Wyatt Buchanan and Marisa Lagos report that the California Legislator has passed an omnibus water bill designed to channel water from the places in the Northern, hippy infested, part of the state where God is generous, to the thirsty cotton farms of the San Joaquin Valley where God's people live.

Which might be a reasonable plan except for one little thing: Who is going to pay for all of this?

First there will be conservation:

— A 20 percent conservation mandate for urban areas, with credits for cities - such as San Francisco - that have made significant conservation efforts. Agricultural entities would have to follow best practices for water use.

And we will take on debt:

— A $11.1 billion bond to pay for the overhaul.

The bond was the center of much of the debate, with some lawmakers pushing for a revenue bond, which means it is repaid by fees of water customers. But instead lawmakers chose a general obligation bond, which means the debt would be repaid through the state's anemic general fund, which has seen a series of multibillion-dollar deficits since January 2007.

That prospect caused many more-liberal lawmakers to oppose it, as it could mean cuts to other areas such as education, parks and health care to pay the debt. The nonpartisan legislative analyst's office estimated that at the peak, repaying the bond could cost upward of $600 million per year.

Now maybe our friends in agriculture need the water. Wonks Anonymous needs a new, drought tolerant lawn and solar panels for his roof. Could we put that on a bond measure that everyone else gets to pay for?