Water bills will increase costs to ratepayers

Due to the torrential rains earlier this year, California is enjoying a rare period with little drought. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, as of June 6, the last date posted, 71% of the state is not in a drought, compared to just 27% in March. This i

California water law is incredibly complex. But any changes ought to move toward more property rights, not fewer. Unfortunately, the Legislature is advancing three bills that would reduce property rights for water owners, increasing the costs to ratepayers. All three bills passed in their houses of origin on May 30.

Assembly Bill 1337 is by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-oakland. In the bill’s language, it would “expand the instances when the diversion or use of water is considered a trespass,” meaning the government itself would exert more control. It passed 45-20.

Assembly Bill 460 is by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-kahan, D-san Ramon. In the Assembly Floor Analysis, it would give the State Water Board “authority to issue an interim relief order to enforce the reasonable use doctrine, water rights, water quality standards, and other provisions of water law.” That would greatly increase the board’s power to take over water policy. It passed 43-20.

Senate Bill 389 is by state Sen. Ben Allen, D-redondo Beach. In the bill’s words, it would authorize the State Water Board “to investigate the diversion and use of water from a stream system to determine whether the diversion and use are based upon appropriation, riparian right, or other basis of right” and “to adopt regulations to implement these provisions.” It also would increase the board bureaucracy’s power over water policy. It passed 23-11.

“These bills obviously are going to increase the water bills of consumers,” Brett Barbre, the president of the Yorba Linda Water District, told us. He quoted a quip by Nobel economics laureate Milton Friedman: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand.”

“Anytime you get the government involved, that’s going to be more expensive,” Barbe added. “Abrogating those longheld water rights will be problematic. I think there will be litigation that probably would overturn that.”

He said these water rights in many cases go back to the 19th century and the entitlements are owned by public water agencies and private farmers.

Better policies during this time of water surplus, he said, would be building more infrastructure, especially storage. Under current conditions, “Most of the snow that’s up in the Sierra Nevadas is going to go under the Golden Gate Bridge.”

As messy as the state’s water laws are, they largely protect property rights, preserve local control through elected water districts and are better than increasing the power of the state water bureaucracy.

We urge the Senate to reject AB 1337 and AB 460; and the Assembly to reject SB 398. Or if the bills pass in a second house of the Legislature, Gov. Gavin Newsom should veto them.