Jim Gogek

It’s long past the time for Californians to stop fighting about how the state should solve its water crisis. New reservoirs vs. conservation. Environment vs. cities. Industry vs. agriculture. North vs. South. Add to these battles a prolonged drought plus climate change plus antiquated water conveyance and storage plus court cases — and we’re creating a certain crisis. We need both new reservoirs AND conservation, we need to protect the environment AND capture more water, we need more water for North AND South…and a lot more.

So, instead of arguing over the deck chairs on the Titanic, Californians need to unify behind the Dianne/Arnold $9.3 billion water bond initiative and then move on to what needs to be done next to improve water supply and protect the environment, cities and ag.

It’s sad that so many Californians seem oblivious to the enormity of water supply issues in their own semi-arid state. I often hear simplistic statements about water from intelligent people. They usually begin, “Why don’t we just…?” I recently heard, “why we don’t just spend a couple billion on desalination?” Yes, desal may be part of the solution. But desal can’t possibly provide the amount of water our state needs. Also, desalinated water created on the coast cannot economically be used inland. Plus, desal uses a lot of energy. We don’t know enough about desal yet. The fact is, there’s no one solution; the only solution is a broad array of solutions.

Are there some flaws in the Arnold/Dianne water bond formula? Sure. In any piece of omnibus legislation or big bond initiative, you have to throw some coins to get people’s support. For example, what is money for the Salton Sea doing in there? Answer: molifying enviros and Imperial Valley ag. Will this big bond harm the environment? Yes, raising dams does. We can push for more underground storage, though expanded surface storage will be necessary. But the bond initiative also will benefit the environment through waterway habitat restoration, watershed restoration in fire areas, invasive species removal, coastal water quality improvement, etc. Overall, this is a good bond initiative for the environment — and  for cities and ag.

We’re facing a disaster here. The main conduit for water in California, the Bay-Delta, is held together by fragile earthen levees. One good earthquake and we’d all be drinking seawater. Meanwhile, global warming is inexorably diminishing the snow pack that feeds the Sacramento, San Joaquin and Colorado Rivers, where we get nearly all our water. We’ve got to capture more runoff as snow melts come earlier and more precipitation comes in rain.

And yet, Californians still can’t help themselves but to fight over water. We still have people saying “no dams!” Or, “we can’t afford a $9.3 billion water bond!” Can’t afford it? We can’t afford to not do it. Our water system is under threat, and we must begin fixing it now. Upgrading California’s complex water system will take a long time, and we’re already behind.

This isn’t only important for California. Remember that the Golden State is one of the biggest economies in the world, and that our farms are the breadbasket of the nation. If severe water shortages hurt the biggest state economy in the United States, everybody gets hurt.