The June 19 op-ed piece by Michael Semler, "Knock state's special funds down a peg or two," recommends that the governor and Legislature consider special funds to be on the table when trying to balance the state budget.
While the article acknowledges that legislation is required to divert special funds into the general fund, it ignores some glaring barriers.
First, federal grants given to California government are tied to performing specific tasks or developing specific products, such as USEPA grants for beach water quality monitoring. These funds cannot be diverted into the general fund and used for other purposes without approval from the federal government agency from which the grant was given. And such approval is highly unlikely.
Second, funds derived from voter-approved state bonds are also tied to performing specific tasks, such as maintenance of state parks or conducting water quality improvement projects. These cannot be diverted into the general fund without going back to the voters to amend the initiative statutes in which they were established. It is doubtful that the voters would elect to move funds they specifically earmarked for special tasks into the general fund where they could be used for any state government function.
Third, most fees-for-service are linked to performing the work for which payment is being made. For example, the Water Boards' waste discharger permit fees are charged to the specific regulated discharger of waste (e.g., a sewage treatment plant that discharges treated effluent into state waters) for the purpose of developing and adopting the regulatory permit that allows the discharge while protecting the water resource.
The agency that developed the fee holds lengthy hearings to determine the amount of the fee when the fee is established and each time the fee is changed. The regulated community expects that the money it pays for the permit will be used for that purpose, and the associated monitoring needed to protect the water resources that are threatened by the discharge activities. It is very doubtful that these fees could be diverted into the general fund and used for unrelated state government functions.
The column expresses amazement that some state employees whose salaries are paid out of these special funds feel that they should be exempted from furloughs and other budget actions associated with correcting general fund shortfalls. As explained above, the author is naive at best and delusional at worst in believing that these special funds can be used to reduce or eliminate deficiencies in the general fund. Shame on The Bee for featuring such an uninformed analysis.
Jon B. Marshack, a resident of Sacramento, is a scientist who has been employed by the state water board for 28 years.
About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.