5. Consider system overhaul
Some say the drought, by exposing problems with how California allocates water, represents the perfect opportunity to throw out the water rights system.
“It would make a lot more sense if we could just start from scratch,” said Richard Frank, director of the California Environmental Law and Policy Center at UC Davis. “I hope and expect that we could come up with a system that would bring far more reasonable water use.”
Frank is among several critics who say regulators have the power — and duty — to reshuffle the deck of water rights so that those serving the greatest good get priority.
With farmers and agricultural suppliers possessing the bulk of senior water rights, the system is benefiting a minority, Frank said. Meanwhile, it’s triggered restrictions not only for small communities like Mountain House but cutbacks — albeit less drastic — for water agencies serving big chunks of the population, such as the East Bay Municipal Utility District and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.
“At a time of unprecedented shortage, are you saying that growing alfalfa and rice is a higher or better use than serving urban customers up and down the state?” Frank asked.
Even Gov. Jerry Brown has suggested the system’s priorities may need to be re-examined if the drought continues. The administration, though, has conceded this is a last resort.
More than 100 years worth of investment hangs on the water rights system, and many have a lot to lose.
Take Bernie Dietz. The 75-year-old chemical engineer, who has dabbled in farming his entire life, sank his retirement into a plot of land outside Tracy instead of the stock market. Before buying his 85 acres and planting about $1 million worth of almond trees, he made sure the parcel was served by a water agency with senior rights.
“You’re a fool to make a capital investment in trees if you didn’t have a secure source of water,” Dietz said earlier this summer as the state began to ramp up cutbacks. “It’s sort of like when you’re buying a new house, you don’t want to be in an earthquake zone.”
Dietz, like countless others, made calculations based on existing water rights. Irrigation districts built canals. Cities constructed dams.
To limit investment losses, those in favor of overhauling the system suggest California use public funds to buy out water rights holders. Others recommend that the state phase out water rights slowly, to reduce the pain, or transition the rights to fixed terms.
Australia used a mix of methods to redo its hierarchy of water rights during a drought in the 2000s. Water experts caution, however, that California’s system is far more entrenched than Australia’s, and resistance would be much greater.
“There’s no chance we’ll throw out the water rights system,” Gleick said. “But I hope there’s a chance we’ll use the drought to improve it.”