150 Years of Water Mismanagement
How We Created Our Own Crisis – And What We Can Do About It
Shortly after California was admitted to the Union in 1850, residents turned their thinking to water. California’s landscapes were beautiful and fertile – but much of the land was semi-arid or arid.
Water was seasonally abundant in some areas. Several large rivers drained the state, shunting massive volumes of water from melting snowpack and rainfall in the Sierra Nevada, Cascade Range, Klamath/Trinity mountains, and coastal ranges to the sea. And in some years, California was slammed by the weather phenomena now known as “atmospheric rivers”. So much rain and snow would fall that vast portions of the state were inundated, including the Central Valley.
But precipitation was unpredictable, and there was no infrastructure for moving water from its sources to where it was most needed. So one of the top priorities of mid-19th century Euro-American settlers – an amalgam that included miners, speculators, farmers and ranchers – was developing and managing water.
Among the first major undertakings was levee construction in the vast delta of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers; projects that allowed irrigated agriculture in the region. And once hydraulic mining had played out following the Gold Rush, similar diversion and irrigation schemes were established along most major rivers draining the west slope of the Sierra.
The water was distributed through a system that was simple in concept if convoluted in practice: water rights claims. In essence, it was first come, first served. Farmers and ranchers who first settled along the state’s rivers claimed “senior” rights; this trumped priority access by latecomers, who were granted junior rights claims. Competing rights claims often led to conflict, but senior water rights claimants typically prevailed.
The power of senior rights claimants only grew with time. When California and U.S. agencies built the massive State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) – the systems that convey water from north state rivers to Southern California farms and cities – they secured agreements with senior rights holders guaranteeing generous allocations of water in exchange for their claims.
Today, those agreements still hold – meaning that a few hundred farmers in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley receive more water than the residents of Los Angeles and San Francisco combined.
Agribusiness accounts for 2 percent of California’s GDP but utilizes 80% of the state’s developed water. Moreover, much of that water is provided by the CVP and SWP to grow almonds, a luxury export crop. Millions of acres of irrigated almonds are grown on so-called “impaired” lands in the western San Joaquin valley. These croplands are heavily laced with selenium, a toxic element that is released into the valley’s rivers and the Delta during irrigation and post-harvest “flushing” to remove salt from the soil.
In short, a policy forged during the 19th and early 20th centuries continues to dictate water distribution today. This policy is predicated on a predominantly agricultural economy that no longer exists; it benefits a few powerful growers at the expense of millions of ratepayers and the environment.
The region that comprises California is now coping with its worst drought in 1,200 years. And this drought, it is clear, is a direct manifestation of climate change. All reliable computer models point to a future that is drier and hotter. Geophysical realities demand that we adjust our water policies accordingly.
But the power of the agribusiness lobby – rooted in the water rights doctrine first established 150 years ago – is so pervasive that even “progressive” governors such as Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown have been loath to challenge it; the emphasis on antiquated “solutions” such as dams, tunnels, impoundments, and aqueducts remains.
These approaches make no sense for Anthropocene California: we aren’t receiving enough precipitation to fill the reservoirs we have, and any new ones are likely to become “stranded assets” – exorbitantly expensive public works projects unable to fulfill their primary functions.
California is now at a tipping point. Sacramento has the means to solve the water crisis – under every likely climate scenario, there will be enough water to supply ratepayers and support a diverse economy. But it will require upending an entrenched power structure that has dominated the state since its founding.
That’s the real story of California water.
So what’s the solution? C-WIN recommends the following changes to state water policy:
Reduce Delta water exports to 3 million acre-feet per year.
Quantify all available water in the state as a prelude to reallocation.
Cut Delta exports by requiring the State Water Board to enforce the reduced Delta reliance mandate of the Delta Reform Act.
Enforce Fish and Game Code 5937, a statute that requires dam operators to maintain healthy fish populations above and below dams.
Shorten the groundwater sustainability target deadlines dictated by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Excessive lead times for sustainability achievement allow irrigators to maintain excessive pumping, permanently damaging aquifer structure.
Stop providing CVP irrigation water to impaired farmlands on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and the Tulare Basin.
Redirect Proposition 1 Water Bond funding from major surface storage projects to more practical and cost-effective groundwater alternatives.
Maintain water transfers within the 3 million acre-feet California Delta export limits.
Nullify the Monterey Amendments – a secret agreement between state regulators and major irrigators that allowed large farming interests to seize control of water supplies originally earmarked for cities.
Establish a statewide “oversight unit” within the State Water Resources Control Board and charge it with developing permanent supply enhancements and demand reductions.
Establish a California water efficiency education and publicity program similar to state-sponsored safety and health programs.
Facilitate movement away from water-intensive permanent crops in accordance with the “waste and unreasonable” water use doctrine established in California state law.
Rehabilitate healthy headwaters and meadowlands to enhance water supplies, protect salmon runs and reduce wildfire risks.