LOS ANGELES -- As American states get ready to spend billions on long-overdue infrastructure improvements, some rough questions pop up.
First, which are the “must do right away” projects for public safety? The Katrina disaster, for example, has aroused big concerns here in California about potentially catastrophic breaks in the vast levee system of the fragile Sacramento/San Joaquin River delta.
Second, “serve me first” -- the raw and familiar spectacle of localities or special interests jockeying to be first in line for fresh government spending.
But infrastructure measures present a third quandary. What are the safeguards to make sure that big new public outlays don't exacerbate environmental problems? And has anyone thought of other -- maybe far less expensive -- ways to achieve some of the purported goals?
All three question sets have been in play in debate over the massive bond issues Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has campaigned to get onto the California ballot this year.
The levee issue is so grave that Schwarzenegger recently asked President Bush to declare the delta a disaster area. A bipartisan set of four former governors -- Gray Davis, Pete Wilson, George Deukmejian and Jerry Brown -- last week issued a public warning that levee failure could trigger not only floods and destroy Northern California neighborhoods but spell “disaster” for the state water supply, with transfers of water to Southern California cut off for at least 18 months.
A Field Poll released March 1 showed 73 percent of Californians in favor of new bond funding for flood control and water systems -- another reason, one had to guess, that Schwarzenegger and state legislators struggled hard to muster the two-thirds vote necessary to place a bond measure on the June ballot.
But the kinds of dilemmas they faced suggest issues likely to emerge, even in other guises, across the U.S. in the next years.
Californians, for example, find it much easier to fund levee repairs than to take obvious steps to limit the splurge of ill-advised residential subdivisions being built on low land, highly susceptible to flooding, close to Northern California’s levees.
And then sheer politics gets in the way. On bonds for water supplies, for example, the more rural-oriented Republicans insist in funding dam-held surface storage water projects, while the Democrats stress conservation and recharging of groundwater.
On one issue this winter, common sense prevailed rather quickly. Schwarzenegger initially proposed $2.6 billion to build two new prisons with space for 83,000 inmates. Wrong idea at the wrong time, said corrections reformers. They pointed to an array of reports, from independent agencies, even a panel headed by former Gov. Deukmejian, urging major prison-system reforms and such measures as expanded drug treatment to reduce overall prison populations. Schwarzenegger agreed to strike the prison proposal from the bond package.
It wasn’t too tough to get accord on major highway improvements and schools. But the California Democrats raised other priorities, likely to emerge in debates nationwide: money to support affordable housing (now in desperately short supply in California and elsewhere), and support for high-speed rail and transit, and for parks and recreation -- all heavily favored in the Field Poll.
But the California Planning and Conservation League, reviewing the bond proposals, raised lots of red flags. Will new schools be sited to reinforce communities or just exacerbate sprawling development? Will road and water projects be planned to reduce vehicle miles traveled and protect habitat and farmland? Will economically disadvantaged communities get a fair shake? And how about “beneficiary pays” -- will truckers, port operators, pay for the public benefits they’re receiving?
Diesel pollution is today’s big and frightening environmental threat. California has one of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest school bus fleets. Outmoded construction equipment is responsible for a major share of the state's diesel particulate matter.
And then there's California’s massive port trade -- a major driver of its economy. A tripling is predicted in the current 14.1 million containers moving yearly through Southern California. That means diesel pollution, which already claims thousands of lives yearly, could get far more serious -- from trucks, railroad locomotives and ships. The four former governors warned that rising diesel pollution could take “a serious toll on public health.”
A double-barreled solution is needed, the former governors said. One is quick movement to cleaner diesel engines (an effort that the rising national push for clean-burning biodiesel fuel could help a lot). A second is to redesign port and other congestion points to eliminate grade-crossings that force diesel vehicles to idle and thus pollute more.
The moral from California: from levees to roads to rails to ports, it’s easy to recognize the need for early action, to move on America’s massive infrastructure deficit. But taking some time to act with caution and smarts, to analyze alternatives, to save money, protect landscapes, neighborhoods and public health is just as important.
Neal Peirce's e-mail address is nrp@citistates.com.
Powered by