Last-ditch gambit made for Delta fix
Capitol to mull deal before break
Mike Taugher
Oakland Tribune
09/11/2009
Lawmakers who have had few successes this year are expected to decide before midnight Friday whether to go forward with a far-reaching and potentially very expensive plan to revamp the state's water laws and the future of the Delta.
Two of the biggest pieces of the legislative puzzle were released early Thursday morning, and perhaps the biggest piece -- how to pay for it -- had not yet been made public late Thursday. If negotiations on financing fall through, it is possible that the bills might not reach the full Legislature.
Nevertheless, legislative leaders anxious to make progress on something important are hopeful of getting the package approved Friday, the last day of the 2009 session.
At the center of debate is a controversial canal that would take Sacramento River water around the Delta to as far away as Southern California -- an aqueduct that many of the state's biggest water agencies want and that some environmental groups say is worthy of consideration, but that many Delta representatives adamantly oppose.
The legislation sets conditions on the canal -- namely that it not be approved until it is assured that adequate water flows remain for the Delta ecosystem, and that approval be granted if it meets the standards of the state's Natural Community Conservation Planning law, which is meant to go further than endangered species laws and actually lead to full recovery of degraded ecosystems.
The latest drafts, however, leave open the possibility for the canal to be approved even if plans fall short of that standard.
"It's the most complex water deal we have dealt with in a half-century," said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies.
Quinn said his group, which represents most of the state's water agencies, was opposed to the package as written but hoped it could be substantially improved Friday.
Particularly troubling for water agencies, who could be on the hook for billions in new infrastructure costs, was the policy embedded in the bills that the state would reduce its reliance on the Delta for water and find other ways to meet the growing state's thirst.
A scientific finding of such a necessity might be acceptable, Quinn said, but a policy determination that less water would be available from the Delta was unacceptable to water districts that could be spending billions.
"We're going to make it worse," he said. "That's bad policy."
Some environmental groups support the package, with the caveat that could change if the financing plan is too expensive or promised dams might be environmentally destructive.
Delta and local environmental groups, many of whom are dead set against a peripheral canal, are largely opposed.
Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, pulled out as author of one of the five policy bills in the package -- a bill to create a Delta conservancy -- saying backroom negotiations among legislative leaders and some of the biggest water districts had watered down the bill.
In particular, she was angered by a change that relieved water districts from the cost of compensating Delta counties for economic damage they might cause. Construction of a canal, which could have a right-of-way as wide as 1,000 feet, and the wetlands restoration that would accompany it would take Delta land out of economic production and off tax rolls. Wolk said those who divert water should contribute to offsetting the economic damage that would result.
"What they did in the middle of the night was remove the language that would allow economic sustainability to be part of the calculus," Wolk said. "The partnerships between the counties and the state have been ruptured."
