Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

Groundwater is one of the more contentious aspects of the water reform legislation currently under consideration in Sacramento. Some legislators have indicated that they would not sign the bill if it contains even modest language requiring that groundwater levels be monitored.

This makes no sense to us. Reasonable people may differ on how much groundwater should be pumped in any particular region under certain conditions. But to have no limits at all assures a “race to the bottom”, akin to two hungry kids, each with a straw, sharing a single milkshake. Moreover, where is the incentive for a landowner to replenish groundwater supplies in wet years, if neighbors can extract it with impunity?

As Legislative Analyst Catherine Freeman pointed out at yesterday’s hearing, California is the only state that does not monitor groundwater. The other 49 states understand that good water policy demands some public involvement in groundwater. Given the need to stretch limited supplies among California’s farms, families and fish, and that as much as 40% of statewide supply comes from groundwater in drought years, it is embarrassing that we have no statewide policy for managing groundwater. (Click here for a copy of the LAO's 2008 report on groundwater.)

In much of the State, the groundwater situation is not so dire. Urban districts throughout the State currently “bank” water underground with the Semitropic Water Storage District in Kern County. And landowners and local agencies throughout much of the urban southland have cleaned up groundwater supplies and are working together to manage aquifers sustainably.

But in some areas, groundwater is often described as the “wild west” – i.e. lawless.

The proposed legislation takes only baby steps. It does not regulate groundwater. It seeks only to monitor its use to enable better management and decision-making. To ensure realiable water supply in California, the groundwater element of the legislative package must be retained.