Part of the Bay Area News Group

East Bay legislators dubious about state water deal

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Friday, October 9th, 2009 at 2:41 pm in California Assembly, California Legislature, California Senate, Environment, State politics, water.

State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord

State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord

I talked with three Contra Costa state lawmakers via telephone this morning about their views on the Big Five water talks under way in Sacramento today. I did not hear much optimism about a the chances of a deal by tonight’s deadline.

Sen. Mark DeSaulnier and assemblymembers Joan Buchanan and Tom Torlakson view the closed-door talks on the controversial and complex subject as unlikely to produce a package that will attain either legislative or public support, and urged the resumption of public hearings.

DeSaulnier of Concord, who scuttled his planned trip to Spain this week in order to participate in the California water negotiations, called Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s move to hold hostage 700 bills on his desk pending a water deal counter-productive.

“The governor’s unique talents are unsuits for this time right now in Sacramento,” DeSaulnier said. “He just not very good at negotiation.”

“What’s the rush?” he added. “Are they worried it will start raining and with the drought over, the pressure will be off to pass reforms? I think we can get a deal but we need to do it with continued public hearings and public discussion, not artificial deadlines.”

Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo

Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo

Assemblyman Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch

Assemblyman Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch

Even if the Big Five emerge today or Saturday arm-in-arm with a package, the East Bay legislators say the question of how to pay for it remains a huge sticking point.

All three say they oppose financing the estimated $8 billion to $12 billion package through general obligation bonds. Repayment of general obligation bonds comes right of the top of the state’s general fund, which means the money cannot be used elsewhere.

They favor the use of revenue bonds, which are repaid by water users including residents, businesses and farmers.

“It the midst of these horrible deficits, and we’re facing additional horrendous challenges next year, do we want to cut more from schools or higher education?” said Torlakson, D-Antioch.

“The payment on a $12 billion bond is $700 million a year,” said Buchanan, D-Alamo. “If we are going to pass legislation and ask voters to pass a bond, we need to ask how we’re going to pay for it.”

Buchanan also says that she and other Delta area lawmakers will demand sufficient time to evaluate any proposal and talk with their constituents.

“A half a million people live in the Delta and the impacts of new policies could last decades,” Buchanan said. “You can bet that I and my staff will be reading every word.”

Postscript: DeSaulnier’s trip to Spain was, ironically, a Senate-sponsored event to study the country’s national water system. “I learned more about water by staying home,” DeSaulnier said.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Pingback: Twitter Trackbacks for East Bay legislators dubious about state water deal - Political Blotter - Politics in the Bay Area and beyond [ibabuzz.com] on Topsy.com

  • Arne Simonsen

    Since all Delta state, county and city elected representatives have been shut out of any discussions about the Delta, let the Governor throw his tantrum, but we will got give in to the Southern California Water exporters!!

  • Ralph Hoffmann, Guest Columnist

    Personally I don’t eat Smelt. I prefer fruits and veggies from the Central Valley which feed 80% of our Country.

  • Dan Richard

    The payment mechanism is key and DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Buchanan are right to oppose general obligation bonds. The water system needs repair and restoration, but the financing must involve the water users who will benefit the most.

    Greg Lucas’ blog had a good story about how the Republicans want to use general obligation bonds both to protect their constituencies and to beggar those interests they think are most aligned with the Democrats. We’ll never take the politics out of water policy, but some consistency would be a good thing. Republicans oppose G.O. bonds for virtually every other purpose (including other types of infrastructure development). Revenue bonds make sense and our representatives are right to insist that this be a sustainable deal.