To Little Fanfare, Lungren Wades Into Water Wars

SACRAMENTO —  Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren last week held a news conference to accuse Toys R Us and some toy makers of price fixing. He also gave a speech outlining his views on California’s most critical long-term problem--water. Guess which event was all but ignored by the news media? It wasn’t the toy show.

“Before I went to that press conference,” Lungren recalls, “I said to my people, ‘Do I really have to do this? I feel a little awkward standing up there with a pink Barbie dollhouse. Besides, who’s going to come to this thing?’

“So I go. There are seven TV cameras. It gets on TV in every major media market. It’s on CNN. There’s print as well. An AP photo.

“Two days later, I give a major address on what should concern everybody in California--the availability of water--because water is the oil of the next century. And I get one reporter from the [Long Beach] Press-Telegram to show up.”

Actually, the Riverside Press-Enterprise also ran a story on Lungren’s speech to the Assn. of California Water Agencies. Roughly 800 water buffs were there, hanging on every perceived nuance, listening for any code word from a man who could be the next governor. But reporters basically were a no-show.

In defense of my profession, Lungren’s speech did not break any new ground. He did not “make news.” And, let’s face it, absent a drought or flood, this subject is about as exciting as turning on a faucet and watching the water move. Only when the faucet spits air does it grab our attention. This water story lacked the compelling timeliness of toy prices during the holiday season.

Nevertheless, the episode illustrates the frustrating dilemma that confronts political candidates. Voters tell pollsters they want the candidates to address substance--explain how they’d solve real problems--and spare them the insulting drivel and negative ads. We in the news media constantly lecture office seekers to follow the “high road.” But when the candidates do talk about important, complex issues, we too often give it short shrift--and even when we don’t, the voters’ eyes glaze over.

*

What intrigued me about Lungren’s speech was that he gave it at all. Although many of us complain that recent governors have lacked the vision and courage to tackle California’s escalating water problems, the issue barely registers a blip on the voters’ radar.

Moreover, wading into the mucky water debate among tenacious, competing interests--farmers, environmentalists, urban users, north and south--risks alienating powerful political players and jeopardizing a gubernatorial race.

Conversely, however, it also gives the Republican an opportunity to shore up his agriculture base while messaging environmentalists that he’s no earth-scorcher. Most important, he signals to everybody that he cares about water and is committed to actually doing something.

This comes against a background scarcely noticed by the public:

* California must find an additional 3 million to 9 million acre-feet of water annually--depending on whether we’re in a rainy or drought cycle--to meet growth in the next 20 years.

* State and federal officials, working with private interests in something called the CalFed process, soon will propose a costly new plumbing upgrade for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, source of drinking water for 22 million people and crop irrigation for 5 million acres.

* California has been draining 5.2 million acre-feet from the Colorado River, but we’re only entitled to 4.4 million. We’re taking water that belongs to Arizona and Nevada, and they’re steamed.

*

In his speech, Lungren had something for everybody:

* Environmentalists--”We must stop the ecological degradation of the delta. . . . We need to restore and protect fish and wildlife.”

* Farmers--”While we’re about it, let us not forget preservation of the species Homo sapiens. . . . We need a vibrant agricultural economy.”

* Urban dwellers--”Cities and industry need high quality water and reliable, sufficient supplies.”

* All interested--”Water development in the future will probably not involve huge dams. . . . Instead [it] should primarily involve creating off-stream storage.”

* The water biz--”I support voluntary water transfers [one area selling to another] as long as historic water rights are protected. . . . There will be no more Owens Valleys!”

* Visionaries--”If I leave you with any message today, it is that I am absolutely committed to a new 30-year water plan for California.”

And: “I intend to make meeting our water challenge a major plank in my campaign. That’s how you generate a mandate.”

If water does indeed become a 1998 election issue, that will be news worth covering.