Breaking NewsSponsored by The Sullivan Auto Group
Subscribe: Home Delivery Special!
Suddenly, a water deal?
A $10 billion idea from out of the blue
Published 12:00 am PST Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B6
It's a bit late for lawmakers to be slamming a $10 billion water bond onto the February ballot. But that's still a possibility as we approach turkey day.
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata called a session for Monday to discuss, and possibly vote on, a water deal in the works. Then he canceled it. By the time you read this, it may be on again. Certain senators seem intent on placing something on the Feb. 5 ballot, even if the Assembly hasn't been part of the talks.
Wait, you say, isn't the state in a financial hole? Shouldn't we avoid accumulating more debt, since interest payments are one reason the state faces a $10 billion deficit? And shouldn't we demand a full public process before agreeing to place such a large bond measure on the ballot?
Forget it. Such high-minded concerns seem to go out the window when the governor and lawmakers are under pressure to act. The governor is being pressed by farm interests and his San Joaquin Valley supporters to approve billions for water, including a new reservoir above Friant Dam. Southern California interests want new "conveyance" – a modified version of the Peripheral Canal – to deal with a cutback in water pumped south from the Delta.
Meanwhile, Perata and many other lawmakers are holding out hope that voters will approve a modification of term limits, and let some incumbents stay in office longer. Approval of a major water package – which polls well – might help in that ancillary cause. Or so the thinking goes.
For weeks, negotiations on a water package seemed bogged down in disputes between supporters of new dams and advocates of increased groundwater storage and conservation. In typical Capitol fashion, the two sides are discussing a tentative compromise that balloons the size of the proposed bond package from an original $6 billion to $10 billion or so.
Will this package propose smart water investments? Can the state afford it? Will beneficiaries pay their fair share? All good questions. Just don't expect them to be fully answered if this deal gets hatched and placed on the ballot.
Unique content, exceptional value. SUBSCRIBE NOW!
Most Popular
More Stories in Opinion
News |
Sports |
Business |
Politics |
Opinion |
Entertainment |
Lifestyle |
Travel |
Blogs |
Cars |
Homes |
Jobs |
Classifieds/Shopping
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Site Map | Advertise | Guide to The Bee | Bee Jobs | FAQs | RSS
Contact Us | e-edition | Subscribe | Manage Your Subscription | E-newsletters | Sacbeemail | Archives
sacbee.com | Sacramento.com | Capitol Alert | SacMomsClub.com | SacPaws.com | SacWineRegion.com
Copyright © The Sacramento Bee
2100 Q St. P.O. Box 15779 Sacramento, CA 95816 (916) 321-1000