A gw management plan would be fine by me, too. If it had teeth.

So far as I can tell, Seth Nidever at the Hanford Sentinel is tracking one of the more interesting frontiers in CA water.  If you think abstract thoughts about “urban will pay ag and then water markets will take care of everything”, the stories in the Hanford Sentinel will tell you more precisely how that is all going down.  In this article, I especially love that intra-farmer resentment over transfers is more important to them than the sanctity of unregulated groundwater.  Since I am a big fan of intrusive government regulation, I am quite pleased at the precedent that if you sell your surface water rights away, you can’t farm with pumped groundwater.  Anything to break the seal of sanctity around unregulated groundwater.  Mostly, though, I think this story, at this level of detail, is the place to watch right now.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to “A gw management plan would be fine by me, too. If it had teeth.

  1. Intra-farmer conflict has blocked many trades in the past, so you’re onto something. I am also all for g/w regs, and I have heard of sell surface/pump ground elsewhere. That’s a crock, so it’s good to see that idea quashed.