|
Areas of Compromise
Special committees met through 1957, 1958, and 1959, attempting to draft
a constitutional amendment that would satisfy everyone. That avenue
proved futile. What the legislators devised was a series of laws tied
to the main bill, called the Burns-Porter Act, after Senator Hugh Burns
of Fresno and Assemblyman Carley Porter of Compton, the two key legislative
leaders on water policy.
One of these laws, the Davis-Grunsky Act, assured northern counties
that water would be available for future projects and $130 million of
the $1.75 billion bond funding was earmarked for those projects. The
County of Origin and Watershed of Origin acts were reaffirmed in the
Burns-Porter Act and in SWP water supply contracts. Despite the affirmation
of their water rights, Northern Californians were concerned that these
contracts provided for additional water facilities if needed in the
future, opening the possibility of more water going south.
For southern parties, the Burns-Porter Act contained most of the guarantees
they sought, including contracts for firm water supplies that future
legislatures could not change, sufficient funds to pay for the facilities
to deliver water to Southern California, and funds to construct only
the facilities specified in the act and no others. The act included
additional facilities if needed though those remained vague.
Delta water users were placated by the Delta Protection Act of 1959,
which protected their water uses and promised them good water quality
for all purposes.
|
|
|
|
To reassure all parties that the project was achievable, two independent
consulting firms were hired to study the engineering and economic feasibility
of the project. Less than a month before the November election, Charles
T. Main, Inc. endorsed the engineering and Dillion, Read &Co. did
the same with the financing. However, because they believed future inflation
would limit the State's ability to complete the project's construction,
cost-cutting measures were suggested. DWR engineers began reviewing
the plans, scaling back the project, reducing certain facilities, and
eliminating others.
|
|
|