(Sacramento)-- It took long months of delicate negotiations - and the last-minute deletion of a project dear to the heart of the state's most powerful legislator - for California lawmakers to craft what could turn out to be one of the most pivotal water deals in state history.

Now comes the hard part:
 
The plan's proponents must convince a debt-weary, politician-leery electorate that it's a deal worth what could be a $25 billion-plus price tag by the time it's paid.
 
"We're done with part one," Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, DLos Angeles, said Wednesday. "Part two is we need to take the message out (of Sacramento) ... first and foremost we have to begin by educating voters about water."
 
Bass' remarks came a few hours after legislators had staggered through an all-night session that ended with bipartisan support for a five-bill package of reforms to California's antiquated water system.
 
The bills were sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who effusively praised them.
 
"This is without any doubt the most comprehensive water infrastructure package ... in the history of California," the governor said.
 
The package's pieces range from new ways of protecting the fragile ecosystem of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to keeping track of how much water is being pumped from California's underground sources.
 
They also include asking voters to approve - probably next November - an $11.1 billion bond measure that would pay for recycling, drought relief, water storage and wastewater treatment programs.
 
What the final package did not include was $10 million to help build a tolerance center in Sacramento. Construction of the center has long been championed by state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Steinberg acknowledged Tuesday he had included the provision in the bond bill.
 
But the earmark sparked a flap in both legislative houses just after midnight, when The Sacramento Bee's story on the plan was published on its Web site.
 
When it became clear the controversy was delaying approval of the bond measure in the Assembly, Steinberg agreed to drop the idea.
 
"I have worked my heart out to get this water package passed," he said, "and the last thing I would ever want to do is jeopardize this incredibly important work."
 
One of the legislators who had pushed for removal of the earmark said it might not have ultimately stopped legislative approval of the bond proposal, but would have become a great campaign weapon for the bond measure's foes.
 
"In the bigger picture, it's going to take away a distraction that wasn't going to help our institution," said Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, "and wasn't going to help the chances of this bond with voters."
 
Legislative leaders acknowledged that further improving the bond measure's chances with voters will take a Herculean effort on their part.
 
"We need to spend a tremendous amount of time doing the education to break down the historic mistrust and misperceptions that has been the fundamental reason it's taken half a century to make the advancements that we made," said Bass.
 
Steinberg noted voters surprised pundits and pollsters last November by approving a $10 billion bond proposal to build a high-speed rail system in the state.
 
"Voters had a forward vision and they said despite the difficult economic times that they wanted to point toward the future," he said, "and I think with the right campaign, the right education, the right message, that they will do the same again."
 
But opposition to the high-speed rail measure was scattered and under-financed.
 
When it comes to the water bond, a potentially formidable odd-fellows coalition could form, consisting of public employee unions, anti-tax groups, some environmental groups and some local water and sewage agencies.
 
All of those elements have found something to dislike in the water reform package.
 
The politically potent and financially well-heeled unions fear committing more of the state's parched financial resources to water will mean less money for its payroll, and contend individual water projects should be paid for by those who benefit directly from them.
 
In a letter sent to lawmakers Monday, the lobbyist for the 700,000-member Service Employees International Union California said it was unacceptable to cut education and social service programs to pay the debt that will be incurred by the water bonds.
 
"As yet, SEIU has seen no water system improvement financing plan that it would not oppose," wrote union lobbyist Allen Davenport.
 
Anti-tax groups fear the bonds will increase the state's debt too much; some local agencies contend the reforms provide benefits to those outside their boundaries while sticking their customers with the bills, and some environmental groups oppose elements of the plan that could lead to construction of dams and a canal through the Delta.
 
"The water package that passed in the dead of night epitomizes the dysfunction that has gripped our legislative process," said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director for Restore the Delta, in a statement. "The package lost any semblance of rational debate and turned into a pork festival."
 
Whether voters see it that way may depend on which aspect of the potential costs they choose to emphasize.
 
Jason Dickerson of the Legislative Analysts Office, estimated the annual principal and interest on the water bonds could range from $724.7 million to $809.3 million.
 
But Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said because the proposal requires no more than half of the bonds be sold before 2015, much of the state's current public works bond debts will be paid off before the water bonds begin to take effect.
 
"It's not going to take away money from any of our other priorities," he said.