The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: water rights
Water treatment facility overlooking the Manhattan skyline.

Now We Must Protect Our Water From Wall Street

"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles." Thus sang Bob Dylan in 1965, and we can now clearly see those vandals: In addition to polluting corporations, they're the national, state, and local officials who have routinely failed over the years to prevent the waste and defilement of our water supply while also failing to budget for even minimal upkeep and modernization of water delivery. As a result, the system is badly broken.

Federal funding for our water systems has plummeted 77 percent since its peak under former President Jimmy Carter. At the same time, the need for more national investment has dramatically increased: The U.S. population has surged by 110 million; aging water infrastructure is outdated and breaking down; state and local politicians have ignored problems (replacing an old pipe is not a prized photo-op); and necessary upgrades to cope with new contaminants and extreme weather events have gone unfunded by politicians catering to pro-corporate financial interests and anti-government ideologues.

So, here we sit, a nation of unsurpassed prosperity using duct tape and political hype to cover up the fact that our drinking water system is so dilapidated that it received a sorry C-minus grade from the quadrennial evaluation by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Worse, the wastewater component of the system (mile after mile of underground sewage pipes and nearly 16,000 treatment plants) scores a D-plus, with a majority of the waste plants nearing the end of their 45- to 50-year life spans. The overall system is so fragile that a water main breaks somewhere in America every two minutes, and it's so permeated with leaks that utilities lose 6 billion gallons of drinking water every day.

And then there's the rising crisis of affordability. With federal funding cut to a dribble, utilities have tried to fill in with constant hikes in water bills. Our average monthly rate has jumped more than a third since 2012, and analysts estimate that within three years, up to 36% of households won't be able to afford drinking water. Even with rising fees, utilities themselves are struggling. The American Water Works Association reports that income fully covers costs in only one in five systems, and four out of five large utilities expect they will not be able to provide full service five years from now.

Billions of years ago, when some squirmy form of early "us" crawled out of the sea, they brought along the need for that basic ingredient. Human bodies are 60 percent water, and most of earth's surface is not earth at all — 71 percent is covered in seas, rivers, lakes, bayous, etc. There is no "us" unless each of us gets a constant intake of reasonably clean water. If you don't ... you die, usually within three days.

Thus, managing this precious natural resource is a deeply moral responsibility. While our globe has an abundance of the wet stuff, 96.5 percent is undrinkable salt water. Of the potable 3.5 percent more than half is locked in ice at the polar caps or so deep underground it's unavailable. Still, we do have enough water to meet the needs of all — if it is conserved and fairly distributed.

Sadly, most countries do a piss-poor job of fulfilling their moral responsibility — especially the U.S., given our resources, abilities, and egalitarian pretensions. The good news is that the U.S. public is not only increasingly aware of the inexcusable inadequacies and inequalities in our water system but also increasingly outraged . As Sen. Bernie Sanders put it in February when introducing a major water justice bill: "It is beyond belief that in 2021, American kids are being poisoned by tap water."

Wall Street's sharks smell money in the water. In fact, they are out to privatize, commodify and "profitize" (own) our water. Of course, with ownership comes control, both of water's use and price. Unsurprisingly, the two core precepts of these Wall Street profiteers are: Water is greatly underpriced, so let's make it more expensive for all users, including us common drinkers; and water must flow to its "highest use" (i.e., highest bidders), so its allocation should not prioritize nonindustrial farms, lower-income communities or even general public use — but rather advantage high-tech facilities, upscale suburban developments and high-dollar businesses willing to pay the most.

More alarming, Wall Street is busy creating complex new financial gimmicks to allow speculators to dominate global water markets. Meanwhile, they're recycling the same gobbledygook about risk management that Enron deployed in the 1990s, even though that scandalous power play for energy markets led to massive corruption, job losses, waves of bankruptcies, and rip-offs of customers and shareholders.

For a splash course on water issues, look up "H2Equity: Rebuilding a Fair System of Water Services for America" from the Environmental Policy Innovation Center (http://www.policyinnovation.org).

