California as “hydraulic empire” – fact and fiction

1. California as “hydraulic empire” – fact and fiction • California has become world’s 9th largest economy, in part, because of opportunities afforded by water resources development. • Political & economic history shaped by water and its constraints(Hundley, 2002). • What’s the significance of California’s experience? • How have we managed water? • What have we learned? • Can we solve our current water policy challenges?

2. Evolution of California water policy • Pre-Spanish-exploration period (until 1770s): • Hunter-gatherer population – evidence suggests Native American tribes generally understood seasonality; relied on coastal resources. • “Symbiotic” relationship with nature (e.g., Gabrielino tribes). • Claims to water were forcibly taken after conquest; continued when California became a U.S. state (1850). • Today – numerous tribal suits against cities, utilities to force settlement of Indian water rights claims under “Winters Doctrine” (1908): • U.S. Supreme Court ruling stated: when the federal government established tribal reservations, it implicitly, set aside sufficient water for tribes.

3. City of Los Angeles agreed, in 1939, to provide, in perpetuity, 4350 acre/feet of water per year to three reservations - Bishop, Big Pine and Lone Pine Tribes. • Problem? City and tribes can’t agree over what lands in the valley should be considered “tribal” and, thus, eligible for water, and how water would be divided among tribes. • Water rights are central issue of negotiations between these tribes and the City of Los Angeles.

4. Spanish & Mexican traditions (1770s – 1848) • Conquest legacy – natural resources & native population expected to conform to royal custom/centralized authority: • Control of water left to monarchy/emperor and “agents of crown.” • “Rancho” tradition – large landholdings linked to towns, co-existing with the church, protected by the military. • Water viewed by Spanish as a “community right:” • Conflicts adjudicated in the interest of balancing all components on social life. • Prior community use took precedence over individual rights.

5. Original land-holdings (Ranchos) of Los Angeles region

6. Water management under Spanish-Mexican legal system • Rancho • Large estates: divert water for agriculture; self-regulating; controlled their own supply Water management • Presidio • -Military outpost • Enforce royal water laws & adjudicate conflict between ranchos, pueblos, missions; sought “accord” & harmony • Mission • Under Spanish: original settlements • Provided social control, early economic outposts; • Developed independent water/irrigation systems • Pueblo (town) • Merchants, traders (Latino & “Yankee”) • Granted rights by monarchy to regulate/use water for public supply; mills; livestock, orchards

7. Mission La Purisima Concepcion* – “zanja” or irrigation ditch for watering orchards and grain fields *Between Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo

8. U.S. era water of management in California (post-1848) • Statehood and economic transformation (1848 – 1900): • Hydraulic mining, agriculture, urbanization – frenzied development; adverse impact to rivers, hills; erosion & sedimentation in rivers, landscape alteration. • Demands for rationalizing policy – “California doctrine” (1886): • Riparianism applied where permanent settlement led to land title (e.g., large agriculture holdings in Central Valley, ranchos in S. California). • Prior appropriation where water was diverted before permanent land claims made (e.g., mining regions). • Led to gradual end to reckless water use; few, large monopolistic land holdings; urban water sovereignty.

9. U.S. era of water management (after 1900) • “Hydraulic empire” (1900s– 1960s): • Urban growth/intensive agriculture – large diversion projects; urban aqueducts –movement of water from north to south; flood control projects. • Combination of federal/state funding; local entrepreneurship. • Large dependence on “fixed” infrastructure to move and manage water – often important, but not a panacea.

10. Some examples of “fixed” water infrastructure • Water storage • Flood control • Water diversion

11. California’s “plumbing system” – an overview of water infrastructure Red = State Water Project. Yellow = Agriculture-related water projects; Central Valley, Tehama-Colusa, All-American Canal). Green = urban water projects; Los Angeles, Colorado River, Hetch Hetchy, East Bay Aqueducts.

12. A schematic of water diversion – California style

13. Lake Oroville – Feather River 3.5 million acre/feet of storage– key component of State Water Project

14. Lake Oroville (2008) – approx. 50% of capacity

15. Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta • Receives runoff from 40% of state’s land area & 50 % of its total stream-flow. • Heart of state’s N-S water-delivery system. • State and Federal contracts provide for export of up to 7.5 million acre-feet per year . • 83% of water used for agriculture; rest for urban uses in central and southern California. • More than 20 million people get drinking water from the Delta.

16. Sacramento River delta levee – near Isleton Portion of breeched levee on Sacramento River (1997)

17. Why flooding is a problem in the Delta Cross-sections through delta "islands" showing the pre-development natural levees and the post-development constructed levees. Image by USGS.

18. State water project - aqueduct -- N. California link providing water for 755,000 acres of farmland and public supply for 23 million. -- Efforts to move water from this and Colorado River aqueduct (and to treat water, statewide) uses 20% of state’s electrical power.

19. California Aqueduct and “E-side canal” – Near Bakersfield

20. Major water utility/irrigation districts in California

21. Water management under U.S. and California water law • Agriculture • Farms • Local irrigation districts • Divert/store/sell water for agriculture, other uses. Water management • State, federal • agencies • -Bureau of Reclamation/Corps of Engineers; EPA • CA DWR, CA EPA • Provide water supply; abate floods; provide navigation/ power; enforce water quality regulations & adjudicate markets. • Cities, urban utility districts • commerce, industry, residential use • Buy/sell water • Regulate transfers • Maintain infrastructure.

22. Myth vs. reality in California water management* *From: Myth vs. Reality in California Water Management (2009)

23. What have we learned? Some preliminary observations • May need to change our assumptions about growth and water use: • Does population/economic growth drive water demand? OR, does inexpensive, subsidized water spur population and growth of some activities? • Recognize that agriculture serves international needs and while using much water, also provides much benefit. • Recognize that, relatively speaking, cities use the water they have relatively efficiently. • Resist pressures to move more water from environmental in-stream flow needs to agriculture and cities – emphasize greater water-use efficiency and recycling. • We need to consider the importance of water in everything we do: it must become a “cost of doing business.”