We return today to Prop. 1, the momentous state water bond, which bears not only on the drought but on our region's way of life, and the dying Delta.

I wrote in August that the bill, while far from perfect (Dams? Really?), is a big improvement over earlier versions. Co-authored by outstanding legislator Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis), a defender of the Delta, Prop. 1 includes Delta safeguards, money for Delta levees, and a voice for Delta residents going forward.

Also the bill largely severs connection to the twin tunnels proposal, though skeptics warn Prop. 1’s timing is too close to be coincidence.

So you might say, we could do worse; or we could do nothing; Prop. 1 is better than either.

What troubles me, however, is that two respected Delta advocates, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla of Restore the Delta and Bill Jennings of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, both Stocktonians, oppose Prop 1.

They voice multiple valid objections. It's so complicated.

Unfairly, perhaps, I’m going to boil their arguments down to one fundamental objection. I believe their profound view of state water at least deserves to be understood.

The state’s current system traces largely back to the Water Commission Act of 1914. The law recognizes two kinds of water rights: riparian and appropriative.

Riparian rights are water rights for people who own land adjacent to a river.

Appropriative rights (they could have come up with an easier word) are valid non-riparian water claims. These are based on the principle of “first in time, first in right.”

So if you got water rights in 1944, you’re ahead of the guy who got water rights in 1951.

The seniority system. A perfectly sound water management basis — or it would have been, had California completed its system with something called “adjudication.”

Adjudication, or water judging, starts with accounting. How much water is there? Only after accounting should a state award rights, deciding how much can be used and who gets priority during shortages.

"That is crucial to bringing the demand in line with the supply," said Jennings.

California failed to set up this part of the system: a historic mistake with dire consequences for the Delta.

According to Jennings, on an average year around 29 million “acre feet” of water flows annually into the Central Valley. Or it would, if not for dams and diversions.

But officials have handed out legal water rights to 153.2 million acre feet. The state has promised five times more “paper water” than exists.

The roots of this political and systemic failure are irrelevant. More to the point, major exporters such as Los Angeles’ Metropolitan Water District, the Kern Water Bank and the Westlands oppose reform, I suspect, because in a sane system they stand to receive less water.

But adjudication is doable. Idaho just did it. California could do it. The present system would then work, if not perfectly, at least freer of the politics that have emasculated regulators and skewed water policy.

Consider the future, too: ever-expanding population and climate change. Less water ahead.

It is this reality of natural limits — not the Delta smelt, environmental wackos, etc.— coupled with the state’s broken system, that is putting the hurt on farmers and other thirsty users. All clamor for water that doesn't exist. That has put the focus on supply. And not enough on reducing demand.

So there are two ways of looking at Prop 1.

First: Politics is the art of the possible; this is the best California can do; at least Delta representatives muscled their way into the smoke-filled room and softened impacts on the Delta.

Second: Prop 1 is duct tape on a broken system. We are failing to address, as our predecessors did, the root of California’s water problems.

Both may be true.

Contact columnist Michael Fitzgerald at (209) 546-8270 or michaelf@recordnet.com. Follow him at recordnet.com/fitzgeraldblog and on Twitter @Stocktonopolis.