To find out more about Jim Hightower and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

Farmers Resist EPA Rule To Promote Clean Waters

Farmers Resist EPA Rule To Promote Clean Waters

By Chris Adams, McClatchy Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Farm interests are pushing against a recently finalized federal water rule after an analysis by a trade group concluded that the rule “creates even more risk and uncertainty” for those who work the land.

Opponents in Congress are trying to rework and sharply limit the impact of what was known initially as the “Waters of the United States” rule, which was designed to help federal officials clarify and simplify which bodies of water fall under the control of the 1972 Clean Water Act.

While those efforts have broad support in Congress, they might not have enough to override a presidential veto, sending the rule to the courts.

The rule is important to farmers, since it has the potential to change how they manage their land — requiring permits, for example, if activities would affect covered areas. It was finalized last month after more than a year of controversy and touted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers as an important step toward keeping the nation’s waters clean.

From the start, though, farmers said it went too far. And late last week, the American Farm Bureau Federation completed its analysis of the rule, finding that the complicated final version “is even broader than the proposed rule.”

One example is the rule’s definition of tributaries, which the federation said is so expansive that “land features may be deemed to be tributaries… even if they are invisible to the landowner and even if they no longer exist on the landscape.”

Blake Hurst, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, said that “anybody who moves dirt in order to do their business is going to be affected.” He also has problems with how the EPA handled the rulemaking process, saying the agency embarked on a political campaign to discredit those opposed to the rule and abused the law that governs rulemaking.

The EPA and proponents of the water rule say the complaints by farmers and others were thoroughly hashed out during months of public comment and hearings, and that the claims of overreach are wildly inflated.

That said, the options are limited for farm interests, homebuilders and other industries that have come out against the rule.

The House passed a bill in May that would roll back the rule, and a similar bill last week passed out of a committee in the Senate. That bill now moves to the full Senate.

But there, it faces stiff odds. Although Republicans control the Senate and dozens of senators are listed as co-sponsors for one of the competing anti-water rule bills, “It’s unlikely there will be a veto-proof majority,” Hurst said.

The White House said in April that if the bill to kill the EPA rule passes Congress, President Barack Obama would veto it.

That leaves the courts and advocates on both sides of the issue expecting farm or other industries to sue to stop the EPA from enforcing the rule. But how long such lawsuits may take to wind through the courts — or whether the rule will be suspended while the courts determine its fate — is unclear.

For those reasons, one advocate of the rule, Jon Devine, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said he thinks the anti-rule forces will get nowhere.

“I think this is an effort doomed — fortunately — to fail,” he said. “I am extremely confident that claims the agencies protected too much will not win.”

The rule was proposed by the agencies to simplify and clarify the Clean Water Act. That law covers rivers, lakes and year-round wetlands. But the law is less clear about some streams that dry up part of the year, or about wetlands that wet only in the spring.

(c)2015 McClatchy Washington Bureau. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Photo: AgriLife Today via Flickr

House Passes Water Bill, But Drought Solutions Still Under Debate

House Passes Water Bill, But Drought Solutions Still Under Debate

By Michael Doyle, McClatchy Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — The House on Friday passed a big energy and water spending bill that showcases the continuing federal discord over how to handle California’s drought.

The $35 billion bill includes money for the California status quo, ranging from Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta restoration to operations of the sprawling Central Valley Project. It also includes drought-related language, with directives to speed completion of water storage project studies.

The bill, approved by a largely party line 240-177 margin, does not, however, reflect significant consensus on some key California water disputes, nor does it come close to the comprehensive drought bill that has so far eluded lawmakers.

“The president has declared the drought to be a national disaster,” said Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif. “Unfortunately, we have not invested sufficiently in addressing that disaster.”

Farr, a liberal member of the House Appropriations Committee from which the Fiscal 2016 funding bill arose, joined most Democrats in voting against the energy and water package.

