April 1999 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Mint Green for Green Space?

After years of fiscal drought, California may once again have money for habitat acquisition and restoration if pending state and federal legislation succeeds.

In the state legislature, four different versions of a parks and natural resources bond act have been introduced, ranging in amount from $854.5 million to $2 billion. AB 18, SB 2, SB 57 and SB 74 are similar in content and would provide funds for the acquisition, development, improvement, rehabilitation, restoration, enhancement and protection of park, recreational, cultural, historical, fish and wildlife, lake, riparian, reservoir, river, and coastal resources. According to John Woodbury of the Bay Area Open Space Council, the bills have powerful political sponsors, giving some version of the bond the best chance of legislative approval in over a decade. The measure would go to the voters in 2000.

The biggest obstacle to the natural resources bond may be competition from other large bond measures, including a revived water bond, according to Woodbury, who says there is a limit to the bond dollars the legislature is likely to approve. Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, Senator Jim Costa and Assemblyman Mike Machado have introduced bond measures of an unspecified amounts to finance safe drinking water, water quality, water supply and flood protection projects. Last year, a water bond measure died in the legislature, the victim of a dispute between then Governor Pete Wilson and Democrats over whether it should provide funding for new storage facilities.

In Washington, several competing measures to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund established by Congress a quarter century ago to acquire and protect natural resources using offshore oil drilling royalties - have been introduced in Congress. The most ambitious of these, "Permanent Protection for America's Resources 2000," jointly introduced by the Bay Area's very own Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative George Miller, would provide $2.3 billion per year for a wide range of land acquisition, preservation and restoration and species recovery programs, including $900 million a year for the LWCF.

Meanwhile the Clinton Administration's FY 2000 budget request includes a number of significant environmental funding proposals. Chief among these is the $1 billion Lands Legacy Initiative, which includes $183 million to increase protection for the nation's ocean and coastal areas (including estuaries), and $150 million in matching grants for land or easements for wetlands and other types of open space. The Administration's Department of the Interior budget proposal also includes $75 million to continue CALFED ecosystem restoration program implementation.

Contact: John Woodbury (510)654-6591

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project