Mirage 1: What isn’t a “co-equal” goal?

California’s legislature has just passed an unfunded “co-equal” goals principle balancing Delta ecosystem restoration with ensuring the reliability of water supply.

We’ll see. It is likely that defining exactly what “co-equal” means, in policy and dollars, will be decided in courtrooms. And all of the happy talk from Westlands Water District, bipartisan legislators, “unprincipled” environmental groups, etc. awaits the judgment of next November’s bond vote. Over the next year, there’s lots of water educating to do.

Since the happy talkers are glowing over the “co-equality” language, it is interesting to look at what bills/issues were excluded from the debate. These “un-equal” goals are just as important as the co-equal ones:

1/ Who pays, and really - how much?
The DNP is very disappointed but not surprised to see that Rep. Alyson Huber’s bill did not get a vote. That the pro-water bill coalition is unwilling to put their money talk where their mouths are is, and delusional, since inevitably this is about money. Discussions about money, real discussions, that is, are apparently not part of co-equality.

2/ No policy on sustainable groundwater monitoring, let alone regulation.
The DNP is also extremely disappointed that the 1/3 majority was able to arm-twist the 2/3 minority into taking meaningful groundwater monitoring off the table. We try to resist the urge to call progressive policy makers easy to push over, and we shall see how far the belligerence and bellicosity of the 1/3 majority advances over the next year.

3/ Untangling water rights.
Finally, the pro-water coalition de-linked water rights issues from this round of debate and voting, kicking the can down the road on an extremely complicated piece of business. It has not gone away, and will be ruthlessly litigated by upstream users if “co-equal” ends up meaning more equal for Westlands Water District than it does for Contra Costa or Sacramento Counties, etc. 

It is easy to be “for” something, and not all that much more difficult to articulate the goal of co-equality. The somewhat more difficult but still achievable passage of these bills defining “co-equality” has happened, but the devil remains in these details. It is entirely unclear whether the recent bill passages are anything more than a mirage, like seeing an oasis in the desert.