California lawmakers pass historic water package

SACRAMENTO, Calif. It took long months of delicate negotiations and the last-minute deletion of a project dear to the heart of the state's most powerful legislator for California lawmakers to craft what could turn out to be one of the most pivotal water deals in state history.

Now comes the hard part:

The plan's proponents must convince a debt-weary, politician-leery electorate that it's a deal worth what could be a $25 billion-plus price tag by the time it's paid.

"We're done with part one," Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D–Los Angeles, said Wednesday. "Part two is we need to take the message out (of Sacramento) ... first and foremost we have to begin by educating voters about water."

Bass' remarks came a few hours after legislators had staggered through an all-night session that ended with bipartisan support for a five-bill package of reforms to California's antiquated water system.

The bills were sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who effusively praised them.

"This is without any doubt the most comprehensive water infrastructure package ... in the history of California," the governor said.

The package's pieces range from new ways of protecting the fragile ecosystem of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to keeping track of how much water is being pumped from California's underground sources.

They also include asking voters to approve probably next November an $11.1 billion bond measure that would pay for recycling, drought relief, water storage and wastewater treatment programs.



What the final package did not include was $10 million to help build a tolerance center in Sacramento. Construction of the center has long been championed by state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Steinberg acknowledged Tuesday he had included the provision in the bond bill.

But the earmark sparked a flap in both legislative houses just after midnight, when The Sacramento Bee's story on the plan was published on its Web site.

When it became clear the controversy was delaying approval of the bond measure in the Assembly, Steinberg agreed to drop the idea.

"I have worked my heart out to get this water package passed," he said, "and the last thing I would ever want to do is jeopardize this incredibly important work."

One of the legislators who had pushed for removal of the earmark said it might not have ultimately stopped legislative approval of the bond proposal, but would have become a great campaign weapon for the bond measure's foes.

"In the bigger picture, it's going to take away a distraction that wasn't going to help our institution," said Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, "and wasn't going to help the chances of this bond with voters."



Legislative leaders acknowledged that further improving the bond measure's chances with voters will take a Herculean effort on their part.

"We need to spend a tremendous amount of time doing the education to break down the historic mistrust and misperceptions that has been the fundamental reason it's taken half a century to make the advancements that we made," said Bass.

Steinberg noted voters surprised pundits and pollsters last November by approving a $10 billion bond proposal to build a high-speed rail system in the state.

"Voters had a forward vision and they said despite the difficult economic times that they wanted to point toward the future," he said, "and I think with the right campaign, the right education, the right message, that they will do the same again."

But opposition to the high-speed rail measure was scattered and under-financed.