Lawsuits, Pipelines, and One Tiny Fish

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency


As we all know, agricultural irrigation commands a majority of community water allocations in many parts of the country. In California for example, agricultural irrigation accounts for 41% of all water use, and about 30% of that water is supplied by groundwater extraction, with the remaining 20% coming from the state’s extensive conveyance system that involves a series of dams, canals, and pumping plants. Perhaps the most famous of these conveyance sources is the San Joaquin–Sacramento Delta—subject of many lawsuits and continuing battleground for environmental versus agricultural interests.
Last week, Judge Oliver Wanger of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California supplied yet another twist to the ongoing delta smelt saga. Ruling against agricultural interests, Wanger reinstated water flow restrictions that had been recently lifted. These restrictions were initially put in place for the protection of the endangered delta smelt, and while they do not foreclose all pumping at the delta, they do significantly limit the amount of water that can be pumped (and delivered to California’s farmers throughout the central valley).
So what do you think? Are lawsuits and restraining orders the best way to reduce the impact of agricultural irrigation? Or does it make more sense to encourage an open dialogue between competing interests? In Queensland, Australia, community groups and local governments are working with farmers to develop a water resource management plan focused on protecting supply and keeping demand within “sustainable” standards—could a similar program help California and other water-strapped/agriculture-heavy states?