Monday, May 28, 2007

Proposition 84

To flesh out this editorial, here is the allocation of funds from Prop 84 from their website at .

Proposition 84, a $5.4 billion initiative slated for the November 2006 statewide ballot, provides funding for all of the major natural resource protection and water programs at the state level. The total amount of funding for water programs is $2.714 billion and includes:

$240 million for Safe Drinking Water
• $10 million for Emergency Safe Drinking Water Projects
• $180 million for Small Community Grants
• $50 million for Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund

$1.285 billion for Integrated Water Management and Water Quality
• $80 million for the Clean Water Revolving Fund
• $1 billion for Integrated Regional Water Management Grants (DWR)
• $60 million for Groundwater Cleanup Loans and Grants (DHS)
• $130 million for Delta Water Quality Improvement
• $15 million for Agricultural Pollution Reduction

$800 million for Flood Control
• $30 million for Floodplain Mapping
• $275 million for Flood Control
• $275 million for Delta Levees
• $180 million for Subventions
• $40 million for Flood Corridors

$65 million for Statewide Water Planning and Design
• Surface Water Storage Planning and Feasibility (CalFed)
• Evaluation of Climate Change Impacts on Flood and Water Systems
• Flood Protection Improvement
• Other Studies Related to Integration of Flood and Water Systems

$928 million for Protection of Rivers, Lakes and Streams
• $90 million for Stormwater Cleanup (TMDLs)
• $180 million for Environmental Conflicts Related to Water Projects
• $90 million for Colorado River, QSA and Salton Sea
• $54 million for Public Access to State Water Projects (State’s obligation)
• $72 million for River Parkways and $18 million for Urban Streams
• $72 million for the LA/San Gabriel Rivers
• $36 million for the San Joaquin River
• $36 million for Coachella/Desert Area
• $45 million for the Santa Ana River
• $90 million for Sierra Nevada Rivers and Lake Tahoe
• $45 million for Restoration/Conservation projects (California Conservation Corps)
• $100 million for San Joaquin River Restoration

$450 million for Wildlife and Forest Conservation
• $180 million for Forests
• $135 million for Wildlife
• $90 million for Natural Community Conservation Plans
• $45 million for Working Landscapes
o $15 million for Grazing Land
o $15 million for Oak Woodlands
o $10 million for Farmland Conservancy Program
o $5 million for Wildlife Stewardship Grants

$540 million for Beaches, Bays and Coastal Protection
• $90 million for Clean Beaches (coastal stormwater/TMDLs)
• $225 million for Bays
o $108 million for the San Francisco Bay
o $45 million for the Monterey Bay
o $45 million for the Santa Monica Bay Watersheds
o $27 million for the San Diego Bay
• $135 million for the State Coastal Conservancy
• $90 million for the Ocean Protection Trust Fund

$500 million for Parks and Nature Education Centers
• $400 million for State Parks
• $100 million for Nature Education Centers, Museums and Aquariums

$580 million for Sustainable Communities
• $90 million for Urban Greening and Joint Use Projects
• $400 million for Local and Regional Parks
• $90 million for Planning and Incentives for Resource Conservation

Editorial: Funding parks, trails
Prop. 84 backlash misses goal of initiative
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, May 28, 2007

Fueled by misleading media reports, a backlash is brewing against use of Proposition 84 bond funds to finance parks, aquariums, museums, bike trails and other public amenities.

The premise of this criticism is that people didn't vote for Proposition 84, a bond initiative on the November ballot, so the state could finance cultural and recreational improvements. Instead, clairvoyant critics claim, voters approved the ballot initiative mainly to finance flood control and water projects.

We find it impressive that commentators can look into the minds of the electorate and, absent credible polling, make conclusions on the motivations of 4.4 million voters. Less impressive is the claim that voters were misled into approving Proposition 84. Anyone literate enough to read a Dr. Seuss book would have known that parks, museums, trails and other forms of recreation were eligible for funding under this ballot initiative.

It's clear from the initiative's title: "Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initiative Statute." It's also clear from the campaign's Web site (, which says that funding could go to "development of nature education opportunities at institutions including, natural history museums, aquariums, research facilities and botanical gardens."