In the October 13th edition
HCN reviewed western ballot measures. This year there
apparently are only a few “environmental” measures on
western ballots and at least one of these – the
California initiative on “green measures” – is actually
anti-environmental. I don’t know about you but I find
this troubling. In a national election year in which
Democrats are expected to do exceptionally well in the
West, one would expect green groups to try moving their
agendas forward via the initiative process.
In my state of California, for
example, streams are going dry – or are already dry much
of the year – largely as a result of the fact that
groundwater is unregulated. That’s right folks, with the
exception of a few counties which have put in place
ordinances to forestall massive extraction of
groundwater for export – anyone can stick a straw into
the ground anywhere in the Golden State and pump as much
water as she wishes.
And there are plans afoot to do just
that. For example, irrigation districts and individual
farmers on the California side of the Upper Klamath
River Basin have used state drought assistance and Farm
Bill EQIP funding to sink wells deep into the aquifer.
Access to unregulated groundwater gives these farmers an
alternative irrigation source should surface supplies
once again be cut off as took place in 2001 when water
was temporarily reallocated for threatened and
endangered fish. But the farmers have also been selling
water to a Bureau of Reclamation water bank. In fact,
they have been selling so much groundwater that the US
Geological Service says the pumping is not sustainable.
Nevertheless these same irrigators plan to continue
selling groundwater. A proposed Water Deal
negotiated with agencies and some fishing and
environmental groups would rely on sale and purchase of
groundwater to provide for Klamath River flows during
drought years. Some fish advocates say that the
government purchasing water to meet fisheries needs is
unsustainable and a threat to the Public Trust Doctrine.
Others fear that these same farmers will someday sell
extracted groundwater to thirsty Southern California.
The environmental and economic harm
already associated with groundwater pumping in the
Golden State is large. Groundwater is often
interconnected with surface flow and groundwater pumping
is typically implicated in stream flow reduction and
stream dewatering. Dewatering and depleted stream flows
in turn are implicated in the loss of ecologically and
economically valuable salmon and other fisheries. And
while the current harm is very significant, the
potential for future harm if unregulated groundwater
pumping continues is huge.
So why hasn’t California’s powerful
environmental establishment sought to bring groundwater
pumping under government regulation via the initiative
process? It’s a good question and one for which I do not
have an answer. But I can speculate.
California’s environmental
establishment appears to have become more interested in
making deals with the purveyors of environmental harm
than in forcing those perpetrating the harm to cease the
destruction. For example, in the wine country north of
San Francisco stream flow is decreasing at an alarming
rate. Groundwater pumping is implicated along with
illegal surface diversions and the rapidly expanding
wine industry is known to be the main culprit. Yet the
environmental and fishing group Trout Unlimited recently
accepted over a million dollars in state funding to
“form partnerships” with the wine industry. Trout
Unlimited is unlikely to support limits on groundwater
pumping which would surely be seen as a threat to its
new wine industry partners.
Trout Unlimited is calling its
lucrative new partnership with the wine industry the
Water and Wine coalition. There is no word yet
whether any Christian groups plan to sign on.
In California the environmental
establishment has become much too cozy with the
purveyors of environmental destruction. Perhaps they are
not putting strong environmental measures on the ballot
as a result.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section
107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml