With Democratic leadership eager to get a water deal done, the legislature appears set to vote tonight on two water bills, with Speaker Bass saying members will “make history today” by approving a package. The “policy” bills, focusing on Delta restoration and conservation, have been technically split from the big water bond, but there remain fundamental political linkages. And as the day wears on, more and more opposition to these bills, and ultimately to the entire process, emerges.

As things stand now, there will be a $10 billion bond to construct “dams, regional water projects, and ecosystem restoration”, $3 billion of which goes to build dams at Temperance Flat and Sites, and to expand Los Vaqueros Dam near Livermore. Unlike every other water project in state history, these would be funded by taxpayers, and not solely by the users of these projects. They would also not be subject to separate legislative approval.

The policy bill includes the creation of a Delta Stewardship Council to help oversee the use of the Delta. A majority of its members would be appointed by the governor, and it would have the authority to approve the construction of a Peripheral Canal, subject to certain environmental thresholds that are currently unclear. As the Contra Costa Times explains, Westlands Water District – which has been driving this process by demanding to be allowed to cut in line ahead of other water users and to be subsidized to do so – is satisfied with the proposed language:

At the heart of the new policy is a framework for a canal to route water around the Delta, a prospect that Delta interests detest because it could curtail housing development, make it more difficult to farm and could harm water quality and fish by diverting a portion of the Sacramento River out of its natural watercourse.

The path to building a peripheral canal would be clearer and more certain, but it would also be more difficult. The bills would strictly require the canal’s vehicle, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, to ensure its operation actually restores the Delta.

The provision has the support of the state’s largest irrigation district but has split environmental groups.

The Westlands Water District supports the legislation because, despite its strict language, it provides “a clear path” to a new way to move water around the Delta.

“We’re not certain we can meet (the requirements). We hope we can,” said Ed Manning, a lobbyist for the Westlands Water District in the San Joaquin Valley, in testimony last week.

The policy bill also includes some statewide groundwater measuring standards, and mandates 20% conservation of water, statewide, by 2020.

Key environmental groups, labor unions, and other Californians are already taking sides. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) are embracing the deal, with CLCV doesn’t think the deal is perfect but thinks it’s good enough to support at this time. On the other side, the Sierra Club opposes the deal, and Carl Pope denounced the process in a HuffPo op-ed.

Water agencies are similarly split. NorCal water agencies now oppose the deal, though most SoCal agencies, led by the mammoth Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles, playing key roles in getting the deal done.

Of political significance, Artesia Democrat Tony Mendoza reports CTA is opposed to the water bond, likely to be joined by several other major labor unions who are rightly concerned about crowding out public services spending by adding to general fund debt service levels, with Treasurer Bill Lockyer warning 10% of the general fund could be going to service debt if the water bond is approved.

Not being in Sacramento, you should take my prognostications with a grain of salt (preferably salt from the western San Joaquin Valley, which has too much of it). But I would be surprised if this deal goes through. Unlike the budget, there’s no looming threat of statewide fiscal meltdown. Failing to approve a water deal won’t cause government to shut down, it won’t cut off payments to schools and workers.

There is considerable political pressure to do a deal, but there is growing pressure to not do a deal. CTA’s opposition is significant, and may give Democrats who might be inclined to back the deal some pause, especially those looking to move up to other elected offices in 2010.

Finally, there is the question of the electorate. Any water bond has to go before voters in 2010, likely at the November election. I have a very difficult time seeing voters approving a $10 billion water bond, especially considering that the state’s finances aren’t likely to be in much better shape.

More importantly, the water bond will come with significant environmental and policy costs that other similar bonds haven’t had. For example, I was a strong supporter of the Prop 1A bond last year that authorized $10 billion for high speed rail. But that essentially came with no costs and  no downsides. HSR creates thousands of jobs, generating new tax revenue and saving people money on their travel costs without negative environmental impacts. In fact, high speed trains powered by renewable energy help provide cleaner air and mitigate against global warming.

That doesn’t eliminate the financial questions, but it made HSR a far easier sell than a water bond that could produce major environmental damage. After all, the bonds to build a Peripheral Canal were rejected by voters at the 1982 election, for many of the same reasons as a 2010 bond might go down in flames as well.

