Water theater in Sacramento

San Francisco Chronicle

Governor's role in political water theater not Oscar material

8/20/09

California water politics have moved to center stage. Delta farmers demonstrated on the Capitol steps this week against a Peripheral Canal and for a fortified delta. Central Valley farmers bussed supporters to Congressman George Miller's office last week protesting the protection of Delta fisheries at the expense of water to them. State legislators yesterday sparred in public over five bills to address water policy.

And what's political theater without an actor Governor weighing in? When the Governor did make a proposal yesterday, it did not predict success. The Governor said he would not sign a water deal without expensive, controversial dams to be paid for primarily by all California taxpayers.

His move is designed to resonate with San Joaquin Valley residents, where he was attacked on water issues at a town hall meeting earlier this year. When challenged, the Governor protested that he had been a strong advocate for the central valley on water issues. But he ignored the fact that it's one thing to advocate, it's another to deliver the goods.

His proposal yesterday would change the legislative vote requirement for a water deal from a simple majority to two-thirds - empowering the same kind of gridlock that characterized recent budget battles. Yet state budgets have to be adopted eventually, and there is no such requirement for water policy, meaning he may have empowered the gridlock that keeps a water deal from happening.

And his proposal would require voter-approval of a bond that would cost the state's already-stressed general fund more than $600 million a year for the next twenty years, more than the amount of his recent budget vetoes that he said he was forced to make because "the state must live within its means" - and likely send the bond to the same fate with the voters that he saw with his May budget propositions.

If he is not flexible on this demand, it probably kills the ability to get to an agreement before the legislature adjourns in just over three weeks. It is the Governor's conundrum. The more he moves to play to interest groups in public, the less ability he will have to get every interest group to move a little out of their comfort zone - a necessity for success. Until the Governor realizes that and acts accordingly, he will only add water to the list of issues on which he has failed.

This subject cries out for action. Urban water users can conserve more, but they must know there is a reliable, good quality water source in return. Many poor, rural areas have challenges to their water quality, but can't fix them by themselves. The overall system must protect fish, but someone has to pay for it. The Delta water system hub must be upgraded and protected before it crashes, but probably not at the expense of meeting every single need. A complex series of measures must be taken to increase supply over time. But with the cost of supply and other system improvements, the people who benefit must pay the bulk of costs, not taxpayers as a whole - to make a deal affordable.

This complexity is the reason that no deal has yet been reached, and requires skilled negotiation and a give and take by everyone. The window for a successful water deal is generally during the second term of a Governor with an eye to his legacy, who might be willing to take difficult steps knowing that he will not face voters again.

There is an agreement to be had here. The Delta ecosystem must be upgraded and restored. The amount of water that leaves the Delta must be constitutionally limited. Conservation and recycling by all California water interests must be at the core. Any bond must be at a reasonable level, have water supply money for every region of the state, and let each region decide what it wants and how much of its local taxpayers will add on for projects. There is a state interest in managing and improving the existing distribution system.

There is a role for the federal government. Federal judges approved the restoration of the San Joaquin River and the limiting of the Delta water exports. And the resulting reduction to water supply in the San Joaquin system came from a federal water project. It is not fair to expect state taxpayers to pick up the slack by themselves. The federal government needs to step up with money, which is the only way past big water projects such as the central valley levee system have been built in the last century.

But each of these items requires a willingness to give a little. Central Valley farmers will only get dams if they pay a significant share of the cost, and get some federal support. The Delta needs attention, but probably not at the level that protects every existing Delta island farmer in perpetuity. Urban water users will have to be more efficient over time, but they can't do it alone, agriculture has to join in this move. Taxpayers will probably have to pay for the fish protection and some Delta measures, but water customers will have to step up for most of the rest. There could be a Delta conveyance system, but only if paid for by users, done in conjunction with Delta restoration, and with a constitutional limit to Delta exports.

Sound easy? It isn't. That's why it hasn't been done, and that's why the Governor's role thus far is so disappointing. He is at a unique point in his term, and there's some hope that he has learned something from his past inability to get a water deal. He will have to shift gears in the next few days to make this happen by the end of the legislative session.

If he doesn't, he can continue to tell people in Fresno that he is for them on water issues. But he won't be able to tell them that he really stood with them by doing what it takes to deliver a successful outcome. It's up to him whether there's success here. And a successful role would be an Oscar-worthy performance.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/jlaird/detail?entry_id=45804#ixzz0OmPbx5U6 <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/jlaird/detail?entry_id=45804>