Inside Cal/EPA

Environmentalists and local governments interested in bolstering watershed protection must begin lobbying now to secure funding proposed in a water and natural resources bond that is expected to appear on the fall ballot, a lawmaker and other advisors said this week. Early jockeying will go a long way in funneling millions of dollars to specific areas if the bond is approved by voters, these experts say.

Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) and others spoke May 10 at the California Watershed Network’s Watershed Education Day, a lobbying forum for local government and environmentalists. Laird and the other advisors also told stakeholders to lobby for better funding for stormwater discharge programs, and to seek out more diversity in their membership.

Laird said the state’s resource agencies — including Cal/EPA — need more funding to do their jobs. “We’re getting to the point where some agencies cannot get close to their mission” to protect the resources they legally must protect, he said.

The experts did not address a massive bipartisan bond package approved by the Legislature last week that is also expected to be on the November ballot. Stormwater management funding is seen as the only significant watershed-related spending plan that is included in the initiative.

On the other hand, a private advocacy group this month is expected to qualify its own water and natural resources bond. The Conservation Strategy Group (CSG), which authored the bond, has already turned in enough signatures to qualify its $5.4-billionbond for the November ballot, CSG partner Joe Caves told the Watershed Network this week.

If it succeeds, half the bond funds would go to water and the other half would be used for natural resources causes. Caves said between $600 million and $700 million would benefit rivers, lakes and streams; $400 million would go toward coastal areas; and $180 million would go to the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program, which restores natural habitat in areas where CALFED water projects draw water.

Novel funding in the bond would for the first time link spending on urban parks and stormwater cleanup, Caves said, adding he believes the idea will win over voters. For Californians, “water quality, and protecting that in terms of their drinking water . . . in waters, lakes and streams and in coastal areas,” has a broad appeal, he said.

If the water bond passes, lawmakers will begin the “great turkey carve-up” of allocating funding to agencies — including the Water Resources Control Board — to implement programs, said Chris Larson, executive director of the Mattole Restoration Council.

Environmentalists should start lobbying lawmakers now to ensure funding for their watershed management priorities, he said.

Julia McIver, a former legislative consultant and current Yolo County parks department director, concurred. “What can be done now is targeting programs in the bond that are not defined, and saying how they can be defined.”

But even the expected bond money cannot help local governments meet all of their funding needs, especially in light of upcoming regional and state water board crackdowns on stormwater discharges in some areas, experts said. For instance, city of Monterey representative Les Turnbeaugh said he is concerned the state board’s efforts to prevent runoff in areas of special biological significance (ASBS) will force the city to spend a lot of money to combat its discharges into the areas. The CSG bond proposal may not fully fund local government efforts to comply with WRCB “no discharge” requirements for ASBS, Laird told Turnbeaugh.

Other local governments — especially those in the Los Angeles River watershed — may have trouble meeting regional board total maximum daily load (TMDL) mandates for stormwater, according to Melanie Winter, director of The River Project. She recommended environmental and local government lobbyists work to pass ACA 13, a constitutional amendment that would lower the vote threshold local governments must meet to charge stormwater fees. “We can’t meet all of our TMDL money on bond funds. We have to clean up our waters.” Others advised stakeholders to work this year to pass a measure allowing counties to raise and tap vehicle license fees to fund stormwater mitigation projects. Such a measure would be a hard sell, the advisors said, especially since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ran on a platform opposing new vehicle fees.

The makeup of environmental groups themselves should be assessed, Laird said. Laird admonished certain groups to embrace diversity as a means of attaining more environmental results. For instance, he said lawmaker members of the Latino Caucus would like to see more Latino faces among those attempting to seek environmental votes. “They don’t see people that look like them coming in and campaigning on the issues.”

Laird advised the environmentalists to band together with the burgeoning environmental justice movement, in order to reach a broader, more diverse constituency.

A legislative source close to the Latino Caucus said “it’s just a matter of time” until Latinos themselves assert a higher profile in environmental causes. “As education levels rise and awareness increases, more and more Latinos no doubt will be taking service and leadership roles in protecting our environment.”

The California Watershed Network consists of environmentalists and local government representatives who advocate management of water quality and supply at the statewide and watershed level. Members seek statewidewatershed-level management that goes beyond the Integrated Regional Water Management concept currently advocated by both WRCB and the Department of Water Resources.