California Elections : Public Works--Governor’s Record Falls Short of Goals

It is unlikely that Gov. George Deukmejian’s television commercials for his reelection campaign will brag about the number of new highways built during his first term.

The governor won’t be able to tell voters that he succeeded in building the major expansion to the state water system he once proposed. Nor is he likely to mention that his ambitious prison construction program slipped far behind its original schedule and only this year has begun to yield tangible results.

When it has come to expanding or replenishing the state’s massive investment in public works, the Republican governor’s record has been mixed, with more progress in restoring state facilities than in building new ones.

For any governor, however, it can take years, even decades, for public works programs to become reality. Often, the extent of a chief executive’s success in planning and building major facilities is not clear until after he leaves office.

Deukmejian Administration officials contend that the governor has made substantial progress in the area of public works. In the language of government officials, this is known as infrastructure and includes such things as highways, transit lines, prisons, schools, sewers, water and energy facilities and parks.

The governor’s aides point out that considerable resources have been devoted to restoring public facilities that were allowed to deteriorate under former Democratic Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. And, they say, Deukmejian has laid the groundwork for major projects that will be completed during the term of whoever wins the gubernatorial election on Nov. 4.

But Deukmejian’s record on public works has raised debate over whether he is a caretaker or a visionary.

Deukmejian’s critics--and even some of his supporters--say his public works program has gotten off to a slow start. For example, advocates of highway construction who supported Deukmejian in 1982 complain that the governor has not devoted sufficient money to building roads.

“We are, to say the least, a bit frustrated,” said Warren Mendel, a lobbyist for the Associated General Contractors of California. “We really are concerned about highway funding in this state. We think it’s in serious jeopardy at the moment.”

Since becoming governor, Deukmejian has talked about the importance of improving the state’s public facilities in order to support business expansion and attract new companies from out of state.

Rebuilding the state’s infrastructure--roads, schools, hospitals, prisons, parks and environment--is an essential ingredient for growth in the 1980s, Deukmejian said in his January, 1984, State-of-the-State Address.

Deukmejian has launched a $2.5-billion plan to build nine new prisons and expand five more, more than doubling the number of beds in the state system to nearly 57,000.

But during the first 2 1/2 years, the program was delayed by poor planning, design changes and opposition from residents in Los Angeles and other communities who live near the proposed prison sites. So far, the Administration has added 6,600 new beds to existing prisons, more than half of them during 1986. New prisons in Stockton and San Diego are nearing completion.

Over the past several years, a variety of experts have concluded that the state’s investment in public facilities is lagging far behind the need to maintain and expand them.

Deukmejian appointed an Infrastructure Review Task Force, which estimated in 1984 that by the year 2000 the state would need to spend $78 billion on public facilities. Existing resources, the panel projected, would provide only $27 billion during that time, leaving a gap of $51 billion.

Hike in Gas Tax

Among its recommendations, the governor’s task force called for increasing the gasoline tax by 5 cents a gallon to pay for road construction and repairs. But Deukmejian flatly rejected the tax hike proposal.

Finance Director Jesse R. Huff said the governor is committed to solving the state’s public works problems and will devote funds from a variety of different sources, including bonds, tidelands oil revenues and the federal government.

Under the four state budgets signed by Deukmejian, the state will spend $19.3 billion between 1983 and 1987 on what could be termed infrastructure, Huff said. The governor has also prepared an overlapping six-year plan that calls for spending $31 billion on public works between 1985 and 1991.

But critics in the Legislature say Deukmejian is not a man of vision and has not formulated a plan that will carry California into the 21st Century.

“His overall program as a governor is to be a caretaker,” said Sen. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), chairman of a select committee on long-range planning. “. . . We are basically living on the investment made in the 1950s and ‘60s by a previous generation.”

During those years, California built its freeway system, expanded the state college and university systems and constructed the statewide system to bring water to Southern California. Much of the building boom came during the Administration of Democratic Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, between 1959 and 1967.

