Earlier this year, California’s Department of Water Resources released its Pre-Final Draft of California’s Water Plan Update 2009. While the California Water Plan itself has been around since 1957, this latest version is intended to be viewed as an all-encompassing framework designed to efficiently manage California’s water resources. The 2009 plan builds upon what was originally established in the 2005 version; the two major points of which were integrated regional water management and improved statewide water management systems. The former focused on enabling individual regions within the state to implement self-sufficient strategies, while the latter focused on infrastructure upgrades and improvements. The 2009 updates goes further, listing specific areas of action and focus, including:
* Acknowledgement that the Water Plan is a living document that needs to continue to evolve in future updates
* Improved data, analytical tools, and information management and exchange
* Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies
* Integrates information and recommendations from many state agency planning documents, particularly those represented on the Water Plan Steering Committee
* Integrated flood management
* Updated resource management strategies and regional reports
* Updated regional water balances to include eight years
* Consideration of uncertainty, risks, and resource sustainability into planning for the future
According to the Department of Water Resources, the 2009 update has “13 objectives that will help us achieve the Water Plan goals. Meeting these objectives, and planning and investing in their 110 related actions, will help California deal with a changing climate and other uncertainties and risks, and provide more adaptive and resilient ecosystems and more sustainable water and flood systems.”
One of the most talked about portions of this state water plan is the mandate for urban water conservation—20% by 2020 to be exact. But the vagueness of that mandate is raising eyebrows—specifically, the fact that the reduction is not based on total water used, that the regulation for reduction lacks viable enforcement methods (water districts that fail to meet the 20% goal risk eligibility for government grants and loans, but do not face fines or penalties), and the focus on urban water management without also including agriculture—which uses almost 80% of all water consumed in California.
So what do you think? Is this water plan another broad mandate with no real teeth? As critics have pointed out, regions measure water use in many different ways, and with no real baseline for usage that 20% reduction becomes meaningless. And what about failing to address the elephant in the room: California’s large water buffalos and agricultural users?