Those
of you following the Delta-smelt decision in California and the resulting water
shortages are aware of the contentious relationship between the northern and
southern parts of the state when it comes to the management of local water
resources. A recent panel
recommendation seems designed to stir up the drama by proposing that the state
begin construction of a canal to divert water from the Sacramento River as soon
as 2011.
The
panel is not alone in its recommendation.
Last month the governor’s cabinet-level panel came away with the same
recommendation in a draft report.
Those supporting the project point to the added benefits of flood control
and the rerouting of water away from the fragile delta habitat. But many in northern California aren’t
buying those rationalizations, insisting that the project amounts to nothing
more than blatant water grab by the South.
Add environmentalists and a majority of California voters (who rejected a
similar project in 1982) in the “con” column. And lest the issue end in a North/South
stand-off, Natural Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman has stated that the
committee behind the new canal project believes that legislative approval is not
required for the project — which also includes the restoration of 100,000 acres
of habitat in the delta, and the recommendation that more dams be built and
another panel created to determine how to govern the delta).
There
are similar controversies occurring throughout the country — from other areas in
the Southwest (Utah-Nevada come to mind) and even in the midwestern and southern
parts of the country. So what do you think? Does demand outstrip all other
considerations when it comes to water resource management? Do the “haves” owe the “have-nots?” Or does a water-rich community have a
right to determine how it will handle its supply?