Friday, Jul. 18, 2008

Our View: Spend what we have first

Before new water bonds, Proposition 84 funds should be the first choice for improving state water supplies.

Following the driest spring in recorded history, California faces a water challenge of epic dimensions.

Reservoirs are low. Hundreds of fires have ravaged dozens of watersheds. Salmon, smelt and other fish are in trouble, adding to the complexity of moving water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Under pressure from worried farmers and business leaders, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein last week unveiled their latest multibillion-dollar bond proposal to finance water projects and river restoration efforts.

This latest plan is an improvement over previous versions, reducing the total debt down to $9.7 billion and creating a more level playing field for water investments of all types.

But before state leaders restart discussion on new water bonds, they should take full advantage of bonds that voters already have approved.

In 2006, voters passed Proposition 84, a $5.4 billion bond initiative that included billions of dollars for water projects and watershed protection. To date, lawmakers have appropriated only $2.8 billion of those funds, leaving billions that could be spent immediately.

What is holding up that investment?

Schwarzenegger bears much of the responsibility. Last year, he vetoed a bill by Senate leader Don Perata that would have appropriated unspent funds from Proposition 84 and other water bonds, including Proposition 50 in 2002 and Proposition 13 in 2000.

At the time, the governor wanted Perata's help in advancing a water bond to build reservoirs, so he vetoed the appropriations bill in a naked attempt to apply pressure on the Senate leader.

That gambit didn't work, and one year later, the state's water problems have worsened. So this week, Perata and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass came back with a new bill that would allocate $812 million in past bond funds for water supply, conservation and flood control projects.

Of this money, $50 million would go to cleaning up groundwater basins, an essential source of supply in Southern California. $200 million would go to integrated water management, including regional efforts to share supplies and reduce water waste.

Nearly $200 million would go into efforts to restore the delta, improve water quality and help water districts avoid impacts on fish. More than $15 million would go toward studies of new reservoir projects.

While critics say they are tired of spending state money on studies of reservoirs, there's no getting around these reviews. No reservoir project will get permits, or approval from taxpayers, if the state can't say how much water will result, what it will cost, who will benefit and what the environmental impacts will be.

Indeed, if Schwarzenegger had signed last year's legislation, he and the state would be one step closer toward getting those answers.

The governor and Feinstein deserve credit for noting the urgency of a shrinking Sierra snowpack and working to secure a long-term response.

But in twisting arms to get a water bond passed, they shouldn't be taking hostages. Water bond monies approved by voters deserve to be spent now, before a calamity turns into a crisis.