October 4th, 2007
The Legislature was called into special session on water issues. The impetus was a federal judge's decision on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Water exports have contributed to the almost complete crash of fish populations in the Delta. As a result, a judge ordered Delta water exports reduced by about one-third, with a second decision coming on salmon.
Speaker Fabian Núñez and Leader Mike Villines each appointed working groups to form the basis for a special session water committee. Our speaker-appointed group has eight members, balanced in views and by region. We believed it important to outline principles that should be considered in constructing any bond. I have introduced three special-session bills--with the other group members as co-authors--embodying principles.
We were clear on restoring the Delta expeditiously, not just for water exports, but also for its environmental health; making sure projects contain a strong majority of costs from the project beneficiaries; understanding that already-approved bond funds should be used to the best advantage; and wanting conservation, reuse and cleanup of contaminated drinking water supplies as part of any broad-based solution.
We are cognizant that water for 65 percent of Californians passes through the Delta. For Southern Californians, reduced Delta water is but one problem. Last year's rainfall in parts of Southern California was just over one quarter of "normal." The Colorado River, from which substantial water is provided to Southern California, has been in drought for seven seasons.
Increased water efficiency is a key factor in Southern California. Los Angeles has grown by about 1 million people in the last quarter century, but is using the same amount of water as before. The Metropolitan Water District is now saving more water from conservation and reuse than is imported from the Colorado River.
There are those who believe strongly that dams must be part of the solution, and as the working group leader I have been asked my position on them. To me, it's not a question of whether they should be built, but an issue of who pays.
Dams have been built in California with no state money in recent years--with users paying the freight. The most the state has contributed for a dam was 3 percent of the cost of Oroville Dam. The governor has proposed three dams at a cost of over $5 billion--a record, because he is proposing the state come up with 50 percent of the cost for each dam. This is not fair to communities across California that pay for their water supply without state subsidy and are now being asked to foot the total bill for their water supply as well as the water supply of other communities.
The governor's $9 billion bond proposal--over half of which is for this outsized dam subsidy--would cost the general fund roughly $650 million yearly for 20 years. That's similar to the amount vetoed by the governor from this year's budget--a budget that delayed social-security increases, cut homeless mentally ill programs, increased UC and CSU student fees, and eliminated outreach for the state's children's health-coverage program. Bond money from the general fund is not free; it competes against each of these items. Bonds backed by user fees would not compete against general-fund budget items.
That's exactly why we have led with our principles during the special session. Recycling, conservation and cleanup of contaminated drinking water sources need to be a part of any solution. If dams and other projects are a part of a bond, they should be subsidized at a level that has the water users carrying a large majority of the freight. If the reason we're talking about water is the Delta, then we should lead with Delta solutions that address the court decision.
There are a large number of financial, environmental and water supply issues in any bond proposal. We might get only one shot at this. We should not rush a proposal that isn't fully cooked and could be in trouble with voters. We have three statewide ballots next year that could be used for a thoughtful water bond proposal. If we don't make February, we should keep working toward June or November. We should do this right.