Whether a deal gets done tonight or not, the torturous process, once again largely hidden from public view, that produced the deal is yet another sign of how broken our state government has become.

UPDATE by Robert: The Delta governing bill, SBX7 1, passes by a 29-5 vote. No roll call just yet. Sen. Steinberg’s press secretary, Alicia Trost, counters claims on Twitter that this is a deal done in the dark:

Water pkg has had 9 months of public debate, 10 full public hearings.  Cogdill bond bill has been around for 3 yrs.

Note the “X7” in the bill title. This is the seventh special session in the current legislature. Not exactly an argument for a part-time legislature, is it?!

…the Cogdill bond bill, SBX7 2, is currently under debate. Cogdill says we need this for when we have 50 million people in the state. Lois Wolk speaks against this, arguing we can’t add the debt load to the general fund. Ironic to see Republicans calling for profligate spending – IOKIYAR! Or, It’s OK If You Hired Sean Hannity To Whine On Your Behalf (IOKIYHSHTWOYB).

…Wolk says SEIU now opposes bond along with CTA, complains that Delta will have to pay into the mitigation fund – “like asking a crime victim to pay half the restitution. shame on you all.”

…Maldonado speaks in favor, says we’ve been talking about this for 30 years, we need bipartisan solutions, we have to do this even if some people think it’s unpopular, blah blah blah. Will Arnold pick him for Lt. Gov already and get him out of our hair? I can’t stand having this guy represent us. Why exactly should your Central Coast constituents, Abel, have to pay to subsidize Westlands or let SoCal sprawl?

…Maldonado isn’t talking about water, he’s running for Controller and gunning for Central Valley votes. He’s already decided that his Central Coast constituents can be tossed overboard for his own ambitions. And not for the first time.

…love watching GOP Sen. Benoit (Riverside County) almost trip over his contradictory wingnut talking points, justifying the now $9.9 billion water bond because of global warming “even though, uh, some of us, uh, might question that” (referring to global warming).

…Cogdill closes on the finances: “hope and pray” that in 5 years there is economic recovery and the money won’t be an issue. I see that hope and prayer are what pass for Republican financial planning these days.

…$9.9 billion water bond squeaks by 28-8 (needs 2/3rds). Some Dem noes include Mark Leno, Mark DeSaulnier, Lois Wolk, Pat Wiggins. Didn’t catch the full list.

…SBX7 7 up now, the water conservation bill, with some last-minute amendments. It would be great if this bill information was being updated in real-time for us out in the public. As far as I can tell, without having seen the recent amendments, this is a good bill.

…20% conservation by 2020 is totally doable, especially for urban users. No excuse for not doing so, no matter the specific problems with this water deal. Time for CA to stop wasting water. Too bad this is linked to a ridiculous water-wasting and Delta-killing deal.

…water conservation bill passes 25-13. On to the Assembly next. And I’m headed to sleep.

It may be hard to remember, but last fall the state had not one but two special sessions. The first, on health care, ended with the rejection of the flawed mandate proposal ABX1 1. The second, on water, appeared to have also ended in acrimony, as Republicans insisted on $3 billion for new dams that Democrats were unwilling to support.

But even though the issue slipped below most of our radar screens, supporters of dams and canals have been hard at work promoting these obsolete 20th century technologies as some sort of “solution” to a 21st century crisis. The Planning and Conservation League reports on the California Chamber of Commerce’s efforts to enlist Arnold and DiFi to promote an $11 billion water bond – with $3 billion for dams:

PCL has recently gotten an Insider scoop that the California Chamber of Commerce is pressuring both U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to endorse its environmentally-devastating $11.69 billion water bond initiative.

The bond, which the Chamber hopes to place on the November 2008 ballot, is strongly opposed by environmental groups throughout California for its potential effects on the state’s natural resources. The bond would:

   –Include $3.5 billion explicitly for dam construction, plus billions more that could be used for dams on California rivers.

