Governor Newsom’s Climate Budget to Cut Coastal Protection Funds

English

Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposed budget will nearly halve funding for coastal resiliency projects, eliminating more than half a billion dollars of public funds this year that would help protect the coast from rising sea levels and climate change.

California’s Coastal Resiliency Programs provide local governments with funding to prepare coastal plans and pay for projects to protect beaches, homes, and infrastructure threatened by rising sea levels. Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming the planet, causing ice to melt and sea levels to rise.

The cuts are part of Newsom’s proposed $6 billion cuts to California’s climate change programs in response to the state’s projected $22.5 billion deficit.

Newsom’s proposal includes a $734 million budget for coastal resilience, down 43% or $561 million from 2021 and 2022, according to the Office of the Legal Analyst.

Some lawmakers have told CalMatters they are concerned about Newsom’s proposal to gut programs that help coastal cities prepare for flooding that has already wreaked havoc on many communities.

Senator Josh Becker, who chairs the Senate Budget Subcommittee, called the cuts “extremely dangerous,” especially because they are excessive compared to cuts applied to other government programs.

“Most programs have been cut by 10%,” Becker, a San Mateo Democrat, said in an interview. “I am very concerned about this given the time we are experiencing these floods. My county is among the most vulnerable in the state due to sea level rise.”

Becker said he hopes to get some of the money back, possibly by seeking federal funds to fund some programs.

“This is a drastic reduction in what we agreed on and I will try to get it back,” he said.

Newsom’s budget, released on January 10, is not final and should be amended in May.

Much is at stake, experts say, unless action is taken now on sea level rise and coastal projects. Last month, the Caltrans Department of Transportation released a draft management plan that would require it to spend about $15 billion over the next ten years to protect bridges and roads from rising sea levels.

A 2020 report from the Office of the Legal Analyst predicts that more than $20 billion worth of California real estate will be at risk or underwater without planning and funding by 2050. “Waiting too long to start adaptation efforts is likely to make an effective response more difficult and costly…. The report says that the next decade represents a critical period of time to take action to prepare for “sea level rise”.

Most of the funding for the chopping block comes in the form of grants to local governments for project funding and planning. Included $64 million for cities to prepare extensive management plans to prepare for sea level rise.

Chris Helmer, director of environmental and natural resource conservation for the city of Imperial Beach, said “if the state cuts back on adaptation projects, it will be a problem.”

According to him, Imperial Beach received about $200,000 to prepare a draft plan for sea level rise. He also has a grant pending from the Ocean Defense Council for another project to protect the city from invading seas.

“If we don’t have money, that’s a big concern for us,” Helmer said. The January storm exacerbated already massive flooding problems, he said. Waves crashed on the city streets, sand was carried far beyond the beach, and stones were thrown into the windows of residents. The purge lasted two months.

On the coast at Ventura, recent storms have also undermined shore infrastructure and proved the value of the Surfers Point project, funded in part by a $1.6 million government grant that moved a parking lot and bike path away from the water and protected the beach. “living coast”

The second phase of this project is contingent on a $16.2 million grant application from the state. Start dates this winter.

Cody Stults, the city’s junior engineer, expressed optimism that the grant would survive the cuts, but added that the city could never afford to pay for the next phase of the Surfers’ Point project.

“If we cannot get the money, I can almost guarantee that the work will not continue this winter,” he said.

Among the state’s programs with deep cuts being proposed are protecting the coast from climate change, with a 65% cut; infrastructure adaptation to sea level rise, 74% reduction; and the introduction of SB 1, a reduction of 63%.

SB 1 provides funding for most of the state’s response to sea level rise. The author, Pro Tem Senate Chairman Tony Atkins, said the threat is more pressing now than it was when the 2021 law was passed.

“The purpose of SB 1 was to empower communities to work to find local solutions to address sea level rise in partnership with the state,” the San Diego Democrat said in a statement to CalMatters. “While we are facing difficult times, the last decade of responsible budgeting has prepared the state to weather the downturn without devastating cuts to critical programs.”

In his State of the Union address last week, Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot described the governor’s proposed cuts as “surgical.” When asked to explain how the administration prioritized the programs that would be cut, he said the focus was on addressing “clear and present dangers.” He called wildfires and water projects a direct and immediate threat to Californians.

Environmentalists said the governor’s proposal to cut climate change funding is short-sighted: sea level rise is often described as a “slow-onset scourge” as the most devastating effects are predicted to unfold in the coming decades.

“Sea level rise is already here,” said Laura Walsh, policy manager for the Surfrider Foundation in California. Although wildfires are “a serious problem and we don’t want to compare tearful stories, at this particular moment, life on the coast seems like an emergency. This is not belt-tightening, this is drowning,” she said.

Newsom proposed cutting spending just as California was being hit by a series of devastating atmospheric rivers, floods and high surf, which was proof enough that rising sea levels were already hurting the state, said Donn Brownsea, chairman of the California Coastal Commission.

Brownsea did not criticize the governor’s proposed cuts. But she said she hoped they would be overpriced.

“What we saw in January was a trailer for a movie. This is how it will be,” she said. “We hope that given what has happened – all the flooding and destruction along and across the coastline – we hope that these programs will be re-evaluated. This is not a problem for the future. It is today.”

Brownsea and others noted that past budgets have been generous, but also that their programs are under increasing pressure.

“We still have unprecedented levels of funding for these investments. The State is committed,” said Jenn Eckerle, Deputy Secretary for Oceans and Coastal Policy and Executive Director of the State Ocean Protection Council. “But we also know that the consequences are happening now, and we know that they will only become more extreme over time. We also understand that failure to invest in planning now can result in significant costs going forward.”

Crowfoot told the Senate Budget Committee that state agencies were scouring federal programs for money to make up for lost public funding. About $4 billion of new federal money has been earmarked for coastal resiliency projects.

The Newsom administration has floated the idea of ​​a general obligation bond to offset the cuts, and a “trigger” provision that would restore funding if the earnings picture improves.

But Rachel Ehlers of the Office of the Legislative Analyst told a Senate subcommittee that it is “optimistic” to expect revenue to recover. She said there is a good chance that the deficit will grow.

English

Content Source

Dallas Press News – Latest News:
Dallas Local News || Fort Worth Local News | Texas State News || Crime and Safety News || National news || Business News || Health News

Related Articles

Back to top button