Whiskey’s for what?

Received quite a few comments on last week’s column about using the winter high flows of streams and rivers for water storage and recharging depleted aquifers.

George Hollister, President of the Mendocino County Farm Bureau, said, “Jim Shields makes a good point regarding California’s inability to build new reservoirs, even though it is obvious we need them. The problem isn’t a lack of money, but ideology. Jared Huffman’s desire to remove Scott Dam is a good example of this California mindset, even though Huffman’s home county is now having to get water from Alameda County over the Richmond Bridge. Ideology, faith, and religion are more powerful than money. What doesn’t seem to make sense, in reality, doesn’t make sense.”

Bill Harper pointed out, “The problem is too many people. No amount of dam building, conservation or education can keep up. Even though Shields mentions it in his article he doesn’t make the connection.”

Both gentlemen raise convincing arguments, although Mr. Harper must have overlooked my observation on “too many people” and not enough water to meet their needs currently.

I wrote, “So we have the same water storage infrastructure (actually probably less) that we had 41 years ago, but almost twice as many people living here now. Think those additional 15.36 million people use much water?”

You see, what happens locally is truly part of a much larger picture. When it rains here in Mendocino County and other parts of NorCal, we’re not the only ones who depend on it.

To a large degree, how that water is used — or not used as in mandatory conservation regulations — is really not decided by us. Those decisions are made by others, in Sacramento, and even further away in Washington D.C.

Decisions to transfer “our water” south to where two-thirds of the state’s population live and work are not made here. The quantity and end-use of the water, once its transferred, is out of our hands. Just one example of what I’m talking about:

Southern California’s reservoirs, especially during periods of below average precipitation, operate on withdrawals outpacing inflows, notwithstanding the fact that the population is not shrinking, and commercial and residential development continues seemingly unchecked. Does anyone know whether any elected official or city planner down there ever asks a simple question, such as “Do we have a sustainable source of water to support our growth?” The answer is no and yes. No, they don’t have a sustainable source of water in Southern California.

Yes, they have a sustainable source of water as long as Northern California water supplies remain sufficient for export to the south. Just don’t think about the day when that abundant supply of water is not there.

Now you understand the politics of California water policy.

Another person who understood California water politics was Mark Twain, who wrote about his experiences during Gold Rush times.

As the great, great writer and humorist succinctly put it, “In California, whiskey’s for drinking, water’s for fighting.”

In more recent times, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) has also weighed in on California water politics, although with no where near the wit and conciseness of Twain.

I’ve summarized three key PPIC recommendations on ways to start solving California’s twocentury old water dilemma:

• Managing surface and groundwater storage in a more integrated

way—by capturing some water released from reservoirs to store in aquifers—can help California reach groundwater sustainability, increase

drought reserves, provide environmental benefits, and enable the state’s water system to adapt to earlier snowmelt by freeing up storage capacity for flood operations. Where feasible, local water managers and state and federal reservoir operators should take steps to integrate aquifer storage into reservoir operations. Proposition 1 funding should prioritize projects that integrate reservoir and aquifer water management and storage.

• Although efforts to increase aquifer and groundwater recharge have intensified since the 2012-17 Drought, there are still many barriers to taking full advantage of this important strategy. Obstacles include permitting challenges, infrastructure constraints, and a lack of incentive programs to encourage farmers to recharge shared aquifers. While the state has begun to look into barriers to recharge, a plan of action to resolve these issues is a high priority. Recharging basins with recycled water and urban storm water runoff is an especially valuable strategy in places where this water would otherwise flow into the ocean or cause flooding, and these efforts should be ramped up where feasible.

• As discussed in last week’s column, California’s dams are showing signs of age. Half are more than 50 years old, and all were designed for the climate of the past. Some improvements can be funded under Proposition 1, a 2014 voter-approved $7.5-billion water bond, but much more needs to be done. For the longer term, California will need to modernize dams where needed and rethink how to operate dams and other flood infrastructure in response to a changing climate.

These should all be priorities in the development of workable public policies for a natural resource that we can’t live without. Which is the most important priority of all.

Jim Shields is the Mendocino County Observer’s editor and publisher, observer@pacific.net, the long-time district manager of the Laytonville County Water District, and is also chairman of the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council. Listen to his radio program “This and That” every Saturday at noon on KPFN 105.1 FM, also streamed live: http://www.kpfn.org.