Legislators: Dry up or water supply will

last updated: August 28, 2008 11:19:04 PM

How long have Sacramento's politicians been arguing over a water bond? A year? A decade? Or does it just feel like forever?

As the politicians go round and round without budging, it's only natural to come full circle. And so we have. A couple of months ago, Gov. Schwarzenegger proposed a $9.3 billion water bond -- his second try for such a bond in two years. On Aug. 15, Assembly Democrats proposed a $9.8 billion water bond, their second try in two years.

After looking at the two very similar ideas, it's clear we've been here before. And the same issue that kept our elected officials from getting a bond onto the ballot in 2007 is likely to kill it again in 2008.

In 2007, Schwarzenegger proposed a $9.1 billion water infrastructure package with a down payment on two dams (Temperance Flat near Fresno and Sites Reservoir west of Sacramento), an improved "conveyance" (call it anything except a peripheral canal) and conservation programs. Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland, countered with a $6.8 billion proposal, but his figures went up. When they did, the plans became similar in all ways but one: how the money would be allocated.

The governor's proposal was based on a "continuing" allocation, meaning once projects were approved there would be only regulatory oversight in spending the money. Perata's proposal required an "annual allocation" by the Legislature, which meant projects would be subject to annual review before the money to build them would be released.

Political principles can be adjusted, but divvying up money allows for no compromise. So the water bond never reached the ballot and Californians never got the opportunity to secure their liquid future.

Now it's August 2008, and it's déjà vu all over again. We have competing water bond proposals with very similar elements. The most significant difference is in how to allocate the money.

Fresno Assemblyman Juan Arambula is the leading proponent for the Democrats' effort. He says his bill is a good compromise -- except that it isn't, because it still contains the "annual allocation."

Assemblyman Tom Berryhill, R-Modesto, is leading the charge for the governor's proposal (originally carried by Sen. Dave Cogdill). Berryhill has guaranteed that not one Republican will vote for a plan that includes annual appropriations because such annual review provides too many "offramps" for the money.

So we're back to the same old debate, and we're likely to get the same old result. The deadline for putting a water bond on the Nov. 4 ballot probably is Monday. Meanwhile, after two years of drought, cities up and down the state are restricting water use by 10 percent or 20 percent.

Arguing over water can be thirsty business. We just hope the politicians' mouths run dry before the state does.

• Comments
• Add Comment
• Disclaimer