A bond proposal by state Sen. Dean Florez that was part of a package of bills targeting agricultural and mobile air pollution sources in the Central Valley is facing an uncertain future thanks to the state budget crisis.

It isn't the only one.

Appropriations committees in both the Assembly and Senate have set aside scores of bond proposals as well as other legislation that could have resulted in billions of dollars of new state spending.

"It's no secret the state of California is in a very precarious position fiscally," said state Sen. Chuck Poochigian, R-Fresno.

"With a two-year budget shortfall in excess of $38 billion, the idea of heaping on large amounts of additional debt would compound an already daunting challenge."

Assembly Member Sarah Reyes, D-Fresno, agreed.

"It was a very wise decision for us to make. [California] can't meet its bills now, so putting more out in terms of bonds is not smart for us."

Last week, the Assembly Appropriations Committee looked at 449 bills that would have cost the state more than $16 billion. About 60% (282) were approved. The result: $144 million in new spending.

In the Senate Appropriations Committee, there were 183 bills with a first-year cost of almost $28 billion and a second-year cost of more than $50 billion.

"We believe it would be unconscionable for us to pass bills with these kind of costs given the state's fiscal crisis," said a memo to Senate members from the committee's chair, Dede Alpert, D-San Diego, and its vice chair, Jim Battin, R-Palm Desert.

The committee's strategy is to keep revenue or general obligation bond proposals, as well as some others, as "two-year bills."

When the Legislature returns in January, the committee will consider the state's financial situation and take another look at the bills. That has Florez, D-Shafter, remaining hopeful, maybe even for some action this year: "There's definitely still a chance and we're assuming we'll still have bonds this year."

SB 701 would help finance existing and new air-quality programs. Dubbed the "California Clean Air Bond of 2004," it would provide incentives for industry -- especially agriculture -- to upgrade older equipment with cleaner emission technology. It would also seed grant programs for asthma screening and prevention, local air district monitoring equipment and diesel school bus clean-burning retrofits.

Florez said Alpert and Assembly Member Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, who is chair of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, are taking differing approaches to the bond proposals this year.

Alpert, according to Florez, just put aside the bond talk until a budget solution is found.

Reyes, who is on the Assembly Budget Committee, wasn't as hopeful. "In the next couple of years," she said, "you will see the Legislature pull back a little bit more on bonding." She did note, however, that "when good times come, that may change."

Poochigian, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said important factors in bond financing are the effect on the state's credit rating and the amount of money it will take to pay interest.

State officials say when the debt service on current general obligation bonds tops 6% of general fund revenues, bond raters and the investment community start getting nervous. Poochigian thinks the state is near that threshold now.

Also, the state is looking at $10.7 billion in deficit reduction bonds as a possible way to close the state's budget deficit, and the controller also will issue $11 billion in so-called "revenue anticipation warrants," which is borrowing in the short term to pay off last year's credit card. And, Poochigian said, there still are the bonds from the state's energy crisis.

"Bonds passed by voters must be sold," Poochigian said. "We still have a large number of bonds passed that have not already been sold. One reason has to do with what the market will bear. Adding a lot more debt in terms of long-term bond borrowing could be dangerous."

Florez thinks SB 701 will pass out of the Senate's Environmental Quality Committee on Wednesday and move on to Appropriations. "My guess is it will sit there," he said. "Once the budget committee makes a decision [on handling the state budget deficit], hopefully the bond bills will move."

If not, Florez will work to put the measure on the March 2006 ballot, with hopes of funding being available later that same year. The other parts of Florez's package of bills are still moving forward in the Legislature.

Other bond proposals include: two for water, one for $5 billion that would finance scores of projects statewide, and a $7.8 million bond that would help build two reservoirs, among other plans; $4.47 billion for libraries and youth services; and $2.9 billion for clean-air programs and coastal protection.