State Legislature approves comprehensive package to overhaul water system, including an $11-billion bond

The state Legislature passed a wide-ranging water package that includes an $11-billion bond as dawn broke over the Capitol today.

When the Senate took the final vote just before 6 a.m., it ended years of failed attempts to confront the state’s growing water problems.

“This Legislature has accomplished something tonight that the Legislature hasn’t accomplished in decades,” Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) told his bleary-eyed colleagues.

Lawmakers worked through the night adopting a set of measures dealing with such diverse issues as urban water conservation, groundwater monitoring and management of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the collapsing center of the state’s complex plumbing system.

Many of the package’s provisions were weakened during weeks of negotiations and last-minute amendments to round up votes.

But proponents said the legislation nonetheless represented the most comprehensive action the state has taken on water in decades.

“I am so proud that the Legislature, Democrats and Republicans, came together and tackled one of the most complicated issues in our state’s history,” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement. “This comprehensive water package is an historic achievement.”

The bond, which will go before voters in next November, ballooned to $11.1 billion as legislative leaders sweetened it with something for every part of the state and every water interest.

It sets aside $3 billion for new storage and $2 billion for ecosystem restoration in the delta.

It would fund recycling and groundwater cleanup important to Southern California, pay for Salton Sea restoration and watershed projects on the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers.

There is money for drought relief, Lake Tahoe, a dam removal project on the Klamath River in Northern California and Sierra foothill communities.

“I believe this measure has been so bulked up with pork it’s going to sink,” Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) said in urging defeat of the bond proposal.

It took several stabs at getting the necessary two-thirds vote. Assembly members stood in clutches, lobbying reluctant colleagues during breaks. And they stripped out an earmark that was singled out as a particularly egregious example of largess: $10 million for a Sacramento nonprofit associated with Steinberg that offers watershed and “urban greening” programs to students.

State Sen. Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto) has pushed for a big water bond for years. He attributed success to a variety of factors this year: the drought, growing environmental constraints on pumping from the delta and the delta’s mounting ecological crisis.

“It’s been queued up for a while. It just took a number of things to put the pressure on to get it done,” he said.

The conservation measure sets a goal of reducing overall urban per capita water use by a fifth by 2020. Agencies that fail to meet their target would not be eligible for state water grants and loans.

California is the only Western state that doesn’t regulate or monitor groundwater usage. The bill sets up a program to measure groundwater elevations, but does not force private property owners to provide monitoring information to the state or to local water agencies.

“Many of us would like to see a bill like this go much further,” said Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), conceding that it was a “modest step.”

As in the conservation measure, the stick is a loss of water funding. Counties and agencies in groundwater basins that didn’t monitor could not receive state water grants or loans.

A proposal to beef up enforcement of water rights and crack down on illegal diversions was gutted in the final hours. It adds funding for 25 new state enforcement officers and requires water users in the delta to report their diversions. But increased penalties and beefed-up enforcement powers for the state water board were dropped.

Regional interests to some extent trumped the usual partisan divides and even the north-south antagonism that has traditionally marked water politics in California.

The Democratic Latino Caucus joined Republicans in pushing for a major bond. Other Democrats and public employee unions complained that the debt service — more than $600 million a year when all of the bond parts are issued — would blast holes in the state’s bleeding general fund, further eroding state services.

Delta representatives were bitter about the bills, complaining that a new delta council helps pave the way for a freeway-sized canal on the delta’s edge that would eat up land and farm livelihoods.

“The real solution is taking less water from the delta,” said Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis).

The politically appointed council would oversee delta projects with the twin goals of sustaining reliable water supplies and protecting the delta environment.

The environmental groups most active on California water issues — the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund — support the bills. But other conservation groups such as the Sierra Club and Friends of the River have fought it, complaining that the policy overhaul is anemic and the bond’s burden on the state’s taxpayers too great.

-- Bettina Boxall in Sacramento

Comments

[Zachary Royce]

Agriculture uses 80% of California's water, and they're asking everybody else to cut back 20%?

