It’s becoming clear the main difference between the four major water bonds being floated is $1 billion.

The $1 billion is the difference between the $3 billion Republicans say is needed for water storage, and the $2 billion in the two Democratic plans.

The $3 billion amount for water storage is in the state Senate Republicans’ proposed $8.7 billion bond. And it’s the number in Proposition 43, the $11.1 billion bond already on the November ballot, but which could be taken off and replaced with something else.

That’s why Republicans, and their farmer constituents, favor keeping Prop. 43 on the ballot if the Senate GOP’s version, or something like it, cannot be advanced.

By contrast, the Democrats’ two water bonds contain only $2 billion for water storage. They are Gov. Jerry Brown’s $6.0 billion proposal and state Sen. Lois Wolk’s $7.5 billion water bill, SB848; the latter places a priority on groundwater storage over dams.

It’s curious that normally frugal Republicans are willing to back the two most expensive bonds primarily because they contain that $3 billion for storage instead of $2 billion. State Sen. Anthony Canella, R-Ceres, told the Modesto Bee, “We have to build two reservoirs and $2 billion won’t build one.  So what’s the point? Why put a bond on the ballot that produces no water?”

Below is a table to compare contending water bonds regarding the water storage issue:

Both Republican and Democratic proposals are intended to downsize the $11.1 billion Prop. 43 water bond. It contains $3 billion for storage and identified two new reservoir locations: the Sites Reservoir north of the Delta and the Temperance Flat Reservoir south of the Delta (see links below).

Republicans temporarily forced to endorse big bond

Prior to the Republicans’ $8.7 billion water bond proposal, the Fresno Bee reported that 150 farmers signed a letter on Aug. 6 to California legislators supporting the big $11.1 billion bond because it contains $3 billion for storage.

Said Assembly Leader Connie Conway, R-Tulare, “You can talk about restoration of the Delta, you can talk about recycling, you can talk about all the things you want to do. That takes water!”

Reservoirs only provide half of water use each year

Many Californians are under the wrong assumption that the state gets most of its water from reservoirs. Reservoir storage only makes up about half of annual water use, as shown in table below (41 millions of acre feet out of 83 MAF).  Presently, the only way California can survive droughts is to shift to groundwater and curtail water for farmers with junior water rights.

The proposed Sites Reservoir is estimated to cost $2.3 to $3.2 billion for 470 to 640 thousand acre-feet of net usable water each year (actual total storage is much higher).

Temperance Flat is estimated to cost $1.0 to $2.0 billion and yield 183,000 acre-feet of net usable water each year.

The proposed Sites and Temperance Flat Reservoirs combined would cost about $4.4 to $5.2 billion.  But they would meet only about 1 percent to the total gross annual water use in California (823,000 out of 83 million acre feet MAF).

However, the 823,000 acre-feet of water from these two new reservoirs would backfill 27 percent of the 3 million acre-feet of water per year diverted to fish runs and wildlife refuges since 1992.

If California’s unofficial drought policy demands that farmers with junior water rights curtail usage in droughts so everyone else can have enough water, additional farm water reservoir storage is something that voters might get behind no matter the size of the ultimate water bond.

First bond: On Friday, Senate Republicans refurbished their own water-bond proposal, now for $8.7 billion. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Nearly a third of the money in the new proposal would go to water storage. Like the 2009 plan, the new GOP proposal would designate $3 billion for storage such as reservoirs and dams.”

Second bond: In an Aug. 5 open letter to Califonians, Gov. Jerry Brown urged support for his proposed $6 billion water bond, $2 billion of it for water storage.

Third bond: Still in the water table is SB848, by state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Vacaville. It would spend $7.5 billion, including $2 billion on water storage.

Fourth bond: Any new proposal, if adopted by the Legislature, would be placed on the November ballot for voter approval. And it would replace the $11.1 billion water bond, Proposition 43, currently slated by the Legislature for the November ballot, but delayed in 2010 and 2012 because legislators knew it would be defeated because of the bad economy.

Aside from price, the major difference is that the Brown and Wolk bonds spend $2 billion on water storage, while the GOP and Prop. 43 bonds spend $3 billion.

New water storage wouldn’t be available for about another 10 years because it would take seven to eight years to get any new reservoir designed and engineered, environmentally cleared, constructed and certified for operation.  It then would take one or more years to fill the reservoirs.

The last time voters approved bonds for building new water storage facilities was 1960 for $1.8 billion for the State Water Project. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Inflation Calculator, that would be $14.5 billion today. And California’s population has more than doubled.

Some aspects of the new bond proposals

GOP bond. The major problem with the Republican proposal, of course, is that party members are a minority in both houses of the Legislature, so their ideas can be ignored — yet not completely. Their emphasis on $3 billion for water storage, instead of the $2 billion in the Brown and Wolk proposals, appeals to inland farm voters that have been leaning Republican.

In 2013, State Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Fresno, won a special election in a Democratic district in part by appealing to farmers hurt by the water shortage. Vidak is a co-sponsor of the new GOP bond proposal. So despite the Republicans’ minority status, they cannot be ignored.

If Vidak holds his seat in November, and up-and-coming GOP candidate Janet Nguyen takes back a state Senate seat in Orange County now held by Democrats, then Democrats’ chances of taking back their supermajority status in the Senate likely would be ended.

