Bond-ing over need to address state's water issues

To bond or not to bond.

California's comprehensive water package, passed by the state Legislature last fall, was the subject of a water forum at the Colusa Farm Show.

The Family Water Alliance hosted the discussion Wednesday in order to provide different perspectives on the provisions of the plan, which is comprised of four policy bills and a $11.14 billion bond.

Richard Howitt, a professor of resource economics at the University of California, Davis, said California's drought, now in its third year, provided a unique opportunity to debate water issues and educate the public about the key issues of the legislation.

The water package addresses Delta governance, groundwater monitoring, water conservation, water diversion monitoring, drought relief, infrastructure investments, water rights protections and ecosystem restoration.

At the heart of the discussion was the bond which goes before the voters on the November ballot.

The Safe, Clean, Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 is a general obligation bond that would provide the funding for water improvements associated with a Delta Conveyance, watershed and ecosystem restoration, groundwater storage and regional funding for water-related projects.

"You've heard the expression, 'do more with less,'" Howitt said. "That's nothing new. What about doing more with more?"

Howitt said California is in a unique position to help meet the demand for food worldwide.

"Half the nation's food and vegetables already come from California," Howitt said. "Just think about what we could provide if we could do more with more."

Melinda Terry, North Delta Water Agency was less convinced that the $11 billion bond was the solution, and expressed concern that water storage infrastructure and the Delta conveyance — a unlined canal wider than the Sacramento River — would prove to be too costly for California.

"At the end of the day, cost will be the big issue," Terry said.

Terry said California currently has a problem accessing money for bonds already approved by voters.

Mario Santoy, Friant Water Authority, disagreed, saying water storage infrastructure was the most important reason to pass the bond.

"'Don't build it because we can't afford it,' is the same message we heard in the 1930s when they talked about the infrastructure we have today," Santoy said.

Santoy believes water infrastructure improvement will be key to the survival of California agriculture and farm workers.

While Donn Zea, Northern California Water Association, said the bond measure is not ideal, it would only come back if it didn't pass the first time around.

"We can't escape the need for water storage," Zea said. "The next time around, what is in it could be worse for us."

Thad Bettner, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, also agreed the water policies were not ideal, particularly in that they could undo the water rights system in the state.

"That could be detrimental to our area," Bettner said.

Following the forum, Ben Carter of Colusa said what is frustrating for taxpayers, particularly when it comes to bonds, is that so much money is earmarked for special projects as a way to "buy votes."

"It ends up costing us twice what will actually be spent on water," Carter said.

The speakers agreed that special earmarks are "California politics at its worst," but that people won't vote for bonds unless there are provisions that benefit their regions.

"In Oakland, it's water recycling," Zea said. "On the coast, it's desalination. It makes the package bigger, but not double."

Contact Susan Meeker at 458-2121 or smeeker@tcnpress.com.