Watery Balancing Act

Governor Schwarzenegger has announced that he intends to work with the Legislature to postpone the $11 billion water bond until 2012. He explained the sudden change of heart with the declaration that "solving the deficit" will be his top priority this year. But if balanced financials and sound accounting are the measures by which we will ultimately grade this water bond, it is unlikely to pass the test regardless of when it is on a ballot.

Before investing billions of dollars in any project, it makes fiscal sense to do the research. Californians are being asked to invest in water projects to solve water shortages. We as taxpayers and water users should have the information we need to make a sound financial decision. Bond proponents should be able to answer basic questions, such as how much water is now used? When and where is water diverted for use, and by whom? How many diversions are illegal? Who benefits from taxpayer-funded water sources? The state has not provided such information because, for the most part, it simply doesn't exist.

In fact, California's State Water Resources Control Board, which is charged with issuing "rights" to use water, has no statewide reports on how much water is actually being used, where it is being diverted from, how much is being diverted, where it is being used, or how many diversions occur illegally.

In certain areas of Northern California, state legislation forced the Water Board to look more closely. There, the number of illegal water diversions from rivers and streams was found to be over 40% of the number of legal diversions. Though the Governor has approved additional water use enforcement staff, their numbers and authorities are still extremely limited. As a result, illegal water diversions continue almost unabated. Shouldn't this be a consideration in whether to spend billions more on new water sources?

Water accounting gets even more questionable when the little data that does exist on water rights is compared with the actual amount of water nature provides. The volume of water issued on paper in the Delta watershed, for example, exceeds the amount of actual water by a factor of up to eight times - and more when all types of water rights are considered.

If we went to a bank for credit with our checkbooks in this type of disarray, we wouldn't get past the junior loan officer.

Moreover, unlike other states, California has no statewide permit, enforcement or mandatory tracking system for groundwater use. We don't know what we have and how fast it is disappearing. We do know that in many areas, water is being withdrawn until the proverbial well literally runs dry. And not only do groundwater withdrawals deplete aquifers, they also draw down once-mighty rivers that are connected hydrologically to the underground supplies.

The latest victims of this head-in-the-riverbed approach to water management are the Scott River's coho salmon, which numbered 80,000 in 1930. Expansion of groundwater-fed agriculture in Northern California's Scott Valley sucked the connected river dry last year, leaving the salmon down to 81 adults jostling for puddles.

The state Constitution and the Water Code both sensibly mandate that California must prevent the "waste and unreasonable use" of water. However, application of these common-sense directives has been almost nonexistent. Instead, nineteenth-century "first in time, first in right" and "use it or lose it" conventions unsustainably force California's waterways to "flow uphill to money."

The proposed water bond is no exception. For example, a little-noticed provision would allow private corporations to own, operate and profit from reservoirs and other taxpayer-funded projects that would store and use the waters of California. Daylighting of this provision has resulted in an embarrassed legislative scramble to fix the giveaway of the state's water.

But the fact remains that this bond doesn't pencil out. Past water bonds were paid for by those who benefitted. The Water Supply Act of 2010 instead calls on the taxpayers at large to subsidize unknown beneficiaries for unclear reasons.

The Legislature may act in the next few days on the Governor's call for postponing the water bond. Contact your Assembly Member and Senator and let them know you value sound accounting of water use and taxpayer funds. Ask them to enforce our water laws and solve California's water challenges based on sound information. Contact the State Water Board and tell them to enforce the state's Constitutional mandate to ensure water is used reasonably and not wasted.

Read the fine print of the water bond. We collectively hold the waters of the state in trust for our children and the environment, and we have a responsibility to uphold that duty by demanding the details and the numbers. Insist to the Governor and his State Water Board that they must provide these facts to the people, so we can make the most informed decisions on the best investments to ensure a sustainable water future.

And finally, take a moment to support the Scott River salmon. They simply may not survive the time it takes for us to balance out our messy water accounts.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/lsheehan/detail??blogid=200&entry_id=66993#ixzz0sXXvirn7
 

Klamath Riverkeeper and LightHawk

Dry Scott River dampened by river-fed irrigation sprinklers, Sept. 2009.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/lsheehan/detail??blogid=200&entry_id=66993#ixzz0sXYT4L3u