Water storage stymied bond package
GOVERNOR: DEBATE OVER DAMS LIKE `HOLY WAR'

By Edwin Garcia
Mercury News Sacramento Bureau
Monday, March 20, 2006

SACRAMENTO - With his $68 billion public works borrowing plan about to sink last week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger desperately urged Republicans and Democrats to find common ground on a fundamental issue: whether to repair dams, build new ones or leave them off the infrastructure package entirely.

But legislators weren't about to make a hasty decision over surface water storage, a topic contested for decades and one that won't soon go away.

When it comes to water and how to store it, the only common vision shared by Republicans and Democrats, rural residents and urban dwellers, farmers and environmentalists, is that the matter is treated with a passion few other topics command.

``This is an issue that almost became a religious issue,'' Schwarzenegger told reporters. ``It's amazing. It was like the holy war in some ways.''

As with other components of his $222.6 billion strategic growth plan announced in January, Schwarzenegger at first left out specifics when he declared the need to build more storage capacity and increase the water supply to meet the needs of a growing population.

Republicans throughout California and Democrats in the irrigation-dependent Central Valley took that to mean the state would finally follow through on a 6-year-old commitment -- a partnership with the federal government -- to not only study and design five water storage projects, but to actually build one at a cost of at least $1 billion.

``It became such a significant issue because for the last decade and even beyond that we continued to pass water bonds that have no water storage in them,'' said Sen. Jeffrey Denham, R-Modesto, who fears the state could be unprepared in the event of a drought.

``California is adding 500,000 new people every year,'' said Assemblyman Keith Richman, R-Granada Hills. ``We're going to add 10 million people over the next two decades, and ensuring we have adequate supplies of water storage is critical.''

Many Democrats and environmentalists fought hard to keep dams off any infrastructure proposal. They cited studies that show how dams choke rivers and affect species habitat; they quoted figures from the California Department of Water Resources saying the state has enough water for at least the next 20 years.

Environmental groups contend that conservation -- particularly drip irrigation on farms and low-flush toilets in cities -- along with underground storage can provide the water at a lower cost to taxpayers than dams.

``It's environmentally unsound and unnecessary,'' Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, said. ``I don't see that we can tie the hands of the people of California, paying interest on billions of dollars to build dams that are not needed.''

But as the bond negotiations inched toward a deal, Republicans became more specific -- and adamant -- on the issue.

They expected the state to set aside $1.3 billion for dams and reservoirs. Three locations topped their list: Temperance Flat on the San Joaquin River; a project known as Sites Reservoir, which is an off-stream reservoir proposed for Colusa County; and a storage proposal for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Officials with the Association of California Water Agencies set their hopes high.

``Surface water storage is what will help us both in terms of when we have too much water and need to control it -- part of our flood control system -- and in times of drought,'' said Jennifer Persike, a spokeswoman for the organization, whose members are responsible for about 90 percent of the water delivered in California. ``It's our insurance to manage the extreme conditions we know occur in this state, both wet and dry.''

But when the state Senate prepared to take up the infrastructure vote for the first time March 10, the three sites had been removed from the measure, replaced with a $500 million proposal to upgrade Perris Lake Reservoir in Riverside County -- a dam that has been deemed seismically dangerous and has thousands of acres of endangered habitat.

The wording on the freshly printed legislative bill caught Republicans off guard.

``When I saw it I couldn't believe it,'' said Assemblyman Mike Villines, R-Fresno, whose district includes the Temperance Flat site. ``Why would anyone in the Central Valley vote for a bond that won't benefit them?''

The measure failed in the Senate.

By Sunday, after Schwarzenegger's aides pressed Republicans to support his infrastructure plan, Temperance Flat and Sites Reservoir were back on the negotiating table.

But when the Senate and Assembly were set to consider what amounted to a $50 billion bond package Wednesday night -- the last chance to forward a proposal to voters on the June ballot -- neither Democratic-controlled house took action on water storage.

The Assembly instead approved a package for school construction funding and levee repairs worth nearly $24 billion, and the Senate voted to use only $1 billion to fix levees.

``I am hard-pressed to look for a middle ground,'' said Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, who is no fan of dams. ``We came up with one and it was rejected.''

At his news conference the next morning, Schwarzenegger acknowledged that above-ground water storage kept his package from passing, but in an optimistic tone he pledged to try again.

It won't be easy, because as Mark Twain so eloquently said: ``Whiskey is for drinking, and water is for fighting over.''

And neither side seems ready to put down its dukes.

Contact Edwin Garcia at egarcia@mercurynews.com or (916) 441-4651.