Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF
What a difference a year makes.
In 2009, some farmers within Westlands Water District, having received only 10% of their maximum contractual entitlement for water from the federal Central Valley Project, were forced to pay $450 per acre-foot for the limited supplies that were available on the open market to keep their trees alive. That’s why it seems so surprising to us that now, just a year later, in 2010, as part of an exchange agreement with Metropolitan Water District, some Westlands farmers will be sending part of their supply to urban southern California expecting to get only 2/3 of it back in 2011.
An urban water district banking water for an agricultural district? That seems odd at first, since most banking programs, such as the one at Semitropic, involve agricultural districts storing water for urban districts. But Westlands has far less ability to store water than Metropolitan and, having largely depleted their aquifer, can no longer rely on groundwater to buffer limited surface deliveries in case next year is dry. Metropolitan will get a badly needed increase in supply this year in exchange for banking the water for Westlands. (Note that the term “banking” rather than “storing” is appropriate as the water that Metropolitan returns to Westlands next year will not physically be shipped from southern California back to the San Joaquin Valley. Rather, Metropolitan will simply forgo part of their State Water Project supply and “deliver” it to Westlands at San Luis Reservoir.)
There is another important factor that led to this perhaps unexpected business decision. Five months ago, the CVP’s initial allocation projected a delivery of 30% of Westlands’ maximum contract allocation, but guaranteed only 5% in case hydrology turned drier than expected. Because of wetter than usual weather this spring, the contract allocation was eventually raised to 45%. But farmers must make planting decisions early in the year, so they are often not able to effectively use water that is allocated late in the year. In past years, farmers may have been better able to plan their crops using the “expected” level of deliveries knowing they could make up the difference with groundwater if spring hydrology was uncooperative, but again groundwater levels (and quality) ain’t what they used to be.
Still, it is quite a contrast to last year, the third of a drought, when the conflict between water for agriculture and the natural environment reached perhaps an all time climax. Television crews ranging from Sean Hannity to 60 Minutes inundated the nation with images of fallowed fields and community protests. University economists published competing studies of the effects of limited water supplies on employment in chronically depressed communities. The endangered Delta smelt was blamed for most of the problems, tasking folks like us to explain that much more, including salmon and salmon fishermen, and the Delta itself, was at stake.
The fall of 2009 brought cooler heads along with the weather, helping to pass historic and comprehensive water management legislation. But as the winter of 2010 unfolded, the specter of another year of reduced exports caused Senator Dianne Feinstein to threaten to set aside Endangered Species Act protections for Delta smelt and salmon unless Westlands and others were guaranteed at least a 40% delivery level. Feinstein’s threat was taken seriously, sending water managers and even environmentalists scurrying around the State to find districts willing to sell water to thirsty Westlands.
But apparently this summer will find water leaving Westlands. A business decision to be sure, but business as unusual.
Subscribe via RSS