water

Thanksgiving is over and the legislature is getting back to work. That does not mean that any bills are close to passage, particularly on the two biggest issues dominating the special session: water and health care. There are no votes scheduled and quite a bit of pessimism floating around at this point. AP:

California lawmakers had been scheduled to return after the Thanksgiving break to vote on sweeping health care reform and water proposals, after weeks of promises that compromises were near on both issues.

Instead, there were no signs of any deals on Monday as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders tried to salvage something from the special legislative sessions called in September.

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, canceled a vote on the water bond he had hoped to put before voters in February. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, postponed a vote on the health care plan he had been negotiating with Schwarzenegger.

No vote means not deals. That does not mean that everything is dead in the water, just that big breaks are not imminent.

Schwarzenegger then summoned Perata, Nunez and their Republican counterparts in the Senate and Assembly to his office for what legislative aides described as a last-ditch effort to find common ground.

"Clearly, there still remain serious negotiations on both," said Adam Mendelsohn, Schwarzenegger's communications director. "The governor just feels like coming out of the delayed vote, he felt it was important to have a discussion."

Discussions are a very good thing. We shall see what comes of it.

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.

This water fight sure is ironic. You have the Democrats pushing forward a modest plan for water storage that would put the financial burden mostly on the shoulders of the users. Plus, it allows for local control to determine what projects get the state's money. On the other hand you have the Republicans (including Arnold) promoting a much bigger plan that is heavy on the borrowing and paying for it later. LAT:

Democrats oppose state dam building, although they're willing to provide grants for local construction. The governor proposes that the state pay for 50% of the dam costs. Democrats argue that, historically, the state has paid for only 4%, with water users footing the rest.

"The issue's not dams, it's who pays," says Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), one of the negotiators.

"The governor's proposal is DOA," Machado asserts.

Perata is sponsoring a $6.8-billion bond -- increased by $1 billion on Friday -- that would provide $2 billion for local water supply grants, including for dams. There'd also be $2.4 billion for the delta -- but nothing for a canal -- and $2.4 billion for water cleanup and reclamation.

Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of Clovis drew "a line in the sand" last week and declared: No dams, no deal.

Like Skelton says in that column, it is unclear what the huge rush is to get it done in time for the February ballot. They have two other shots next year, with the June primary and November general election.

The Democrats will face a severe backlash from the environmental community, if they agree to dams in any deal. Perata's plan leaves it up to the locals to build the dams, relieving him of the responsibility for their creation.

Time for another beloved linky post, given the slow news day we are having.

• The Republicans want to borrow more money to build damns that the Democrats want to pay on unspecified water projects. They are at a bit of a standstill at the moment. Democrats prefer less expensive ways for water storage and would let local areas have more flexibility in where water money is spent.
• For the second straight year a workers' comp reform bill is sitting on Arnold's desk. Momentum has been increasing to revise some of the draconian regulations passed a few years ago. Even Arnold is starting to recognize that injured workers have suffered greatly under the current rules.
• The President promised yesterday to veto the expansion of the state based health care program for children known as SCHIP. Democrats are still hoping they can override the veto, but the votes may not be there. The outcome of this bill will effect the fiscal calculations for any health care reform legislation here in California. Passing this bill, would relieve California of a significant fiscal burden for insuring children. Not getting this passed will make funding more difficult for the overall reform efforts.
• George Skelton is raving about Treasurer Lockyer's measured approach to the job.

That's all I have, unless you want to read about college kids getting credit for card dealer classes. Career specific training I guess...

The past year's low precipitation rate is starting to cause problems and has prompted Long Beach to "impose the region's most severe water restrictions in years". Water is about to get a lot more limited and thus expensive. LAT:

The measures, which took effect immediately after the city declared a water emergency, will force residents and businesses to change their behavior, including when they water lawns and how restaurants serve water to diners.

Regional water officials said Long Beach's action could be a precursor for other communities around Southern California as they grapple with the drought and a federal judge's ruling last month on water deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

The delta is a key source of imported water for the Southland, and officials believe the court ruling -- set to take effect this winter -- could reduce supplies by 30%.

This is not an isolated problem. The Metropolitan Water District, which gets about 60% of its water from the delta, is set to finalize water allocations in October. First they need to complete a study of the judge's decision. The limited water may increase costs and those will be passed on to consumers. The DWP seems headed in the same direction as Long Beach.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power may enforce mandatory water rationing similar to Long Beach's if the judge's decision is upheld and if the region has another bone-dry winter.

"Because water has been plentiful, with that came a certain degree of comfort and complacency," said David Nahai, president of the DWP board. "We have to jolt Angelenos out of that kind of mind-set. If things don't turn out favorably, we may return to [drought] protocols."

The new rules in Long Beach are reminiscent of the strict water policies adopted across California during the drought of 1990-91.

But officials said Southern California is in better shape now than during that drought because agencies have been aggressively storing water in recent years in reservoirs, which remain at healthy levels.

True, but if we get another dry winter, we will be in big trouble.

That reminds me. I need to talk to my landlord about the sprinklers in front of my building. Seeing them go off in the middle of the day really ticks me off.

There is nothing that a newspaper columnist loves more than a gotcha moment of contradiction with a politician. The article in today's LAT on Mayor Villaraigosa follows a well worn path. Politician makes a promise. Reporter gets a tip from one of their political rivals or comes up with the idea on their own. They do a little digging and find an inconsistency. Breathlessly, they publish it, allowing folks a whack at the piñata.

In this case, it was the Mayor's plea for individuals to cut back on their water use by 10%. One would think that they would have tracked his water use over time and shown that it would have gone up or stayed static to prompt a story. No, in this case it was the fact that his water use was significantly higher than comparable properties in the area. I am not going to defend the Mayor on this one. I am sure that he could find ways to reduce his water impact significantly. Indeed, what was greatly missing from this discussion was the use of native plantings, instead of lush landscapes that are water eaters.

Instead of prompting a discussion about ways politicians are working to reduce their water, or even finding proof that they have failed to do as promised, the immediately placed them on the defensive. In Villaraigosa's case, he had a unique defense: gophers.

Villaraigosa blamed his comparatively high water use at Mount Washington on gophers that chewed holes through a rubberized drip-irrigation system installed beneath his hillside backyard to protect against erosion and to ostensibly save water.

"We were unable to determine there was a leak. It's underground," he said. "We intended to conserve water by purchasing a drip water system."

Villaraigosa said he did not notice increases in his water bill because his wife handled that chore. "I didn't have access to those bills," he said.

Note to politicians: water bills are public information. They can be used to establish residency (Ed Jew in SF) or fodder for columnists like this one. I hope they follow up with the Mayor in a few months to see if he has gotten his act in gear. If he hasn't, then that is a real story.

I am borrowing this title from Sasha at Left in SF, who brings up an excellent point that I would like to take a step further. The governor's major proposals, in his State of the State speech, to solve our most vexing problems from health care, to water storage, to prisons is to treat the symptoms of the problems not the root causes.

His health care proposal does little to ensure an efficient provider system. The failure to do more to reign in insurance costs will mean that we continue to overpay for sub-par health care. The big winners are Arnold's big backers in the insurance industry and the rest of us from business owners to employees to the government itself lose out.

What were Arnold's solutions to water demand and prison overcrowding? Maxing out the state credit card. He wants another round of bond borrowing totaling $29.4 billion that would literally put the state at it's debt limit for the next decade. All of this from a man, who promised to cut up the state's credit card. Anyone remember this picture?

That is Arnold in 2003, cutting up the state's credit card.