On Water Buffaloes and Groundwater Management

After years of being the state’s forgotten water management stepchild, the need to improve California’s nation-trailing groundwater management is beginning to get the attention it deserves.  The latest development is the release of this report by the Association of California Water Agencies.  ACWA represents most of California’s water agencies, including agricultural water users who have long resisted stronger groundwater laws. 

There are some recommendations with which I disagree and places where I wish the report had gone farther.  But ACWA has made a strong case for improved groundwater management.  For example, the report includes the following statements:

 “Where there is insufficient water to meet the demand of overlying land-owners, those users are expected to reduce their demands correlatively to bring their groundwater extractions within the safe yield of the basin and prevent overdraft.” (p. 13)

“surface and groundwater are often interconnected from a hydrologic perspective.” (p. 14) 

“In many areas, the lack of a comprehensive approach to systematically managing data on California’s groundwater is a considerable challenge to sustainable development.  Due to inadequate funding, a comprehensive assessment of groundwater level trends in California’s groundwater basins has not been conducted since 1980.” (p. 17)

Some AB 3030 groundwater plans “have suffered from little or no implementation.” (p. 20)

The report calls for a “continued and intensified commitment to conservation and water use efficiency” to address groundwater issues.  (p. 25)

“The constant pressure of residential and commercial development can result in the loss of critical acreage that could be utilized to recharge groundwater basins…..Local agencies should be proactive in identifying and including in a sustainable groundwater management plan the most appropriate areas to serve as dedicated recharge or conjunctive use locations.” (p. 27)

“One example of an indirect approach to conjunctive use is promoting low-impact development (LID), a strategy increasingly used to improve the effectiveness of groundwater recharge and extraction options by minimizing the loss of recharge areas and requiring certain construction practices that increase or maintain the absorption capability of lands overlying groundwater basins.”  (p. 27)

While the water reform package of 2009 “includes much that will contribute to improved water management in California, it alone will not lead to sustainable groundwater management.”  (p. 28)

“Protecting groundwater quality should be considered as important as the development of sustainable groundwater supplies.” (p. 31)

“The state, working with appropriate local entities, should address groundwater-related drinking water quality issues in small or disadvantaged communities.” (p. 31)

These clear statements help set the stage for a productive discussion on groundwater management. 

Of course, not all disagreements are behind us on groundwater issues.  For example, the ACWA report opposes a state-administered groundwater management program, stating that locals “tend to be the first to notice changes or problems” (p. 19).  That may be true, but often, those problems are caused by local actions that some locals are not eager to change.  That’s why many others, from the Legislative Analyst’s Office  to the Public Policy Institute of California have called for a state-administered groundwater management program.  I also tend to believe that there is an important role for the state in ensuring improved groundwater management state-wide.  

The ACWA report also calls for state and federal taxpayer subsidies for surface storage projects.  The Sacramento Bee offered a pithy editorial recently offering a different perspective.  EDF has written about this issue as well.  Finally, I wish the report contained a discussion of the extent of the groundwater overdraft problem in parts of the state.  Such a discussion would have given the report a greater sense of urgency. 

Nevertheless, this report suggests the potential for finding significant common ground in improving groundwater management in the following areas: 

An Updated State Groundwater Plan and Improved Data Collection:  ACWA emphasizes the lack of comprehensive state data and analyses, suggesting the potential for agreement around the need to update Bulletin 118 – California’s Groundwater Plan.  As the ACWA report states, this 2003 document relied on data that is now more than a quarter century old.  Since then, many things have changed in California water policy, such as our improved understanding of the water supply – and groundwater - implications of climate change.  The state now has access to remote sending data, from NASA and other agencies.  The state’s new groundwater elevation monitoring program and its Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment program are both providing important new information.  Recently created and improved local groundwater programs could provide additional data as well, helping the state to characterize accurately the current problem, future trends, potential impacts and possible cost-effective solutions. Such an updated plan should also include a survey of California’s local groundwater management efforts to identify effective tools that would be appropriate for broader adoption. 

Strengthened Regional Groundwater Management:   There may not be agreement about the need for a state-administered groundwater program, but there is near-universal agreement that local and regional groundwater management can and should be improved.  I tend to support a stronger state role here, but ACWA appropriately concludes that if local water agencies wish to avoid a state-wide program, they must step up and provide more effective management.  State agencies, as well as local and regional water and land use agencies can and should collaborate on improved local groundwater efforts including such components as: 

• Mapping and managing critical groundwater recharge areas.  AB 359 (Huffman), which is currently pending in the legislature, would help address this need.
• Better coordinating local land use decisions and groundwater management.
• Expanding water efficiency programs, particularly in overdrafted areas.
• Expanding the use of Low Impact Development.
• Improving local data gathering.
• Improving the implementation of existing groundwater management plans.
• Better integration of groundwater quality and quantity. 
• Effective tools from existing local efforts that would be appropriate for broader adoption. 

Groundwater Quality Problems Facing Small and Disadvantaged Communities:  Some California communities, particularly small and disadvantaged communities in the Central Valley suffer from truly nightmarish drinking water contamination problems.  ACWA’s report acknowledges the importance of addressing those issues, which have for too long been overlooked by the state’s water leaders. Local ACWA member agencies could play a major role in helping to ensure that families in these California communities have access to safe drinking water.                                                                                            

The ACWA report represents a welcome call for action and provides some important common ground.  Those in the water world have long referred to California’s water establishment as “water buffaloes”.  ACWA certainly represents the largest herd in the state.  But this report contains signs that this herd might be moving in a new direction.