People mess aside, one bit of info struck a rather significant chord with me. I've long admired San Francisco and its Bay for the unmatched beauty that draws millions from around the globe. Yet in the middle of the glistening Bay sits Alcatraz, which, during its operation from 1934 to 1963, was a stark contrast to the blossoming life around it; the Rock not only housed the most dangerous and feared criminals of the time, but it served to discourage misfits from breaking the law: "Mess up and you'll be shipped to the Rock; we'll make an example of you."

With that in mind, I entered the dining area and the voice of a former inmate played scratchily over the rent-a-headphones given me as part of the self-guided tour. I was instructed to step to the nearest window and to look out. Through cold, hard metal I peered out the salt-stained glass and across the beautiful Bay: I watched the pure white sails breeze across the water and squinted my eyes as the sun descended slowly toward the Golden Gate Bridge. I finally understood the thinking behind making a prison out of an island in the middle of this gorgeous city.

"To see so much life and so much beauty -- only a mile or mile and a half away -- but not be able to get to it made you realize how much you were missing," the hollow voice of the former inmate explained.

-Gabe

*************************** ADVERTISEMENT *************************** YOUR AD HERE! Want to send a message to 1,700+ individuals each week? Place your ad here! This newsletter is not spam, so everyone who receives it has asked for it. For rates and other information on advertising, drop a message to ads@capenq.com. *********************************************************************

That was true when he said it in 1974, and it's true now. Most Californians live in cities, and they don't know where their water comes from. They turn on their tap and there it is -- hopefully. But they don't understand the vast networks of pumps, reservoirs and waterways that move the water from the Sierra snowmelt or the Colorado River to farms and towns. They don't know the intricate, Byzantine web of water law, state and federal, that governs the rights of farmers, water districts and governments, and determines just how much water will be available at any given time, and for whom.

But for nearly six years, a group known as CalFed -- a kind of consortium of state, federal and local hydrologists, water executives, environmentalists, consultants, gadflies and activists -- have held dozens of public hearings and spent perhaps $50 million to come up with a peace plan for California's interminable water wars. If there is any single consistent theme in California politics, it is the struggle over water, and CalFed was set up to resolve the differences.

CalFed hasn't done that -- at least not yet. But with all its thousands of pages of expert testimony, its array of hearings statewide and its attempt to find common ground among powerful, warring interests, CalFed has performed an invaluable public service. Even if its ultimate solutions please nobody -- and there are many in the water community who believe that is precisely what will happen -- CalFed will have, for the first time, placed California's water dilemma before the public in exhaustive, mind-numbing detail.

Next month, perhaps sooner, a long-awaited report from the consortium is expected to be released that will offer plans to balance the water needs of cities, farmers and environmentalists in a lengthy, detailed scheme.

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who has played a lead role in CalFed, wants the solution completed before he leaves office when President Clinton's term ends. The secretary reportedly views CalFed as the crowning achievement of his tenure, and he is pushing Calfed along as quickly as possible. California Gov. Gray Davis, a politician who craves consensus, also is pushing for a solution.

The fundamental dilemma facing CalFed is this: How can more water be made available while pleasing growers and cities, who want all they can get, and environmentalists, who want large amounts of water set aside to protect wildlife and habitats?

The problem is that the obvious way to obtain more water is to build more reservoirs to store it when it is available by capturing the spring runoff. Farmers and water districts generally like this idea. But environmentalists are adamantly opposed to reservoirs, saying they damage fragile ecosystems. Resolving this problem is at the core of the dispute.

The upcoming report is expected to propose improved conservation, better groundwater storage, changes in pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta east of San Francisco, and modest improvements to the century-old channels that carries water through the delta. The question remains, however, whether it will suggest reservoir construction. The expectation is that it will not include new reservoirs, called "surface storage" by water experts, as part of its plan.

And that means that agricultural users and cities will remain unhappy.

But at least, CalFed will have tried to find an answer. And that is certainly worth something.

--Dan Weintraub of the Orange County Register, who reported that the first evidence that California's open-primary law may actually be working can be found in two Orange County Assembly districts, the 67th and 72nd. Moderate Republicans in both districts won by "appealing across party lines to Democrats and independents," Weintraub reported. "Lawyer Tom Harman and homemaker Lynn Daucher won the Republican nominations in the 67th and 72nd Assembly districts, all but assuring their election bids in the heavily GOP areas this fall. The pair defeated more-conservative Republicans who were supported by party leaders and might have won the nominations if their fellow Republicans had been the only ones allowed to vote." (March 12)

--Michael Gardner of the Copely News Service in the San Diego Union, who reported that Gov. Gray Davis "has positioned himself to cash in on the publicity bonanza when the state sends refund checks to 1.7 million motorists who were forced to pay an illegal smog fee. Through lieutenants, Davis has ordered legislation authorizing the $665 million in refunds to be drafted so that the checks will be issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles rather than the state Controller's Office. By sidestepping the traditional process, Davis would prevent Controller Kathleen Connell from receiving any credit." (March 11)

--Greg Lucas in the San Francisco Chronicle, who reported that "just hours before California voters had their say on a campaign reform measure, Gov. Gray Davis was busy raking in campaign donations at a $25,000-a-head event attended by the nation's largest pharmaceutical companies." The measure, which would have immediately limited contributions to $5,000, failed by a wide margin. "These people are giving to him now because they have business before the Legislature and his administration. If donors didn't think their contributions were gaining them favorable treatment, they wouldn't donate," said Jim Knox, executive director of California Common Cause. (March 10)

--Ethan Rarick in the Contra Costa Times, who reported that "one of the Bay Area's biggest winners in Tuesday's election wasn't even on the ballot: Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown. Little more than a year after Brown stormed back to political prominence as the would-be savior of his city, voters handed the mayor a string of victories. They approved his plan to pack the school board with loyalists, passed an education bond issue he backed and handed almost all his candidates either outright wins or spots in run-offs. "We did very well," Brown said. "It wasn't 100 percent, but it was pretty close." (March 10)

--K. Connie Kang in the Los Angeles Times, who reported that a "significant percentage of Republican Asian Americans in Los Angeles and Orange counties crossed over and voted Democratic." She reported that the "the Asian Pacific American Legal Center's survey of 3,000 voters -- 1,200 of them Asian Americans -- in heavily Asian areas in the two counties showed that 45 percent of Asians identified themselves as Democrats in Tuesday's election, compared to 36 percent in the 1996 presidential election. Four years ago, 40 percent of Asian voters labeled themselves Republicans and 36 percent Democrats and 24 percent others." One reason for the switch: a backlash over the 1996 Democratic fund-raising scandal. (March 10)

"...California has some 162 Republican delegates, roughly 15 percent of the party's total." --Capitol Action Weekly 3.35

FYI: California GOP does have 162 delegates at stake tomorrow [last Tuesday]. But that's about 8% of the party total (2,065) and 15% of the number needed to nominate (1,033).

I've just been studying up for election night or otherwise I wouldn't have thought twice about it. Love the newsletter. Read it every week!

David Wright
Political Reporter
KRON-TV San Francisco