Dispelling California's water myths
CALIFORNIA WATER MYTHS
Published 4:00 am, Monday, December 14, 2009
The sweeping package of laws designed to overhaul California's troubled water system demonstrates that the Legislature can address this urgent issue in a difficult fiscal and political environment. But it is only the first step toward more sustainable management of California's water.
The state still needs to find ways to pay for water infrastructure and critical improvements in aquatic habitat, whether or not voters approve the $11.4 billion bond that is part of the package. The bond is at best a partial solution: More local funding will be needed under any circumstances. If public policy discussions focus solely on the water bond, we'll miss an opportunity to build on the other reforms.
For example, the laws' new governance structure for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta lays the groundwork for sustainable management of this critical region, which is facing a multiyear drought and new environmental restrictions on its water exports. Many water users think - mistakenly - that a simple solution to these problems exists, whether it's gaining an exemption from the Endangered Species Act or building a peripheral canal to move water around the delta. But new governance is only a start. Necessary future actions include developing a strategy to improve habitat and to secure the proper water flows for imperiled native fish.
The package also requires per capita conservation targets for urban water users. For the average Californian, this would mean decreasing water use by 20 percent - or about 40 gallons a day - by 2020. Many have criticized the lack of similar mandates for agricultural water users, and public discussions often mistakenly point to farmers as water villains. But farmers have considerably improved their water use efficiency. There is usually less potential for agriculture to make more water available to others without letting land lie fallow. Statewide agricultural water use is decreasing, while urban use - with a growing population - is increasing.
Finally, the new laws take steps to improve the collection and reporting of water use and groundwater levels - essential for any modern water system. California lags well behind other Western states in managing groundwater, and the new requirement is overdue. So are requirements that agricultural water districts improve the measurement of farm water use and that state agencies update their enforcement systems. Going forward, California must collect more information from the field about how water is used, and that will require changes in the law.
Each of these legislative elements sparked significant political battles, which in the end weakened them considerably. Too often these battles are driven by persistent myths that, for instance, a single villain - farmers, wasteful Southern California homeowners, or the Endangered Species Act - is responsible for our water problems. Or that a silver-bullet solution exists that will fix everything.
Moving beyond myth to fact is crucial if we are to meet agricultural, environmental and urban demands for water, and respond to the challenges posed by climate change. We need to do more to monitor water use, enforce water rights, improve efficiency and protect vulnerable ecosystems.
To do so, we need to improve our ability to collect information from the field, analyze it critically and communicate it broadly. And we need strong leadership to overcome political partisanship and regional rivalries for the good of all Californians.