   –Establish a dangerous new “water commission” empowered to fund and build a peripheral canal and divert massive amounts of water from the Sacramento River around the imperiled California Bay-Delta Estuary for large-scale corporate agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley and sprawl development in Southern California. (Over-pumping of water from the Delta during the past eight years has already contributed to the collapse of the Delta ecosystem, including plummeting salmon and other fish populations.)

   –Eliminate public and legislative oversight and leave the fate of the Delta and Northern California rivers in the hands of politically appointed bureaucrats likely to have strong ties to special interests in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.

The Chamber’s push is seen by many as an end-run around the Governor’s own Delta Vision process, which has brought together stakeholders from the environmental, business, water, agricultural, and Delta communities.

That plan, which would eliminate badly needed oversight protections and saddle the state with $760 million a year in bond service costs, is bad enough. But over the weekend the PCL reported at the California Progress Report that bond supporters are now trying to do an end run around  voters, as the state Department of Water Resources is now arguing that it is not bound by the 1982 rejection of the Peripheral Canal by voters:

According to a recent budget change proposal submitted to the state Legislature, DWR intends to start preparing to build a new “Alternative Delta Conveyance” facility, which would divert water directly from the Sacramento River before it enters the Delta, sending it directly to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California….

Under its proposal, DWR would revive studies and update construction plans that it abandoned in 1982 after voters overwhelmingly rejected its “Peripheral Canal” proposal in a statewide referendum due to fears that such a facility would result in more Northern California water exported to the ever-growing south state, and that the Delta would be left as a saltwater lake rather than a true estuary.

The budget request from DWR follows a recent letter sent to Assemblywoman Wolk (D-Davis) by DWR Director Lester Snow, stating that according to DWR’s analysis, DWR has the authority to build a peripheral canal without legislative or voter approval.

More analysis below…

As the PCL explained, the Peripheral Canal would be a catastrophe for the Delta. The main environmental threat to the Delta is increased salinity due to export of fresh water for farmers and residential users further south. The Peripheral Canal is designed to bypass the delta altogether – finishing off the Delta as a freshwater system. The result would be ruinous for water quality, fishing, and stressed levee systems. It would be sacrificing the Delta once and for all in order to continue allowing California users to overuse what they already have.

It’s worth reminding ourselves why dams and canals are such a bad idea. First, they simply are not necessary. The Planning and Conservation League has weighed in with its own plan that emphasizes conservation programs, watershed restoration, and groundwater retention (in other words, pumping the water back into aquifers to be stored underground, a more environmentally friendly and sustainable solution than dams). If properly funded, they note, several million acre feet of water could be produced through these more sustainable methods. One acre foot typically equals the annual water usage by a family of four. The state’s own water assessment plan shows that conservation can eliminate the “need” for these new dams.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, we face a changing climate that is likely to leave us with less water to go around – making these dams even more unnecessary, a waste of precious money that should go instead toward global warming appropriate solutions. California is a very drought-prone climate. Climate change in California is expected to produce a hotter and drier climate, with a reduced snowpack. Precipitation in the Sierra is expected to fall as rain more often than snow, forcing significant shifts in how water is stored.

But the problem isn’t just that the Sierra will see less snow and more rain, but that it will see less water, period. And the problem isn’t limited to the Sierra – as anyone who’s been to the Southwest recently knows, the whole region is suffering from reduced rainfall. Some experts suggest we may be on the verge of a 90 year drought in the US Southwest, and that Lakes Powell and Mead may never return to their previous levels.

Faced with the prospect of prolonged drought, it seems foolish for California to assume it can solve its problem merely through added storage – why build more storage for less rain?

Senator Feinstein should not agree to this reckless and unnecessary plan, and should instead use her considerable influence to help put a better, less expensive, more sustainable and environmentally sensible water bond on the ballot this November. Water is our most precious commodity, and it should not be left in the hands of far-right zealots who cannot bring themselves to admit the need to abandon the failed ways of the past and instead construct sensible solutions for a new climate.

California sits at a crossroads. We’re there for many reasons, one of the most fundamental of which is water. 2007 has been a drought year here in California, and even though three Pacific storms are lined up to sock Northern California with rain, the fundamental problems of rising water usage, limited storage capacity, a stressed Delta, and climate change aren’t going away with just a few October rains.

