By WES SANDER
Capital Press

SACRAMENTO -- Agricultural interests expressed varying reactions to the package of water bills before the legislature at a joint committee hearing Tuesday, Aug. 18.

Three ag representatives -- two from water districts and one with the California Farm Bureau Federation -- testified at the joint hearing of the Senate and Assembly water committees, which met for a public discussion of five Delta-related bills that will soon be considered by a conference committee.

The bills address agricultural and urban water efficiency and creation of a management plan and governance structure for the Delta. Brent Walthall, assistant general manager of Kern County Water Agency in the southern San Joaquin Valley, struck a positive tone, saying the package would be workable with some modifications.

Rural communities need more help coping with the immediate effects of water shortages, Walthall said, pointing out recently awarded stimulus funding from the federal government.

Beyond that, the biggest element missing from the bill package is a proposal for a water bond to fund infrastructure, Walthall said, echoing a contention of legislative Republicans and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Beyond water storage and Delta conveyance, such a bond could also fund facilities, such as desalination plants, that could increase efficiency in other parts of the state, he said.

Other ag interests likewise declared the need for a bond, but sounded less positive about the overall package.

Danny Merkley, director for water resources with the Farm Bureau, said proposals to pay for new Delta governance structures through water-use fees would create economic hardship.

"We believe the funding approaches in these packages will create unintended negative consequences on an economy struggling to recover," Merkley told committee members. "An unbalance to fees fails to recognize where there is public benefit and the need for public funding."

"This package does not address immediate needs for the Delta, which is particularly unfortunate if we continue to experience low rainfall in coming years," Merkley said. "And certainly the immediate needs of the state will not be addressed regardless of the outcome of coming water years, unless we move forward with a truly comprehensive package."

Merkley also echoed the concern for immediate impacts of drought to rural communities -- the fallowed fields and lost jobs.

"These are the issues that really need to be addressed, and the legislative package that you have before you does not do so," he said.

Thad Bettner, general manager of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, likewise drew attention to the lack of an infrastructure bond. Bettner spoke for the Northern California Water Association.

"A comprehensive solution is in all of our best interests," Bettner said. "We are depending on infrastructure that is better than 40 years old, and to simply try to re-operate a system with the flexibility that is needed for the environment as well as water supply will not function under this system."

Staff writer Wes Sander is based in Sacramento. E-mail: wsander@capitalpress.com.