California Passes Major Water Bill
What Does it Mean for Local Watersheds?
By Johanna Hoffman
California is taking major action on water. The product of hot debate, Governor Schwarzenegger's new $11.1 billion water bill is the most comprehensive state legislative action on water issues in decades. As the smoke clears, interested parties across the state are asking themselves what exactly this massive bill means for our local watersheds.
Proponents of the bill laud its emphasis on preservation and restoration. Two billion dollars is set aside for ecosystem restoration of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the State's floundering water hub. It will also fund recycling and groundwater cleanup in Southern California, finance watershed projects on the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers, and address local drought relief. Among other infrastructure endeavors, the bill also pushes forward with a dam removal project on Northern California's Klamath River.
However, the bill's detractors warn that these benefits are outweighed by downsides. Primary in their concerns is the bill's overly lenient attitude towards agriculture. Rather than adhering to concrete conservation goals, the bill allows agricultural interests to adopt vague general management plans. Furthermore, there are no provisions for any sort of monitoring to ensure adherence to such management plans. While urban residents will be mandated to reduce their water usage by 20%, those in the in the agricultural sector will be held largely unaccountable for their water practices. As 80% of the water used by humans in California is allocated to agriculture, it seems as if the bill has completely missed its mark.
Beyond these water use issues, the bill shows real potential to harm the Bay Area's ecosystem. This threat comes from provisions for a new, junior peripheral canal. While the bill does not specifically authorize or allocate funds for the canal's creation, it creates a seven member Delta Stewardship Council that could have the power to do so. With the dual goals of sustaining reliable water supplies and protecting the Delta environment, the people elected to this council could very well push canal construction through legislative processes.
Were that to happen, the consequences would be considerable. Large quantities of Delta water would be funneled south for agricultural and private purposes, diminishing remaining amounts of surface and groundwater dramatically. This change would negatively impact wild and farmed salmon populations, thus hurting already strained fisheries. The Delta's remaining wetland regions, which serve as important storm buffers and biodiversity hotbeds, would also be compromised.
While it's heartening that policy makers are finally taking steps to amend California's water policy, this new water bill may only make matters worse for our local watersheds. We, as a watershed community, must continue to work hard to advocate for the protection of our precious Bay Area ecosystems.
Editor's Note: In a previous version of this story, we reported that exporting water through a peripheral canal could further impact Delta island subsidence. This conclusion has not been widely supported by scientific studies, and we have retracted it. Our further research on the issue shows that while a new canal could feasibly contribute to problems for certain native species who use Sacramento waters for spawning grounds, it poses positive benefits for general Delta ecosystems. Creation of a by-pass canal would lessen the need for the Delta's current water system of canals and pumping stations. These systems have reversed natural water flows in many parts of the delta and have contributed to declines in water quality.