So how do California Republicans respond to the water crisis? The same way they responded to the budget crisis: demand their way, or no way at all. Today they refused to support Sen. Don Perata’s water bond proposal, preventing this $6 billion package of Delta restoration and support for innovative, practical local water storage solutions from being submitted to voters on the February ballot.

At a press conference on Monday, Sen. Perata explained the Republicans’ thinking on the matter. As quoted by Frank Russo:

This feels a lot like what we went through this summer with the budget when we had a seven week delay because we couldn’t arrive at a conclusion. I don’t know how to solve the dams or us approach. We’ve been working on that. Maybe we could come to some conclusion on that. But my Republican colleagues have said very clearly, ‘It’s our turn.’ And by ‘our turn’ they mean to build dams.’

Republicans are willing to hold up the entire process because they feel “it’s their turn.” Forced to settle for only half the crippling cuts they demanded in the summer budget, they now insist that we break the state’s borrowing capacity for a $9 billion dam package simply to assuage their bruised egos.

This is par for the course with contemporary Republicanism. Whether it’s SCHIP, the war in Iraq, or California’s water crisis, practical and affordable solutions are rejected in favor of irresponsible, financially reckless plans whose only benefit is to reward Republican ideology and its narrow base of supporters. Doesn’t matter if the state, the country, or Iraq falls apart in the process.

(The Water Wars continue. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Last month, Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines (R-Fresno) gave us his priority on how to solve California's water issues. 

“Without reservoirs, there's no way it'll pass out of the Legislature. It's a requirement. There's no way we'll come to the table without it.”

 In other words, if you don't play the water game my way, I'll just take my squirt-gun and go home. There's a word for this attitude — childish.

Update by Brian: I’ve added the Assembly Report on the Water Hearings. There’s a vague reference to “bright lines in the sand.”

Assemblymember Lois Wolk (D-Davis), chair of the Special Committee on Water, and Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), leader of the Assembly Democratic Caucus Water Working Group, have decided to be a little more grown-up about the water crisis. They want to bring all ideas, every possible solution to the table, and they don't want any whining from the Republicans.

“I will be chairing hearings that will begin the process of moving forward responsibly on these issues,” Wolk said. “I don’t think issuing ultimatums or counter-ultimatums is the productive approach for California. The Delta should not be kicked around like a political football. There is a serious crisis and it needs a serious response. We need to all sit at the same table and talk. Tomorrow's hearing is a good start.” 

 No, she didn't mention dams, but she didn't say they were excluded either. What she did say is that this is serious stuff and we need responsible adults at the table.  Republican's unswerving loyalty to one view or one point is what keeps getting them into trouble. Unable to compromise, they continually play a mean game of brinkmanship, but manage only moderate success at moving the agenda. On the issue of water, they will surely lose if they don't grow up and learn the art of compromise. Consider this my paraphrase of the message the Governor tried to send them last month when he scolded them at their convention.

“There are those who believe strongly that dams must be part of the solution, and as the working group leader I have been asked my position on them,” Laird said. “To me, it’s a question of analyzing whether they should be built, and who pays. Dams have been built in California with no state money in recent years — with users paying the freight. The most the state has contributed for a dam has been 3% of the cost of Oroville Dam. The Governor has proposed three dams at a cost of over $5 billion — a record level of public financing because he is proposing the state come up with 50% of the cost for each dam.”

It seems that, these two Democratic leaders at least, are willing to look at all options, including dams, and come to some kind of bi-partisan solution. The solution may very well include dams, but to issue an ultimatum that you won't even talk if dams are not the forgone conclusion — well, that's just plain childish.  The Special Committee on Water will meet Thursday, October 3, beginning at 1:30 p.m. in Room 4202 of the State Capitol in Sacramento. The hearing is expected to last approximately three hours.

( – promoted by Robert in Monterey)

I have not posted anything here for quite a while.  Frankly, most of my political time has been spent becoming more educated on the issues surrounding California’s Water Crisis.  What I figured out is that it is just basic common sense.

I have been posting most of my observations on my main blog, California Greening.   I have been reading Aquafornia almost every day lately. This all leads to some interesting conclusions.

