Key Water Bill Shelved to Let Hot Rivalries Simmer Down

In a setback for water development legislation, the author of a major bill already passed by the Assembly called a “time out” Wednesday and shelved his legislation until next year.

Complaining about “the current irrational atmosphere” in Sacramento for water legislation, Assemblyman Jim Costa (D-Fresno) said he will delay further action on his bill at least until January in an effort to let tempers cool and let combatants try to fashion a compromise that has eluded them for years.

“A rational atmosphere to resolving this critically important public policy issue can only occur if a time out is called,” Costa said.

Meanwhile, however, Costa’s own Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee approved a water bill similar to his sponsored by Sen. Ruben S. Ayala (D-Chino).

Victory for North

Still, Costa’s decision to drop his measure represented a victory for Northern California legislators and environmental protection organizations who fiercely opposed his bill on disputed grounds that it would divert additional fresh water south at the expense of the ecologically delicate Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay.

Ayala, at least for now, rejected the notion that he, too, shelve his legislation until January, declaring, “No, I will go as far as I can with this bill.” However, he conceded that he may be forced to reconsider.

By postponing further action on his bill until 1988, Costa ran the risk of getting the issue tangled in election year politics, which could further drag it down.

Representatives of water development interests expressed disappointment at Costa’s action, but crowded around Ayala after the committee hearing to congratulate the senator on committee approval of his bill.

For months, tensions have built in the Capitol as Costa and Ayala pushed their bills amid emotional rhetoric that included charges of “lies and distortion.”

Environmental Protections

Both Ayala and Costa maintained that their bills would give environmental protections to the delta and San Francisco Bay while providing the groundwork for expansion of deliveries to California Water Project customers in the agricultural San Joaquin Valley and urban Southern California.

Virtually all the major votes cast on the two bills fell along regional lines--with northerners voting “no” and San Joaquin Valley and Southern California legislators voting “aye.” Traditionally, the north has been highly suspicious of southern motives in transferring water to the fast-growing south.

In the view of lobbyists on both sides of the issue, Costa may have inadvertently invited a near-fatal attack on his own bill recently when he stripped it of environmental and consumer protections placed in the measure by the Assembly over his objections.

Environmentalists and some of the bill’s Southern California supporters in the Assembly were outraged when Costa removed the provisions. At a Senate Agriculture and Water Committee hearing on the Costa bill Tuesday night, the bill ran into an unexpected detour following its approval.

Instead of traveling the normal path to the Appropriations Committee, the measure was returned to the Rules Committee for potential assignment to the Natural Resources Committee, a panel dominated by northerners and members sympathetic to environmental concerns.

“That will be an effort to kill the bill,” Costa told Sen. Henry J. Mello (D-Watsonville), a member of the Rules Committee who urged Costa to immediately restore the Assembly amendments or face a proposed hearing before the Natural Resources Committee.

Costa refused, contending that the amendments, including one by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) to grant enhanced environmental protection to San Francisco Bay, were “unworkable” and were intended to kill his bill by loving it to death.

Ayala, author of a controversial Peripheral Canal bill that was rejected by Northern California voters in a 1982 referendum, told reporters Wednesday that he fully expected attempts to be made in the Assembly to amend his bill in the same way that Costa’s was amended.

He said that if such amendments do occur, he will ask the Senate to refuse them, an action that would put the issue into an Assembly-Senate conference committee for final compromise. Both sides have long predicted that if any water development legislation emerges, it will be drawn by a conference committee.

Deukmejian Neutral

The Administration of Gov. George Deukmejian has declared itself neutral on both the Costa and Ayala bills, contending that it is making necessary improvements in the water project administratively on a case-by-case basis in consultation with various water interests.

Costa’s action was welcomed by Gerald Meral, legislative representative of the environmental Planning and Conservation League, an opponent of both bills. He said he hoped that a cooling-off period will allow combatants to try to “reestablish the consensus process” and reach a settlement.

Likewise, Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), who has straddled a narrow line between demands of Southern California for more water and those of environmentalists, said Costa’s action “will help defuse the emotionalism of this issue.”

Ayala’s bill was approved by the Assembly committee on a bipartisan 7-4 vote, with Southern California and San Joaquin Valley members voting in favor and northerners voting against.