Perata Makes His Case That the Time is Now to Get California's Water Plans Set From a Policy and Political Perspective

The judge decided, if you just strip it all away, and said Southern California could lose 30% of its water. In my area, the southern part of the Bay Area, they're talking about 60-70% water cuts. Well, by any other word that would be rationing. So, it doesn't sound to me that we ought to be waiting until next year.

And waiting for another report to come in--good lord. How many reports have been written? How many conventions have been brought together to talk about water in California? Waiting for a study to come out in a month at a time that we already know and can define the problem in much greater detail right now than we can afford to pay, does not make any sense.

What we have done in the last seven months, and we have done it in a bipartisan manner--and I'm just speaking now of the Senate. We got together with Mike Machado and Darrell Steinberg from our caucus, Bob Margett and Dave Cogdill from the Republican caucus, our collective staff, and we began to work on what the problem was and what the solutions could possibly be.

There has been a constant, ongoing, uninterrupted, conversation between and among all parties. Andy everybody back here has participated consistently in that discussion. So, because you are not quite aware of it, unless we were going to have a head on collision, we wouldn't be able to get people to pay attention to the--this is rather droll stuff. And in fact, Dick Ackerman today saw the bill, and he said "jeez, it's in green!" And I said yeah, it has been for a month. But it is not the kind of stuff that a lot of legislators, much less the public…

What they expect is for us to do our job. So what we have done, is drafted I think the broadest possible bond that deals with immediate priorities. If you only have so much money to spend, how best spend that money?

This is now $6.8 billion. It will ensure safe, clean drinking water, promote conservation, while protecting our environment--the lakes, the rivers, the streams--and keep pace with the statewide water demands.

Something I learned, because if I have only so many hours to spend about what's going on in Southern California, I always like to see how USC and UCLA are doing--this is the weekend for me [Venus Stromberg of Capitol Television News Service shouts out "Go Bears!"] Yeah, go Bears. Listen, a by week counts.…Kind of like in the legislature. The Met representative told me that they are not even keeping pace now with Colorado River water consumption, or availability. In other words, they're falling behind.

Now out of all the astonishing things that I've heard, that was the most. Because if the fastest growing region consistently in this country cannot keep pace with current product, then you ask yourself, "what happens after that?" And one of the things that if you start rationing, it's not too long before they are going to have somebody talking about moratoria--that's the plural of moratorium--on building permits. You can't continue to build and do things in the old way if the primary resources that you need are not available.

So we have done something that crafts a plan. And to those who say the plan is incomplete, I would choose to argue it is not incomplete. We have done things according to priority and the finite amount of money.

Republicans are offering a different proposal. Theirs is a more expensive bond. It's $9.4 billion, over half of which is going to be used to build dams--and two dams in specific, and one where the lip will be raised. This bond--and this can be done with your own little calculator, your own little research--costs more for consumers, takes longer to bring on line, results in less water by two to one, shortchanges the lower half of the state--because I have not met anybody from the southern part of the state who has said that dams are their priority--and fails to promote conservation--The fastest, longest lasting, and most cost effective method to increase supply.

Remember the energy crisis that we had a little while ago--and the global warming that we talk about all the time now? The cornerstone of both of those are being able to do in the alternative what we are doing now in the case of--I would make water or dams at least, above ground storage akin to continuing to use the combustion engine in the manner we have in the past, or the way we have used historically fossil fuels. It is not to say that there is no place for them and that there is not a need. The question is--where do you rank them?

And then there's that other small thing that people seem to forget. All we're going to do is to act to put something on the ballot. It's the taxpayer's money. They're going to decide. Now no one in this room probably has not gone a full day without seeing a poll or having a poll quoted to them. I kind of believe what I believe--in that sense I could be a Republican. But [laughing] for me, it's pretty simple that if you look at all of the people who are doing constant voter research--building dams, for the reasons I've said are a very low priority.

So what you have to do is to not only decide what's good policy, what's a good plan--but what will the voters in the final analysis accept. The water market does not work much differently than all other markets. But somehow, because we all drink water, everybody is an expert. There is behind me right now, the broadest support for a water bond, I believe in the history of this state.

Certainly, for any bond that has come through the legislature--a "pay to play bond"--where you put up your money to get signatures, and in return you're going to get some financial benefit--sure--you can build a nice coalition. And most of the bonds that go on the ballot are pay to play and I don't say that with any inherent criticism. We don't do our job, so lets go out and do theirs for you.

This group behind me right now would be making a huge mistake, in my judgment--if this thing fails in the legislature--not to do the same thing. The difference is-- this bill has been vetted. We've had hours and hours of conversations with people who represent the public interest. You can say whatever you want about big water districts, we won't mention any right here again, but the fact is that they do represent people, and the interest of people. Those are the constituents, those are the consumers. So when they are sitting around the table and talking about what their priority needs are, you have to pay attention because, if they're representing the Inland Empire, which is growing like mad, they represent something that truly matters.

Can we afford, therefore, to wait? The answer is no.

How will we go back to our constituents, members of the legislature, who are maybe having water rationing early next year, higher water bills, and maybe even say that we will no longer be building homes--so that people who are relying upon that marketplace for a job won't have it any more. How will we tell them, "We're waiting until next year?" An election year. A year where we're already calculating the shadow of a $10 billion budget [shortfall?]. A presidential election year where the difference between Republicans and Democrats always are stark? How are we gong to come back then next year and sit down and come up with bipartisan support for a better plan than the one that we have right now?

This should go on the February ballot. It won't get any better by delay, brinksmanship, or the search for the perfect solution.