Laserfiche WebLink
California Water Today 125 <br /> Figure 2.16 <br /> The state has surpassed the federal government in flood protection <br /> spending in California <br /> 900 - <br /> 800 - <br /> .2 <br /> 0 700 <br /> State <br /> E 600 <br /> 0 500 <br /> 0 <br /> ry 400 <br /> rn <br /> 300 <br /> Q_ 200 —— <br /> LA <br /> 100 � <br /> Federal spending <br /> 0 <br /> 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 <br /> SOURCES:U.S.Army Corps of Engineers;governor's budgets. <br /> NOTE:Nominal values were converted to 2008 dollars using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. <br /> Another area of systematic mismatch between funding mechanisms and <br /> funding needs is environmental management.California water users pay only <br /> for the infrastructure-related costs of water delivery, not the environmental <br /> costs of diversions.Although,in principle,new water supply and flood control <br /> projects are required to mitigate environmental harm, the cumulative effects <br /> of decades of water system development have contributed to the widespread <br /> degradation of aquatic ecosystems described in the Introduction.Recent bonds <br /> have provided some support to scientific research and habitat investments,but <br /> bonds are an unreliable source of funds for these purposes. This is where the <br /> new constraints imposed by Proposition 26 will be felt the most. Surcharges <br /> on water use and other water-related activities, such as flood infrastructure <br /> investments and the discharge of contaminants,are an appropriate way to fund <br /> environmental mitigation and the related science needed to redress the decline <br /> of California's aquatic ecosystems. <br /> Budget woes <br /> Finally, state budget problems over the past decade have reduced funding for <br /> the basic state operations of monitoring, analysis, and enforcement of water <br />