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 />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 />State spending <br />Federal spendingSpending (2008 $ millions)200720062005200420032002200120001998 20081999 <br />800 <br />700 <br />600 <br />500 <br />400 <br />300 <br />200 <br />100 <br />900 <br />0