Opinion

Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2009

Dan Walters: A new California water plan remains an elusive goal

Comments (0) |

The "Steve Peace death march," so-named for the state legislator who pushed a massive overhaul of the state's electric power system through the Legislature in 1996, occupies a special niche in Capitol lore.

The Legislature approved the scheme, which had been tweaked in private to meet the demands of stakeholders, without even one question as to whether it was workable, its assumptions were accurate, or its downside risks had been weighed. Within a few years, its fatal flaws led to collapse of the energy supply system, driving utilities to – and in one case, over – the brink of insolvency, a folly that will be reflected in consumers' power bills for years.

The scheme's specter hung over Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's similarly complex effort to overhaul health care two years ago. He attempted, like Peace, to placate multiple stakeholders but ultimately – perhaps mercifully – it was killed by a strange-bedfellows alliance of conservative and liberal senators.

Undeterred by those two failures, Schwarzenegger and legislators are taking on an even more contentious and complex problem, making California's water supply more dependable while improving the badly eroded environment of its major water source, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg has unveiled a semi-finished draft of water legislation that promises to "achieve the two coequal goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem."

It's uncertain that achieving both is politically and hydrologically possible, and the legislation doesn't really make hard decisions on building new reservoirs, digging a canal around the Delta and/or cutting water use. As Steinberg said Monday, it merely creates a new governmental structure that, supposedly, would make those decisions, what he called a "more coherent, understandable and inclusive process" and a "dramatic improvement over the status quo."

The draft legislation, moreover, does not yet have a financial component, which is critical to lubricating its promises to the various stakeholders. A big bond issue is contemplated, but it would require voter approval and would probably be litigated heavily by opponents. And the state's deficit-riddled budget can ill afford more bond payments.

Therefore, even if Steinberg can win the rapid legislative approval he seeks, which is problematic, it would take years, perhaps decades, for the process to produce new policy, and whatever happens, infinite cycles of litigation would also ensue. "Nothing here is permanent," Steinberg cautioned at one point, "but this lays the foundation to go forward."

Schwarzenegger, Steinberg et al. deserve credit for tackling the state's water crisis, but it may become another example of how California's socioeconomic complexity and a pitfall-laden political process make effective decision-making almost impossible.