales scheduled yet, but soon, I would suspect. some info here.
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ratings/current.asp
Ratings have come back up a bit,, this link also has links to current offerings and future bond sales.
(groan)
OF COURSE the money will be wasted, ya friggin moron.
The Sac Bee had this earlier as well..
Perata unveils health plan
http://www.sacbee.com/102/story/91353.html
excerpted
Perata said the plan would cost between $5 billion and $7 billion in funds raised from businesses and employees. It would not require new state spending, he said.
"The governor himself has declared 2007 the year for health care," Perata said. "He sees it as I do: A once-in-a-generation opportunity to do something significant, important, and long-lasting."
Schwarzenegger, in a statement, said he welcomed Perata's plan.
California needs a new spending plan like Kennedy needed a hole in his head in 1963.
Arrrggggghhhh!!!!
Did ya see this? Lockyer has already chosen his chief bond salesman.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fi-wrap12.2dec12,0,2109775.story?coll=la-headlines-politics
Thanks.
"On one side, enviornmental groups are urging...They also would like the state to give local governments incentive to prohibit new development behind fragile levees."
If left up to the enviornmentalists..We would all be living in tents, eating berries and reading by candelight. Enviornmentalists very seldom promote development.
The "long term plan" should be the peripheral canal. The reason there is too much water behind the levees is that it is surplus and should be diverted to So Cal. Kill two birds with one stone
A "sign" that this is exactly what will happen is that they have put together a funding mechanism but have no idea how the money needs to be spent --- which means they don't really know, specifically, what needs fixing! So, maybe the amount of money needed is really just 1 biilion, or maybe its 20 billion, or maybe its nothing at all. What a circus!
The only way man can control mother nature is to avoid development in risky environments. Live on the beach in Florida, and you will eventually see your home destroyed by a hurricane. Live on the San Andreas Fault (or other active faults), and your home will eventually be destroyed by an earthquake. Live in a floodplain, and your home will eventually be flooded. No amount of government funding can stop nature (global warming included).
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
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.