State’s water supply is too important to risk on slapdash solutions

It is hard to decide which outcome to root for in the current Capitol water war: gridlock or grand compromise.

At times like this, one is reminded of that old line: “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.”

Mark Twain or Will Rogers usually is credited with that observation, but it was actually popularized by a New York judge, Gideon J. Tucker, in an 1866 estate case.

It’s timely now because the Legislature is in a snail-paced special session trying to negotiate an epic plan to provide more water storage and repair the leaky, creaky Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Nobody’s life or liberty is threatened, but plenty of property and assets are -- including taxes that would be collected to pay off the added state debt.

The biggest danger, however, is to the rare opportunity to patch and expand California’s rotting waterworks. If the lawmakers act rashly, they could blow it politically and policy-wise. Their plan might not sell to voters or, if it does, not be the right fix for the sinking water system. That could set the state back many years.

State Senate Leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are determined to place a multibillion-dollar water bond issue on the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot. But they’re up against an Oct. 16 secretary of state’s deadline for working out a legislative deal.

It’s not clear what their rush is. There also will be two other statewide elections next year, in June and November.

“We don’t do our best work when we’re rushed,” says Assemblywoman Lois Wolk (D-Davis), who heads the Assembly water committee. “If we’re going to ask the people of California to invest money, we ought to make certain it’s a good investment.

“I’m very skeptical we can do this in the next week. Perhaps we could do it in a couple of months.”

However, water is such a contentious issue -- fought over by fiercely competing, righteous interests and regulated by turf-protecting government entities -- that maybe Capitol politicians should be encouraged to agree on whatever they can, even if it means taking only an incremental step toward fixing the fragile state water system.

Sen. Michael Machado (D-Linden), a lifelong San Joaquin County farmer and the Senate’s water expert, who supports Perata’s bond proposal, has grown cynical about the ability of all the diverse factions to work cohesively for the common good.

“When you get a dozen agencies arguing over what should be done in the delta,” he says, “often the best action we can get is inaction. What action they have taken in the past has been contrary to what’s in the delta’s best interest.”

The delta estuary is California’s main water hub, with giant pumps feeding state and federal aqueducts that supply drinking water for 24 million people and irrigation for 3 million acres. It’s in dire need of levee repairs for flood protection and re-plumbing to make water deliveries more reliable.

Most urgent, it needs to become fish-friendly again. The delta has evolved into a deathtrap for many species, from the tiny smelt to popular salmon.

In August, a federal judge ordered protections for the disappearing smelt -- “the canary in the coal mine” -- that will turn off fish-chomping pumps in spring and possibly cost Southern California a third of its delta water.

It’s one reason Sacramento thinks voters may be willing to spend more money on water facilities. Another is the prospect of California heading into a prolonged drought. Also, there’s a growing public concern that global warming will reduce the Sierra snowpack, resulting in more volatile runoff and disastrous floods.

Schwarzenegger and Perata have sharply different views about what should be done.

And, in a rarity, the Republican governor and Republican legislators are on the same side.

Schwarzenegger is pushing a $9.1-billion bond that would emphasize dam construction. There’d be $5.1 billion to build two dams in Fresno and Colusa counties and to expand a third in Contra Costa. Another $2.1 billion would go for groundwater storage, local projects and ecological restorations.

Delta fix-ups would be allocated $1.9 billion. But none of it could be used for a new, more reliable water-transfer system, such as a delta bypass -- a “peripheral canal” -- that voters rejected 25 years ago. Any legislative decision on water re-channeling must be delayed until next year when a blue-ribbon commission appointed by Schwarzenegger makes its recommendations.

Democrats oppose state dam building, although they’re willing to provide grants for local construction. The governor proposes that the state pay for 50% of the dam costs. Democrats argue that, historically, the state has paid for only 4%, with water users footing the rest.

“The issue’s not dams, it’s who pays,” says Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), one of the negotiators.

“The governor’s proposal is DOA,” Machado asserts.

Perata is sponsoring a $6.8-billion bond -- increased by $1 billion on Friday -- that would provide $2 billion for local water supply grants, including for dams. There’d also be $2.4 billion for the delta -- but nothing for a canal -- and $2.4 billion for water cleanup and reclamation.

Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of Clovis drew “a line in the sand” last week and declared: No dams, no deal.

But despite the tough rhetoric, that seems to leave wiggle room for a compromise using Perata’s local grant idea.

“I’m willing to negotiate,” says Sen. Dave Cogdill of Modesto, the Republican water expert. “But our guys are adamant this has to be real. We have to believe it will result in construction of these [dams]. Republicans feel like they’ve been duped too many times.”

If the governor and lawmakers can agree on reservoirs and reclamation, that could be worthwhile. But they should forget the delta for now. Wait for the governor’s blue-ribbon report. Then offer the voters a complete remodeling plan, not some vague sketch.

Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger should immediately sign a Perata bill that has been sitting dormant on his desk. It would appropriate $611 million in already-authorized bond money for various water projects, including a few delta repairs.

During the current battle, we should be rooting for something between gridlock and grandiose.

george.skelton@latimes.com