California Water Package

In November, California lawmakers approved—including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger—a series of bills that would vastly overhaul the state’s troubled waterways that is a major source of the state’s drinking water. The likes of these bills have not been seen in the state of California since the 1960s, nor has any new water infrastructure in years—even as the state’s population has increased. This water package was prompted by heavy demand on a rapidly growing population causing drought, harming fish industries, and fueling crop loss. In 2008, more than 100,000 acres were left unplanted in the Central Valley. Additionally, environmental problems in the Sacramento River have resulted in a collapse of the Chinook salmon population, closing salmon season off the coast of California and much of Oregon for two years in a row. Essentially, this plan calls for a comprehensive ecosystem restoration in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, a collection of channels, natural habitats and islands at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers that is a major source of the state’s drinking water. In addition the series of bills call for new dams, aggressive water conservation goals and monitoring of ground water levels, and paves the way for the creation of a canal that will move water from the north to the southern regions of the state. These bills include an $11.1 billion bond issue and the rest of the roughly $40 billion project will be paid by localities, largely through new user fees.

Many environmentalists believe that the bill’s penalties for misusing the water supply do not go far enough. In light, there have been some changes to the bill in terms of oversight of the ailing estuaries, checks and balances on future dams, and some mild penalties for failure to conserve water.

But how effective are these bills? Are these bills just a treatment, rather than a solution for the issues at hand?

These bills, while intentions are valiant, to me seem to not create a solution. I feel that creating a canal to collect water stretching from the north to the south as next to or even implausible as California is one of the most densely populated states. Not only will this mitigate water, which is already scarce, away from the water table, I feel that it could have negative effects on the already fragile Californian ecosystem. Already California has seen negative impacts on the environment from the reduced numbers of smelt and salmon to the loss and destruction of the delta and surrounding waterways. I think that one of the only proper ways to protect water is through water conscious land use planning. Water is essential to our survival therefore it should limit us in where we develop… If a water table cannot sustain a densely populated area should we be allowed to develop there? And if we do are we just going to divert water from other regions to meet our needs?