Editorial: Water policy should be comprehensive

Sacramento lawmakers are preparing to take action to prevent water transfers from agriculture users to urban users. A bill in the Legislature would prevent sale of water from an ag user to an urban user for a contract that lasts more than 10 years.

It is a stopgap measure at best, but at least it sends the message that water rights ought to be retained by ag interests where that is applicable.

Better would be a comprehensive state water policy that addresses all issues related to water, including transfers. California and its citizens recognize the importance of water to our state and region. Voters have passed bonds for water conservation and development. The Legislature has proposed and approved any number of measure that deal with water. Plans for water projects and strategies continue to circulate.

It's about time the state combine them all into a comprehensive policy.

When water needs are addressed in one part of the state, the action affects other parts. When a single interest — urban, environmental or agriculture — achieves its goal for water, the other interests are also affected. That's why taking singular action on a particular feature of state water policy is at best a temporary fix and at worst creates imbalance that eventually leads to more problems.

Transfer of water rights from agriculture to urban interests doesn't occur that often, but when it does, it creates far-reaching consequences. It's like tossing a boulder into a shallow pond: It creates waves, not ripples, and the displacement of water is significant.

The most recent action in the Legislature, sponsored by Fresno lawmaker Juan Arambula in the Assembly, arose in reaction to the sale of 14,000 acre-feet of water from the Dudley Ridge Water District in Kings County to the Mojave Water Agency, which serves cities in San Bernardino County. A business partnership in the Bay Area profited from the deal. The $74 million purchase price set the price of the water at $5,250 per acre-foot, anywhere from 15 to 50 times more than a farmer would pay for water.

That is always the temptation when it comes to farm water: Like the disparity in land values, water for urban use can be sold at a much higher rate than it can be for agriculture. Cash-strapped ag interests can find relief by selling their water.

That hasn't happened often ì only 19 times in the Central Valley since 1991, but whenever it has happened, it raises alarm, especially for multi-year deals that take water from agriculture for the long term.

This is a difficult issue, just as the sale of farmland is a difficult issue. Owners have the right to make decisions about their property, including water. But like land, when water changes from ag to urban use, it creates an imbalance in the market.

The solution is to establish clear long-term rules that set limits on where and how water can be transferred. We have long supported measures that would require water to remain in the region it originates, but in an era when the drought-susceptible Central Valley and Southern California rely on the water-abundant north, that also becomes a problem.

That is why comprehensive state water policy is necessary. It could establish guidelines that would allow property owners to act in their self-interest while maintaining the interest of the community. That can only be done with a state and regional approach.

Arambula's legislation has merit as a vehicle to dramatize the issue. It can also be a early model for comprehensive reform. We urge policy makers not to stop there. Use it as an incentive to keep pushing for comprehensive state water policy.