The holy grail of these concerned in California’s decades-long political and authorized battle over how the state’s water provide ought to be allotted has been some type of grasp settlement.
There have been numerous efforts at negotiating such a peace treaty and a few untimely declarations of success. Nonetheless, California’s water wars have continued with skirmishes within the water forms, within the Legislature, in Congress, within the courts and even within the White Home.
The water battle entails dozens of particular agricultural and municipal water companies and environmental teams, every with a selected stake within the consequence — recognized colloquially as “water buffaloes” — and their perpetual jousting is a profitable business for attorneys, lobbyists and public relations operatives.
Final week, Gov. Gavin Newsom turned the newest governor to say progress on settling the battle, saying a $2.6 billion settlement between the state and a few municipal and agricultural factions to cut back the quantity of water taken from the Sacramento and San Joaquin river programs in order that extra can stream naturally and thus enhance fish habitat.
“We don’t have to decide on between wholesome ecosystems or a wholesome economic system,” Newsom mentioned in a written assertion. “We will select a path that gives for each. This can be a significant, hard-earned step in the precise course.”
Maybe, however we’ve heard that declare earlier than. The “voluntary settlement,” because it’s dubbed, omits a few of the water recreation’s greatest gamers, not just some San Joaquin Valley agricultural water districts however the Metropolis and County of San Francisco, which is among the largest diverters of water by way of its Hetch Hetchy Dam.
It additionally lacks help from environmental teams, which argue it doesn’t go far sufficient to guard salmon and steelhead habitat within the rivers and within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, government director of Restore the Delta, mentioned “the voluntary settlement framework course of violates the authorized ideas of environmental justice inclusion and doesn't serve the general public belief, or the human proper to water. Governor Newsom continues to serve the pursuits of the highest 2% of agribusiness throughout California on the expense of Northern California tribes, Delta communities, business fishing pursuits, and communities in want of improved consuming water circumstances.”
Though it’s known as a “voluntary settlement,” it's scarcely that, because it was negotiated as a substitute for plans by the state Water Assets Management Board to mandate reductions in diversions from the rivers. These plans had been on maintain for a number of years whereas negotiations continued, however environmental teams would favor the necessary reductions, which might be bigger.
Underlying the method is a long-running battle over whether or not the state water board has the authorized authority to cut back diversions by agricultural and municipal water companies with senior water rights. Those who maintain the rights argue that they take priority whereas environmental activists contend that the state structure’s “public belief” doctrine on water provides the board adequate authorized energy to manage water flows.
With out a fuller settlement, the water board might proceed with necessary diversion reductions and that might in all probability set off a authorized showdown over how a lot authority it really has.
There’s one other main facet to the method as properly — its impact on long-standing plans to cut back direct diversions from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by constructing a tunnel beneath the Delta to hold Sacramento River water to the heads of the California Aqueduct and federal canals close to Tracy. Barrigan-Parrilla and different environmental activists see the brand new settlement as an effort to make the tunnel undertaking extra acceptable.
Peace treaty? Extra like a partial and maybe non permanent ceasefire.
Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.