Implementation of the Agricultural Water Management Planning Act
70% of California’s Irrigation Districts Fail to Complete Required Agricultural Water Management Plans
Irrigated agriculture is important to California, and draws upon roughly 80 percent of the state's developed water supplies. The industry produces diverse and important commodities, and employs thousands of people across a broad swath of the state. In recognition of its importance, the Agricultural Water Management Planning Act (Act), which passed California's legislature as part of the Water Conservation Act of 2009, requires large irrigation districts to create comprehensive plans for their water futures. These Agricultural Water Management Plans are required to cover topics such as current and projected water supplies and demands, current and planned water conservation activities, and the impact of climate change on district operations -- all topics that are important to each district and its irrigators, as well as state water managers. These plans must incorporate water measurement to each irrigator and each district's charges to its customers. Consideration is also to be given to water efficiency measures that are to be implemented unless found by a district not to be cost-effective.
According to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), there are approximately 79 large agricultural water suppliers statewide to which the Act applies. The law requires that each of these suppliers adopt an agricultural water management plan by the end of 2012, submit their second plan by the end of 2015, and update their plans every five years thereafter. Yet by August 2013, only 25 agricultural water suppliers had submitted plans -- a mere 30 percent compliance rate, meaning that there is much work to be done to carry out the law and ensure a sustainable water future for the state.
NRDC and the Pacific Institute reviewed eight of the 25 complete plans and conducted interviews with district staff to assess the districts’ progress and develop suggestions for improving the planning process. The overwhelming noncompliance with the Act makes clear that greater emphasis needs to be placed on both the benefits of planning and the consequences of noncompliance. Some districts asserted that planning requirements were either unclear-or overwhelming, and that more assistance would be needed to meet the 2015 deadline. NRDC and the Pacific Institute suggest that regional peer-to-peer workshops be offered to assist districts with the planning process and the implementation of mandatory and conditional water efficiency measures. DWR should convene an annual conference on agricultural water management best practices, and should also create an online clearinghouse of plans to ensure transparency and encourage data-sharing among districts as they develop plans.
NRDC and the Pacific Institute's analysis of complete plans also highlights areas where sustainable water management practices have offered benefits. For example:
- Turlock Irrigation District in Stanislaus County is utilizing approximately 5,200 acre feet of recycled water every year, freeing up traditional water resources for other beneficial uses. Turlock receives their recycled water from the City of Turlock, the City of Modesto, and Hilman Cheese Factory.
- Reclamation District 108 in Colusa County is phasing in new water measurement devices to allow them to accurately measure the amount of water they deliver to their customers, as required by the Water Conservation Act. Surprisingly, many districts do not measure the amount of water they deliver to their customers. By knowing precisely how much water they are delivering, RD 108 will be able to provide their customers with enhanced feedback about how efficiency could be improved.
- Alta Irrigation District in Tulare County has been charging their customers based on the amount of water they receive for over a decade. Many other districts currently charge either by the acre or by the number of times a grower irrigates during a growing season, even though the Water Conservation Act requires them to begin charging at least in part by volume.
These leaders in water conservation and water management planning set the example for other districts to follow. But DWR should hold noncompliant districts accountable. The Act makes the submission of a plan a condition for any large irrigation district to be eligible for any new state grants and loans -- yet, in April 2013, DWR considered grant applications from many districts that had not yet submitted plans. DWR ought to refuse to consider grant and loan requests until lagging districts submit proper -- and legally required -- plans.
last revised 8/29/2013
Sign up for NRDC's online newsletter
Water on Switchboard
NRDC experts write about water efficiency, green infrastructure and climate on the NRDC blog.
Recent Water Posts
- What does California's Drought Mean for the Proposed Bay-Delta Tunnels?
- posted by Doug Obegi, 3/24/15
- New Tar Sands Water Policy from Government of Alberta Favors Industry
- posted by Danielle Droitsch, 3/13/15
- A Coal Cap in China's Power Sector Can Reduce Air Pollution and Harvest Economic Benefits
- posted by Luan Dong, 2/12/15
NRDC Gets Top Ratings from the Charity Watchdogs
- Charity Navigator awards NRDC its 4-star top rating.
- Worth magazine named NRDC one of America's 100 best charities.
- NRDC meets the highest standards of the Wise Giving Alliance of the Better Business Bureau.