Back in October the special session on water seemed dead. Republicans rejected Perata's water bond plan, which had no funding for dams in it and instead emphasized fixing the Delta and conservation projects. At the time the GOP's attitude was "it's our turn" - give us dams, dammit!
No details of the meeting were immediately available. But going into the meeting, Senate leader Don Perata, D-Oakland, tentatively had agreed for the first time to set aside funds, perhaps $3 billion, for work on three reservoirs if there was benefit for the ailing San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta, according to the senator's office. But Perata has insisted on an annual legislative review of funding for the work, something that Republican lawmakers oppose because it could give legislative critics an opportunity to stall a project. GOP advocates of the dams want all the funding to be available once it is approved without further legislative oversight.
In response, Friends of the River reiterated its arguments against dams (and was approvingly quoted by Steve Maviglio, making one wonder if Núñez is on board with Perata's cave-in). Dams are simply not necessary to solve our looming water crisis, as conservation and alternative water storage methods can provide for our needs, even during a drought, without the ruinous effects of new dams - dams that virtually none of the studies done on CA water issues and the Delta have suggested are necessary.
Both the water and the health care compromises share a fundamental logic - Democrats give in to a key Republican demand but try and shape the outcome in their favor. It's not clear if they'll be able to make an individual mandate affordable or even workable, and it's not clear that Perata will be able to keep control of dam funding.
More importantly, have Democrats already given up their positions of strength by caving on the key demands? Can Dems, having agreed to an individual mandate and to new dams, reject them again if they are unable to convince Republican legislators or the Republican governor to give in to Dems? Having already given in on the key demands does not put Dems in a strong negotiating or political position.
