Latest News

Other view: Groundwater mining is exploitation of shared resource

Who owns the water? That’s the essential issue in a controversial plan to pump 26,000 acre-feet of groundwater over two years and sell it to a water district that runs from western Merced County into San Joaquin County.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation approved using the Delta-Mendota Canal to transfer water pumped from beneath 4-S Ranch Partners LLC and SHS Family LP to the Del Puerto Water District. Valued conservatively at $600 an acre-foot, the transaction could net ranch owners Steve Sloan and Stephen Smith and their partners $15 million or more.

Twelve pumps on Sloan’s 4-S Ranch and two on Smith’s neighboring ranch would extract the water. Since most of it would flow to other counties, there’s little opportunity for that water to replenish the aquifer from which it was pumped. Since it is almost a certainty that the aquifer also underlies neighboring properties, nearby farmers are concerned. They worry that high-volume pumping will draw groundwater away from their wells, which they’re counting on to keep their trees and crops from dying.

Laws in most California counties treat groundwater like a mineral that stays put. But groundwater moves around, flowing vertically and laterally toward a pump. And since most aquifers are vast, they can span many properties. That means whoever owns the deepest well or has the strongest pump can draw groundwater from beneath neighboring ranches.

No individual can sell surface water. That’s because the state actually owns all surface water, granting only the right to use it.

Groundwater rules are different. Its use is essentially unregulated, except in a few urban counties. Virtually every rural county considers groundwater the property of the person with the pump. If that pump sucks water away from neighboring wells, well, that’s unfortunate.

The problem with this case of groundwater mining is who profits from it. If Del Puerto were buying surface water from an irrigation district, the money would go to the district and benefit all its members. But private groundwater sales benefit only the seller.

That’s why farmers – generally conservative and often downright disdainful of government regulations – might soon welcome state intervention. The Legislature soon will consider bills for establishing state guidelines if not rules. Besides, they might not have a choice.

A recent case in Siskiyou County, if it survives appeal, could change the groundwater legal landscape. After overpumping lowered the Scott River, a Superior Court judge ruled that groundwater feeding the river belonged to the public and not solely to those who owned the pumps. It’s entirely likely similar challenges are being prepared to protect the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers.

In times of scarcity, water needs to be shared, not exploited.

  Comments