Gov. Pete Wilson announced a long-term water policy for California this month, but its deliberate vagueness on many key issues leaves unclear what role the governor will play in water decisions.
Those active in California water issues say so many questions are unanswered by the plan that it is too soon to tell whether the policy statement will provide a framework for ending the state’s “water wars” or just sit on the shelf.
“Right now he (Wilson) gets credit for giving a speech and acknowledging that there’s a problem. Whether it becomes any more than that depends on follow-through,” said Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar), author of major water legislation over a period of years. “There’s a lot in there for all the different constituencies, but unless he backs it up with concrete legislative action, it’s just a speech.”
Mary-Ann Warmerdam, director of legislative affairs for the California Farm Bureau Federation, said: “It almost leaves one with more questions than with answers.”
Warmerdam said, however, that Wilson should get credit for attempting to take a leadership role “on an issue we really haven’t seen any Administration become interested in since (former Gov. Edmund G.) Pat Brown.”
Stephen K. Hall, executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition, said the governor’s caution on water issues was welcomed by farmers, who fear that rapid changes in policy could result in more farm water being distributed to cities and environmental interests.
“In terms of specifics, it (the policy) is a little short, it’s general. But, like a good politician, he’s said what he needs to say now and is leaving his options open,” Hall said.
Speaking to water officials at a hometown gathering in San Diego, Wilson acknowledged that the policy was short on details–a program designed, he said, to leave room for compromise among the urban, agricultural and environmental interests competing for California’s scarce water supplies.
Andy McLeod, the governor’s assistant secretary of resources, said the policy reflected the Administration’s belief that any solutions to California’s water problems must reflect general consensus among these factions.
“To get too far out in front with any one specific agenda item would be politically foolish,” he said. “It’s critical in this policy process that each of those players move forward together with basic and common understanding on policy priorities.”
He called the governor’s policy historic, noting that it was the first time in 25 years “that a comprehensive program for the state’s water needs has been articulated and outlined.”
But critics such as Katz said that for the policy to be meaningful, the Wilson Administration will soon have to begin to flesh out the details on many of the contentious issues. For example:
* The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Wilson proposed that a council of environmental, urban and agricultural representatives study problems in the delta and come up with a solution. He said he wanted to see results in three years, a timeline that Katz noted would put off a potentially controversial decision until after the next gubernatorial election.
Although they sharply disagree on the solutions, environmentalists and water officials have called for quicker action. The delta serves as a transfer point for water that is shipped from the Northern California rivers to Southern California farms and cities and as a habitat for numerous species of fish and wildlife. It has become polluted by agricultural drainage and depleted by drought and excessive pumping.
“Southern California can’t wait three years for us to reach a consensus on our water future. For every minute that water issues go unresolved, Southern Californians will continue to suffer the consequences,” said Joan Anderson, executive director of the Southern California Water Committee, a 450-member organization composed of representatives from counties, cities, water agencies, businesses and agricultural entities.
She said her organization was disappointed that Wilson had not come out with his own proposal for solving the delta’s problems. She had hoped that he would call for the construction of a canal that would skirt the delta, bringing the water to be shipped south directly from the Sacramento River to pumps at Tracy feeding into the California Aqueduct.
For Wilson, however, support of a canal would have been politically explosive. Opposition to a canal is still strong in Northern California, which provided a heavy negative vote when a similar idea was defeated in a 1982 referendum. The northern opposition was fueled by environmentalists who charged that a canal would only be used to take more water from the environment and ship it south. The canal has become such a sensitive issue that supporters avoid calling it the Peripheral Canal–the name attached to it when it was put to a vote.
* Ground water management. Wilson’s policy called attention to the fact that California’s ground water basins–a vital source of supply for many farmers hard hit by the drought–are being overdrafted but did not say how or when the problem should be solved. “(Wilson) calls for better ground water management without any specific commitments or proposed regulations,” complained Hal Candee, senior staff attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental organization.
For farmers, Warmerdam said, the policy was silent on a question that they consider critical: Is ground water to be managed by the state or local government? “We have been proponents of locally controlled ground water management but we are averse to the notion of a state-operated or mandated ground water management,” she said.
* Water trading. Wilson, who last year stalled a bill by Katz that would have established a free market system allowing farmers to sell surplus water to cities, endorsed the idea of water marketing. He indicated, however, that he could not support a bill as far-reaching as Katz’s. Wilson said water districts would have to be given “a strong role in determining what is done,” but he did not say whether that meant that they should be given the power to veto transfers.
Hall, of the Farm Water Coalition, saw Wilson’s water trading policy as “very close to what agriculture’s is” and praised the governor for taking what he considered a cautious approach to the idea.
“We don’t think water transfers should be moved out ahead of the other issues because, frankly, if urban areas get their short-term needs met, their attention may be distracted elsewhere,” he said. “Meanwhile, we don’t solve the underlying infrastructure problems that have led to these water shortages to begin with.”
But the Farm Bureau and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California said this cautious approach left the governor’s position on several critical points unclear–for example, what role he believes the state should play in transfers. Both groups said they had concerns that the Administration might move to bog down the system with bureaucracy by making the state a permanent broker in water deals.
On the other hand, they also said they were pleased that Wilson had gone on record in support of water marketing as a solution to California’s future water needs. “We think water marketing is going to be part of whatever the final solution to (California’s water problems) is,” Warmerdam said.
* Water recycling. The governor’s water policy called for wider use of reclaimed sewage water in agriculture, the irrigating of greenbelts and industrial uses. However, it avoided taking a position on some of the Department of Health regulations that proponents say hamper recycling efforts.
“The governor’s water policy is on the right track,” Anderson said, “but it needs more steam.”