No Legislative Water Compromise

Following up on my post from yesterday, at this point it looks like there will not be a water bond on the ballot through the legislative process. Both Arnold's Republican backers and Sen. Don Perata are now talking about gathering signatures to put their competing proposals on the November 2008 ballot. Perata simply does not have the Republican votes to get his bill passed.

Environmentalists have long supported Perata's plan. He recently won the backing of the Metropolitan District of Southern California, which provides water to 18 million people in Southern California. Meanwhile, many Central Valley officials are pushing the governor's plan.

Under Perata's plan, nothing precludes an agency from spending the money on a dam. But Republicans are skeptical that there's enough money in the pot.

The three dams targeted by Cogdill's bill would cost a combined $10.3 billion, according to estimates. The proposal calls for the state to pay as much as half the costs of the dams with local users paying for the rest. The state's final share would be determined by the "statewide benefit" of each project, including flood protection or new water supplies to aid fisheries.

Historically, the state has contributed far less for dams. But Schwarzenegger administration officials said the new investment was needed to boost the state's water supply "backbone" while dealing with the massive flooding and extended droughts that could result from global warming.

The basic outlines for these bills look like they will be turned into ballot measures. They were hoping to pass a compromise measure legislatively to get it on the ballot. Since that seems like it will not happen, they will have to front the cash for the signature gathering and settle for a later date, instead of the February ballot.

The water discussion should start dying down shortly, at least for a few months. Having two competing measures next year would pit developers against environmentalists, not to mention Democrats v. Republicans. It is well worth having the public debate over who pays and how we pay for reliable water. Do we keep putting it on the state's credit card, or do users foot the bill? Do we really need more damns, or are they an inefficient method for water storage? Nobody is disputing the need, it's how we accomplish our goals that is at issue.