State water talks dribble out on deadline

Key disagreements include paying costs, environment impact.

Published online on Saturday, Sep. 12, 2009

SACRAMENTO -- The Legislature's last-gasp drive for major water legislation was falling short late Friday, as Republicans and Democrats disagreed on how to pay for projects to increase supplies while protecting the environment.

Late-night negotiations focused on a hastily drafted bill for nearly $12 billion in water bonds that voters would have to approve over two election cycles, 2010 and 2014.

Republicans objected to language they said would make it more difficult to spend money on dams, their longtime priority. They also said provisions would result in the money being doled out too slowly.

"There's a number of things ... that are not acceptable to us and we're continuing to try to negotiate on them," said Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto. But "it doesn't look good."

Most Democrats wanted controls to ensure that debt payments would not stretch the state's general fund.

The session was set to end at midnight, although some lawmakers suggested negotiations would continue into the morning. It also is possible for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to call a special session to extend talks into the fall.

The day had a promising start when big players on opposite sides of the state's water wars said they struck a deal on what had been a key sticking point: a new council to oversee the environmentally damaged Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Environmentalists wanted the council to have broad authority over an ongoing program called the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. The plan is aimed at developing a proposed canal around the delta to secure water supplies while restoring habitat for the delta's ailing fisheries. Water agencies south of the delta -- including Westlands Water District -- feared the council would stop progress on the canal. Under the compromise, the council would automatically adopt the final BDCP plan, as long as it met high environmental standards.

But there was less consensus on other policy changes.

Democrats sought new conservation rules calling for a 20% reduction in urban per capita water use by the end of 2020, while requiring farm users to adopt plans to manage water more efficiently. Agencies that don't comply could lose state grants. But critics said the proposal requires less of water agencies in dense, urban areas that naturally use less water.

Another Democratic proposal called for reporting ground water and surface water use. Backers said it would help stop illegal diversions. Ag groups fear the mandate could lead to new fees on ground-water pumping.

Democrats could pass changes without GOP votes. But the governor has said he won't sign bills without a bond.