Irrigating California's future: to dam or not to dam?

Appeared in the Good Times newsweekly

4/23/07

The governor has proposed building two new dams to plan for California’s future. The major issue is how to plan for 10 million more Californians over the next quarter century—while confronting climate change.

Without a change in global warming trends, the Sierra snow pack will reduce by half in the next century—with 65% of Californians using the Sierra to supply their water. So the issue is not just how to plan for additional Californians, but how to do it with less water from existing sources.

We need to start with an emphasis on better management of existing water sources. For example, over a recent seven-year period UCSC’s water use increased by just 5%, while students housed on campus increased 28%.

In California, we can achieve major water savings through better landscape irrigation practices, greener plumbing systems, and more efficient toilets, among other strategies. Last year, my landscape irrigation conservation bill was signed into law, I am working on a toilet efficiency bill again this year, and a number of us are working on a green building package that covers residential, commercial and public sector construction.

The governor has a different approach. Citing climate change as the reason, he’s proposed two dams costing almost $4 billion. Interestingly, most legislators supporting his proposal didn’t support last year’s landmark global warming legislation—indicating a rather cynical use of global warming by legislators who’ve always supported dams.

There are environmental reasons why these dams might not be the best choice. For starters, between them the two dams will flood 21,000 acres including public recreation lands, grasslands, vernal pools and Native American historic sites.

Perhaps the biggest weaknesses of the proposal are economic and demographic. The state has never paid more than 3% of the cost, with the communities receiving the dam’s benefits instead footing most of the bill. The governor would have state taxpayers pay up to 62% of the proposed dams.

However, I don’t believe the governor is serious about his proposal. I think it is designed to show something is being done about water supply, and then blame the proposal’s defeat on the opposition. We need a practical and comprehensive look at our future water needs. Clearly, the governor’s proposal isn’t it.

Especially as we begin to deal with the emerging drought, we ought to take action statewide that results in water conservation—an immediately available and cheaper alternative to dams. Working together, the current drive toward greener policies and a culture of sustainability will get us there.