Policing a precious resource

Water disputes are a fact of life in California, and the recent drought has only increased the stakes in their outcomes. That’s why it is concerning that a Merced Democrat wants to change the resolution process.

In California, one agency administers water rules, plans and policy, while another issues permits and enforces water laws. Assemblyman Adam Gray, DMerced, says a perception of bias taints State Water Resources Control Board policing efforts and dissuades many from rightfully contesting fines or cease-anddesist orders. His remedy, AB313, would create a new entity to hear challenges to enforcement actions and then make recommendations to the state water board.

He doesn’t, however, offer any evidence of bias. “I hear from many in my community that they are not challenging actions because they believe it is a stacked deck,” he said.

Perception of bias is serious, as it undermines faith in government. Moving disputes to a separate judicial agency and adding a step to resolve disputes over taking someone else’s water or killing fish might reduce such a perception. But it will cause delays that harm, not protect, the resource.

Out of 2,560 complaints filed from 2012 to 2016, the state water board held five hearings of the 39 requested, upholding four complaints and dismissing one. Is the 4-to-1 record evidence of bias, as Gray contends? Or does it suggest the water board isn’t policing aggressively enough?

What we do know is that each year millions of gallons of water is unaccounted for in the state’s water system. The state launched efforts in 2014 to track water use, but confusion about how to report abounds, and compliance is rare. Better data, not a law that undermines how agencies resolve disputes, will help protect our most precious resource.