Three of the 10 Democrats who supported the bill represent Central Valley districts where either drought or flood control issues are paramount: Reps. Jim Costa, Doris Matsui and Ami Bera.

Republicans overwhelmingly supported the legislation, though they acknowledged its shortcomings.

“I think there are some good things in the bill,” said Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., “but there’s a lot more that we can do.”

Denham noted “we are having continuous meetings” on drafting a separate California water bill, following the inability of lawmakers to resolve their differences last year. In early April, the new chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, attended a fundraiser in Fresno and took her first, brief tour of the drought-affected area.

“We need to be able to explain to the other 49 states why California is in such a tight situation with water, and what we can do to fix it ourselves,” Denham said, adding that lawmakers are trying to decide how to move the legislation.

Some provisions in the House energy and water bill approved Friday range far afield, such as a so-called legislative “rider” allowing guns to be carried on all Corps of Engineers’ lands. Citing the politically divisive firearms policy, among other reasons, the White House issued a veto threat against the legislation.

Other provisions target California specifically, though their future is uncertain.

One measure added in the House Appropriations Committee by Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif., sets specific deadlines for federal officials to complete water storage project feasibility studies.

Under the bill, studies of a Shasta Dam expansion in Northern California and Temperance Flat dam construction east of Fresno will be due Dec. 31. Studies of expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County and constructing Sites Reservoir in the Sacramento Valley will be due Nov. 30, 2016. A study of expanding San Luis Reservoir near Los Banos must be finished by Dec. 31, 2017.

(c)2015 McClatchy Washington Bureau, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Photo: docentjoyce via Flickr

Rights To California Surface Water Far Greater Than Average Runoff

Rights To California Surface Water Far Greater Than Average Runoff

By Bettina Boxall, Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES — California over the last century has issued water rights that amount to roughly five times the state’s average annual runoff, according to new research that underscores a chronic imbalance between supply and demand.

That there are more rights than water in most years is not news. But University of California researchers say their study is the most comprehensive review to date of the enormous gap between natural surface flows and allocations.

Of 27 major California rivers, rights on 16 of them exceed natural runoff. Among the most over-allocated are the San Joaquin, Kern, and Stanislaus rivers in the San Joaquin Valley and the Santa Ynez River in Southern California.

In theory, that difference is not necessarily a problem. It gives water agencies and irrigation districts with junior rights access to additional supplies during wet years, when runoff is above average and there is plenty to go around. But in reality, study co-author Joshua Viers said, it fosters unrealistic expectations for water that is often not available.

“It gives the public a false sense of water security,” said Viers, a UC Merced professor of water resources. For the most junior rights holders, he added, “It’s kind of like standing in line to get into a concert and they give you a ticket when they’re already at capacity. But you don’t know that you’ll never actually get in to see the show.”

The study, published online Tuesday in the journal Environmental Research Letters, analyzed public data from the State Water Resources Control Board, which administers water rights, and compared it with estimates of natural surface flow.

While the annual statewide flow averages 70 million acre feet, water rights issued since 1914 allocate 370 million acre feet. (An acre foot of water is sufficient to supply two households for a year.)

“What is the most compelling about this,” Viers said, is “that the appropriated rights are so much more than the actual full natural flow. In many cases, we’ve five to 10 times over-promised.”

Moreover, the state database does not account for riparian rights granted to streamside landowners or pre-1914 rights, under which some irrigation districts and cities claim huge amounts of water. “So in many ways our estimate is a substantial underestimate of the total volume of rights,” he said.

Viers conducted the study with Ted Grantham, now a U.S. Geological Survey scientist, when Grantham was a postdoctoral researcher at UC Davis.

The authors say that the state board has spotty information on actual water use by rights holders, hampering its ability to do its job.

“We’re not lacking in technology and know-how,” said Viers, who argued that the state is short on funding and “the political will” to develop information and monitoring systems to strengthen water rights oversight.

“We need both better information infrastructure and policy in order to make better decisions about water use in California,” he said.

Photo: Los Angeles Times/MCT/Don Bartletti

Interested in national news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!