Gov. Jerry Brown targeted two Republican appointees on a key water panel this week and called for a water bond smaller than an $11.1 billion version his predecessor placed on the ballot.

The Democratic governor wants to reshape the 2009 water agreement that lawmakers and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger once called "historic," fearing that a faltering economy and new political considerations have rendered that deal infeasible.

"We have to figure out a way to make it more politically acceptable," Brown said.

In its current form, he said, "It won't pass."

Brown asked Senate Democrats this week to let two high-profile GOP appointments to the California Water Commission lapse without confirmation, including that of former Sen. Dave Cogdill, a Modesto Republican who wrote the 2009 water bond legislation. The other targeted appointee is Paul Kelley, a former Sonoma County supervisor who serves as president of the Association of California Water Agencies.

Brown press secretary Gil Duran said Friday that the governor wants his own representation on the water commission, which will be instrumental in shaping future decisions on water storage and a possible Delta canal.

"A new administration typically reserves the right to make a new choice," Duran said. "It just seems reasonable that the governor should have his own appointees on such an important board and not be without his chosen appointees until 2014."

Brown and Republican lawmakers have been at odds, particularly since talks broke down over a state budget deal in June. Republicans see the Cogdill move as breaking a past Democratic promise to confirm him.

The Senate has agreed not to confirm the appointees, apparently a recognition that Brown could rescind their appointments otherwise.

Environmentalists who said the state should focus more on conservation measures backed Brown's decision Friday, saying Cogdill and Kelley were too supportive of expensive water storage projects. Neither commissioner responded to calls Friday.

Many lawmakers and water interests share Brown's concern about the $11.1 billion water bond, which was originally supposed to appear on the ballot last year before state leaders pushed it off until 2012. They are considering ways to delay its placement on the ballot again, to substitute user fees for part of it or to reduce its total cost.

But any changes are likely to be difficult. The water package was the product of a complex negotiation between Schwarzenegger and a fractured Legislature, and revising it would require a two-thirds vote.

"I don't know, politically, how he gets that out of the Legislature," Cogdill said before he learned Brown wanted to replace him. "I don't think the votes are there."

If approved by voters, the bond could fund an overhaul of water infrastructure in California, including dams, groundwater banking, wastewater treatment projects and restoration of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

But to satisfy a range of water interests and to secure support in the Legislature, the 2009 package included money for a variety of regional causes, too. Critics, including Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, called it a "Christmas tree" of spending.

She said there are legitimate water needs in California but that, given the state's financial condition, "we need to be extremely judicious about what we ask the voters to support."

It is unclear how majority Democrats in the Legislature might proceed, though there is support for reducing the bond's cost before it reaches any ballot. A spokeswoman said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg believes the cost should be reduced to less than $10 billion.

Nor are major water users who support the bond resistant to any chances. Tim Quinn, executive director of ACWA, said his group is "willing to explore options."

One proposal to reduce costs was suggested in a bill by Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries, R-Lake Elsinore, who argues for a 25 percent across-the-board cut to all projects included in the bond.

The alternative, Jeffries said, "to negotiate who gets funded and who doesn't – it would be a nightmare."

Other lawmakers worry any tinkering will only sink the measure. The 2009 water deal, said Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, was "almost historic in nature."

"If you open it up, I think you have the likelihood of destroying it," Cannella said. "I think we should bring it to the voters in its current form, and get it passed."

If the bond goes forward as planned, it will appear on the same ballot Brown is considering for a tax initiative.

Brown did not say how he will seek to change the water bond, only that he will address it next year after presenting a plan for another water project, a peripheral canal or other way to move water through or around the Delta.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Call David Siders, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 321-1215. Follow him on Twitter, @davidsiders.