California irrigator faces record $1.5 million fine for drought violation

[Little Tich]

Source: Yahoo! News / Reuters

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - State regulators on Monday proposed a record $1.5 million fine against a northern California irrigation district accused of defying emergency drought restrictions by continuing to draw surface water placed off-limits for such diversions.

The penalty, if approved by the state Water Resources Control Board, would be largest ever levied against a water user for an alleged unauthorized diversion during a drought, agency officials said.

It also marks the first such enforcement action facing any of California's "senior water rights" holders, those dating to between 1903 and 1914, in connection with the latest drought, now in its fourth year.

The target of the proposed penalty is the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, which supplies water to 160 agricultural customers occupying some 12,000 acres (49 square kilometers) of farmland about 50 miles (80 km) east of San Francisco Bay.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/california-irrigator-faces-record-1-5-million-fine-005235132.html

[procon]

1. California needs a major revamp to its entire water system.

Water consumption should not be based on seniority where newcomers are forced out by the old time water guzzlers. This antiquated distribution method of our already scarce commodity inflates agricultural prices by choking off competition, and its us consumers that pay dearly for the privileged few to enjoy their unequal legacy rights. Now with this drought, it's even more important to change the way this state allocates the water that belongs to everyone.

[calikid]

2. I agree 100%

And I have water rights dating back to the 1870's

[Warpy]

3. Whaaaaa?

Agriculture needs to stop wasting water through spray irrigation, the cheapest method, and go to subsoil drip systems. They need to be given deadlines to accomplish this, after which spray irrigation will become illegal.

Water wasters like golf courses and mansion lawns are where the first fines need to be levied.

[procon]

4. The are small potatoes compared to the huge agricultural and industry users.

I live in the desert and there are still plenty of growers that use wasteful flood irrigation methods. They just turn on their huge diesel pumps and open the valves, letting the water flood over hundreds of acres at a time.

[Warpy]

5. Fracking should have been suspended years ago

and other high water use industries need to be looked at and surcharges assessed to give them a reason to explore conservation.

Food is important. Giving a deadline on stopping wasteful practices and converting to irrigation more appropriate to arid climates while applying progressive surcharges to give them a little kick in the right direction would also be a great idea.

80% of the states use is in agriculture. That's where you need to look for ways to conserve water.

[procon]

7. That's the problem with these senior water rights holders.

They are entitled. They can use up the water simply to shut down the new arrivals and dry up the supply available to their competition,putting them out of business and keeping the prices food prices artificially high to fill their own purse. The politicians won't step in because -- as expected -- the bribes they receive from these groups ensures that they get reelected and the status quo of our antiquated, centuries old, legacy water rights, remains in place.

[Le Taz Hot]

6. Big Ag are the water wasters

Small farms long ago went to drip irrigation because it saves them a ton of money in water costs. Iirc, the state was actually subsidizing some of the costs for drip irrigation switchover for awhile. I happened to be going through Kings County this past weekend (nothing but Big Ag "Farms&quot and they were FLOOD IRRIGATING. I'm in Fresno County and we're still doing pretty good in holding on to family farms/small-operation farming (180 acres or less) and I never see flood irrigation anymore. Hell, I rarely see sprinkler irrigation anymore. I wish I could say I was surprised to see flood irrigation by Big Ag but I really wasn't.

[Warpy]

8. Yes, they are, and that's where the conservation will begin and end

although homeowners are going to have to live like we do in NM, at least short term. Don't worry, once you get used to the idea, it's not a big deal.

Still, the high water use assessments will help provide the stick, being allowed to remain in business will be the carrot. The fines need to be against complete wastes of water like mansion lawns. That's the shot across the bow of the big water wasters that tells them they'd better take new regulations seriously before it runs into really big money.

[Xithras]

12. Keep in mind that research is suggesting that flood irrigation may be overly villified.

There are a number of new research studies suggesting that flood irrigation plays a major role in aquifier recharging, and that the switch to drip irrigation may play a role in the recent drop in aquifier levels throughout the California Central Valley. You have to remember that these are landscapes that used to flood annually for long periods of time, which established those aquifiers in the first place. The dams and levees largely ended the annual recharge, but research is suggesting that flood irrigation during the summer simulated it closely enough to keep water levels from falling too quickly. Drip irrigation does not do this. While drip keeps the surface plants alive, it appears to accelerate groundwater losses by ending the annual recharge cycle entirely (rainfall levels in the Central Valley are so low that they play no significant role in the groundwater recharge cycle).

