BIG SECURITY FUNDS, TINY STATES FORMULA FOR ANTI-TERROR MONEY TO STAY SAME.

Byline: Lisa Friedman Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - Maine, Vermont and other small states have out-muscled California this year in the wrestling match for anti-terrorism funding, forcing target-rich states to temporarily abandon their quest to allocate homeland security money based on risk.

Lawmakers and lobbyists fighting to direct more money to Los Angeles, New York City and other regions say that when the Patriot Act comes up for reauthorization this month it will retain the same formula to distribute an estimated $2.9 billion in grants to police, firefighters and other first responders.

It's a formula that gives Wyoming several times more funds than California.

``Congress is being shortsighted in not changing how homeland security funds are distributed,'' said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who earlier this year fought over the formula with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.

``We have limited funds available. The funds should go where the risk is highest,'' Feinstein said, adding she will continue fighting to change the system that promises a minimum 0.75 percent of the entire pot for all states, with the remainder distributed based on population.

Under that formula, smaller states have received more funding per capita than bigger ones - with Wyoming getting $27.80 per person in anti-terrorism grants compared to $8.05 per Californian.

New York receives $15.54 in grants per person, according to the most recent Congressional Research Service report.

House lawmakers had sought to lower the minimum funding each state gets and distribute more based on risk of a terror attack. But senators on the negotiating committee - notably Collins, Lieberman and Judiciary Committee leading Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy - would not budge, congressional aides said.

Collins was pushing a measure to distribute 40 percent of the grants to every state, regardless of the significance of their terrorist targets. That would have given small states less than the old formula, but far more than what Feinstein and House lawmakers want.

``They've been battling and pushing and shoving for months and months,'' said Tim Ransdell, director of the California Institute for Federal Policy Research, a D.C.-based think tank.

``They were simply too far apart. The Senate conferees just weren't willing to move toward a compromise position that would be acceptable to the larger states,'' Ransdell said.

Fearing the fight would sink the entire bill, he said negotiators finally ``bailed on the entire notion'' of rewriting the formula, keeping the original one in place another year.

The Patriot Act reauthorization is expected to be the last opportunity of 2005 to rewrite the formula.

``That's it. This is done,'' added E. Del Smith, a lobbyist for Los Angeles County.

But, he and Ransdell said, there remains a silver lining for California.

The homeland security appropriations bill, signed into law in October, gives the government discretion to award funding based on risk after states get the 0.75 percent minimum. Previously that money was strictly allocated based on population.

Department of Homeland Security officials have repeatedly maintained their desire to direct funds where they are needed most.

``If they put their money where their mouth is, the 2006 allocation will be based, at least in part, on risk and threat,'' Ransdell said, adding that with a new approach, ``California's share will increase, and perhaps substantially.''

Smith called it a ``step in the right direction,'' adding, ``You can only use so many fire suits up in Montana.''

Lisa Friedman, [phone]

lisa.friedman(at)langnews.com