In the midst of the water crisis, Westlands water deal needs to be looked at

From the Los Angeles Times, this editorial:

Few people would dispute that the state faces a water crisis: in the short term because of drought and court-ordered cutbacks in pumping from the California Delta; and in the long term because population growth is outstripping the supply and potential disruptions caused by global warming. So why are federal officials giving more than a moment’s attention to a proposal to practically give away enough water to meet the annual household needs of 2 million families to a few hundred big farmers in the San Joaquin Valley for 60 years or more?

So far, there has been no adequate answer to that question, or even a rational discussion of this proposal. The deal is indicative, however, of the hydra-headed water system in California that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the state to draft long-term water policy that will sustain agriculture, meet the demands of urban and suburban growth and protect the environment.

The article focuses on the Westlands Water District, which has about 200,000 acres of farmland with intractable selenium and salt problems, which require a costly drainage solution to solve – if the drainage problem can be solved at all. Regarding the potential deal with the government to settle a lawsuit arising from these drainage issues:

Today, the Central Valley Project is under court order to fix the problem. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation chose a costly plan in March that, among other things, would have taken about 150,000 acres out of crop production. Westlands then proposed to take on the disposition of the polluted water if the Central Valley Project gave it, well, the world: forgiveness of nearly $500 million in construction costs and a 60-year water contract (one critic of the plan assumed the price would be $100 an acre-foot or less; urban water now runs $400 to $500 an acre-foot). What’s at stake is about 1 million acre-feet — one acre-foot would serve the annual household needs of two families. Imagine the value of that water 40 or 50 years from now.

The “solutions” being debated are stopgap measures that would take years to implement. One idea that would work in the short term would be for the feds to buy up the 200,000 acres, retire the land from farming and sell the water to urban areas at a reasonable price.

The greater problem is that the state’s system of water rights makes it difficult or impossible for the governor and Legislature to provide a real, long-range solution to California’s water problems: the need for an orderly and systematic shift of supplies from the farms to the cities. We need to extensively overhaul this complex rights structure to meet the 1928 constitutional mandate that water be put to reasonable and beneficial use to the “greatest extent. . . . In the interest of the people and the public welfare.”

It is, after all, the people’s water.

To read the full text of this editorial from the Los Angeles Times, click here.

Comments

Admin

• Log in

Credits

Powered by Vertigo & WordPress
WordPress Themes by Brian Gardner