Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

The $77 million proposal to sell 14,000 acre-feet of the Central Valley’s agricultural water to suburban San Bernardino County puts a new twist on the debate over water use in California.

Throughout 2009, the third consecutive dry year in California, there has been unprecedented media focus on the effects that legal rulings to protect endangered fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta have had on water exports to farming communities with junior water rights on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The debate has been loud. Advocates on either side have argued over just about everything. How much of the reduction in water deliveries has been due to drought compared to Endangered Species Act protections? What part of the chronic unemployment in the San Joaquin Valley should be attributed to fishery protection? How can we weigh the effects in valley farming communities against those in coastal fishing communities? How fair is California’s water rights system when farmers on one side of the valley pay less than $10 for an acre-foot of water while those on the other side are forced to pay up to $600 to keep trees alive. Amidst all the hoopla, we have heard little about the demand for water to support California’s growing population.

This particular proposed water transfer is problematic for us at the Environmental Defense Fund, since we often support marketing of water that is already extracted from the natural environment. But it is difficult to support the permanent conversion of farmland, especially if the water goes to a desert community where per capita water consumption is far in excess of statewide average. We do believe that allowing the sale of water between willing sellers and buyers leads to vastly improved productivity and thus decreases the demand to increase the extraction of water from our rivers. We would far prefer, however, that agriculture to urban transfers take place only in dry years and with limited fallowing, as is the case with the agreement between Palo Verde Irrigation District and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Or, better yet, transfers within agriculture that involve investments in irrigation efficiency and allow buyers and sellers alike to grow the same crop on the same land.

Removing Central Valley orchards to support suburban growth in southern California certainly muddies the waters of the “fish vs. farms” debate. It also reminds us that our population is growing, and we need places to live and water to drink. As we struggle to protect the public trust while supporting the business of water, we will need to improve efficiency in our cities and on our farms alike.