This time they are going after pre-1914 water rights. Now, some of you are asking, “what are pre-1914 water rights? Sounds kind of geeky.” Fair enough.

But, if you know about water in California, a threat to pre-1914 water rights mean fightin’ words.

Pre-1914 water rights are just what they sound like. These are rights that are over 100 years old. They deal with appropriative water rights on non-riparian land. The old rule in water is “first in time, first in right.” These pre-1914 water rights are some of the oldest and most protected water rights in California. They have priority over rights developed after.

There is a long and complicated web of water law and rules in California. The key building blocks of water law include:

1850 – The California Constitution

The California Constitution has been updated and amended over the years. The main two rules in the Constitution are: 1) water users are required to, “exercise reasonable and beneficial use (of water) … in the interest of the people and for the public welfare,” and “all water is subject to the regulation and control of the State.”

1887 – The Wright Act.

Named after Modesto attorney/legislator C.C. Wright, the Act 1) established public irrigation districts like we have today, and 2) irrigation was defined as a “public use.”

1902 – U. S. Reclamation Act

In his autobiography, Theodore Roosevelt wrote the purpose of the 1902 law was, “reclaiming the vast areas of the arid West by irrigating otherwise useless land, thus creating new homes upon the land.” And it worked.

1937 – Central Valley Project (CVP)

This is the federal project that stretches from Shasta Dam in the north to Bakersfield in the south, providing up to seven million acre feet of water to 2.8 million acres of farmland as well as water to cities in the Central Valley.

1959 – Burns-Porter Water Act

In 1960 California voters passed a bond that created the State Water Project.

Farmers need stability. Politicians and environmentalists want us to make the change to drip irrigation and new crops. OK, California farmers are making the change. But we need stability to invest in the new systems. It is not reasonable to ask farmers to borrow money for huge capital investment and then change the rules. It is a lot like playing Jenga. If you pull out one of the lower blocks the whole thing can come tumbling down. If we let them mess with these 100-year-old rights, who knows where it will end?

Farming in California is Important. Part of the argument is we need to change water law for the environment. OK, please remind me — what is the main environmental concern they keep preaching? Climate change, right? What happens to California’s carbon footprint if we must import food for 38 million Californians three times a day, every day, forever? That is what will happen if we cut off our farms. (While we are at it, if they are really concerned about climate change, they would be building more water storage, above AND below ground. Their own predictions are less snow and more water. But we will save that for another day.)

Granted, a lot has changed in California since 1914. For example, there are a lot more people and a lot fewer farmers. That is OK. That is progress. But, Democratic Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan said in his famous Cross of Gold speech, “Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.”

Frankly, it looks to me like another water grab from city folks. They have been after farm water for a long time. This is just the latest effort. Instead of increasing supply as population grows, they keep playing this as a zero-sum game.

Former Gov. Edmund G. “Pat” Brown said, “as long as California continues to grow and develop, each generation will face and resolve a new set of water problems. At intervals of about 30 years, the dynamic of the state’s development has demanded new appraisals of recently created water needs. Renewed action to meet those needs (is) essential.”

Sacramento seems to have forgotten Gov. Brown’s words. For well over 30 years, instead of developing water to meet California’s growing needs, Sacramento comes up with foolishness like taking a giant step backwards in water rights.

Conserve? YES!

Care for the environment? Of course.

Tinker with water rights? NO!

---

Farmer, writer and educator, Paul Betancourt is a lecturer at Fresno State and written books on Swiss political history and environmental policy.