MORE WATER, LESS COST?

September 2007

California has faced a water problem almost since its inception: people seem to want to live, do business, and farm in places that are short of water. To cope with this situation, the state has developed a water infrastructure that moves water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the Colorado River to places where people live, work, and farm such as the Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley, and southern California. In an extremely important way, citizens of this state are intimately connected by these extensive water transport systems.

Now the state finds itself with a water system that is in crisis. The crisis stems from a number of sources: an extended drought with no end in sight, increasing population, an aging water infrastructure, and ongoing fights over who should get the water that is available.

Southern California has witnessed a constant focus on water issues with, most recently, the City of Long Beach declaring a water emergency and imposing measures to alter the way people in that city use water. This decision comes partly as the result of the current drought and partly as the result of a legal decision by a federal judge that could result in lower deliveries of Delta water to the southern part of the state. The judge’s decision was based on the perilous state of the Delta smelt which are protected by the Endangered Species Act.

To deal with this crisis, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has just proposed a $9 billion bond issue. If passed, the bond money would be used for the construction of at least three new dams in different parts of the state, as well as address the need for a “conveyance facility” to move water across the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The purpose of these new dams would be to increase the supply of water to water-poor parts of the state.

A network of environmental organizations around the state (including the LWVC) known as “Green California,” has made a counter proposal to State Senator Don Perata for an “appropriate water supply response package.” Green California’s proposal would get the state additional supplies of water at half the cost of the Governor’s proposal and require that the bond money be spent on improving water supply reliability (water recycling and water use efficiency), groundwater protection, water quality improvements including a focus on disadvantaged communities, Delta restoration and enhancement, and river and watershed restoration. Green California argues that its suggestions would cost about $4.525 billion, roughly half of what the Governor is proposing and without the construction of new dams.

Another water bond could appear on the ballot as early as February 2008. The League is a signatory to the Green California letter and will likely take a position on any water bond on the ballot. The League will disseminate information about water bond developments as that information becomes available.

John D. Sullivan, LWVC Water Consultant