Political Science

The article details the developments of the water bills governing the use of water obtained from the river Delta in California, written by Ron McNicoll. McNicoll has been an acknowledged reporter at the Independent Newspaper for many years and has written various political as well as environmental articles. The article currently in question is written by him focusing on the current political affairs.
The main motive was to address the legitimacy and feasibility of the bills that were passed by the legislature. Considering the delicate nature of the commodity in question, the emphasis was placed more on the approval process and hence on the people for and against it, thereby acknowledging the narrow difference between the approval and disapproval votes. It weighs the benefits of the propositions contained within the bills against the disadvantages along with a mention of earlier rejected suggestions that the current propositions were based upon, namely the Peripheral Canal. In all, the article reviews the controversy surrounding the Delta water management and development bills possibly leaning towards a suggestion that their outcome is most likely negative.

The Negatives of the Bills
As McNicoll pointed out, two of the most active opposition of the bills having rejected all five of them in the Assembly included Joan Buchanan (representing Livermore and parts of the Delta) and Mary Hayashi. Joan Buchanan justified her claim by criticizing the bill scrutiny process stating that the Assembly-Senate conference committee members did not include a Delta representative nor were the legislators allowed to actively oppose it. Groups opposing were limited to one minute or less of public comments. Supervisors from the Delta counties were allowed to combine their time, with one supervisor speaking for five minutes (McNicoll). Moreover, the bills were not presented as a whole in one package, but were passed through individually so as to increase their chances of being approved.  Much emphasis was placed on how little the bills were deliberated upon, considering their vast implications on the States water supply and the billions of dollars worth of investment they call for, which by itself, became a point of negative contention. The bills were allegedly discussed amongst a chosen few including the four Senate leaders and governor Schwarzenegger, minimally addressed by them with some parts only examined for as little as a few hours. Overall, Buchanan and Hayashi argued, the proposals were rushed through the Assembly.
Another seemingly negative point of the bills was the creation of a number of new bureaucratic departments including an increase in authority of the Delta Protection Commission. Supplementing that department were several new committees and commissions as well, including the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy, a Delta Stewardship Council with salaried members, a water-master, an Delta Independent Science Board, and numerous advisory groups (McNicoll). This was much in the way of over expenditure, which according to Buchanan, the State in the status quo of the economy could easily do without. The cost for the project was 11 billion dollars, covering salaries for staff and the infrastructure involved, with exposed pipelines that were to trail across the ground, part of the dual conveyance method. It was to be a huge burden in an already troubled State, as contrary to custom, the cost was to be covered by the State treasury itself and not revenue bonds. This necessitated a long consultation and should have been duly discussed before implementing.
Also part of the bills was a proposal aiming for a decrease in the consumption of water in urban settlements to the tune of 20 by the year 2020, with industrial consumption aimed to go down by 10. This did not sit well with Buchanan as urban consumption accounted for 20 of the total already, where as agricultural consumption made up for the rest of the 80, and no targets were stipulated for the latter (McNicoll).
Positives of the Bills
    The water requirements of the State of California seemingly obligated this proposal. The dual conveyance method which, although based on the Peripheral Canal, a project refuted earlier by voters in the 1980s, was to bring fresh water to the regional wholesale water supplier Zone 7, which is responsible for Livermore and Pleasantons water supply. The water through this method is fresher and cleaner as it travels from the Mountain Rivers to the shores of the West Delta, with less salt content and other impurities. Being delivered fresh means much less has to be done in the way of making it drinkable, saving on cost and environmental discrepancies at the same time.
    The build-up of salt required Zone 7 to build a demineralization plant in Pleasanton to meet quality standards, having necessary cost and feasibility implications. Moreover, Dick Quigly, the President of Zone 7 pointed out that the dual conveyance method would reduce the water hardness as well, bringing it down to 100 parts of total dissolved salts per million parts of water (100 ppm) (McNicoll), which significantly reduces the need for further processing before it is ready for delivery. 100 ppm water is in fact already delivered by some Municipal District departments, such as the ones in Easy Bay, to their customers.
Conclusion
    Environmentalists of late have tried to keep the Delta from being pumped so as to preserve it, even obtaining a court order by a federal judge to stop Delta pumping. The order was later rescinded, but reliance was placed on legislators to come up with something as a solution. As I understand it, the results were these bills. However, as with many of them out there, there were those in favor and those against, but given that the bills cleared the Assembly with the bare 23rd majority, the disapprovers have a good mind to scrutinize them further in terms of their feasibility and legitimacy.