A. The primary focus of the environmental movement  is on Global Warming.  Not enough attention is being paid to the issues of water, even though those two are intimately related.  Global warming will make the ocean level rise.  It will change rainfall patterns.  It may make some current dams useless as they will not catch enough water to keep their reservoirs full. California environmentalists need to pay more attention to water.

B. The local newspaper coverage on the “water crisis” is pretty good. Much of it is summarized faithfully at Aquafornia (link above).  The editors of all the major papers seem to understand the urgency (Orange County Register is not one, though.)  They differ somewhat in their idea of the proper solution, but they all seem to understand the we have put off doing anything and it is now time to pay the piper.  I have summarized much of the editorial coverage at CA Greening.  As I indicated before, on the extreme Libertarian views of the OC Register fail to understand the need to spend a dime.  They don’t understand global warming either.

C.  It is really important to follow the special session of the legislature called by the Guv.  This will be an ideological battle.  It may happen in a short time. Schwarzenegger wants it on the February Primary Election ballot and that means action in Sacramento no later than mid-October. Hah!  If they do get it on the ballot for February, it just may be that they have to deliver two versions, Schwarzenegger’s and Perata’s. Highest vote total wins.

The real reason for doing it in February is that there is generally not a very high turnout in a primary election, even a presidential primary.  So, they will want to sneak this through.

D.  The focus on the “progressive netroots” on Iraq, etc. will prevent their being much of a participant in this unless we do something (like I am trying to do now) about getting them energized. 

E.  In the marketplace of idea, the survivors often are the ones with the biggest Ad Budgets.  This may be the Governor and the Association of California Water Agencies.

F.  The biggest question for us all is whether or not the general voter will care enough to think about water until the faucet is shut off or the levees fail, just as they did in NOLA.

This is truly worth spending a lot more time on and I hope that you all do just that.  I also hope that you will help me put increasing pressure on our legislature to make sure we do the right thing, not just look to grab all the water for their favorite user… which is normal practice for a legislator. 

Lots of posts in the California blogs in the last 24 hours, almost all of them on Bush commuting Scooter Libby’s sentence (it’s good to be the king — or his friend). Actual California stuff I found below the fold. As always, if I missed something, post it in comments.

Incidentally, I noticed that for some reason the links sometimes appear as plain text in the RSS feed. They do seem to show up as hyperlinks in the emailed roundup. I’ll see what I can do about that. Until then, just click through for hyperlinking.

Not Working Californians
or California Progress Report

• From the Fever Swamp: Horrible Preemption Provision Dropped
  from Energy Bill
  http://fromthefeverswamp.blogspot.com/2007/07/horrible-preemption-provision-dropped.html
• . . . Surf Putah: Ode to the Delta Breeze (a Meditation on
  Living in One’s Actual Environment)
  http://surfputah.blogspot.com/2007/07/ode-to-delta-breeze.html

Working Californians

• Working Californians: Tax Breaks vs. Fees for Investing in
  Alternative Fuel Research 
  http://workingcalifornians.com/blog/julia_rosen/2007/07/02/investing_in_alternative_fuel_research_tax_breaks_or_fees
• Working Californians: Supermarket Swindle: Brave New Films
  Joins the Grocery Worker Fight
  http://workingcalifornians.com/blog/julia_rosen/2007/07/02/supermarkert_swindle_brave_new_films_joins_the_grocery_worker_fight

California Progress Report

• California Progress Report: California’s
  High-Speed Rail System at a Crossroads 
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/07/californias_hig.html
• California Progress Report: Klamath Water Users and Tribes
  Negotiate Removal of Warren Buffett’s Dams That Poison Local
  Communities and Result in Public Health Warnings
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/07/klamath_water_u.html
• California Progress Report: California Assembly Committee
  Readies Hearing on Schwarzenegger’s “Global Warming Gate” as Ex Air
  Board Officials Prepare to Tell All on Friday
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/07/california_asse_18.html
• California Progress Report: Bill to Gut Local Campaign
  Finance Laws
  Blasted by League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and California Clean
  Money Campaign http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/07/bill_to_gut_loc.html