Environmentalists who had high hopes Gavin Newsom would lead the way to sustainable water use in the San Joaquin Valley are waking up to the knowledge that the new governor isn’t going to be any more effective than the old governor. Sustainability is just too big a lift.
Even before Newsom took office, the terms of the water debate were morphing from “sustainability” to “voluntary agreements.” Not long after, sustainability was being replaced by “resilience.”
For those who follow the course of water through the Valley, “voluntary” translates as, “We’ll continue doing what we’ve always done, only more,” because the “volunteers” in this case are mostly Valley water districts and county supervisors whose board members are farmers, those dependent on farmers, and those representing farmers.
“Resilience” has replaced sustainability because there’s no way to attain sustainable water use in the Valley without fallowing hundreds of thousands of acres of irrigated farmland and the major owners of that farmland are among the most powerful players in state and national politics.
In what amounts to a hostage situation, Big AG is responding to proposals for increased flows along Valley rivers by saying,
“Unless we get our water, cities and towns down here—including all those from Merced to Bakersfield and points between—are going belly up. That’s not just almonds and pistachios we’re talking about, it’s people, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of them, all dependent on AG money.”
Like the nation’s banks and giant corporations, Big AG is saying it’s too big to fail. Thus far, the only resistance to their argument is from environmentalists who point out that the destruction of fisheries, farmland in the San Joaquin Delta, rivers, ecosystems and endangered species is too big a price to pay for nuts, especially since nuts are mostly an export product anyway. The problem is that the financial spinoff from those nuts, what AG proponents call the “multiplier,” really is the biggest factor in a Valley economy far too dependent on its one major player.History usually offers the best lesson, and the history of water use in the Valley is especially instructive. After draining the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi, farmers reduced the San Joaquin River to vast stretches of summer sand, then took enough water from the Sacramento River to imperil the ecology of the San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay.
Today, under the direction of Secretary of Interior David Bernhardt, Westlands Water District and its partners in the southern part of the Valley are trying to secure rights to even more water from up north. Bernhardt, a former lobbyist for Westlands, appears to have become a far more effective promoter for Big Ag since his ascent to power in the Trump administration.
For a classic object lesson in how easy it is to dismiss sustainability as a viable tactic for water use in the Valley, just consider the one Valley aquifer that isn’t critically overdrafted. Located in the eastern foothills of Stanislaus County and including the Modesto, Eastern San Joaquin, Turlock and Delta-Mendota subbasins, the last aquifer is said to be especially productive because its “black sand” in the Mehrten Formation isn’t just especially permeable, it’s fed by three nearby reservoirs.
Once knowledge of these special and likely unique geological features got out, the rush to convert the rolling hills of what was once pasture and rangeland to nut orchards included not just local farmers but Bay Area investment giants like Trinitas Partners. Almost before anyone could blink, nearly 50,000 acres of trees had covered the ground, virtually every one dependent on groundwater.
Early on after Governor Brown signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in 2014, hopes ran high that the state would at last put a halt to the wanton depletion of groundwater reserves, especially in the Valley. Those who looked at the fine print were not encouraged; SGMA left management of groundwater to local authorities and offered a twenty-plus year window of compliance.
Given that every aquifer save one in the San Joaquin Valley was already critically overdrafted, SGMA’s twenty year period of grace seemed ludicrous to anyone familiar with the history of Valley agriculture, especially those who knew that farmers have routinely added irrigated acreage in the Valley during every drought on record.
Thus, when the state proposed increased flows along Valley rivers to protect endangered fish and fragile ecosystems, it was no surprise that farmers and their spokespeople responded with threats to pump even more groundwater. They knew SGMA had no teeth and knew also that even if it did, local authorities would never act against their own interest.
Even more revealing of the forces driving groundwater policy in the San Joaquin Valley are persistent attempts to sell water by the two districts closest to the last viable aquifer. Though thwarted by public outcry, Modesto Irrigation District proposed water sales to San Francisco several years ago. The Oakdale Irrigation District relies on water sales to buyers in the southern Valley to balance its books. Both districts prefer water sales outside the region to saving their aquifer with applications of local surface water.
And even though it’s almost certainly unique in that its combination of highly permeable sands and gravel are gravity-fed by seepage from New Melones, Woodward, and Modesto reservoirs, the Valley’s last viable aquifer is virtually certain to be critically overdrafted long before SGMA deadlines are met. Try as we might, nothing yet has been able to overcome the mathematical certainties dictated when outflows are greater than inflows—not even the Valley’s great aquifers.
I’ve been involved in the local SGMA meetings in Merced, and some farmers are having a tough time understanding we must live within our means. The CA Waterboard has the power to impose staggering fines starting next year against areas that don’t develop credible plans to preserve our aquifers. The following is a presentation I gave the three groups developing plans in Merced County.
California watersheds are a public resource, a concept CA courts have recognized since the 1880s when they ruled English common law and riparian rights have supremacy over appropriative rights. California legislation to regulate our aquifers that is equitable and sustainable builds on court decisions. We’re over drafting almost 200,000 acre feet of water, something like spending our inheritance with no concern for the kids and grandkids.
