Economics and the Complexity of the Science of Water May Be High Hurdles in the California Water Special Session

Attending both the hearing of the Special Water Committee and the Democratic press conference yesterday, I was impressed with the science on water in the state that was presented. In particular, sitting through the committee hearing of many hours, this was not a religious event for me--with the testimony of the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) on the hard economic facts at hand--and the slides, charts, and scientific and historical information presented by Phil Isenberg, appointed Chair of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force by Governor Schwarzenegger; Jay Lund, an Environmental Professor from the University of California, Davis; C. David Nawi of an Environmental Mediation Firm; and Ellen Hanak who has written a seminal book published by the Public Policy Institute of California on the Delta and who is a water expert.

You can read the LAO's report and see the outline of Dr. Lund's presentation and his slides, on the Special Water Committee's site.

And you might find it worth your while to watch the committee hearing and see these folks and the legislature interact by going to the California Channel archive. You can advance the tape to listen to the witnesses in their main presentations which I found to be quite informative and thoughtful--or you can listen to the entire afternoon's hearing. You'll learn a lot more about water than you ever knew before--and this is really important stuff.

As it looks right now, the Democrats are going to get leveraged by the Governor and the Republicans. One high placed individual making the rounds through the hallways and meeting with all of the Democrats or their staffs on the committee, told me that none of the Democratic ideas for saving the Delta and doing all the environmentally conscientious things they had in mind would pass or be signed into law if dams were not part of the package.

I don't buy the Republican's beliefs in dams and water. On the science and economics of water, as well as the values of considering the environment, I like the approaches outlined by John Laird and Lois Wolk in the Democratic press conference held just before the committee met. Here is my transcription of what I thought was significant.

Laird: I've been very careful all the way along tp say, the issue is not surface storage, the issue is who pays. There have been dams built up and down California in recent years without a dime of state money. And the most that's ever been spent of state money on a dam in our history is 3%, for the cost of Oroville. And the Governor's proposed three dams, 50% of which will be paid by the state, totaling over $5 billion. That's a majority of the bond. If we went on historical patterns, it would be a totally different thing. I think the people who are saying the issue is surface storage mask the real issue, which is who pays and how much.

Wolk: [Agreeing with Laird, said] It's a question of whether or not the dams that are being proposed are the solution to the problem. We need to focus on the Delta and the crisis in the Delta and whether or not the proposed specific dams are the solution. We haven't been able to answer that question yet.

The Delta is in crisis, and it is that crisis that has brought us to the special session. And we're not simply talking about one fish, the delta smelt. That is a symptom of the problem. You have a series of issues. You have a public levee system, you have water quality because of both agriculture and urban areas that are creating pressure on the Delta. You have invasives that are destroying the basic food chain upon which the fisheries [inaudible] depend. So, you have a whole series of concerns. And that's why I say that there is no magic bullet. It's not clear at all that a particular dam located in a particular place, anywhere in the state, will alleviate that problem. And that's clearly what we have to focus on.

Laird: While the Delta is what brought us here, and we have to address it exactly as Ms. Wolk said, our principles address the other issues and the broader solutions.

Mr. Eng represents an area that has groundwater contamination that's taking a significant amount of drinking water off line. If we address the contamination issue, that relieves the pressure on the Delta. That's part of a global solution.

Los Angeles as a city has grown by a million people in 25 years on exactly the same amount of water. And so, the way they dealt with growth was with reclamation, recycling, and conservation. And the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has had whammies at the same time--a 28% of average rainfall last year in a district that relies partially on groundwater; the Colorado River they get 2.8 million feet acre feet a year from and it's in the 7th year of drought and next year they're expected to get half that; and reductions from the Delta, which is the third piece of the puzzle.

And they are going to have more water in their system next year from savings, recycling, and reclamation than they get from the Colorado River. The thing that is going to save them in this crisis is their development of that. And so, if you look at comprehensive sets of solutions, it is the Delta that is at the root of it, but cleaning up contaminated drinking water, working on recycling, working on conservation, and in some places such as the San Joaquin Valley, working on the non-Delta conveyance--where moving around existing water supplies would really help better keep places from drying out if the Delta pumps are turned off. Those are issues that have to be part of a comprehensive solution.

Wolk: If we can convey one thing in the hearing it is that this is a complex issue. That there isn't a silver bullet, a magic bullet, a dam or anything else that will in isolation solve the many problems in California.

On Getting on the February Ballot: Wolk: We are working very hard as if we can meet--try to meet the February deadline. Next week will be very important. We have plans to do further hearings on the very specific things that John was talking about, groundwater, recycling, storage--above ground an below. So, there are a number of things that we are moving forward on as quickly, and as seriously, and as thoroughly as we possibly can.

Laird: In answer to your question specifically, we're expecting to have a hearing next week--before the deadline.

Wolk: We have to look at the Delta from the immediate, the short term, and in the long term. And not all the science is in yet. There are a number of projects that are being proposed in the legislation that is now in the Senate and that we also are considering that are called 'no regrets projects"--that everyone agrees no matter what the final outcome--what the Delta will look like--will improve the situation. And those are the kinds of things that we need to agree, all of us, Republicans and Democrats and Governor, to move forward. And actually, that happens to be in Senator Perata's bill.

[In answering the question of whether he opposes taxpayer money for water storage if the proposals have a public benefit, Laird was quite careful in responding. First of all he corrected the reporter who asked if he was opposed entirely to taxpayer money given other projects that have been financed publicly. He noted that what is being talked about in Sacramento is state money and that the projects had been completed with local money. Then he launched into what I thought was perhaps the single most telling part of the press conference:]

Laird: Two points.

The first is--If there's a public interest, there will be public money.

But secondly, you've got to think of the Assemblymember from the 27th District--where 88% of my constituents do not have imported water. Where they have dams they've paid for 100% by themselves and pay off in rates every month--that provide flood protection and fish protection, and recreation.

And the annual cost of a 20 year $9 billion bond would be about $650 million a year. What did the Governor veto from the budget this year? $700 million. What things weren't included in the budget? A cost of living increase for people on Social Security for five months. I have to go back to the Social Security recipients in my district, and say--you pay 100% of your water and your dam, you are wanted to pay 50% of the cost of other people's dams for their water. And the price is you have to give up your Social Security increase. [Emphasis added]

There is a mater of equity here. And the question is: what's fair? And if some people pay 100% of it, and your question presupposes, jeez, don't you think there's some public [interest]?--there probably is. But there's a reason that 3% is the highest percentage of state participation in dams in the history of the state--because there's a matter of equity with everyone.

And so, it's not that there shouldn't be some public participation. It's should be fair because it's everybody that is going to be asked to give up things in the general fund in a strain of the state's credit of taxpayers for 20 years."

We will provide excerpts and prepared remarks from the hearing as we are able to obtain them and process them.