WATER MANAGEMENT IN CALIFORNIA
 John A Nejedly

      The title of the article leaves the impression that there is water management in California.  The fact of the matter is that there is no long-term management plan in place or in prospect, and we are dealing with the singular most important resource without which our society and our economic system cannot function.

      The reason there is no long-term program in place is quickly perceived once given attention.  The critical element being that there is absolutely no thought given to the issue.  Planning is not a hot item politically and will draw attention only when the system has gone critical, when supply falls below irreducible minimums.  At that point, as we cannot increase supply over which we have little control.  There is no answer but criticism of previous administrations which are blamed for not preventing the inevitable catastrophe which the then current official will be required to manage.

      The reason we have no long-term program is quite simple.  Resource management in California is provided by regulatory agencies appointed by the Governor and, consequently, any program developed endures only so long as the incumbent remains in office and remains supportive of any adopted program.

      Despite this circumstance, when the State Water Resources Control Board on two occasions rose above the norm and created two long-term programs, the Board withdrew those “plans” upon order of the then Governor and the millions of dollars spent for staff and hearings was simply wasted.

      Should all these conditions be avoided and a plan initiated and programmed, the legislature can simply nullify the entire agenda by failing to provide the funds to implement it, or the judiciary can place it in abeyance until changing circumstances affecting the resource make the issue moot; for example, a plan responsive to environmental protection is no longer relevant if the condition to be protected may have disappeared.

      Management is power, and absence of control produces a political vacuum which politics cannot tolerate.

      The controlling water distributors, unregulated, have turned to regulating themselves.  The State and Federal agencies and their contractors engaged in the State and Federal water export projects by agreements among themselves have established water management for California.

      The end product of these circumstances has been the creation of an 85 percent monopoly sequestered to agriculture, and highest quality water utilized for farm crops, while domestic use is turned to treated sewage and all operations are managed solely for the interests of the water exporters and their contractors.

      Finally, proposed legislation to utilize public funds to engineer and promote a $3 billion water export enhancement project to secure more water for export via the yet unnamed new version of the peripheral canal and propose a 70 percent permanent monopoly of managed water for water export is not in the broad public interest.  These proposals for the future should clearly indicate how self management has simply fostered self interest.

      This, without drastic change, is the modus operandi for future water management in California.

      Resource management by those to be managed without any public participation in the decision process through which regulation is to be determined.  Administration by appointed representatives of both State and Federal export projects, with nearly ¾ of the manageable supply guaranteed to one industry agriculture, which in 1998 produced only 1.9% of the gross state product and now proposed by Federal legislation to be granted a State created monopoly of 70% of managed supply.  With no long range plan in place and ad hoc response to changing circumstances of resource availability, obviously a formula for chaos.