SALEM — Like most water-supply legislation, House Bill 3369 makes for dry reading. However, the bill — which could eventually provide funding for Central Oregon water supply projects — has become entangled in drama and suspense.

Approved by the House 43-16 on Friday, the legislation sets up a system of loans and grants intended to help pay for, among other things, an underground water supply project in the Umatilla basin.

The money also could go to fund projects elsewhere, such as in Central Oregon. Such projects could include lining irrigation canals, or — as is contemplated in Umatilla — pumping river water underground for storage purposes.

Such a project has been proposed in Deschutes County, though it has not yet been approved by the state.

Rep. Bob Jenson, R-Pendleton, hailed the bill, noting it would require the state to set up a statewide water supply plan for the first time.

Currently, supporters say, Oregon is one of only a few states lacking such a plan.

Jenson said the bill also provides a model for regions such as Central Oregon, in how competing water interests can work together.

Rep. Jefferson Smith, D-Portland, who partnered with Jenson to craft the bill, agreed, saying that agricultural, municipal and environmental water interests are natural political enemies.

“They are mongooses and cobras,” he said.

But while the bill is supported by some competing interests, that support is not unanimous. For instance, the Oregon Water Resources Congress, which represents irrigation districts such as the Central Oregon Irrigation District, has opposed the bill as establishing onerous environmental regulations.

And there is another critic — the mysterious “Alice.”

About a week ago, Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s natural resources adviser, Mike Carrier, received a request that the governor veto the bill. The 10-page fax was sent from a Kinko’s in Portland, with a cover sheet signed only “Alice.”

The veto request, which said the bill would be too expensive, has set off a hunt to determine the identity of the letter-writer. Advocates of HB 3369 said the letter is well-written, sophisticated and clearly informed, meaning it was probably written by someone who has been tracking the bill. But no one named “Alice” fits that description, and all the groups opposing the bill, including the Oregon Water Resources Congress, deny having produced the letter.

Lobbyist John DiLorenzo, who represents Umatilla interests seeking passage of the bill, wants the Legislature to use its subpoena power to determine the identity of the letter-writer. It could do so by demanding access to the Kinko’s surveillance videos.

“I want to know who they are,” he said of the letter-writer.

The letter-writer is not accused of breaking any law, and anonymous speech is deemed by the courts to be protected by the First Amendment.

But Jenson and Smith agree with DiLorenzo that a subpoena is justified. That’s because the letter falsely indicated that groups supporting the bill are actually against it — a lobbying no-no, the lawmakers said.

Beyond the drama around the mysterious “Alice,” there is the suspense of whether the bill, if it passes the Senate, will be vetoed by Kulongoski.

John DeVoe, executive director of the group WaterWatch of Oregon, which supports the bill, said he believes Kulongoski does have concerns about the bill.

However, Carrier, the Kulongoski aide, declined to speculate on the likelihood of a veto.

“We haven’t taken a position on this bill,” he said, but added the public process around HB 3369 has been lacking.

Oftentimes, he said, a new draft of the bill was sprung on lawmakers just minutes before a vote, and no public testimony has been taken.

“It’s just unfortunate,” he said. “That’s not how things normally work. … Normally we have bills introduced early in the session that are worked and reworked (and receive) public testimony.”

He said he is now wading through the 59-page bill to add up its pros and cons.

“Anything is possible at this point with the bill,” he said. “First of all, we need to see if it passes, and then we need to take a hard look at it and give it a fair evaluation.”

The Senate met Saturday in an effort to ensure that the Legislature would adjourn by Tuesday. It is expected to vote on the bill Monday.