Expert urges broad reforms in managing California's water
costing the state’s economy billions of dollars, the report says. Risks from droughts, floods, climate change, and declining habitat for fish are also rising over time.
“Today’s system of water management, developed in previous times for past conditions, is leading the state down a path of environmental and economic deterioration. We’re waiting for the next drought, flood, or lawsuit to bring catastrophe,” Hanak says.
To stave off such a catastrophe, the report says, California needs to revamp the way it manages water. Most notably, it should shift species protection from trying to safeguard individual species to restoring the health of broad ecosystems. That new approach could include strategies such as removing or setting back levees in some locations to promote seasonal flooding, strengthening regulations to reduce the discharge of contaminants into waterways, reworking the operations of some dams to facilitate fish passage, and changing federal and state laws to move conservation efforts to a broad, ecosystem-based approach.
Other recommendations include building a peripheral canal to ferry some Sierra runoff around the delta, increasing the “groundwater banking” of water in underground aquifers, increasing a water transfer market to allow water rights holders to sell access to water, and stepping up efforts to conserve water in urban areas. To pay for all the new approaches, the study’s authors suggest raising fees for water use and charging fees for dam removal and chemical releases, among other things.
“Some of these reforms will require changes in laws and institutions, while many build on existing efforts and can begin to be implemented now,” says Jay Lund, a study co-author and director of the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences. “California can’t afford not to take bold steps now. By the time a crisis strikes, the best solutions may be unavailable or far more costly, and political positions too entrenched to overcome,” Lund adds.
Pulling off such changes, though, is likely to be very challenging. In a statement issued today, Timothy Quinn, the executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies in Sacramento, says that there is “plenty to agree with” in the report. Notions of raising water-use fees and changing jurisdiction over groundwater, however, “are provocative and would be widely opposed by the water community,” Quinn says. He adds that other ideas, such as modifying the ESA and ramping up water transfers, would likely be supported by water agencies, but are likely to be controversial among other groups.
The study’s authors concede that numerous entrenched interests, such as farmers, utility companies, and landowners, have already proven reluctant to make less sweeping changes. “It’s not going to be easy,” Lund says. “It’s not going to be popular.” However, he adds, the current system is failing. “This is an approach that is not working. We need to take a longer view of it.”