Needed Repairs

But from 1975 to 1983, when his son, Edmund G. Brown Jr., was governor, the state’s investment in public facilities was allowed to deteriorate, Huff said. Now, Huff contends, the era of big building has passed and repairing roads, hospitals and sewers must take precedence over new construction.

“I think it’s a lack of vision to go around plopping new cement down, digging new holes, when what you’ve got is about to fall,” he said. “We did an awful lot just in terms of restoring. A lot of it is kind of mundane stuff: elevators that work, fire doors . . . fixing leaking roofs. In the pejorative, you can say that’s caretaker. But it takes someone determined to effect that restoration, go down lists, establish priorities and say, ‘These things have to be done.’ ”

Transportation

When Deukmejian took office, he promised to return California’s highway system to the high-priority ranking it once enjoyed. Brown Jr.’s policy of neglecting freeways in favor of mass transit, he vowed, would be reversed.

“Our transportation infrastructure has badly deteriorated over the last eight years,” the governor said in his 1983 State-of-the-State address. “My budget establishes priorities which shift the emphasis from exotic alternative transportation schemes over to the proven priorities of safe, well-maintained and efficient highways.”

Administration officials say the governor’s transportation program is a success and that far more money is being spent on roads and highways than under his predecessor.

But Deukmejian’s approach has disappointed road builders and local government officials who initially welcomed his emphasis on highways. They say the state is not spending enough money for transportation projects and criticize the governor’s unwillingness to devote additional state funds.

Contractors lobbyist Mendel, whose industry backed Deukmejian in 1982, said he has difficulty seeing a difference between the highway construction record of the Brown Jr. and Deukmejian administrations.

“I am very confused, quite frankly,” he said. “We don’t have the same problem with this Administration in terms of the problem, but the results are exactly the same.”

Reluctant Admission

Department of Transportation officials reluctantly acknowledge that in the first three years of Deukmejian’s term the state built fewer miles of new highways than in any three-year period while Brown Jr. was governor.

During the three-year period from 1983 through 1985, the Deukmejian Administration built a total of 84 miles of new highways, according to the department’s figures. By comparison, the state built 275 miles of highways during Brown’s first three years in office and 100 miles during his last three years. In all, during Brown’s eight years as governor, the state built 478 miles of highways.

Deukmejian Administration officials contend that the number of new highway miles is not an adequate measure of the governor’s accomplishments. Since Deukmejian took office, they say, the need has shifted from building new roads to restoring deteriorating highways.

“Construction accomplishments on a mature transportation system simply cannot be measured in new miles of highway,” a Department of Transportation report said in defending the highway program. “. . . Today, much more emphasis is being placed on reconstruction and rehabilitation.”

During Brown Jr.’s final three years, the state reconstructed 776 miles of highway, the report points out. During Deukmejian’s first three years, the state reconstructed 1,346 miles.

At the same time, the report notes that the state is spending about three times as much on new construction as on rehabilitation.

Money Comparison

John Geoghegan, secretary of business, transportation and housing, insists that Deukmejian places a far greater importance on transportation than Brown Jr. did and, as evidence, cites the amount of money he has allocated.

Under the first three budgets signed by Deukmejian, the state has spent an average of $921 million a year on highway projects, according to Geoghegan. The annual average under Brown was $478 million.

In part, the increased spending results from a 2-cent hike in the state gas tax approved by Brown Jr. and a 5-cent federal increase imposed by President Reagan before Deukmejian took office.

To demonstrate the department’s success in building highways, Caltrans cites a number of major projects now under way or recently completed, including:

- Construction of the 16.8-mile, $1.7-billion Century Freeway from Los Angeles International Airport to Norwalk is under way. Long delayed by lawsuits, it will be completed in 1993.

- Addition of lanes to the San Diego Freeway between the airport and the Santa Monica Freeway by eliminating the emergency center shoulder and narrowing the lanes.

- Completion in February of a two-mile section of the Corona del Mar Freeway (California 73) in Orange County.

- Addition of commuter lanes to California 91 in Los Angeles County and California 55 in Orange County to relieve congestion.

