reservoirs are brimming with runoff [PDF]<\/a>, voters will be asked next year to approve an $11.1 billion state water bond measure that was crafted in response to the crippling drought.<\/p>\nBut with the drought a fading memory and the state\u2019s finances in disarray, many believe the pricey package of dam-building and water conservation infrastructure has an even slimmer chance of passage today than in 2010, when then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger yanked it off the ballot and slated it instead for November 2012.<\/p>\n
Gov. Jerry Brown has indicated he thinks the water bond as written \u2013 its centerpiece is a proposed massive new dam on the San Joaquin River east of Fresno \u2013 is too expensive. State Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, who helped negotiate the legislative compromise that led to the original measure, agrees it should be scaled back because of state financial issues, said spokeswoman Alicia Trost.<\/p>\n
The agreement that undergirds the ballot measure was significant, she said, because it committed the state to tough water conservation policies. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe other part is financing to meet our water needs,\u201d she said. \u201cThey don\u2019t go away because we have good policy behind it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Lawmakers have until next summer to decide what to do: In theory, they could revise the bond measure, kill it outright or leave it on the ballot as written. <\/p>\n
But revising the measure is no simple task, because any change \u2013 even another postponement of the vote \u2013 must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.<\/p>\n
When it comes to revising the water bond, \u201ceverything is challenging,\u201d said Bruce Reznik, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League, which objects to the measure\u2019s emphasis on building new dams.<\/p>\n
\u201cNobody thinks it\u2019s got a snowball\u2019s chance of passing\u201d as written, Reznik said. But it’s \u201can uphill battle\u201d to rewrite the measure, he said, because of the two-thirds vote requirement.<\/p>\n
Complicating matters further, many of the parties to the original compromise are no longer on the scene, said another critic, Jim Metropulos of the Sierra Club.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis was decided by a different Legislature and a different governor,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
State Department of Water ResourcesMark Cowin, director of the California Department of Water Resources<\/p>\n
The politics are different as well because of the drought. From 2007 to 2009, California’s water problems were dire. Lacking irrigation water, growers let fields go fallow. Unemployment rates in some Central Valley farm towns edged above 40 percent. The drought also was blamed for ecological collapse in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, where the Sacramento River\u2019s storied salmon run was on the brink of extinction.<\/p>\n
In that crisis atmosphere, Schwarzenegger, Steinberg and other lawmakers crafted their emergency plan, which they said would solve California\u2019s water problems for a generation.<\/p>\n
But a wet winter followed, and California\u2019s immediate water problems receded. Meanwhile, environmental groups, taxpayer advocates and some labor unions lined up against the water bond, calling it too expensive, laden with pork and environmentally destructive.<\/p>\n
Fearing that the measure would fail, Schwarzenegger induced the Legislature to postpone the vote to 2012.<\/p>\n
But since then, the political climate for the water bond may have deteriorated further.<\/p>\n
Voters are well aware of the state\u2019s precarious finances; they might be skeptical of the water bond\u2019s price tag.<\/p>\n
\u201cAll everybody\u2019s been talking about is an $11 billion bond when we\u2019re broke,\u201d said John McManus of the Earthjustice environmental group.<\/p>\n
The back-to-back wet winters also may change the dynamic.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you are in the middle of a drought, voters are much more sensitive to the issue, even though if you pass the bond. it\u2019s going to be two or three years before you build anything,\u201d said Joseph Caves of the Conservation Strategy Group, political consultants on the bond campaign in 2010.<\/p>\n
Wet winters or no, California needs to solve the problem of how to guarantee a water supply to its growing population, advocates say.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf I had my way, we wouldn\u2019t talk about drought anymore,\u201d said Mark Cowin, director of the state Department of Water Resources. \u201cWe live in a state that has variability in water supply. Climate change is only going to accentuate it.\u201d<\/p>\n
California needs to continue to \u201cinvest in conservation, recycling and water storage projects,\u201d he said \u2013 all measures that the water bond sought to fund. Scaling it back isn\u2019t simple.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s very difficult to get an analytic approach of how big (the bond) should be,\u201d he said. \u201cClearly, the governor is concerned about levels of debt \u2013 that\u2019s the real driver for considering reducing the size of the bond.\u201d<\/p>\n
Whether to scrap the proposed big dam on the San Joaquin will be \u201cpart of the conversation,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Today, Cowin said the state\u2019s water supply is in good shape. But it’s a year-to-year thing.<\/p>\n
In the coming winter, \u201cit appears as if we\u2019ll experience moderate La Ni\u00f1a conditions,” he said. \u201cTypically, what that means is the Northwest is wetter than usual and the Southwest is drier than usual. And here in Northern California, it can swing either way.\u201d<\/p>\n
This story was published originally on California Watch<\/a>, a project founded by the Center for Investigative Reporting, and a content partner of KQED and <\/em>Climate Watch. You can contact the writer at lwilliams@californiawatch.org.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Many believe that a pricey package of dam-building and water conservation infrastructure has an even slimmer chance of passage today than in 2010, when then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger yanked it off the ballot and slated it instead for November 2012.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":217,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,7],"tags":[294,654,660],"coauthors":[],"series":[],"affiliates":[],"programs":[],"collections":[],"interests":[],"class_list":["post-15696","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-government-business","category-water","tag-infrastructure","tag-water","tag-water-storage"],"acf":{"template_type":"standard","featured_image_type":"standard","is_audio_post":false},"yoast_head":"\n
