Facing an array of criticism from Northern California interests about controversial water legislation, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg defended the measures Friday, saying they include plenty of protections – and money – for Sacramento and Delta interests.

Steinberg, D-Sacramento, spoke as part of a panel at the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce's annual "State of the County" luncheon. The panel focused on statewide water issues and the effects on Northern California and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Joining him on the panel were Sacramento County Supervisor Don Nottoli, Yolo County Supervisor Mike McGowan and prominent water lawyer Stuart Somach.

The three said the bills don't do enough to protect Northern California water rights, don't provide enough money to local governments to compensate for the loss of farmland to habitat restoration, and don't provide enough local representation on a new Delta Stewardship Council proposed to govern the estuary.

"We're not trying to stand in the way of progress," said McGowan. "Our whole pitch has been that the protection of this resource ought not be done at our expense."

Steinberg said he hopes for a vote on the bills early next week. "No predictions, but we are going to try to do something very, very important on Monday or Tuesday," he said.

The bills, as currently drafted, would amend many aspects of California water policy and ask voters to approve a $9.4 billion general obligation bond for new water infrastructure and massive Delta habitat restoration projects.

A major focus is to address problems in the Delta, the West Coast's largest estuary and a source of water for 23 million Californians.

Steinberg quoted from the 116-page policy bill in an attempt to soothe local concerns.

He said that although only one of seven seats on the proposed Delta Stewardship Council is assigned by law to a local government official, legislators could use their appointment and confirmation powers to seat more local representatives if they choose.

He also said the bond would include $2.25 billion to compensate local governments for the economic and ecological costs they may face as part of Delta improvement efforts.

Somach said Northern California water agencies fear that the state could force them to reduce water diversions from rivers to boost freshwater flow through the Delta to improve fish habitat.

"A simple statement that priority in water rights will be honored has been impossible to get into the legislation," Somach said.

Steinberg, however, said that would amount to an exemption from current law.

"They are trying to improve existing water rights," he said, noting that current law already allows the state to adjust water rights for environmental benefit.

Many concerns swirl around a proposed water diversion canal. Akin to the peripheral canal rejected by voters in 1982, the modern canal would divert a portion of Sacramento River flows and carry water directly to state and federal diversion pumps near Tracy.

Unlike that earlier proposal, however, this one is intended also to benefit the Delta environment by controlling when and where water can be diverted.

The project is being studied by the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a coalition of water agencies and environmental groups that would seek approval for the project under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Steinberg said the legislation neither supports nor opposes a canal. Rather, it would give the new Delta Stewardship Council powers to require changes in the project if it doesn't adequately balance water delivery and environmental restoration.

He said he is "holding together the most fragile of coalitions" between water agencies and environmental groups to get the bills approved. The goal, he said, is reform that benefits all of California, not just one region.

"I would not do anything that I believe would hurt Sacramento," Steinberg said. "We are trying to achieve the best possible balance. It may not be perfect, but it's fair."

Call The Bee's Matt Weiser, (916) 321-1264.