Resistance to New Tax

Deukmejian’s critics are particularly unhappy with his refusal to go along with another 5-cent increase in the gasoline tax to finance new transportation projects.

In the future, it will be more difficult to increase the gas tax because of a limit on state spending imposed by the voters when they approved Proposition 4 in 1979. Deukmejian drew fire from the transportation lobby earlier this year when he refused to support a constitutional amendment that would have lifted this limit for highway spending.

Some legislators and local officials estimate that California’s unmet transportation need is somewhere between $400 million and $1.2 billion annually. The figure is growing each year as needed repairs go undone.

The need for more money, they say, is illustrated by last year’s decision of the California Transportation Commission to delay a year’s worth of projects in the state’s five-year transportation construction plan.

“Somebody’s got to take some leadership at some point and put some more revenue into the system,” said Dwight Stenbakken, a lobbyist for the California League of Cities. “The net result is that over the last two administrations, there has not been a whole lot of revenue put in our street and road and highway system, whatever the philosophies.”

In 1985, Deukmejian signed legislation devoting $340 million from the state’s general fund for improvements to local streets and roads over two years.

Wants More Discretion

And, in a recent interview, he lamented the fact that federal money can be spent only on interstate highways, which are in much better shape than local roads. The governor wants the federal government to give the states “more discretion and flexibility” in spending transportation funds.

But instead of following the recommendation of his own Infrastructure Review Task Force to raise the gas tax, Deukmejian has attempted to shift the burden of raising additional revenues to local governments.

Legislation that Deukmejian allowed to take effect without his signature has permitted some of the state’s 58 counties to hold elections on proposals to raise the local sales tax by as much as a penny to pay for transportation projects. Geoghegan said he also expects local bond issues and fees on developers to play an increasing role in financing transportation projects.

But advocates of an increase in the gas tax say it is the most equitable way of paying for transportation improvements, since it assesses motorists in proportion to the amount of time they spend on the road.

“We feel that it is absolutely essential to local government that we have a fuel tax increase,” said Victor S. Pottorff, a lobbyist for the County Supervisors Assn. of California. “We didn’t build the transportation system in California on 58 separate (county elections) and we really shouldn’t be doing that in the future.”

Ongoing Programs

Despite Deukmejian’s decision to emphasize highway rehabilitation over mass transit, the Administration has continued to provide funds in areas where there are ongoing projects, such as Los Angeles, San Diego and the San Francisco Bay Area, said Ed Gerber, a lobbyist for the California Assn. of Publicly Owned Transit Systems.

Geoghegan, when asked to describe the Administration’s vision of the state’s transportation system by the year 2000, said:

“I think it would have to be more mass-transit oriented rather than single-person-in-a-car oriented, because single-person-in-a-car is going to be a pretty hard thing to try to accommodate by itself. There’s just going to have to be other modes, other attitudes, about how people get around. . . . Van pooling, car pooling, getting groups of employers more involved in the process. Get mass transit going, get into light rail, heavy rail, adding lanes.”

But according to the transit system operators, the governor is not willing to make the kind of investment that will make such a vision a reality.

“We don’t believe we have been successful in convincing the Administration of the need for a dramatic increase in funding in order to build those facilities that are needed for a truly comprehensive transportation system,” Gerber said.

Water

In 1984, Deukmejian proposed a plan to expand the state’s water system to deliver more water to farms and cities in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.

“Perhaps the most urgent challenge facing California’s infrastructure is the development of additional water supplies,” Deukmejian said in his 1984 State-of-the-State address.

The governor proposed a combination of conservation measures and the construction of a canal to transfer water across the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Deukmejian’s canal plan was an alternative to the proposed Peripheral Canal, which was defeated by the voters in 1982. Although the canal would have run parallel to the peripheral canal, the Administration denied that it was an attempt to revive the rejected proposal.

Nevertheless, Deukmejian’s proposed canal was quickly branded Duke’s Ditch by opponents and was rejected by the Legislature.

Now, Deukmejian says he is reassessing the needs of the state’s population to determine how much water Californians will really require at the turn of the century.

