Laura Harnish is the California Regional Director.
Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

Environmental Defense Fund is delighted that the package of water policy reform bills has passed both houses of California’s legislature and will be sent to Governor Schwarzenegger for his signature. We believe this package provides a foundation that will guide environmental protection and sustainable water supply management for many years to come. And we expect that as a result, California’s farms and cities, as well as fisheries in the Bay Delta and Central Valley watershed, will be better off.

Most obviously the legislation establishes a framework for managing the Delta and the rivers that supply it with freshwater. It formally recognizes the importance of the Delta as an ecosystem while acknowledging its role in moving water from north to south. It empowers our Water Board to determine the inflows that are necessary to meet public trust requirements under California law. And the legislation establishes important oversight roles for both the legislature and a newly created Delta Stewardship Council to ensure that any changes to water infrastructure accommodate protection of the Delta and its fisheries.

It is important to realize that the legislation does not authorize a peripheral canal. It does assure, however, that a canal will only be built if important habitats are restored, water exports from the Delta are biologically sustainable, and the beneficiaries of those exports pay the full cost of construction, including environmental mitigation.

The legislation also takes important steps toward achieving our stated goal of reducing per capita water conservation in our cities 20% by 2020, thereby reducing the pressure to withdraw increasing amounts of water from the natural environment.

We are also pleased that the legislation includes provisions to identify and prevent illegal diversions of water, though we regret that the initial language was “watered down”. Similarly, we are pleased that the legislature has finally made progress in moving toward statewide management of groundwater (the source of up to 40% of our overall supply in the driest years), though there is still much work to be done in this area.

Our largest concern is that the legislature passed an 11 billion dollar bond measure along with the policy reform bills. It is important to note that the bond measure does not become effective but will be on the ballot as an initiative in 2010. At that time California’s voters will have the opportunity to decide if we can afford it given our fiscal problems and other competing needs. Moreover, California’s electorate will be asked whether it is good public policy to make these investments as a State or if at least some of the investment decisions should be made with local funds. If approved by the voters, the funds would be used to pay for a variety of environmental, water quality and water supply programs, potentially including controversial dams in the Central Valley. In its place we would have preferred a beneficiary pays fee structure to fund the Council and needed ecosystem restoration efforts in the Delta and left the big dams and water projects to be funded directly by the users.

It would be nice to celebrate – get a six-pack, stroll down the river bank and watch restoration magically take place. But of course the ultimate outcome of this far-reaching legislation will not be known for many years and will depend considerably on how well its provisions are implemented. All stakeholders, including those who opposed the legislation, will need to work together to ensure as it is adopted that our public resources will indeed be protected as intended. The environment that Californians care so deeply about and the legacy we want to leave for our children depend on it.

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.