Brown bond. One aspect of Brown’s proposed bond is that it contains $475 million for the controversial Central Valley Project Improvement Act. And an additional $215 million would go to restoration of watershed lands that support endangered species. This could worsen water farm shortages during droughts.

Wolk bond. As to Wolk’s bond, it prioritizes groundwater storage over dams and surface water storage.  Her bill allocates only $1 billion for dams, but that funding would be diluted among a number of other projects and programs.

But Wolk’s water bond contains a hydrological fatal flaw: How do you get water to percolate into groundwater basins if it is not captured first instead of allowing it to flow through rivers to the sea?  As Dan Nelson, Executive Director of the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority, wrote in the Aug. 1 Sacramento Bee, “Groundwater Can’t be Regulated Without Increasing Surface Supplies.”

Farmers

If Brown’s 2012 negotiations over the tax increase that became Proposition 30 are any indication, the result passed by the Legislature likely will be a blend of two more of these proposals. Voters especially should look for the effect on water rights.

Under California’s water management system, farmers with “junior water rights” are asked to make fallow their fields during droughts so that the water can be used for cities, farmers with senior water rights and fish runs on rivers.

Rather than storing up enough water for droughts, California’s water policy forces some farmers to get wiped out during droughts.  Therefore, all voters might want to know if there is any water for those drought-hit farmers who sacrifice for everyone in this bill.

Farmers too often sit in the back of the tractor in California politics. But for bonds this year, they’re trying to crawl up into the driver’s seat.

That certainly is true in California, where the last month of the legislative session, which we’re now in, always sees a frenzy of bill passing — meaning few legislators have read the most important bills.

Two items:

1. What to do with a water bond to fight the drought? Currently, Proposition 43 is on the ballot, with $11.1 billion in new spending, most pork. Gov. Jerry Brown instead has proposed a $6 billion bond, with less pork and $2 billion for reservoirs. Both include a lot of environmentalist spending.

As we have seen recently, bonds are what I long have called “delayed tax increases.” All the water, parks and stem-cell research bonds passed in the previous decade ran up the payback costs, loading up extra spending in the general-fund budget. That’s the real reason Proposition 30, $6 billion in tax increases, was put on the ballot by Brown and passed by voters in 2012.

There’s no consideration for a pay-as-you-go system that would build dams and reservoirs from current funds, cutting waste in other areas to pay for it.

2. On the positive side, AB69, by Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-Fresno, would delay the cap-and-trade provisions imposed by AB32 that would raise gasoline costs by more than 50 cents a gallon. Sensibly, Perea is worried about the impact on his poor constituents, many with long commutes, being gouged even more at the pump.

The bill likely will go nowhere because the state’s powerful environmentalists, centered in Hollywood and Silicon Valley, won’t allow changes to AB32. If you’re a digital billionaire, what do you care if the gas price for your Bentley rises 50 cents a gallon?

There are two realities with the current $11.1 billion water bond currently scheduled to appear on the November ballot as Proposition 43. One, the bond is too big and filled with pork. Two, even so, if it appeared on the ballot as is, it likely would pass.

Legislators are debating the size and content of the bond with time running out to replace the $11.1 billion measure that has already been removed from ballots twice before in 2010 and 2012. Given the state’s water situation, there must be no more delays.

However, the battle over content continues. In a letter – posted interestingly on his campaign website – Gov. Jerry Brown said he is concerned with too much debt and that his $6 billion water bond proposal would provide “for water use efficiency and recycling, effective groundwater management and added storage.”

Legislators have discussed water bonds in the $8 to $10 billion range. They battle over how much reservoir water storage, water movement and environmental protections should be included in the bond.

Drought

But the size of the bond won’t determine if the voters decide to support it. The reason is the drought.

Voters know about the drought. The fact that the state is suffering a record drought has been drummed home to the people of California. Electronic freeway signs most often used for traffic problem warnings now remind motorists of the drought and the need to conserve water. Word that overwatering comes with severe financial penalties has reached citizens who usually pay little attention to public affairs.

Most voters don’t dig into details of bond measures on the ballot or do the calculus on the cost of an $11 billion bond or one half that size.

The voters will consider a simple equation: to offset effects of a drought you need water. If a water bond appears on the ballot – no matter the size or content – and the voters think this is a way to help deal with the drought, they will vote Yes.

Big problem

The recent PPIC poll noted 61 percent of likely voters said the supply of water is a big problem, while an additional 24 percent said it was somewhat of a problem. Asked about the $11.1 billion bond, 51 percent of likely voters said they would support it, while 26 percent opposed. However, of those opposed, only 8 percent said they would reconsider if the bond were a lower amount.

Apparently, the bond’s size matters little to many who would vote No.

Brown is right to be concerned with the state’s debt situation, while hoping to eliminate the obvious pork in the current bond such as bicycle trails that have nothing to do with water usage and supply. However, whether his $6 billion proposal is too low is a fair question because additional money is needed for storage to deal with future water shortfalls.

Time is running out. Because they are aware of the devastating drought, if a more reasonable bond that can achieve the necessary two-thirds vote is not patched together to present to voters, they will likely accept the only option offered them – pork and all.