Water Warfare

The state Water Resources Control Board has prudently retreated from a flawed staff proposal that would have guided California’s most critical water-allocation decisions into the 21st Century. In doing so, the board has given itself six months in which to revise the plan so that it provides a sound technical basis for increased water needs of fish and wildlife while accommodating the conflicting demands of all other California interests.

Doing both things at once will be difficult. It will become impossible unless the board better substantiates the need for a proposed increase of water for fish life in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and provides a more equitable allocation of what is left over.

The release of the proposal has re-ignited the north-south water battle with special fury, demonstrating that the line between consensus on California water issues and trench warfare is a thin one. Southern California interests served by the Metropolitan Water District and the state Water Project claimed with justification that the new water plan punished them unfairly. Project customers would be limited to less than 800,000 acre-feet of water a year from the delta, compared with the original promise of more than 2 million acre-feet. One acre-foot provides for the residential use of two average families per year, or enough to irrigate a third of an acre of cotton.

Northern Californians were delighted by the idea of absolute limits on the south’s imports at less than current levels. Now that the board has agreed to drop its proposed limits, the north is claiming that the door is open to more giveaways of the north’s water. That is not necessarily so. The environmental health of the delta is vital to all of California. There are many ways of maintaining the delta’s integrity without such wrenching upheaval of the Southern California water system.

The controversy involves the board’s periodic review of water-quality standards for the delta--the estuary that produces about 40% of California’s irrigation, municipal and industrial water. In three phases stretching over several years, the board is expected to set new water-quality standards that will determine how much the state and federal water projects can pump from the delta.

The courts have given the board extraordinary powers to protect the environment, but also have admonished the agency to balance natural needs against other public interests. In its report, the staff dictated unprecedented conservation of water in Southern California, more even than in past droughts, without suggesting in detail just how that was to be achieved. The south’s sacrifice in part would benefit salt-sensitive bean crops on delta islands with little comparable conservation by farmers along the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. Upstream farm use would grow to more than 11 million acre-feet by the year 2010, compared with 4.1 million acre-feet for what it deemed to be “reasonable” urban use in all of Southern California. The report ignored a considerable body of opinion that agricultural water needs in fact will decline over the years.

The staff’s major aim was to provide more water in the delta to reverse the decline in salmon and striped-bass populations. The delta has been damaged, but the staff failed to provide technical data to support its conclusion that pumping was the primary cause. It vaguely said that “something must be done now, even if all the reasons for the decline are not known” and that “a safe level of exports is not known.”

The controversy has resurrected the give-no-quarter mode of the water debate. In opposing the staff plan, which it must, the Metropolitan Water District is being branded in the north as a greedy monolith. The fact is that MWD has made major advances in supplementing its water supplies in innovative ways without drawing on further water from the delta. While more can be done, Southern California has made considerable progress in saving water. As for delta protection, there already are limits on export pumping and a variety of laws to safeguard the environment.

The board’s credibility will be at stake during coming months. Even if it ultimately delivers a Solomon-like decision, the agency will suffer political attack and legal challenge. Critics will be able to demagogue the issue because it is so complicated and because water issues are decided by such a close-knit fraternity in California--mostly white males who are lawyers and engineers.

The California water world needs to be demystified, and now is the time. The outcome of these hearings over the next two years will affect every California citizen and community for decades. Gov. George Deukmejian and legislative leaders should consider appointing a committee of respected citizens--not water experts--to monitor the hearings. The group should represent the entire state, but be of workable size. It would report to the public from time to time as members best see fit. If nothing else, the committee might help to dispel the myths that always cloud such water battles. The war-weary water world could benefit from a little sunshine and common sense.