State’s Payments for Flood Control Barely Trickle In

In contrast to his recent high-profile preparation for this winter’s El Nino storms, Gov. Pete Wilson’s administration is more than $140 million behind--and up to seven years late--in paying for some of California’s major flood control projects.

Officials said the pile of delinquent bills will probably reach more than $250 million by next summer because no money was included for the projects in the current fiscal year’s budget.

The backlog includes at least 18 construction sites, already authorized by a legislative vote and a governor’s signature, that are needed to prevent billions of dollars in potential flood damage in Los Angeles, Orange County, San Jose, San Diego, Fresno and other urban areas.

Federal authorities have provided at least 65% of the funding for each of the projects. And the state has committed to supply about 25% more. But, except for a limited payment last year, California has paid just a small fraction of its share since Wilson was elected in 1990.

“I think that we should pay our bills,” said Sen. Jim Costa (D-Fresno), chairman of the Senate’s Agriculture and Water Resources Committee. “There are a number of projects in Southern California that will be tested if the El Nino is in effect as some are predicting. Only time will tell.”

In Los Angeles today, federal authorities will convene a summit conference on preparation for El Nino, the periodic storm pattern that has developed off the West Coast and prompted scientific warnings about an especially severe winter for California.

Wilson held a similar meeting in Sacramento last week in which state authorities focused on the threats posed by high coastal waves and weakened Northern California river levees.

But afterward, some local water officials said Wilson was a hypocrite for trying to appear concerned about storm damage when his administration has made such a low priority of paying for flood control projects.

State officials said they have delayed the payments because of a tight budget and a goal of holding down costs. They described their delinquent bills as a “cash flow” problem, not an issue that could jeopardize public safety.

But even if that is the case, they admit, it is only because most cities and water agencies have decided to pay the state’s share rather than shut down vital repairs.

“That is correct,” said Douglas Wheeler, Wilson’s secretary for resources.

In Orange County, site of the state’s largest flood project, local officials are torn by a shortage of cash caused by their declaration of bankruptcy in 1994 and a flood threat that experts consider the most severe in the Western United States.

The potential for $15 billion in damage and hundreds of thousands of residents left homeless in cities such as Anaheim, Santa Ana and Huntington Beach could exceed the devastation of the 1993 Mississippi River flood, officials said.

So far, Orange County officials have paid nearly $70 million of the state’s share so the construction will not be affected. But they said future phases of the project are contingent on the state providing reimbursement soon.

“We are running out of money,” said Herb Nakasone, an Orange County director of the flood project. “We go up [to Sacramento] every year and push for legislation. But unfortunately, the governor has other priorities.”

In other areas, such as downtown San Jose, local officials say the lack of state money has either delayed or stalled construction projects.

Workers on the biggest project in the San Jose area--on the Guadalupe River--were ordered to proceed after federal experts said a severe storm could cause at least $600 million in property damage and shut down four major freeways as well as San Jose International Airport.

“The impact is that for all of the projects on our list, the schedules are slipping,” said Ron Davis, general manager at the Santa Clara Valley Water District. “One project has virtually come to a halt.”

In Sacramento, the Wilson administration has taken a hard-line attitude toward the projects and the local complaints.

“They will get their money,” said Wilson Cabinet Secretary Ben Haddad. “But our money is finite. . . . They may not get paid when they want to get paid.”

Haddad said local governments are complaining inappropriately when they should understand that they receive significant funds from the state in areas such as welfare, education and the courts. “We don’t point the finger at everything they don’t pay,” he said.

Haddad suggested that some flood projects are legislative “pork” intended to benefit individual lawmakers. He declined to identify an example among the 18 sites that have not received their share of state funds.

Wheeler, of the Resources Agency, said he questions whether California should be paying any share of the flood control projects. He said he soon will assign a task force to study that responsibility.

“There is a question about whether this is a state, federal or local responsibility,” he said. “Arguably, that is a local responsibility. Local taxpayers are at risk.”

*

That suggestion prompted as much astonishment as outrage from local officials and state lawmakers.

They said the federal government could make the same claim and, in that case, they do not believe that most local agencies could afford to finance such large projects alone. They also said flood control projects are legally required to save money by not spending more on construction than the value of property threatened by a 100-year flood.

One project, on which the state owes $7.5 million even though it was completed in 1993--has paid for itself, according to federal experts with the Army Corps of Engineers. Without improvements to the Redbank Creek near Fresno, they said, there would have been serious flooding last January during Northern California storms.

“The new detention basins were full,” said Jason Fonzalo, spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers in Sacramento. “We’ve already recouped that [project cost].”

Sean Walsh, the governor’s spokesman, said the governor recognizes a state interest in building flood control projects. But neither he nor Haddad was able to define the state’s obligation.

That lack of a coherent flood control policy is the cause of the state’s delinquent bills, Costa said. He blamed the administration for not outlining state policy.

But he also said that most members of the Democratic-controlled Legislature probably do not realize the state is in arrears on flood projects.

That was demonstrated in the Legislature this year. A bill to pay all of the state’s delinquent flood control bills died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The committee’s chairwoman, Assemblywoman Carole Migden (D-San Francisco), said she thought the bill was rejected because it duplicated existing state policy.

“If we are in arrears, that’s the first I’ve heard of it,” she said in a recent interview. “And if that’s the case, I’m surprised.”