By TIMOTHY QUINN
California faces a water crisis that threatens our economy and our environment. From record dry conditions to court-ordered cuts in water deliveries, our water system faces challenges that could affect water supplies in every region of the state in the near future.
Addressing this crisis will require thoughtful policy and the kind of comprehensive solution now being negotiated in a special legislative session on water. The last thing we need is a stealth ballot initiative that could block needed projects that are part of the solution.
That’s why it is particularly alarming that a looming ballot initiative ostensibly dealing with an issue unrelated to water could literally derail efforts to build the infrastructure and other water projects we need to ensure an adequate supply of safe, clean drinking water.
On its face, the so-called California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act prohibits government from taking or damaging private property for private use. However, the problem lies with how its proponents have defined “private use” in the fine print of the measure.
Rather than simply stop eminent domain for private development, the ballot initiative defines private use in such a way that could effectively make it illegal to use eminent domain to acquire land and water to develop public water projects. Proposed section 19(b) (3) (ii) defines “private use” as including:
“Transfer of ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated property rights to a public agency for the consumption of natural resources…”
This single provision could jeopardize a great number of water infrastructure projects that we need, including:
–
Acquisition of land for reservoirs, groundwater and surface water storage projects
–
Construction of a new Delta conveyance system (More than 25 million Californians and 2.5 million acres of farmland receive water conveyed through the Delta)
–
Right-of-way for pipelines and canals to deliver water to new homes and businesses
Proponents of the ballot initiative may claim this was not their intent, or that the language is being misconstrued. However, what matters to the courts (where the issue will ultimately be resolved if the measure passes) is the language in the initiative itself. And in this case, the language very clearly prohibits eminent domain “for the consumption of natural resources,” for example, as in the acquisition of property that might be necessary to provide fill material for a necessary reservoir project.
Ambiguous language
Analysis by three separate committees of the Association of California Water Agencies all came to the same conclusion: The ballot initiative contains language that is sufficiently ambiguous to derail needed water projects around the state. That’s why the association of water agencies’ board of directors recently voted overwhelmingly to oppose the measure, even before its qualification.
The Legislature and governor are to be commended for their efforts to address our water crisis. Unfortunately, this measure cuts at the heart of those bipartisan efforts. Without new water storage projects and other infrastructure improvements, California will not have the water system it needs to support our economy, our environment, businesses or residents.
It is unfortunate that the proponents overreached or misstepped. But they have. This measure is at odds with ensuring a reliable water system for California, and should be opposed by those who care about our economy and our environment.
Timothy Quinn is the executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies.