I attended the Tulare Farm Show about five years ago soon after the legislation passed, and the fellow from the Nebraska booth I spoke with was surprised California didn’t already regulate our aquifers like people do with the Ogallala Aquifer on the high plains. Another fellow who was critical of the legislation joined our conversation, and the Nebraskan asked why he’d want to pump as much water as possible and harm his neighbors, a question that should drive the development of our GSP.
There are four key issues we need to consider
Surface water vs aquifer
Surface water is the key to replenishing aquifers. Farmers under contracts with irrigation districts should be required to use surface water before pumping, absent extenuating circumstances. Pumps need meters and turned off when water allocations are used, absent extenuating circumstances. We cannot rely on fines exclusively to lower pumping. Some people will continue to pump no mater what the cost as we saw with some wealthy urban resident who believe they have the right to use all the water they can afford. I suppose they’d take issue with rationing during times of war, too. We need to meter pumps and have the authority to turn them off when allocations are met.
Fallow Land/Land Use
Our overdraft means we must fallow land. The fee structure that supports the groundwater sustainability could be used to pay famers to fallow land, fallowed land that could be part of their crop rotation program. Land use is interrelated to our efforts, and we need maintain historical pasture that many landowners are putting into irrigated farmland in areas east of the Santa Fe Blvd between Planada and Le Grand and Hwy 59 north of the country dump. We could use recent legislation and ballot measures to increase water storage to fund winter flooding of fallowed land that percolates into the aquifers.
Water trades
There are three principal aquifers with various streams that can flow in opposite directions. Water from our aquifers should never be traded outside our basins because the water will be lost forever. In addition, trading should be limited to adjacent or nearly adjacent properties. It makes no sense for Stevenson farmers to trade off their allocations to Planada farmers since the aquifers are distinct entities, and the additional pumping will further degrade the aquifer in eastern Merced County.
Keith: Very well said. Let me point out two hard truths: (1) The Ogallala is depleted. Regulation didn’t work. (2) Most everyone will have a credible plan. I’m betting fewer than 10% will be implemented. If it’s up to local authorities, none will implemented.
… and that’s just the beginning of our water, food, and real estate “sustainability” (eg. http://www.lomejorqueeldineronopuedecomprar.org ?)/security issues here in the Golden State in our new era of climate change and unknown and perhaps massive slr future?
My 2 recommendations run down from a critically overdrafted ground water basin here in Aptos?
1. run down @ http://www.thebestthatmoneycantbuy.com / http://www.sipodemos.democrat
2. run down @ ww.dougdeitch.info w/ Pilot Project @ http://www.dougdeitch.com
These two will take care of the vast majority of these water, food, and real estate resources for our 36 million people in the fifth biggest economy in the World w/a 8% Central Valley ag production on one percent of USA’s arable acreage?
… but how about the salmon?
“Faith, Dr. Crane!!!” … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSYuTFK8Eas
Best/health/tikkun olam,
Douglas Deitch
Monterey By Conservancy, 501c3 California Water Policy Thinktank
Aptos, Ca., 95003
ddeitch@pogonip.org
Why is it that I never hear of any plan to require the coastal areas (San Fransisco. LA and San Diego etc to begin desalinization projects. All increases of water shipments south should be halted and starting in 2024 the shipments south begin decreasing 5% a year. Desalinization is economically feasible and needs to be implemented. It is way past due. a group tried in the 1990s to start a plant in Carlsbad, but the city would not buy their water because it would not be in control. Now one plant is in operation, to my understanding, so why not require it all along the coast?
This might help.
https://www.wired.com/story/desalination-is-booming-as-cities-run-out-of-water/
Agriculture was the first major mistake humans made; which is a tough concept to swallow for all of us who rely on agriculture for our food. Discussions like this can always use a broader perspective so I offer up my favorite poem which was composed when I was a teenager.
Conservationist’s Lament
By Kenneth Boulding
In: Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, 1956
University of Chicago Press, p. 1087
The world is finite, resources are scarce,
Things are bad and will be worse.
Coal is burned and gas exploded,
Forests cut and soils eroded.
Wells are dry and air’s polluted,
Dust in blowing, trees uprooted,
Oil is going, ores depleted,
Drains receive what is excreted.
Land is sinking, seas are rising,
Man is far too enterprising,
Fire will rage with Man to fan it,
Soon we’ll have a plundered planet.
People breed like fertile rabbits,
People have disgusting habits.
Moral: The evolutionary plan went astray by evolving Man.
“Even more revealing of the forces driving groundwater policy in the San Joaquin Valley are persistent attempts to sell water by the two districts closest to the last viable aquifer. Though thwarted by public outcry, Modesto Irrigation District proposed water sales to San Francisco several years ago.”
Our community has acted very consistently is conserving our groundwater both in opposing the proposed/secret 2011 SF water sale and in fighting back on the recent SWRCB attempted water grab. How is our broad and loud public outcry (and turnover of the MID BOD) against the water sale evidence of anything otherwise?
How broad and loud is the outcry against water sales by the Oakdale Irrigation District? How broad and loud is the outcry against sending northern California water south? We’re listening.