A chicken in every pot and a reservoir in every garage?

Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF

Columns in Monday’s Los Angeles Times (“Water, water everywhere, but not enough is saved”, George Skelton) and Sacramento Bee (California's water flow squandered, Dan Walters) clearly state that California needs more water storage to capture runoff from our all-too-infrequent storms. 

But neither author suggested who would, should or could pay for these investments. 

Without addressing economic reality, proposing new storage rings a bit hollow. It is reminiscent of Herbert Hoover’s supposed campaign slogan “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” (Sadly, one minute of internet research reveals that it was not quite what he said). 

The point is that water infrastructure is expensive. No city or water agency has offered to pay for even a share of the large projects that state planners have set forth as most promising in recent years (Sites Reservoir in Colusa County and Temperance Flat on the upper San Joaquin River). 

Most people do not realize that a fair amount of water storage has been developed over the last 20 years, albeit most of it is underground and less easily visible. In many parts of the state, the aquifers that we mined during the 20^th century are being managed in the 21^st century. Water is spread on porous soils in winter or in wet years and pumped during the summer or in dry years. 

Urban water agencies in Orange and Riverside County have made substantial investments in local groundwater, but the largest projects are in Kern County. Most of the water stored in Kern is to provide a reliable supply for the region’s vast almond, pistachio and pomegranate orchards. But some projects in Kern, such as the Semitropic Water District, are also used as water “banks” for urban agencies in the Bay Area and Southern California. 

For the most part, these groundwater projects have been developed with little government assistance. Groundwater storage is often limited in how fast water can be taken out or put back in, so it must operated “conjunctively” with surface projects. But even with these limitations, most water agencies have found it more cost effective to invest in groundwater than surface storage.

Dan Walters asserts that Sites Reservoir has not been built because advocates of  “high-density urban growth, rather than low-density suburbs, believe that restricting water supplies will help their cause” and do not “want Californians to have an abundant water supply for both agricultural and non-farm uses. ” He is right that there are such advocates – some are even opposed to conservation because it just frees up water for somebody to build a house down the street. But Walters does not indicate what regional interests are refraining from investing in Sites Reservoir due to the influence of such advocates. 

And George Skelton points out, “There hasn't been a major dam built in California since the federal government constructed New Melones east of Modesto 32 years ago.” There is a reason. After New Melones Reservoir was completed, all rivers in the Sierra Nevada had at least one major dam. Building a second major reservoir on a river would usually require going to a more remote site and producing less yield. It simply does not pencil out from a financial perspective, or at least has rarely done so in the eyes of any potential investors. 

So enjoy the show as the snow melts this spring and the rivers roar past. If you want to capture some of the flow, bring your wallet.