PD Editorial: All wet?

<p>Last week, as legislators labored to produce the state’s first major water plan in decades, we said North Coast residents had a stake in the outcome even though the water was going to flow elsewhere.</p><p>An all-night session produced a deal, with the main pieces passing out of the state Senate and Assembly shortly before sunrise Wednesday and signed Monday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. But the results lack Lake Tahoe’s clarity, to say the least.</p><p>And the process was disgraceful: back room dealing and no public hearings as a $9 billion bond act swelled to more than $11 billion, with earmarks added like Christmas ornaments.</p><p>Fortunately, there’s ample time for voters to review this package in the light of day before they’re asked to ratify it in the November 2010 election.</p><p>For now, we’re skeptical.</p><p>Most of the money would pay for plumbing — dams, reservoirs and potentially a new canal — to transport water from Northern California to the giant farming operations in the Central Valley and to cities in Southern California. But residents statewide would share the burden of paying for loosely defined “public benefits” such as flood control and recreation.</p><p>Despite the time-tested clichés of water politics, if there are new diversions, very little of the water will find its way into backyard swimming pools in suburban Los Angeles. In fact, about 80 percent of the state’s water is used in agriculture, including thousands of acres of surplus crops like cotton and water-dependent crops like rice that make little sense in semi-arid California. And, during those late night talks, farm interests, aided by some Bay Area water districts, gutted efforts to crack down on illegal diversions. In addition, urban dwellers will must cut consumption by 20 percent by 2020, while ag users only need to adopt “best practices” for conservation.</p><p>However, the five-bill package does include a new Delta Stewardship Council charged with preparing a comprehensive plan to restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a crucial water source for humans, fish and migratory birds. A new Delta Conservancy would control $2 billion for restoration, and the council could counterbalance pressure for new delivery systems, requiring that a peripheral canal or pipeline to move water around the Delta to the aqueduct doesn’t damage wildlife.</p><p>Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, the only North Bay legislator to support the water deal, led the effort to create the seven-member council. He said he’ll seek further improvements when the Legislature reconvenes its regular session in January.</p><p>There’s no reason to support this plan if it isn’t crystal clear that it will help restore the Delta, the largest estuary on the Pacific Coast of the Americas.</p><p>A by-product of restoration could be revival of the sport and commercial fishing industries on the North Coast. Additional benefits for North Coast fishermen could come from $250 million in the package to help remove three dams on the Klamath River. And Sonoma County Water Agency officials say they may be eligible for a share of the money set aside for recycling water and coastal salmon restoration.</p><p>But the messy process of creating this package leaves us — and all voters — awaiting details so we can weigh the potential benefits against the enormous cost of shipping more water south.</p>