Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

Yesterday’s mega-hearing in the California Legislature included mostly productive discussion about how best to manage water in our state, especially that which flows through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Delta gets so much focus as the hub of our water system, it is sometimes hard to remember that exports from the Delta account for less than 15% of the water we use on our farms and in our cities statewide.

Understandably, today’s press coverage focused on Governor Schwarzenegger’s proclamation that he “will not sign anything that does not have above-the-ground, below-the-ground water storage”. The administration is especially keen on spending billions of dollars on reservoirs at Temperance Flat on the San Joaquin River and at Sites in the Sacramento Valley.

The focus on dams, and the billions of dollars they would cost, is an unfortunate distraction from the range of important legislative proposals put forth by the lawmakers, including Delta governance (Simitian and Huffman), a Delta Conservancy (Wolk), water conservation (Feuer/Huffman) and water use reporting (Pavley). There were not too many surprises, but the hearing was a very useful forum on the seriousness of our water issues that are all too often ignored.

This is not to say that water storage is not important. But it makes no sense to obstruct important policy reforms, which if done right would benefit cities, farms and the natural environment, by including a commitment to spend billions of dollars on storage projects. As we all know, the State is broke. And it is not clear how the benefits of the new storage would be distributed. Whatever happened to the “Beneficiary Pays” principle to which CALFED, the Delta Vision Task Force and even the administration’s Delta Vision Committee all agreed?

By the way, we often hear that no one has been developing storage in California. Not so. As identified in a recent blog, we have developed almost 6,000,000 acre-feet of storage at six sites alone over the last twenty years. These projects were all financed largely by their beneficiaries – just as it should be.

While we at the Environmental Defense Fund are pleased that the legislature is considering the suite of bills discussed yesterday, we do have substantial concerns with many of the various provisions. But we are committed to working with all parties to develop legislation for the benefit of all Californians. Insisting on dams being part of a legislative package, however, may well doom it to failure.