Trust not enough to solve CA water problems

W.C. Fields on WaterApril 18, 2013

By Wayne Lusvardi

Those who want to settle the water wars over the Sacramento Delta by first restoring “trust” rather than implementing the adopted law of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan should take the advice of comedian W.C. Fields: “You can’t trust water. Even a straight stick turns crooked in it.”

University of Pacific law professor Gregory S. Weber just wrote an article,“The Big Divide Over Water: Mistrust is Top Obstacle to Repairing the Delta.” He contended that the main problem impeding the proposed Sacramento Bay Delta Conservation Plan is “gut level mistrust among the stakeholders.”

However, this is an odd statement from a law professor because the social function of the law is to not rely on trust. If the historical water wars in California have proven anything, it is that law has been a better vehicle, although sometimes flawed, than trust to settle water disputes.

Secondly, Weber calls Northern Californians “stakeholders” even though they may have not established any legal rights over water in the State Water Project.  A “stakeholder” is typically defined as someone who has deposited money depending on the outcome of an unsettled matter. Northern Californians are no more stakeholders in California’s socialized water system than Central Valley farmers or Southern California cities, and vice versa.

Law mandates co-equal goals

As currently put into law, the Bay Delta Plan calls for co-equal goals: 1) repair the Delta ecosystem mainly for fish and 2) improve water supply reliability.  That’s the law, not some nebulous trust.  However, different “stakeholders” likely will fund each of those two goals.

What the “Water Reliability” half of the Delta Plan would do is build tunnels to take water through and under the Delta “lake-bed” to Central Valley farmers and Southern California cities. The purpose of the tunnels would be to backfill some of the water lost to Southern California due to the State of Arizona deciding to finally take their full allocation of Colorado River water, rather than letting it flow to California.  The only replacement water source is the Delta.

The Water Reliability half of the Delta Plan would be 100 percent funded by the state and federal governments, Central Valley farmers, and Southern California water districts.  Northern Californians are not “stakeholders” in this part of the Delta Plan because they haven’t ponied up any funds for it. But Weber erroneously says they are “stakeholders” in the tunnels.

The “Repair the Delta Eco-system” half of the Delta Plan involves re-routing flows of fresh cold water over the top of the tunnels. This would rehabilitate the Delta eco-system for freshwater fish.  A tentative $9 billion general obligation bond to be put to the voters in 2014 likely would fund this second half of the Delta Plan. Thus, all water ratepayers in the State Water Project are potential “stakeholders” in the Eco-system Restoration part of the Delta plan.

Consensus failed

Weber is correct that, for over a decade, California sought a misguided “consensus” on a solution to the Delta under the Cal-Fed Bay Delta Program. But that plan, based on “trust” of the parties, failed miserably.  A mix of fraud, force, and consent of the governed — not consensus or trust — have held California’s historic water social contract together.  The elements of this contract entail Northern California giving up water to Central Valley farmers and Southern California cities in exchange for Delta flood protection, cheap hydropower and thermal power, and some potable water for themselves.

Incredibly, Weber now wants to unwind the adopted Delta Plan law first to establish “trust” by offering to serve as “mediator.”  Trust — or consensus — never  has worked to resolve the Delta water wars. Undoing the Delta Plan law now would be improbable.  Nonetheless, Weber suggests that Delta Plan should be reversed with a ballot initiative. This would just re-ignite the water wars, resulting in a greater deterioration of trust.

Better feared than loved if that is only choice that works

I agree that both Northern and Southern Californians will have to trust that co-equal goals of the Bay Delta Plan don’t “cut the baby in half.”  But for decades, California water policy makers tried “trust” and “love” and it didn’t work.

To paraphrase Machiavelli, it would be ideal if the Delta Plan could be both loved (trusted) and feared, but if a choice must be made, then fear is best.  But because circumstances have forced a choice, it is better to be feared even though this breeds mistrust with the outcome by both sides.  It will be up to the Delta Stewardship Council to navigate a course based on the rule of law that avoids hatred on the one hand and mistrust and contempt on the other.


Write a comment
  1. Johnathan
    Johnathan 18 April, 2013, 13:19

    I’m a firm believer that if SoCal needs the water so bad then raise their water rates to pay for the entire project. As a Northern Californian I am disgusted that whenever there is a drought and we cut back we see people in SoCal watering lawns as ours turn brown from lack of watering, and we end up paying extra because the water that would have kept the northern half of the state out of drought territory is being diverted to the literal desert of L.A.

    I don’t mind sharing with the crop growers in the Central Valley, they produce much needed crops for the entire country (and the world). I just get burned when I have to pay extra so people in the other half of the state don’t.

    Reply this comment
  2. Sean Morham
    Sean Morham 18 April, 2013, 15:37

    I am going to start a new tradition jogging around the California aqueducts headed south. Piss in them. Cheers.

    Reply this comment
  3. us citizen
    us citizen 18 April, 2013, 16:46

    Johnathan…….our rates down here are OUTRAGEOUS. We pay dearly for water. And for many years, you guys up there didnt even have meters when we did. Go whine some where else.

    Reply this comment
  4. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 18 April, 2013, 20:20


    So maybe now you know how people in Wichita and Savannah and Roanoke feel when the Feds shake them down and force them to throw their dough down the toilet in the form of California’s bullet train.

    Reply this comment
  5. Bill - San Jose
    Bill - San Jose 19 April, 2013, 06:57

    30 new reservoirs. Hydro-electric. Refuse to believe we have ever had a drought in 40+ years.

    Thanks all.

    Reply this comment
  6. Steve Mehlman
    Steve Mehlman 19 April, 2013, 08:12

    This just in…terrorist Sean Morham wants to poison the water supply.

    Reply this comment
  7. Steve Mehlman
    Steve Mehlman 19 April, 2013, 08:14

    Really hysterical how Wayne and his buds spend years spewing hate about government and then complain that “trust doesn’t work.”

    Reply this comment
  8. J Lund
    J Lund 23 April, 2013, 17:39

    My impression is that trust has rarely existed when major historical changes have occurred in California water, such as the construction of the Sacramento bypass system organized in the early 1900s or the state or federal water projects organized in the 1920s through 1960s. As with anything important where different groups stand to be affected differently, trust is very difficult. Sometimes historical events in court, elections, or economic unsustainability overcome distrust – one side loses. Sometimes compensations are made to buy or earn trust. Sometimes hostages are exchanged, as with what happened with the Delta in the 1930s through 1960s to allow Delta exports to occur. The collapse of trust in Delta policy discussions seems to be arising largely because the hostages are dying under changing ecological and physical conditions. These are inherently hard and controversial problems, requiring leadership to overcome.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Banning Nukes: $4 Billion CA Budget Hit

JUNE 1, 2011 By JOSEPH PERKINS It’s been 22 years since Rancho Seco nuclear power plant generated its last megawatt.

How bullet-train fiasco maintains support, momentum

April 15, 2013 By Wayne Lusvardi It may be unpleasant to contemplate, but opposing California’s high-speed rail project with a

CA high court asked to review bullet-train ruling

Arguing that an appellate court ruling endangers the public’s faith in future bond initiatives,  the attorneys for the Tos/Fukuda/Kings County