Drought Gone, Less Support for California's Water Bond? | Climate Watch<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/10\/05\/drought-gone-less-support-for-californias-water-bond\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Drought Gone, Less Support for California's Water Bond? | Climate Watch\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Many believe that a pricey package of dam-building and water conservation infrastructure has an even slimmer chance of passage today than in 2010, when then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger yanked it off the ballot and slated it instead for November 2012.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/10\/05\/drought-gone-less-support-for-californias-water-bond\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Watch\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-05T18:51:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/54\/2011\/10\/Picture-3.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"The Center for Investigative Reporting\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"The Center for Investigative Reporting\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/10\/05\/drought-gone-less-support-for-californias-water-bond\/\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/10\/05\/drought-gone-less-support-for-californias-water-bond\/\",\"name\":\"Drought Gone, Less Support for California's Water Bond? | Climate Watch\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-05T18:51:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-10-05T18:51:31+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#\/schema\/person\/3582227c6b8ddd42977f0d0fedefbdf2\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/10\/05\/drought-gone-less-support-for-californias-water-bond\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/10\/05\/drought-gone-less-support-for-californias-water-bond\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/10\/05\/drought-gone-less-support-for-californias-water-bond\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Drought Gone, Less Support for California’s Water Bond?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Watch\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#\/schema\/person\/3582227c6b8ddd42977f0d0fedefbdf2\",\"name\":\"The Center for Investigative Reporting\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/be6d1f4dd2ff29481edda521f3276104\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3decbd1a641caa0185742db6828cb8e4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3decbd1a641caa0185742db6828cb8e4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"The Center for Investigative Reporting\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/author\/californiawatch\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Drought Gone, Less Support for California's Water Bond? | Climate Watch","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/10\/05\/drought-gone-less-support-for-californias-water-bond\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Drought Gone, Less Support for California's Water Bond? | Climate Watch","og_description":"Many believe that a pricey package of dam-building and water conservation infrastructure has an even slimmer chance of passage today than in 2010, when then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger yanked it off the ballot and slated it instead for November 2012.","og_url":"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/10\/05\/drought-gone-less-support-for-californias-water-bond\/","og_site_name":"Climate Watch","article_published_time":"2011-10-05T18:51:31+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/54\/2011\/10\/Picture-3.png"}],"author":"The Center for Investigative Reporting","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"The Center for Investigative Reporting","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/10\/05\/drought-gone-less-support-for-californias-water-bond\/","url":"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/10\/05\/drought-gone-less-support-for-californias-water-bond\/","name":"Drought Gone, Less Support for California's Water Bond? | Climate Watch","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-05T18:51:31+00:00","dateModified":"2011-10-05T18:51:31+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#\/schema\/person\/3582227c6b8ddd42977f0d0fedefbdf2"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/10\/05\/drought-gone-less-support-for-californias-water-bond\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/10\/05\/drought-gone-less-support-for-californias-water-bond\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2011\/10\/05\/drought-gone-less-support-for-californias-water-bond\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Drought Gone, Less Support for California’s Water Bond?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#website","url":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/","name":"Climate Watch","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#\/schema\/person\/3582227c6b8ddd42977f0d0fedefbdf2","name":"The Center for Investigative Reporting","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/be6d1f4dd2ff29481edda521f3276104","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3decbd1a641caa0185742db6828cb8e4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3decbd1a641caa0185742db6828cb8e4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"The Center for Investigative Reporting"},"url":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/author\/californiawatch\/"}]}},"template_type":null,"featured_image_type":null,"is_audio_post":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15696","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/217"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15696"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15696\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15696"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=15696"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=15696"},{"taxonomy":"affiliates","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/affiliates?post=15696"},{"taxonomy":"programs","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/programs?post=15696"},{"taxonomy":"collections","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collections?post=15696"},{"taxonomy":"interests","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/interests?post=15696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/54\/2011\/10\/Picture-3.png\" "\\"Picture")
<\/p>\n