I have pointed out several times that the only major western states that do not monitor groundwater conditions are California and Texas. (While this may seem an odd pair, they share a common culture of "don't ask don't tell" with respect to the exercise of property rights.)
Unfortunately, underground aquifers are shared by many people, so the lack of data and controls on withdrawals means that neighbors practice a race to the bottom -- pump or be pumped -- that leaves everyone worse off.
Ok, but what about the other states? How do they "cope" with the burdens of reporting and the constraints on property rights?
Pretty well, it turns out, in at least one case.
A few months ago, I heard a presentation by Professor Sophocleous of Kansas State University Kansas Geological Survey and the University of Kansas. He has many papers that will interest groundwater hydrologists, ecologists, and conjunctive use engineers. For example:
This paper presents a synthesis of water sustainability issues from the hydrologic perspective. It shows that safe yield is a flawed concept and that sustainability is an idea that is broadly used but perhaps not well understood. In general, the sustainable yield of an aquifer must be considerably less than recharge if adequate amounts of water are to be available to sustain both the quantity and quality of streams, springs, wetlands, and ground-water-dependent ecosystems.This science would underlie any system for allocating water via markets.
[snip]
Examples of water-resources management from Kansas illustrate some of these concepts in a real-world setting. Some of the hallmarks of Kansas water management are the formation of local ground-water management districts, the adoption of minimum streamflow standards, the use of modified safe-yield policies in some districts, the implementation of integrated resource planning by the City of Wichita, and the subbasin water-resources management program in potential problem areas. These are all appropriate steps toward sustainable development. The Kansas examples show that local decision-making is the best way to fully account for local variability in water management.
I asked Sophocleous how the Kansas system of monitoring withdrawals (all wells are metered) and groundwater levels (there is a grid of sensors covering the state). Everything works just fine, he said. (It's so boring when the system works. We can end the water "crisis" by replacing our dysfunctional system with one that works in lots of other places. Maybe Kansans can teach Californians something!)
Bottom Line: California (and Texas!) need to measure and manage groundwater (source of 30-40% of TOTAL water use) before it's depleted (and we migrate to Kansas).
8 comments:
In 2003, Michigan instituted a law that monitored groundwater levels throughout the state from private wells (small wells at the time of their installation and large wells every few years). These data were very useful in formulating the eventual water permitting standards the state passed in 2008, based on groundwater hydrology and surface water hydrology & ecology (the law is written to protect characteristic fish populations from adverse resource impacts).
For more info check out the Great Lakes Law blog:
http://www.glelc.org/blog/2008/07/michigans-innovative-new-water-withdrawal-law.html
Why don't Texas and California have some state level system of monitoring groundwater usage (let alone a system for regulating over-withdrawal)? I can't speak for Texas, but the history in California is pretty clear. Every legislative or initiative by the people (Prop 13 in 1982) attempt to do either has been fought tooth and nail (and big $$) by the agricultural industry. Until we clean up the politics, Ag will continue to wield an indue influence over water policy in California.
The distinctive feature of Cal. and Tx. regulation of groundwater is that all management is local (on the groundwater basin scale - approximately at least). David - haven't you been a strong proponent of local, rather than centralized, management of resources? This is not to say that groundwater is effectively managed at the local level in either state - clearly that varies from basin to basin. My point is simply that to characterize those two states as having no regulation of groundwater is incorrect. They just have very little, or no, state-level management of groundwater. As examples I would point to the Edwards Aquifer Authority in the San Antonio region where a strict system of groundwater rights was instituted several years ago (under threat of lawsuit over endangered species threats) to manage pumping. Most of Texas, however, only manages well drilling by permit systems, but maintains no data on pumping. In Cal. several groundwater basins in the LA area are pretty well managed to ensure availability of water for municipal purposes (not necessarily for safe yield, but still to maintain water levels). I'm not well versed in all forms of management employed in Cal. but there are some good books on the topic.
CJ – The problem with so-called local management of groundwater is two-fold (if not more). First, groundwater aquifers don’t adhere to local political/jurisdictional boundaries. Thus County A may have a great management plan, but if its primary aquifer extends to the area underlying County B, then County B can suck the aquifer dry without any accountability (even accounting for how much water they extracted).
Second, the state statute authorizing local agencies to adopt plans (Water Code 10750 et. seq.) which are commonly referred to as AB 3030 plans, is a fairly toothless tiger. It primarily calls for voluntary action on the part of participants. In the water world that seldom works.
Jerry - I agree that how the boundaries are established is very important. My understanding of the groundwater basin adjudications in CA is that most are administered as actual basins. This is possible in many areas around LA because of stratigraphic and structural controls on groundwater occurrence. As I said I'm not real familiar with all the forms of local GW management in CA so other forms of local management in other parts of the state probably have unrealistic boundaries (hydrogeologically speaking). I do know a bit about Texas, where the GW management districts are established to some extent according to basin boundaries. But like most things in Texas, the aquifers tend to be very large so arbitrary lines have to be drawn on occasion. I'm not familiar with AB 3030 but it also sounds similar to the enabling legislation in Texas, which is why the only time local management districts get serious about managing GW is when their wells start drying up.
Metering wells in Washington and Idaho is akin to the old threat "They'll take our guns away!" Right now only surface water is regulated. The mindset of business and agriculture clings to the Old West view of endless natural resources and the freedom to exploit them as superior beings-- (superior to Nature and Indians). Kansas sets the example of calm reason and knowledge based decision making--logical, sane, and unlikely to catch on in the West.
CJ -- I agree with Jerry. Although I *do* agree that water should be managed on a local level, the interconnectedness (via surface water) of areas requires that ALL areas monitor g/w befor ANY area be allowed to buy/sell water.
In addition, there is a collective action problem (getting everyone to agree on adjudication that would benefit all) wrt a local entity. If they cannot cooperate, then everyone is worse off (via unsustainable withdrawals). Thus, I favor a state mandate that g/w be monitored and/or adjudicated.
Statewide data would make life easier for academics and state bureaucrats, of course, but I doubt that if could be used to force the reallocation of water (e.g., "they'll take our guns).
Consider three scenarios:
1) Nobody know what anyone is doing
2) Some people know what they are doing but don't tell anyone.
3) Everyone knows what everyone is doing.
I favor (3), and it doesn't mean that they will not be able to DO what they want.
Good discussion!
Just a correction: Marios Sophocleous is at the Kansas Geological Survey, part of the University of Kansas. He has a great reputation.
When it comes to ground water, KGS is among one of the best state surveys.
Also: read my post on Ground Water: the Water Budget Myth. It conflates with some of Marios' work and also illustrates the approach of 'many' to GW management: do a water budget.
(http://aquadoc.typepad.com/waterwired/2008/12/ground-water-the-water-budget-myth.html)
Our nonrenewable GW conference report has some good info- Rima Petrossian gave a great presentation on regional GW management in Texas. (http://aquadoc.typepad.com/waterwired/2008/11/conference-report-nonrenewable-ground-water-resources.html)
Post a Comment