“They don’t currently have a program. They have all of these pieces,” said Gerald Meral, who was deputy director of water resources under Brown Jr. and is now executive director of the Planning and Conservation League.

Good Progress Told

According to David N. Kennedy, Deukmejian’s director of water resources, the Administration has made “good progress” on the smaller projects that were part of the governor’s original package.

Construction began this summer on a $300-million enlargement of the east branch of the state aqueduct in the Mojave Desert to make the movement of water more efficient. The state is also building an $80-million canal to move water west from the Sacramento River to Napa and Solano counties.

In addition, the state has begun planning for the construction of the Los Banos Grandes Reservoir south of the delta that will not be completed for a decade.

The Administration also has negotiated an agreement with the federal government that would allow the state to use surplus federal water. The agreement, which has been discussed for decades, is now pending in Congress.

Deukmejian’s low-key water program generally meets with the approval of environmentalists, who oppose the construction of anything resembling a Peripheral Canal.

Schools/Colleges

Deukmejian repeatedly has said in his campaign speeches that education is his top budget priority.

With soaring enrollment creating a crisis in many school districts, Deukmejian signed legislation earlier this month setting forth a five-year, $5-billion plan to expand classroom space for students from kindergarten through high school.

The landmark school construction plan will devote money from future bond issues, tidelands oil revenues and fees on new development in an effort to provide classrooms for an estimated 100,000 new students statewide each year.

Deukmejian was criticized by some Democrats for delaying the school construction plan by a full year. In 1985, he vetoed a Democratic-sponsored school construction plan, saying he was not sure it was needed and that it would have cost too much from the state’s general fund.

Honig Pleased

“I don’t think you can fault him for that particular veto,” said state Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig, who was pleased this year when Deukmejian approved the legislation after winning a number of concessions. These included a limit on the amount that developers would have to pay and a requirement that local school districts contribute a matching share of the construction costs. In addition, the plan he signed does not include any commitment of money from the general fund.

But Senate Education Committee Chairman Gary K. Hart (D-Santa Barbara), an outspoken opponent of the package, said the financing plan is flawed because it relies on uncertain sources of revenues, such as falling oil revenues and bonds that have not yet been approved.

At the university level, Deukmejian has approved construction of new buildings and replacement of outdated equipment at a variety of University of California and California State University campuses, particularly emphasizing new science and engineering facilities.

“They’re trying to rebuild this infrastructure, which is so necessary in the sciences to get modern labs and modern equipment,” said Lowell Paige, assistant adviser to the governor on education. “Modern technology is moving so fast, you simply can’t teach with last decade’s equipment.”

Parks

Since Deukmejian became governor, the state has placed a low priority on buying new parks, especially in remote areas of the state.

William S. Briner, director of the Department of Parks and Recreation, said the state has focused its attention on developing the park land it already owns and acquiring certain parcels to “round out the boundaries” of parks in urban areas.

“We’re not trying to buy new parks,” Briner said. “We’re just trying to take the parks we have and spend the money where it will be most beneficial to the majority of people.”

Under Deukmejian, the state has spent $60.2 million on the acquisition of 20,844 acres of park land, most of it adjacent to existing parks. The state has received almost as much land in gifts: 17,328 acres.

The most significant purchases have occurred in Southern California and include additions to parks in the Santa Monica Mountains, Chino Hills and Baldwin Hills, Briner said.

Lost Opportunity Seen

Deukmejian’s acquisition program has drawn criticism from environmentalists who say the state is missing the opportunity to acquire valuable land in remote areas before it is lost to development.

Environmentalists and the California State Park Rangers Assn. also criticize the Deukmejian Administration for allowing the state’s investment in parks to deteriorate by reducing staffing and maintenance.

“Things are absolutely in terrible shape,” said Meral, the lobbyist for the Planning and Conservation League.

Briner acknowledged that some parks have suffered despite the expenditure of $58.1 million on more than 300 development projects.

“These criticisms will slowly subside as we get back up to speed on our maintenance,” Briner said. “The outlook is good but there have been problems.”