The fluid state of liquid politics

IT WAS 1993. California was in the fifth year of a severe drought. Tensions were flaring between the north (where the water is) and the south (where the people are). Out in the Central Valley, farmers, fearing their water allotments would be reduced to save fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, were clamoring for repeal of environmental laws. The old Mark Twain aphorism, “Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting” (at least the second part of it), still ruled.

Gov. Pete Wilson and President Clinton called on us, as their resource secretaries, to take on these intractable water issues that entangled the state and federal governments.

The era of big water projects such as Hoover Dam and the federal Central Valley Project was over. State, federal and local water users and providers, private and public, had to learn to set aside differences and work together.

We began by inviting representatives of these groups to talk. It was a long, tough and argumentative process, but in a year we achieved an agreement designed to assure minimum water flows through the California delta for fishery protection. Some participants likened it to a treaty among warring nations.

After this initial success, we invited water users and government agencies throughout the state to join in a larger “round-table process” aimed at solving the state’s long-term water problems. It involved negotiations but also environmental analysis and project planning and execution, and became known by the uninspired, confusing name CalFed. This time, the process stretched out for five years, culminating in 2000 when a new governor, Gray Davis, and federal officials warily signed on to a comprehensive state water plan and a state-federal partnership, including funding for new programs. Peace, it seemed, was at hand, aided by normal rainfall.

Today, however, that web of agreements is stretched to the breaking point. Old antagonisms among farmers, cities and environmentalists are again bubbling to the surface. Money is short and parts of the plan are far behind schedule, including enlargement of some water storage facilities and rehabilitation of the aging levees that protect low-lying farmlands in the delta.

The money to implement hard-won plans is drying up, and project overseers have not collectively and persuasively accounted for what they have accomplished. Federal funding is not meeting projected levels, and the state general fund, which has borne much of the CalFed project and planning costs so far, is tapped out.

And now a new governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, must decide the future of CalFed and the state water plan, which require continuous refinement, funding and regulatory action. He has not laid out a detailed plan to keep it going, which he must do in time for the Legislature to act on it next year. He has requested that the Little Hoover Commission, an independent state watchdog agency, assess the progress and the prospects of the program in all its complexity, beginning with a hearing in Sacramento on Thursday.

The commission will hear testimony on CalFed’s considerable achievements, including the innovative water marketing plan that enables state and federal fishery managers to jointly purchase water for wildlife without disrupting agricultural water deliveries. The federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, which together are the core of California’s water protection and distribution system, have coordinated their operations, yielding more usable water with less environmental damage.

Other achievements include a statewide increase in groundwater storage, both public and private, which provides protection against dry years. Streams and rivers are being restored. Rural and urban conservation and efficiency programs, from linings in irrigation canals to low-flush toilets, are delivering real water savings.

The commission will also hear that much remains to be done. The Bay Delta Authority, an agency created by the Legislature a few years ago to oversee CalFed efforts, has proposed a 10-year, $8-billion program that would, among other things, restore environmental quality in the estuary, build new levees and increase the efficiency of water pumping systems. There is no chance of getting this from the state alone. We must find new ways to patch together federal funding, revenue bonding, general funds and user fees.

User fees have been a chief point of contention for years, and Schwarzenegger has balked at authorizing them. Yet water users should pay more for improvements from which they benefit, such as local storage reservoirs. Cities should finance the cost of efficiency programs and measures to guarantee drinking water quality. Benefits can’t be quantified completely, so taxpayers in general must bear some costs.

Conservative population projections see another 25 million residents in California by mid-century -- water consumers all. CalFed has developed a plan. This state and the nation have the resources to pay for its implementation.

No matter what the Little Hoover Commission advises, the burden of leadership falls on the governor and Legislature. What we need is the political will to keep CalFed’s progress flowing.

The alternative is a relapse into warring camps.