A prospect once considered unthinkable, is now a reality. Putting aside years of mistrust and hostility, Sacramento Valley farmers recently entered into agreements to transfer water to Southern California cities. Is this merely a "first date" that will end in bitterness and despair, or will this be the start of a long-lasting, mutually beneficial relationship? Family Water Alliance predicts that it is too soon to tell, but asserts that prudence demands a formal study is needed to assure an accurate assessment.

On February 14, 2003,Valentine’s Day, the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California exercised it rights under option contracts entered into with three Northern California water districts to purchase 97,200 acre-feet of water (enough water to serve the needs of approximately 200,000 Southern California families). Thereafter, MWD exercised options on an additional 50,000 acre-feet. The willing sellers included the following: Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Western Canal Water District, Richvale Irrigation District, River Garden Farms, Reclamation District 108, Pleasant Grove-Verona Mutual Water Company, Natomas Central Mutual Water Company, Sutter Mutual Water Company, Pelger Mutual Water Company, and Meridian Farms Water Company. MWD paid a total of one hundred dollars per acre-foot for the transferred water, as well as an additional five dollars per acre-foot to be dedicated to third party impacts. Most of the water to be transferred will come from the fallowing of rice ground, which typically uses 3.3 acre-feet per year, yielding $330 per acre of idled rice ground. Thus, it is estimated that the present transfer may require the idling of over 40,000 acres of rice land in the Sacramento Valley.

With this one-year romance between MWD and Northern California farmers consummated, questions abound regarding the repercussions that may result. Proponents argue that with a depressed farm economy, growers will be able to earn more revenue by idling land and selling water, providing an economic stimulus that will then be invested back to the land. Also, some view the water transfers as a way of protecting our water rights by invoking statutory protections and asserting property rights over this resource by selling it.

In recent years, as urban demands for water continue to grow, cities have employed various management tools to stretch water supply, including conservation, desalination, water recycling, and groundwater management. However, most attractive and cost effective to many urban water agencies is the purchase of agricultural water to satiate urban demand. Recent farm to city transfers have primarily been short-term deals, but make no mistake, the discussion of long-term water transfers is on the forefront.

Family Water Alliance (FWA) cautions local farmers, water agencies, and rural communities to look before they leap. Many unresolved questions must be answered prior to entertaining the prospect of long-term deals. At the present time, no empirical evidence has been presented which addresses or quantifies what harm or benefit these transfers may have on our communities. We have heard some people reject the notion of third party impacts by referring to the water transfer to Westlands two years ago, stating that while driving by farms they observed individuals leveling idled land. Such non-scientific based "drive-by" economics is insufficient to provide an accurate analysis. Until reliable information is accumulated, subjected to impartial economic analysis, from which concrete conclusions can be derived, FWA advocates proceeding cautiously. Information on the net benefits and losses that these transfers will have on our economy should be available as we further explore the impacts of these water transfers. Thereafter, we should be able to more wisely determine the optimal amount of water that can be transferred without harming our local communities.

Further, FWA believes that future water transfers should be directly linked to the development of new water storage. As California’s population continues to grow, so does the demand for water. The continued sale of agricultural water to urban cities only provides a short-term remedy. These water sales make it too easy for the urban areas of California (where the economic and political power predominantly reside) to ignore the fact that the state desperately needs additional water storage capacity, thereby providing long-term solutions which will benefit everyone.

FWA believes that the life blood of rural Northern California –water– is much too precious of a resource to gamble with. We encourage the agricultural community, ag-related businesses, local government officials, local water agencies, and individual community members to provide as much input as possible regarding the impacts they realize as a result of the present water transfers. This information then needs to be studied and examined, assuring we are making informed, well-reasoned decisions, based on accurate empirical evidence.

The Family Water Alliance’s efforts of education and public outreach have focused on issues that threaten the health and welfare of our region, which is reliant on the continued economic viability of the agricultural sector. FWA is a longstanding supporter of private property rights. Water rights are property rights, and as such, an owner has the right to transfer property, including water. FWA is not opposed to the prospect of transferring water, so long as these transfers are in the best interest of our communities. FWA believes that the transfer of water has many economic and social implications, all of which must be examined prior to entering into long-term commitments. Moreover, FWA advocates that the transfer of water should be directly linked to the development of new water storage, to assure long term solutions are being pursued to satisfy all of California’s water needs.