Politicians Wade Into Water Issue

Slowly, tentatively, like a small bud sprouting from scorched earth, water is emerging as an issue in the races for California governor and U.S. senator.

This is no small matter.

Since the regional bloodfest that was the 1982 ballot proposition over the Peripheral Canal, candidates have largely avoided the subject--despite the fact that the state lives constantly with the specter of crippling shortages.

“Only when the planets align in a very special way do candidates talk about water,” Stephen Hall, executive director of the Assn. of California Water Agencies (ACWA), said with a sigh.

Unlike opposing crime or high taxes, taking a stand on water carries political risk. Go on the stump and say farmers should use less water, and you can figure on agribusiness money flowing to your opponents. Talk kindly about agriculture and you have the environmental movement on your neck. Dams have their supporters and their detractors.

And, of course, the Peripheral Canal--”the open channel isolated facility” in its latest incarnation--is the mother of all north-south disputes in California.

The past six governors--two Democrats and four Republicans--have seen a need for a canal looping around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to bring more Sacramento River water to Southern California. Political forces in Northern California have repeatedly blocked the project, making it political poison even to suggest.

But now the state’s water needs have become so pressing and so undeniable that even office-seekers trying to be all things to all voters can no longer hide in the bull rushes.

U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt is pressuring California to use water more wisely or face cutbacks from the Colorado River. Pollution, flooding and siltation are so severe in the delta that they threaten to strangle the state’s economic recovery. The business community is demanding action.

Gubernatorial and Senate candidates have been traipsing to ACWA (pronounced “aqua”) conventions to talk and listen on the subject of a canal and related issues such as water conservation, water transfers and water rights.

Before he announced his candidacy for governor, one of businessman Al Checchi’s first moves was to attend an ACWA confab. Checchi has since come under the tutelage of state Sen. Jim Costa, chairman of the Senate Water and Agriculture Committee.

To get Costa’s endorsement, Checchi convinced the Fresno Democrat that he is open-minded on matters important to the Central Valley--expanded reservoirs and new sources of water, measures many Democrats and environmentalists oppose.

In November, Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren addressed ACWA with the most detailed speech from a would-be governor in decades. Lungren praised fellow Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and seemed to promise that anyone who likes Wilson on water--agriculture and business interests do; some environmentalists and Northern Californians do not--will like Lungren.

“I don’t intend to run for governor and hide from one of the major issues our state faces,” said Lungren, who faces only token opposition for the GOP nomination.

The League of Conservation Voters quizzed all three major Democratic candidates--Lt. Gov. Gray Davis and Rep. Jane Harman, in addition to Checchi--on water issues before endorsing Davis last week. (Lungren declined to participate.)

Sam Schuchat, the group’s executive director, said the three Democrats were reluctant to commit themselves on the canal issue until officials in the state and federal project called Calfed decide between a canal and two more modest alternatives as the best way to “save” the delta.

“They are all waiting to see what Calfed comes up with and see which way the wind is blowing,” Schuchat said. By fall, Calfed officials are to decide which alternative to recommend to Wilson and Babbitt.

Asked by The Times about water, Harman seemed to be inching toward opposition to a canal. “I opposed the Peripheral Canal in the 1980s, and without more compelling evidence, I see no reason to support it now,” she said.

Davis wants more reclamation of agricultural runoff, more transfer agreements between water-rich agricultural districts and thirsty cities, and possible tax breaks for farmers installing water-efficient irrigation.

If Davis is cautious on the canal, his experience in Fresno could be the reason. Speaking to the editorial board of the Fresno Bee, Davis expressed the annoyance at Northern California that many Southern California legislators feel but few express publicly.

Believing he was speaking off the record, Davis said: “It’s the Northerners. The Northerners--off the record. The Northerners believe it rains on them, so it’s their water. And the only way we get it is by threatening to all move up there.”

The paper printed the remarks and scolded: “Given the dependence of our region on agriculture and thus water, Davis’ remarks won’t likely play well in the vote-rich valley or Northern California.”

State Treasurer Matt Fong, fighting an uphill battle for the GOP nomination for Senate, will travel to Monterey this week to deliver a keynote address to an ACWA convention.

Fong is expected to tell conventioneers that both of the state’s main water sources--the delta and the Colorado River--have serious problems and that California has not had sustained leadership on water issues since the Peripheral Canal fight.

If a canal is the solution endorsed by Calfed officials, it is worth fighting for even if it means a confrontation with some segments of the environmental movement, Fong will say.

Fong’s main rival, Darrell Issa, has said he likes the idea of a north-south canal and that pressure should be brought on Northern California to drop its knee-jerk cooperation.

“You can only take brackish water so long,” Issa said. (Boosters say a canal would allow the State Water Project to get cleaner water from north of the delta.)

“We’ve been neglecting our water infrastructure since Pat Brown,” said Issa, invoking the memory of the Democratic governor hailed as the father of the State Water Project.

Probably the most significant sign that water politics are a-changin’ in California, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is running for reelection, says she wants to wait until the canal idea is studied further before taking a stand.

For 10 years, Boxer represented a congressional district in Marin and San Francisco where more than 90% of the voters were against the Peripheral Canal, with Boxer leading the charge. Now she’s willing to consider a canal--as long as environmental safeguards are in place.

“We’ve got to come together on this issue of water,” Boxer said, “or the state is finished.”

One reason Boxer is able to even consider a canal is that the one envisioned by the Calfed proposal is half the size of the colossal canal proposed in 1982. That one was derided by opponents as big enough to suck the Sacramento River dry.

This time, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which would be the major beneficiary of a canal, is considering a voluntary assurance to limit its take from the State Water Project.

The MWD’s goal is to reduce the fear of Southern California among Northern California voters. In 1982, 36 counties in Northern California voted 90% or more against the canal.

By talking about water, the current crop of candidates is in the California tradition that preceded the 1982 Peripheral Canal debacle.

“Water used to be at the center of gubernatorial and senatorial campaigns in California,” dating to the early 1900s, said Steve Erie, professor of political science at UC San Diego. “But once water became an issue fraught with political fissures and regional conflict, politicians started to shy away.”

Wilson is to address the ACWA convention this week and stress the need for more discussion on how to meet the water needs of a growing state.

Wilson is trying to break the impasse between San Diego and MWD over the use of the Colorado Aqueduct to bring Imperial Valley water to San Diego. He overturned a ruling that threatened to force Los Angeles to reduce its take of water from the Owens Valley. And he is preparing a billion-dollar water bond, possibly for the November ballot.

“Water is the future,” said Rich Golb, executive director of the Northern California Water Assn.