Despite California voters approving billions in bonds for water projects, little has been done to water infrastructure to adapt to an increasing need for more water amid decades of drought in the state.
A proposed ballot initiative seeks to increase the annual water supply in California by 5 million acre-feet by investing in water storage, stormwater and wastewater reclamation and desalination.
For perspective, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), agriculture uses about 31 million acre-feet of water annually, and urban areas use about 8 million acre-feet per year. An additional 5 million acre-feet per year for farms and cities would increase the water supply by about 13 percent compared to current annual water use.
The Water Infrastructure Funding Act of 2022—which is now being circulated for signatures—allocates 2 percent of the general fund, or about $4 billion annually, toward water sustainability. An analysis by the LAO and the director of finance of the proposal states the total costs could be “several tens of billions of dollars for water projects, potentially totaling more than $100 billion, to develop 5 million acre-feet of additional annual water supply.” The exact cost would depend on the types of water supply and conservation projects selected.
According to the measure organizers, More Water Now, the proposal fully funds projects approved by the California Water Commission, which can begin delivery to consumers and agriculture within the next five years, and projects stipulated in Proposition 1.
Prop 1, approved by voters in 2014, provided $7.5 billion in seven categories, including $2.7 billion for water storage projects. The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC)—a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank—in a June blog post stated just over $150 million of the $2.7 billion has been spent. However, most funds have been earmarked for seven “qualifying” projects. According to the California Water Commission, the seven projects will increase water storage capacity by 2.77 million acre-feet. The projects were selected based on “the public benefits their projects will provide, such as flood control, ecosystem improvement, water quality improvement, emergency response and recreation.”
The initiative prohibits the Water Commission from utilizing or developing any “beneficial use rating” such as those used previously or transferring any responsibilities to another agency. The initiative also streamlines judicial review if water projects are challenged under the California Environmental Quality Act. The initiative would require contractors and subcontractors to pay workers “at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area.”
“This initiative was crafted with input from experts all over the state. The only opposition to the final language in this initiative is coming either from extreme environmentalists who oppose the very idea of abundant water or from special interests that profit from water scarcity,” More Water Now said in a statement. “Responsible Californians who put the interest of normal working families first are overwhelmingly in favor of this initiative.”
The initiative was endorsed in a letter by a bipartisan group of 27 state senators and members of the state Assembly.
“We support this initiative to improve our aging water infrastructure and to construct new means to capture and deliver water to all parts of our state,” the letter read. “The challenges of a growing population in conjunction with climate change and prolonged droughts have exposed the serious flaws within our water infrastructure. The funding allocated within this proposal will ensure the state achieves water resilience and adequately provide clean, safe, and affordable drinking water to all Californians.”
California Farm Bureau Director of Water Resources Danny Merkley reviewed the initiative prior to it being finalized and said it includes language protecting and honoring area of origin water rights.
Merkley said the Farm Bureau has taken “no position on the initiative.” Still, it may later if the Farm Bureau Water Committee makes a recommendation to the board of directors.
While California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) wrote about the initiative in the October edition of Hot Irons before the measure was finalized, Kirk Wilbur, CCA vice president of government affairs, told WLJ that CCA has not taken a position on the measure.
“With the initiative just recently cleared for circulation, CCA has not yet had the opportunity to have a full conversation with our membership regarding the Water Infrastructure Funding Act of 2022 and thus does not yet have a position on the initiative,” said Wilbur.
“CCA policy generally favors the addition and improvement of water storage and water transportation systems in the state, and CCA members have made clear that construction of water storage is of immediate concern and requires timely action, but until membership has had a chance to deliberate over this specific proposed initiative, it is premature for the association to take a position on the Water Infrastructure Funding Act of 2022.”
The Orange County Water District board of directors voted to adopt a resolution supporting the proposed initiative. Members of the Sierra Club sent a letter opposing the adoption, stating while there is “no doubt climate change and other threats require significant changes to water management,” the department should “funnel” its resources to conservation. Sierra Club also stated the initiative calls for “shortcutting and undermining regulatory oversight, which would be disastrous.”
In July, a PPIC Statewide Survey, Californians and the Environment, found that 26 percent of likely voters say water supply and drought are the most important environmental issues facing the state, up from 11 percent in 2020. A solid majority—69 percent of likely voters—say water supply is a big problem in their part of the state, regardless of their political affiliation or region—up 25 percent from 2020.
More Water Now has until the end of April 2022 to gather 997,139 valid signatures from registered California voters. Still, the organization is hoping to gather 1.5 million through volunteer and paid signature gatherers. — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
