In a state as large and fractured as California, it is always cause for celebration when lawmakers can reach some form of agreement on an issue as divisive as water.

Water isn't just a precious resource here. It is a theology. Over the decades, various belief systems have formed around subjects such as dams, water exports, conservation and subsidies. Adherents of these theologies have fought so many battles that it is often touchy to gather them in the same room.

Seen in this context, what Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, has achieved is momentous. The water-policy package he helped craft pushes the state forward on several fronts.

It takes the first steps toward measuring groundwater use – a sacrilege to many farmers.

It nudges cities ahead in ending wasteful practices.

It also deals a blow against the forces of obstruction in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. For the first time, there is a clear process for examining alternatives to the current fish-killing water pumps that transport water to the south.

If you are a California resident – not just a member of a particular interest group – the basic outline of this policy package is worth celebrating.

Unfortunately, the Senate and Assembly undermined that achievement by ramming through an $11.1 billion bond proposal that is laden with wasteful spending.

Consider some of the earmarks added to win votes in the wee hours on Wednesday: $100 million to raise San Vicente Dam in San Diego County from 220 feet to 337 feet; $8 million for the city of Maywood in Los Angeles County for "water supply upgrades"; $20 million for "habitat projects" in Ventura County; $50 million for the state university system to fund "agricultural water research"; $20 million for Siskiyou County for "economic development."

Thanks to alert reporting by The Bee, Steinberg withdrew a $10 million earmark he sought for a pet project, a tolerance museum in Sacramento.

Sadly, a similarly harsh spotlight wasn't pointed at other pork – such as hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that could flow to the Temperance Dam, a gift to Fresno farmers.

The conventional wisdom in Sacramento is that contentious policy packages can only be greased with dollars. That may be true, but in this case, voters may balk at the price tag. At its peak, the bond package would obligate the state to spend $809 million yearly in annual debt service. That means $809 million less in future years for schools and social programs, barring an increase in state taxes.

In all likelihood, voters will reject this proposal when it appears on the November 2010 ballot. With revenues continuing to decline, the state is poised for another wrenching budget fight. As lawmakers make more cuts to public education and state parks, voters will be in no mood next year to finance water pork, no matter how much money is spent on a media campaign.

Phil Isenberg, a former Sacramento mayor and lawmaker who has helped lead the drive for progressive water legislation, sees some bright spots in last week's deal. Californians, he told the Los Angeles Times, are "slowly and painfully coming to terms with a static water supply."

That may be so. Unfortunately, lawmakers have yet to come to terms with a static supply of public dollars.

As California grapples with its water challenges, fiscal restraint must be a co-equal goal with increasing supplies.