Dam Money?

This water fight sure is ironic. You have the Democrats pushing forward a modest plan for water storage that would put the financial burden mostly on the shoulders of the users. Plus, it allows for local control to determine what projects get the state's money. On the other hand you have the Republicans (including Arnold) promoting a much bigger plan that is heavy on the borrowing and paying for it later. LAT:

Democrats oppose state dam building, although they're willing to provide grants for local construction. The governor proposes that the state pay for 50% of the dam costs. Democrats argue that, historically, the state has paid for only 4%, with water users footing the rest.

"The issue's not dams, it's who pays," says Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), one of the negotiators.

"The governor's proposal is DOA," Machado asserts.

Perata is sponsoring a $6.8-billion bond -- increased by $1 billion on Friday -- that would provide $2 billion for local water supply grants, including for dams. There'd also be $2.4 billion for the delta -- but nothing for a canal -- and $2.4 billion for water cleanup and reclamation.

Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of Clovis drew "a line in the sand" last week and declared: No dams, no deal.

Like Skelton says in that column, it is unclear what the huge rush is to get it done in time for the February ballot. They have two other shots next year, with the June primary and November general election.

The Democrats will face a severe backlash from the environmental community, if they agree to dams in any deal. Perata's plan leaves it up to the locals to build the dams, relieving him of the responsibility for their creation.