Maddy Joins in Call for New Water Policy : Drought: The Senate GOP leader agrees with Democrat’s proposal for more reservoirs. He objects to rationing for agricultural uses.

Senate Republican leader Ken Maddy of Fresno said Tuesday that as bad as a fifth straight year of drought will be, the crisis may be what is needed to force policy-makers to overhaul water policy in California.

Maddy, who represents a major chunk of the San Joaquin Valley and is the top-ranked spokesman for farm interests in the Senate, warned against rationing of water for agricultural uses.

At a news conference, Maddy embraced an earlier suggestion by Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) to create more storage reservoirs for surplus state water from the north. And he said it was unfortunate that serious water issues usually are confronted only during times of crisis such as drought.

Correspondingly, Maddy said: “There may be a fringe benefit to one more year of drought. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, but it may provide us with the opportunity and the time to review our water policy in this state.”

California appears to be on the verge of a fifth year of drought, with the official rainfall season about half over and reservoirs in Northern California watersheds severely below normal levels. Many regions already have begun rationing and cutbacks.

Roberti and Maddy became the first two legislative leaders to speak out on what they see as the need for development of a new water policy for California during an era of worsening drought and burgeoning growth. So far, Gov. Pete Wilson has not addressed the issue directly.

Last week, Roberti said the situation was desperate and proposed the creation of additional storage reservoirs and mandatory conservation by agricultural users who consume 85% of the state’s water. These agricultural interests represent about 15% of the population.

Maddy said Tuesday that Roberti’s proposed agricultural cutbacks “didn’t set too well with me.” While Roberti called for “conservation measures” by agriculture, Maddy suggested that the phrase actually means “rationing” of water to the farm industry.

Maddy said that agriculture has taken some actions to reduce water consumption but said that he does not believe conservation alone could “provide enough water for the future of California. I think we have to have more storage.”

Neither Maddy nor Roberti outlined specific projects to enable more storage, but both ruled out reviving plans for a Peripheral Canal, for years a superheated issue that was defeated by the voters in 1982. Such a canal would route additional water supplies from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and pour it into the Central Valley and populous Southern California via the California Aqueduct.

Maddy warned that restricting water to agriculture inevitably would require farmers to decide whether to plant certain economically important crops, such as cotton. Abandoning some crops for lack of water, he said, “may make a substantial impact on the economy of the state.”

He conceded that San Joaquin Valley agriculture would “get caught short” if the Southern and Northern California water users put aside their historical differences and team up to reduce water availability to farmers.

Maddy fears that such an agreement, while restricting flow of water from the north, would still allow enough water to bypass the San Joaquin Valley and “fill up the swimming pools of . . . folks in Southern California.”