Bakersfield.com: Kern County news, events, classifieds, shopping, & search

RSS Feed   Print Story   E-mail Story        

California needs plan for spending flood money, official says

By SAMANTHA YOUNG, | Tuesday, Dec 12 2006 5:15 PM

Last Updated: Tuesday, Dec 12 2006 5:15 PM

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.