California must get control of water policy

Contra Costa Times Editorial

July 8, 2007

"WHAT LITTLE IS LEFT of California water policy is in disarray," declared Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-Santa Fe Springs, chairwoman of the water and power subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee. Her dismaying assessment, made Monday in Vallejo at a congressional hearing about the Delta, is right on target.

In April, a state court ruled that the State Water Project should be shut down until it gets a permit to comply with the state endangered species law. The ruling is on hold pending an appeal.

In May, a federal court ruled that the federal permit that is supposed to protect Delta smelt from water pumping was illegally lax. Next month, the federal court is expected to decide how to address that problem.

Federal regulations are not as strict as the state law. Also, federal agencies may have been basing decisions on intentionally flawed science.

In the meantime, the state water pumps were shut down for nine days, and the federal pumps were cut back. Pumping has resumed, but the smelt are still being killed and face possible extinction.

How much pumping and when will be determined not by state and federal water agencies, but by the courts.

That is hardly the way to operate the nation's largest water-transfer system and one that is essential to the economic well-being of California .

Clearly, the time is approaching when California needs to establish a sensible long-term water policy that guarantees dependable supplies of fresh water along with better environmental protection of the state's largest estuary.

Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, who spoke at the Vallejo hearing, offered a suggestion of what could be part of the water-supply solution, albeit a highly controversial idea.

He said, "Perhaps it is time to consider that not all water is equal in California . There is water that is used in large quantities that brings relative little economic return to the state." He pointed to cotton and alfalfa crops growing in the arid San Joaquin Valley .

Miller also suggested that water subsidy policies could be changed, or perhaps the federal government might not renew long-term water contracts from the Central Valley Project.

When farmers receive highly subsidized water and guaranteed low rates for many years, there is little incentive for conservation or to plant crops that do not require huge volumes of water.

Cutting back on agriculture could be the quickest and most cost-effective way out of the state's water problems, but it is likely to stir political controversy and litigation.

More conservation, especially in agriculture, can also help, but it will not be enough to meet all of the state's needs in the long run as the population increases by a half-million people a year.

The alternative to reducing agriculture to ensure adequate water supplies is to increase water storage above and below ground, and eventually to use desalination on a large scale. But all of these actions are costly and controversial.

In other words, there is no easy way to make sure Californians have enough water and a protected Delta environment in the future.

However difficult it may be to chart a course for the state's long-term water policy, it ought to be done by elected representatives and water agencies acting in the best interest of the public. It should not be left to the courts.

That means water agencies need to follow the law or legislative bodies need to change it in such a way that environmental protections are not ignored and water supplies are ensured.