February 2010

Three months ago, at a highly publicized bill signing ceremony in Sacramento, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger left the distinct impression that California's long and often bitterly fought water wars were finally coming to an end. As the governor observed: "People have fought and fought and fought, Democrats against Republicans, businesses against labor, farmers against environmentalists, rural against urban, the north versus the south. And this is how it went on and on for decades. ... And so I'm very proud to say that we fought through those minefields."

By many accounts, the package of water bills that Schwarzenegger signed in November represents a grand compromise between competing stakeholders. Yet much remains both unresolved and undetermined. For starters: Will California's voters next fall approve the $11 billion bond measure that the governor says is crucial to the legislation's success? With the state drowning in red ink, it's far from certain. Nor is it clear that depleted Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta fisheries will really get the freshwater flows they need to restore them to health. And though none of the bills specifically calls for the construction of a peripheral canal—a contrivance long opposed by environmentalists—they do create a new state agency with the power to approve one.

In this month's cover story ("Duel Over the Delta"), writer Glen Martin examines these and other concerns by focusing on two lawyers who have spent their professional lives fighting over water. One represents the interests of the delta, which Martin describes as "a lush land of sloughs, canals, fisheries, and family farms." The other speaks for the Westlands Water District, an arid region 100 miles to the south that imports water from the delta to support much larger farming enterprises. Will the newly signed legislation bring their conflicts to an end? Martin, who worked for 20 years as an environmental reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, thinks not.

"The bottom line," he says, "is that even without factoring in global warming, there's not enough water in the system to satisfy all the stakeholders. So, the more money and power you have, the more water you're going to get. And these bills aren't going to change that."

Also in this issue we include our annual malpractice insurance survey ("Professional Liability Insurance Report"). The big change this year, of course, is that now uninsured lawyers must disclose their lack of malpractice coverage to any client for whom they provide more than four hours of service. When the State Bar initially proposed this idea, it met with a fair amount of resistance—especially from small firms and sole practitioners. One concern was that by making it easier to determine who does and doesn't carry insurance, the number of malpractice claims against attorneys would actually increase. Whether that happens remains to be seen. But one thing seems certain: With the rule in place, malpractice insurance companies stand to sell a lot more policies.