老夫子传媒

Gov. Gavin Newsom鈥檚 proposed budget would cut funding for coastal resilience projects almost in half, eliminating more than half a billion dollars of state funds this year that would help protect the coast against rising seas and climate change.

The cuts are part of Newsom鈥檚 proposed $6 billion in in response to a .

California鈥檚 coastal resilience programs provide funding for local governments to prepare coastal plans and pay for projects that protect beaches, homes and infrastructure at risk from rising seas. Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming the planet, which melts ice and causes sea levels to rise.

Newsom鈥檚 proposal would budget for coastal resilience, a cut of 43% or $561 million compared to 2021 and 2022, according to the Legislative Analyst鈥檚 Office.

Some lawmakers told CalMatters that they are concerned about Newsom鈥檚 proposal to gut the programs that are helping coastal towns prepare for flooding that has already damaged many communities.

Sen. Josh Becker, who chairs the Senate鈥檚 budget subcommittee, called the cuts 鈥渉ighly concerning,鈥� especially because they are excessive compared to the cuts applied to other state programs.

鈥淢ost programs received 10% cuts,鈥� Becker, a Democrat from San Mateo, said in an interview. 鈥淚鈥檓 very concerned about it, given the timing that we are experiencing these floods. My county is among the most endangered in the state for sea level rise.鈥�

Becker said he hopes to restore some of the money, possibly by finding federal funds to backfill some programs.

鈥淭hese are dramatic cuts to something we agreed upon, and I鈥檓 going to try to get it back,鈥� he said.

, released on Jan. 10, is not final, with revisions due in May.

Experts say there鈥檚 a lot at stake if and coastal projects are not addressed now. Last month the state Department of Transportation, Caltrans, released a estimating that it needs nearly $15 billion over the next ten years to protect bridges and roads from sea level rise.

A 2020 projects more than $20 billion worth of California property will be at risk or underwater by 2050 without planning and funding. 鈥淲aiting too long to initiate adaptation efforts likely will make responding effectively more difficult and costly鈥�. The next decade represents a crucial time period for taking action to prepare for鈥� sea level rise, the report says.

Much of the is in the form of grants to local governments to fund projects and planning. Included is $64 million for cities to prepare extensive management plans to prepare for sea level rise.

Chris Helmer, director of environmental and natural resources for the city of Imperial Beach, said 鈥渋f the state cuts adaptation projects, that would be a concern.鈥�

Imperial Beach received about $200,000 to prepare a , he said. It also has a grant pending with the Ocean Protection Council for another project to protect the city from encroaching seas.

鈥淚f there鈥檚 no money, that鈥檚 a major concern for us,鈥� Helmer said. January鈥檚 storm exacerbated already massive flooding issues, he said. Waves broke on city streets, sand was driven well past the beach and rocks were thrown through residents鈥� windows. The cleanup took two months.

Up the coast in Ventura, recent storms also undermined beachfront infrastructure and proved the value of a project at , partially funded by a $1.6 million state grant, that relocated a parking lot and bike path away from the water and protected the beach with a 鈥渓iving shoreline.鈥�

The second phase of that project is contingent on a $16.2 million grant application with the state. The timeline to begin is this winter.

Cody Stults, the city鈥檚 associate engineer, said he is optimistic that the grant would survive the cuts, but added that there is no way the city could afford to pay for the next phase of the Surfers鈥� Point project.

鈥淚f we can鈥檛 get the money, I can almost guarantee that the work will not be going through this winter,鈥� he said.

Among the statewide programs with deep proposed cuts are protecting the coast from climate change, with a 65% cut; adapting infrastructure to sea level rise, a 74% cut; and implementing SB 1, a 63% cut.

provides funding for much of the state鈥檚 sea level rise response. The author, Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, said the threat is more urgent now than when the 2021 law passed.

鈥淭he intent of SB 1 was to empower communities to work to find solutions at the local level to address sea level rise in partnership with the state,鈥� the San Diego Democrat said in a statement to CalMatters. 鈥淲hile we are facing challenging times, the past decade of responsible budgeting has prepared the state to withstand a downturn without devastating cuts to critical programs.鈥�

In testimony before the legislature last week, Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot characterized the governor鈥檚 proposed cuts as 鈥渟urgical.鈥� When pressed to explain how the administration prioritized programs that would be trimmed, he said the focus was on addressing 鈥渃lear and present danger.鈥� He identified wildfire and water projects as posing a direct and immediate threat to Californians.

Environmentalists said the governor鈥檚 proposal to cut climate funding is shortsighted: Rising seas are often described as a 鈥渟low moving disaster,鈥� as the most devastating impacts are projected to show up in coming decades.

鈥淪ea level rise is here,鈥� said Laura Walsh, California policy manager for Surfrider Foundation. While wildfires are a 鈥渉uge deal and we don鈥檛 want to compare sob stories, at this particular moment, living on the coast feels like an emergency. This is not belt-tightening, this is drowning,鈥� she said.

Newsom proposed the cuts right when California was lashed with a , flooding and high surf, which was proof enough that sea level rise is already harming the state, said Donne Brownsey, chair of the California Coastal Commission.

Brownsey didn鈥檛 criticize the governor鈥檚 proposed cuts. But she said she hoped they would be re-evaluated.

鈥淲hat we saw in January was the trailer for the movie. That鈥檚 the way it鈥檚 going to roll,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e hopeful that given what happened 鈥� all the flooding and damage up and down the coastline 鈥� we are hoping there will be a reevaluation of these programs. It鈥檚 not a future problem. It鈥檚 today.鈥�

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

鈥淲e still have unprecedented amounts of funding to make these investments. The state is committed,鈥� said Jenn Eckerle, deputy secretary for oceans and coastal policy and executive director of the state鈥檚 Ocean Protection Council. 鈥淏ut we also know impacts are happening now and we know they are only going to get more extreme over time. We also recognize that failure to invest in planning now can lead to significant costs later.鈥�

Crowfoot told the Senate budget panel that state agencies have been scouring federal programs for money to backfill state funding losses. About $4 billion in new federal money is set aside for coastal resilience projects.

The Newsom administration floated the idea of a general obligation bond to make up for the cuts, and a 鈥渢rigger鈥� provision that would restore funding if the revenue picture brightens.

But Rachel Ehlers of the Legislative Analyst鈥檚 Office told the Senate subcommittee that expecting revenues to rebound is 鈥渙ptimistic.鈥� She said there is a strong chance that the deficit will grow.

 is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.