[MdW]

If the people of this state give the state government any more $ even through a bond measure, they deserve whatever the governor and legislature gives them. Don't forget this water measure is a part of the threat that the germinator used to get what he wanted and still slashed services

[sandiegan]

Great!

Now, how about...

Schools...
Prisons...
Transportation...
Pensions...
Tax code...

[Robert]

It is the inefficient use of water by agriculture that is at the root of our water problem, not urban users. While I do not think that growing lawns is a particularly smart practice, there is a deeper issue. Water-intensive crops like cotton and rice make no sense in a semi-arid farmscape. Yet they continue to suck up a disproportionate share of a precious state resource because a cheap agricultural water policy encourages a crop that doesn't make ecological sense.
Water policy needs to face this issue. Our farmers can do better, if we provide sensible incentives.

[Gordon Potik]

Why didn't the State Legislative bodies include the following ...
We have a never ending supply of water through our oceans we must build more Desalinization Plants. We must build these plants using our military land along the cost line or existing land where plants involved with power, refining, and water restoration are located.

[Richard]

The rebuidling of the levees in Natomas is a waste of our money as those developers knew that they were building all those lousy houses along a river which is historically flood prone. That is why is is so flat there you morons! The developers should have to pay to fix the levees not the rest of us.
Also, why do we in Northern California have to pay to have our water hauled via the canal to Los Angeles? If you ask me you southerners need to practice birth control and immigrations control better. Why when I fly over LA I see endless swimming pools and fountains? This is so wrong!
You are in a desert and need to act like it!
I like the fact that much of the water this state produces goes to agriculture as that is what feeds us.

[Sandy]

It takes these nincompoops so long to agree on EVERYTHING that California is wasting away and losing jobs, productivity and people are losing hope of ever climbing out of the abyss the politicians and financial scam artists have created and been given taxpayer monies to squander on outrageous bonuses.

We are losing our jobs, health coverage, homes, self-worth, and to add to it the State is now "temporarily" boosting the state payroll tax deduction by 10%. Property taxes have been increased this year and my home is worth half of what it was 4 years ago!

The legislature needs to create jobs to support their fine taste of spending, and quickly before the tax base disappears completely. And, this is across the broad spectrum of industries, construction, entertainment, schools, manufacturing, and tourism.

[Dan]

The Sacbee and L.A. Times still have not reported exactly what is in the bill and how it will affect us, not really suprising though. What is Californias chances of getting a bank to approve this size of a bond when our credit rating is "junk". Standby folks, were getting railroaded again and again. I forsee high water rates and stricter water use guidlines coming to a faucet near you. Maybe Steinberg should have got his $10 million for his pork plan.

[Jim]

Good, I'm glad this finally passed and I hope voters approve it next year. This is a serious issue for Californians. Without water, our agricultural industry will dry up and we will lose thousands of jobs.

[Jeff]

More government thats what we need. I wish they would spell out all the pork in this piece of legislation. It hopefully will not pass.

[tom]

This is "urgent", and necessary to the survival of this state? So why isn't it coming up for a vote before NEXT November? Is there something even more important than water?

[yxk0012]

I think L.A. County should automatically vote against any statewide bond - when's the last time we got our fair share of the bond money? Even if Sacramento promises a lot of projects in SoCal - it's a safe bet the money will be siphoned off to Northern California.

[Jinni]

If this is so important - then why is the ultimate decision left up to voter referendum a year from now? Either the voters will pass it and we'll use up more than 10% of the budget debt financing - or it won't pass, and we'll have no real water policy. A terrible dilemma.

[Heather]

This is great, however we don't have enough information on the proposed bond. For example, what happens if it doesn't pass? Where will the funding come from then? Our schools (again)?

[Defeat This Titanic Waste of Money Bill]

Once again the squeal of the porkers in Sacramento is right up there with their stench. This bill/bond MUST be DEFEATED in 2010. Send the clowns back to the legislature to write a more responsible bill. Replenish the Salton Sea? What are they smoking? Colossal waste of money.