Transfers Can’t Be Waterproof

A small but growing number of Californians want to experiment with water trades. What they have in mind is that financially strapped farmers, for example, would lease or sell their excess water to cities in search of new supplies. But Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sepulveda) perceives a bottleneck in the process. While California possesses the nation’s most sophisticated network of canals, there is no assurance that the prospective seller could get his product to the would-be buyer. Water in such amounts could not be trucked down the freeway or even sent in railroad tank cars.

Thus Katz has sponsored Assembly Bill 2746 to require public agencies such as the California Department of Water Resources and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to transport third parties’ water if the agencies have unused capacity in their canals. The bill narrowly passed the Assembly in late May, and now faces a key hearing in the Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee today.

MWD and other water agencies have opposed the bill on the ground that they routinely transport water for others now and that they must retain ultimate control over the use of their facilities. It is a strong argument. After all, California water belongs to the people, and the public interest must prevail in determining its use. So far, water-agency recalcitrance has not halted any known proposed water sales. But the transfer problem might be inhibiting the prospects of water sellers and buyers getting together for a beneficial trade.

No one should believe that water trading is the answer to California’s water problems. But if the Katz bill helps create a legitimate test of the potential for water transfers, it should be tried, so long as the public interest is not abridged. Sellers and buyers must be content to make their deals knowing that the supply can be interrupted in the event of an emergency or a situation that threatens the legitimate delivery of a public agency’s water to its customers.