The University of California is actually going to do an experiment this coming winter and is planning on deliberately flooding a huge tract of farmland near Modesto to put a more accurate number on the theory. They want to figure out how much of the water makes it into the aquifer, and they are already discussing EXPANDING the ground flooding practice throughout the Valley once they get the numbers dialed in a bit.

Remember, millions of Californian's depend on groundwater to survive. Conservation plans that preserve surface water by reducing groundwater levels aren't actually conserving anything, but are instead prioritizing one group of water users over another.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. But what about the evaporation factor?

A large amount of that standing water evaporates and doesn't go to the plants or feed the aquifer.

[Xithras]

14. Evaporation, as it turns out, is far more complex than most people assumed.

One of the first things that researchers realized when studying this is that it HEAVILY depends on the type of soil being flood irrigated. With sandy loams, the water tends to percolate into the ground so quickly that evaporative losses can be under 5%. In clays over hardpan, where the water can stand for days before percolating down, evaporative losses can exceed 40%.

On top of that, the development of the crop also plays a major role. Evaporation, of course, is simply a matter of heat. The faster the water heats up, the faster it will evaporate and the greater the losses will be. Flood irrigating farmland at the beginning of the season across bare soil, where the water is directly exposed to the sunlight, results in very high evaporation rates. Flood irrigation mid season, in fields where the plants are already partially grown and are shading the furrows, results in dramatically lower water losses and better water retention in the soil because the water heats up much slower. Flood irrigation under developed orchards also appears to have very low evaporation rates, thanks to the shade from the trees (the flooding experiment near Modesto will mostly take place in orchards, for this very reason).

At its core, it's really a "Catch-22" problem. On one hand, you are guaranteed to lose some water to evaporation when you use flood irrigation. On the other hand, ground flooding appears to be the ONLY way to recharge the Valley aquifers on any significant scale. The water in the aquifers has to come from SOMEWHERE. Because Valley rainfall totals are so low, this historically came from Sierra runoff spilling across the Valley floor every spring. We're probably not going to tear down the dams and levees anytime soon to allow that natural process to resume, so we're left with a simple choice. We either charge the aquifers artificially, or we accept the fact that the Valley will no longer have a usable aquifer in another 25 years.

Properly managed, flood irrigation can play an extremely important role in stabilizing the aquifer by mimicking the natural processed that created it in the first place. The purpose of the UC study is to determine where it should happen (and where it shouldn't), how much water we actually need to put down to start the recharge process, and how to reduce the losses that are going to be inherent in the process.

[Le Taz Hot]

15. And the Valley IS clay over hardpan.

(Try digging down more than a foot and you'll hit what is as hard as cement.)

Well, since you got all sciency on me I can't really debate except to say it's an interesting subject and I learned quite a bit from your post.

[Xithras]

16. Some yes, some no.

The most common soil type in the Valley actually has its own designation, and is called "San Joaquin Soil". It's a loam over hardpan. The depth of the hardpan and the consistency of the loam vary across the Valley floor, but there are vast sections of the Valley that have a sandier consistency and absorb water well.

Eventually, the goal will be to map the areas of the Valley that are (and are not) suitable for this kind of thing. In areas with sandier loam soil and deeper hardpan, flood irrigation may be encouraged to benefit the entire ecosystem, including the aquifer. In areas with clay soils and shallow hardpan, where surface water doesn't penetrate, flood irrigation will be discouraged as wasteful.

The point I was trying to make was simply that the flood irrigation issue is quite a bit more nuanced than a lot of people (including politicians and environmentalists) originally thought. While many are still calling for a blanket ban on the practice, the actual science seems to be suggestion that the CORRECT way forward is science-based regulation, and not an outright prohibition.

[orleans]

9. tom selleck?

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/actor-tom-selleck-accused-of-stealing-water-amid-historic-drought-480484931936

oh wait--he was only fined $21,000

[jimmydwight]

10. I'm afraid that the "Water Resources Control Board" has

decided that they are the god almighty and we must dance when they pull the strings.

[bemildred]

11. It's a start.

This whole "senior water rights" issue need to be re-examined anyway. It's not like the growers show a lick of public spirit in exchange for our generosity with our water, and the factory farming needs to end for good.