Editorial: California water debate going nowhere
Publisher’s note: This editorial is from the Nov. 22, 2013, San Jose Mercury News.
California is having the wrong debate about the future of one of its most valuable assets, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, which produces water for much of the state and about half of Silicon Valley.
The battle for the better part of the last two years has been about how big a new conveyance system — probably tunnels — should be, how much it should cost, and who should foot the bill. The result has been a political fight of the worst kind, pitting Northern Californians against Southern Californians and agriculture interests against environmentalists in a battle royal. At its worst, this could be one of the biggest water grabs in state history. And for California, that’s saying something.
The focus instead should be the operating conditions for the Delta, particularly the amount of water that needs to flow through it annually to maintain the health of the estuary. Once that standard has been established, then everything else will fall into place for the two coequal goals of providing a more reliable water supply and protecting, restoring and improving the Delta ecosystem. Before deciding on tunnels, helicopters, whatever, state water officials need to determine how much water can be expected to be delivered. That will drive how it’s allocated and how it should be conveyed.
Why has the debate focused on the conveyance system instead of this basic question? Follow the money.
Starting with the upfront statement within that “the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta produces water for much of the state and about half of Silicon Valley”, the issue still mostly ignored in-the-“same ‘ol, same ‘ol” follow-the-money/power grab is that most of the water comes from the Upstream (the Sierra Nevada Range) without much in the way of compensation or even serious looks at the conservation/stewardship of mountain water sourcing.
Almost 65% of CA’s water comes from the mountains (except presumably the other half that Silicon Valley uses)- until that recognition fully takes place, I would agree that the water debate will go “nowhere”, as absent that consideration, the debate will not be real or over. . .
Lake Tahoe can & should play a part in those conversations, even noting that none of Tahoe’s water heads to California, only to Northern Nevada, but it is the recognition of the Upstream part that is the important one – as protection of the real sources is most important to any future, CA or NV. . .
Basic problem with “water” in California is 80% goes to Agriculture while Agriculture produces 5% of California’s GDP. Flood more rice fields anyone?
What once was 80% agriculture water use is reported to have dropped to 45-55% approx due to new methods of more efficient crop irrigation. The Delta and other eco-systems have been provided the savings from that agicultural efficeincy realization. The problem is a battel over water allocation for new agricultural start-ups competing with urban development expansion.
It’s gonna get really nasty , and as already pointed out – the money will talk.
I just home California’s environment isn’t compromised for the battle.
John. Those water use percentages are highly debated.