Protecting the Water Supply

Just to whisper the words “ground-water management” in the great farming valleys of California is tantamount to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. One of the untouchable traditions of this state has been that farmers can pump water from the aquifers that underlie their property without restriction. Every time legislators are confronted with the ground-water pumping crisis, and someone suggests the state impose some rational restrictions to protect the aquifers, the lawmakers run for cover, usually behind the skirts of the powerful farm lobbies.

There still is no sign that Sacramento is prepared to grapple with the problem of ground-water overdrafting, but California farmers will be forced to deal with the issue in the U.S. Congress. Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) has introduced a bill that would require states to adopt a modest ground-water protection program before receiving any additional federal reclamation funds. Since California is the giant of the 17 Western reclamation states, and has no general ground-water management law, it clearly is a major target of Miller, who wields considerable clout over reclamation matters as chairman of the water and power resources subcommittee of the House Interior Committee.

Farmers will complain about federal intrusion, but Congress should give careful consideration to this legislation. In fact, in California’s case, there is considerable historic rationale for Congress to pass such legislation.

Elsewhere in the West, the Reclamation Act of 1902 was designed to encourage farmers to settle in undeveloped areas. The surface water supplies created by the federal dams and reservoirs would sustain a relatively small farming operation. In California, however, the agriculture industry already was well developed on the basis of plentiful ground-water supplies.

The billions spent on reclamation projects in California generally went to supplement the ground-water supplies or to alleviate the problems of excessive pumping, which became technically difficult and ever more costly as the water table diminished.

Miller said his bill “is the best way to make sure that federal water construction dollars are not continually poured into states to correct ground-water problems--problems that should not, or would not, have occurred if ground-water programs had been in place.”

A few areas of the state have sophisticated ground-water management programs, primarily where communities had to compete for water from common aquifers. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has launched an ambitious program of conjunctive use of surface water supplies and aquifers with the idea of storing excess water in the underground basins in years of plenty and then drawing on them during drought periods. Both the state and MWD are negotiating to conduct such programs with the Kern County Water Agency.

Elsewhere, however, farmers pump, pump, pump--an estimated 2 million acre-feet of water more from aquifers than is replenished naturally each year, even with the additional federal water. The demand to import more federally subsidized water increases as the water table lowers and the energy required for pumping becomes more costly.

If it is truly interested in wise water management, the U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation will support Miller’s bill. After all, Interior insisted that Arizona stem its rampant overdrafting of underground water supplies as a condition for getting Colorado River water via the Central Arizona Project. Arizona now has the West’s model program for managing ground-water supplies. Every well is licensed and a tax is levied on pumping.

Whenever Arizona is mentioned, California farmers claim the situation is different on this side of the Colorado. But it is never quite clear why such a program will work in Arizona and not in California. When Miller holds hearings on his bill, the Californians will get a chance to make their case, if they can.