Sacramento Bee/Capitol Alert

Laird talks water in Q&A

Three pro-environment bills await his OK

September 21 , 2007

By Shane Goldmacher

"Some people hold their position in water as a religious belief," said John Laird, the Assembly Democrats' lead water negotiator in the Legislature's special session. "There is not an ability to worship at somebody else's altar."

The Santa Cruz Democrat spoke with Capitol Alert this week about the special session, the sticking points on dams and a canal and the chances for a deal. In order to strike a compromise, he said all parties involved will have to give up something - and floated the idea of postponing any decision on a canal until after a water storage bond deal is crafted.

On Thursday, Capitol Alert published an interview with Sen. Dave Cogdill, the Senate Republican water leader. Early next week, we hope to publish a third interview, with the Department of Water Resources' Lester Snow.

Now, on to Q&A with Laird, with his responses edited for brevity.

Capitol Alert: How significant was the federal judge's decision to protect the Delta smelt and order the reduction of water pumping?

Laird:I think it forced an issue that deserved to be on the agenda anyway for a long time. It's significant because it comes together with a dry year, the beginning of climate change effects and the imminent growth of California by millions of more people.

How real is the threat of rationing water?

If we have normal rainfall years, I don't think rationing is an issue. But the Colorado basin is in the seventh year of drought and we've had some record dry years in Southern California. There are other factors, taken together with the Delta, that could begin to cause concern.

One of the criticisms of the ruling is that smelt are being prioritized above human water consumption. Should fish, or the Delta smelt, be prioritized above human water consumption?

Well, actually, if we don't protect the habitat of the Delta there's a potential of a major collapse that would even have a worse impact on human water consumption. So to criticize the order and focus on the one fish is actually ignoring the question about maintaining the future of the Delta under any circumstances.

But the fish is the primary cause of this particular reduction in water supply. They've been getting caught in the pumps.

Well, the fish might be the cause of this particular thing but if there's a substantial earthquake, a major failure of levees in the Delta, there will be a disaster that's even greater. The underlying issue is the Delta is quite unsustainable with all its current uses and how are we going to protect habitat, drinking water and other uses given that reality.

Did you think that, realistically, California can meet its water needs without new dams, which Democrats have generally been opposed to?

I think that the issue of dams is a false choice in this discussion. The real issue is the financing of the dams. There have been reservoirs built, up and down California, in recent years without state support. The governor's proposal is to give $5 billion of state support to dam projects, and that's 50 percent of the support of those dams. The most that's ever been spent by the state on a dam, to date in our history, is three percent of the total costs, which was the Oroville dam.

The real issue is the financing, not dams, because I think if the state put in a very small share and the dams pencil out, there wouldn't be an issue here.

But you're talking about the state government and what the state Legislature wants to do so you're involving state money?

Yes. But there is a wide range of things that can be done. If you talk to the Metropolitan Water District (of Southern California), they are saving six to seven-hundred thousand acre feet of water through they're conservation programs per year. That's more than the annual yield for two of the dams that the governor has proposed. The real issue is what's our broad-based program going to be. It needs to include clean up over the water supply that's currently offline. It needs to be conservation and recycling within existing use. And it may well mean additional sources, in addition some measures to protect water coming out of the Delta. It has to be all those things together.

The question is what's cost efficient given that broad plan and what's the state's proper role in moving forward.

You're saying Democrats aren't so opposed to new dams as much as having the state pay for them?

My constituents in my home town of Santa Cruz paid for their own dam 100 percent. They pay it off in their water rates every month. And that is true with residents of Sacramento, with residents of Los Angeles, with other parts of the state. Why should the state taxpayers pay for the water of some localities and require other localities in the state to pay for their own? That's a matter of equity. My constituents would be paying for their water and the water for other people's localities and I think there's a question of fairness there...

I don't want outsized amounts of state funds. If three percent is the most that's ever been paid for by the state for a dam in California's history and we're proposing $5 billion of bonds to come back on the General Fund, the issue is that is an outsized amount, an unfair, large amount compared to historical patterns and equity with people around the state.

Hypothetically, let's say there's a deal on the dams, and the financing of the dams, there's still the issue of building a canal around the Delta. What's the sticking point on that?

I think if we are trying to resolve the water picture of California with a broad array of things, we can do some things to protect the Delta. But if we put it now into a bond measure, it could well sink the overall proposal. That's of concern to me politically.

Maybe a canal would be put off to another year...do a water bond deal for dams and leave the canal out for now?

Agencies that would benefit from a canal say they could pay for it themselves; they are not requesting state funds. If they're saying they can pay for it themselves, then this still might be a matter that (requires legislative action) or (is) up to the voters, but it's not a matter that's central to a bond.

You're the chair of the Budget Committee. You've carried health legislation this year, now you're working on this water group. What's more complicated, the budget, health care or water?

The public policy of health - and the related interest groups - in some ways equals the complications of the interest groups with water. The difference is some people hold their position in water as a religious belief and there is not an ability to worship at somebody else's altar.

That said, do you have any predictions on whether or not there will be a deal to put a water package on the February ballot?

If the different parties in the Legislature and the administration say it's either my proposal, with no changes, or nothing, we will not have a deal. If the various parties of each house and the governor are willing to give something to get something, we'll have a deal. I think it is entirely up to the willingness of the parties to work together. We're willing to give it a real shot on the Assembly side.

Which of those five parties, the four caucuses and the governor, do you see as least willing at the moment?

It's not that anybody is least willing, it's that everybody wants what they want and they have a lesser interest in what the others might want, and it's a question of whether we can find a meeting of the minds.

What are your hopes for that?

I really believe it's too important to not come to some sort of an agreement. But if this is about dams, and nothing else, it won't happen. And if this is about water cleanup and conservation and leaving out the Delta, it won't happen. It's going to have to see where there's a place in the middle to give everyone involved the comfort level to move ahead.