There’s been another twist and turn in the saga surrounding water allocations in California’s Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. In case you are unfamiliar with the situation in California’s central valley, last year the state courts delivered the infamous “Delta-smelt decision” that restricted pumping in the Delta and resulted in a drastic reduction in the amount of water delivered from the delta to the rest of California—including the every-thirsty urban enclaves in the south and agricultural interests in the heart of the state. At the beginning of this year, the California Department of Water Resources attempted to readdress the issue by proposing the construction of a 35-mile tunnel, designed to route water under the Bay Delta and deliver it to customers in the south at a cost that some some estimate could be as high as $15 billion.
In response to concerns over costs and the environmental impact of such a large infrastructure project, and vociferous complaints from farmers who seen their water supplies disappear, the Obama administration stepped into the fray this week in an attempt to rectify the situation. According to the Los Angeles Times, the administration plans to dispatch experts from the National Academy of Sciences to the California to review the pumping restrictions. Additionally, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that six federal agencies had signed a memorandum of understanding to work together on delta issues.
The situation in California may seem unique, but the complex connection between drought, unchecked urban development, inefficient conveyance systems, and water-intensive agricultural interests can be found in areas throughout the US. When you add the difficulties inherent to the transfer of water over long distances (and often across city, county, or state borders), it’s clear that whether it’s California, Georgia, or the Mississippi Delta, the problem is the same: how to get water where its needed and while protecting the source.
So what do you think? Can water rights be designated and enforced? If so, should those rights be based on need or prior claim? And where do conservation and efficiency efforts fit in? Finally, is this a problem that can be solved locally or do we need to bring in the big (federal) guns?