Water Transfers in the West Efficiency, Equity, and the Environment (1992) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
10 California's Central Valley: Fear and Loathing in Potential Water Markets
10 California's Central Valley: Fear and Loathing in Potential Water Markets
Pages 213-233
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 213... ...
Other reallocation schemes include court-ordered reductions in diversions by the city of Los Angeles from the Mono Basin and a major administrative reallocation that could result from a court-mandated review of water allocations in the Sacramento/San Toaquin delta. Virtually all segments of the California water industry concede that water transfers are a desirable way to reallocate water, and the state legislature has passed laws intended to facilitate such transfers.
|
From page 214... ...
as to quantity. Large blocks of appropriative rights are held by the Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources and allocated under contract to cooperatives of water users.
|
From page 215... ...
CALIFORNIA'S CENTRAL VALLEY Redding ~ , cn cat. 0 :D fib Sacramento ~ ~ I' San Franciscog Area of Detail American River American North Fork _ \ American Sout<~ork \ `:Stanislaus River \ ~ California _,$~ - San Josquin River Aqueduct `V I\, Delta g`~ 'a` ~7', Canal `~`'\_J: Friant-KeM '\ ' Canal A, San Luis `, '1 ' ~` Drain \ / / '\ `' ~KeM River Bakersfield _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ 2~ —F Los Angeles Hi I215 FIGURE 10.1 Main waterways and features, Central Valley of California.
|
From page 216... ...
The San Joaquin Valley overlies a substantial ground water resource, and ground water extractions account for about 20 percent of the valley's net water use. Overdrafting is a persistent problem, and the California Department of Water Resources (1987a)
|
From page 217... ...
annually. Surface waters are also imported to the San Joaquin Valley from the Sacramento basin by the State Water Project; this water is delivered to the western side of the San Joaquin Valley from the delta of the Sacramento and San Toaquin rivers via the California Aqueduct.
|
From page 218... ...
State Water Resources Control Board, a regulatory agency responsible for the administration of water rights and water quality programs. Because of the state's historical role as a primary provider, the regulatory role is less well developed than in other states.
|
From page 219... ...
Today, appropriative rights are licensed by filing with the State Water Resources Control Board, which then holds hearings and presents findings with respect to the availability of surplus water, the absence of injury to third parties with standing, and the "reasonableness" of the appropriation. The licensing process has been in effect only since 1914, and rights established prior to that date have not been recorded.
|
From page 220... ...
Thus appropriative rights to surface water tend to reside ultimately in the users of the water (Bain et al., 1966~. The appropriative right is not inherently tied to the land, and the site of use or point of diversion may be changed subject to the approval of the State Water Resources Control Board.
|
From page 221... ...
The permits for the Central Valley Project define the place of use as the entire service area of the CVP and allow the water to be used for many purposes (Kahrl, 1979~. Under the terms of the permit, one CNIP contractor can transfer water to another CNIP contractor within a service area without securing the approval of the State Water Resources Control Board to change the place of use, the purpose of use, or the point of diversion.
|
From page 222... ...
Several studies demonstrate that significant opportunities for profitable water transfers between the agricultural regions and urban areas exist. For example, Vaux and Howitt (1984)
|
From page 223... ...
Neither agency has ever attempted to promote and facilitate a broadly based system of water transfers or administrative reallocation. The State Water Resources Control Board, although possessing broad authority to restrict and reallocate both surface and ground water, has not exercised that authority in the way that state engineers in other western states have typically exercised it (Gray, 19894.
|
From page 224... ...
The California Department of Water Resources has not actively supported long-term transfers, perhaps out of concern about becoming embroiled in legal conflicts. And the major urban water agencies, which are potentially the largest buyers of agricultural water supplies, also have been quite cautious in their approach to transfers.
|
From page 225... ...
Areas of Origin Several impacts on areas of origin are illustrated in the case involving the Berrenda Mesa Water District and its parent institution, the Kern County Water Agency. The Berrenda Mesa Water District lies in Kern County in the southwestern region of the San Joaquin Valley, and it depends on the SWP for its entire water supply.
|
From page 226... ...
The district thus attempted to market the water released via the foreclosure and thus help to defray the fixed costs. The Kern County Water Agency and other state water contractors opposed the sale of Berrenda Mesa's water, arguing that they were entitled to any water that was surplus to the demands of an existing contractor.
|
From page 227... ...
The prospect of this chain of impacts raises fears of impoverishment and fears that traditional agricultural lifestyles may vanish. The Kern County Water Agency was in a unique position in regard to this latter type of concern because taxes that it had collected were used to defray about 15 percent of the costs of the water that Berrenda Mesa wished to sell.
|
From page 228... ...
Nevertheless, in many instances, local firms and communities would suffer both economic and social costs as a consequence of water transfers. A third issue raised by the Berrenda Mesa/Kern County Water Agency example relates to the lack of clear rules and procedures governing the transfer of water.
|
From page 229... ...
The fact that the implications of the public trust doctrine have not been fully elaborated by either the courts or the State Water Resources Control Board contributes to the uncertainty surrounding proposed water transfers. If transfers are to be facilitated, clear rules and procedures governing environmental impacts will need to be developed.
|
From page 230... ...
Although the legislature has passed a number of laws designed to facilitate water transfers and the Department of Water Resources, particularly in its recent creation of a droughtinduced water bank, has made efforts to implement those laws, legal and procedural uncertainties constrain transfers. Uncertainties with respect to possible third party effects are particularly significant, since it is unclear which third parties would have to be accommodated in connection with transfers.
|
From page 231... ...
Under California water law, riparian rights and pre-1914 appropriative rights are particularly difficult to transfer either because they are appurtenant to the land or because they have not been quantified. The apparent restrictions placed on transfers by the Bureau of Reclamation and the lack of clear policy governing external exchanges by SWP contractors also tend to restrict transfers of contract rights or entitlements outside or even within their respective project service areas.
|
From page 232... ...
1990. The transferability of water provided by the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project: A report to the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program.
|
From page 233... ...
Riverside: University of California Water Resources Center, Salinity/Drainage Task Force.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.