 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Cutting Red Tape to Transfer Water
Legislation that would smooth voluntary transfers of water supplies between the haves and the have nots took a baby step toward the governor's desk on March 18, when State Senator Jim Costa held hearings on a Model Water Transfers Act.
California has a long history of water transfers, and new types of transfers promise to figure prominently in today's search for a way to balance environmental, farm and urban demands on California's scarce supplies of freshwater. But the new legislation's purpose is primarily to overhaul, streamline and clarify existing transfer law.
"Water transfers are governed by at least four different statutes, enacted over the course of 30 or 40 years, with different standards from one statute to another, " says East Bay MUD lobbyist Randy Kanouse. "The Model Act would consolidate the standards into one clear set for short-term transfers and another for long-term transfers." Sponsors of the Act include the California Business Roundtable, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Farm Bureau and the California Manufacturers Association.
The Act would give end users, such as farmers, more power to transfer water. Under existing law only water right holders can transfer water. The Act also sets forth specific guidelines relating to water wheeling-the use of publicly owned water supply systems to transport water. According to Kanouse, the current rules for wheeling are too general. The most contentious issue relates to the fees that agencies may charge for the use of their systems.
Although there is widespread agreement about the need to clarify water transfer law, certain provisions of the Model Act worry some environmentalists and members of the agricultural community. The Act would expand the definition of a short-term transfer from one year to two years, and establish an expedited process for short-term transfers, including exempting them from CEQA environmental review.
The Farm Bureau's David Guy contends that these provisions encourage short-term transfers over long-term ones. However, Santos Gomez of the Pacific Institute's Water Transfers Project says that the Act's wording would allow a series of short-term transfers, although not to the same party consecutively. "You could essentially have a long-term transfer to two parties without CEQA review," he says.
The Act includes a provision that for every acre foot of transferred water a $5 security deposit must be made to the State Board, against which third parties injured by the expedited transfer could file claims. Gomez and others worry that this provision amounts to a cap on the compensation third parties could receive, and question the Act's underlying assumption that market processes are the best way to allocate the state's water supplies. "Should we let an agency's ability to pay for water be the only criteria, or should we consider other factors, such as need?" asks Gomez.
Kanouse and Guy both acknowledge that the Model Act represents only a first step toward new water transfer legislation. Any formal bill will be the result of extensive dialogue and negotiation among all the stakeholders. In addition, many of those close to the issue say that significant action on water transfers is unlikely until CALFED chooses its preferred alternative for the Bay-Delta. "Stakeholders all agree that a transfer bill should not disrupt the CALFED process," says Kanouse. In the meantime, Senator Costa has introduced a so-called "spot bill," a placeholder allowing him to introduce water transfer legislation later this session.
Contact: David Guy (916) 924-4037
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project