The June 16 Madera City Council meeting, at which Madera Irrigation District’s offer to sell water to the city for groundwater recharge was summarily rejected, provided a disturbing display of just how the City Council, other than Council Member Poythress, who does understand the issues, might be out of touch on water-related topics.
More disturbing was that the council’s action seemed to be based in part on factually incorrect assertions about irrigation district assessments on land within the city, assertions which were technically irrelevant to the subject at hand.
There was a claim that the City receives no significant benefits from MID. Well, let’s review the short list.
First — flood control and drainage. Under a 2000 agreement, MID assists the city with its storm water management by taking storm runoff into the irrigation district’s canal system (a pain in MID’s operations-and- maintenance rear). This enables the city to avoid huge costs for alternative storm water management. If the council feels that isn’t a benefit to the city, MID can cease that program and avoid all the associated headaches and costs that come with it.
Second — the district is working cooperatively to help the city reduce its Regional Water Quality Control Board “problem” at the wastewater treatment plant. Here again, if the Council feels that program has no value, and since there is no benefit, and it’s a pain in the rear, to the District, maybe MID should simply terminate that program.
Third — significant groundwater recharge benefitting the city is occurring as the direct result of MID’s conveyance of water in its canals running through and around the city. If the council doesn’t understand there are costs associated with that benefit MID can line its canals so that benefit is not accruing to the city. Alternatively MID could send the city a bill for the recharge that is occurring to the city’s benefit. This year’s MID water rate: $60 per acre foot, double the offered price of $29.51 rejected by the council.
Fourth — MID holds rights to pre-1914 water, which unlike the District’s CVP water, can legally be provided to the City for recharge. If the City council believes having access to MID water to supplement its groundwater recharge needs is of no benefit and/or that it is so easy and less costly to acquire and import other sources of water I say “go for it.” Then maybe it’s time for MID to terminate the 2001 Agreement under which this year’s pilot program was going to occur.
There are other lesser benefits to the city which I won’t delve into. But I would mention the fact that the district’s delivery system runs through and around the city creates a great deal of additional problems, headaches and significantly increased operation and maintenance costs, costs and problems which in some other valley cities are reimbursed to the districts by the city. Hmm, maybe MID should consider that approach.
I hope this council in understanding some of the benefits the city derives from MID. If the council still doesn’t believe those benefits accrue I would ask the council to let MID know, so the District can initiate steps to terminate these apparently meaningless, worthless efforts, programs and agreements, and commence billing the city for the full cost of benefits and the problems urbanization has created for the district.
It’s bad enough that a majority of the City Council seems naïve about the demonstrable direct benefits provided by MID. But the council’s naiveté does not stop there. In the exchanges among council members and between council members and city staff occurring during the Council meeting it was obvious the council would be well advised to educate itself on a number of subjects including:
* Groundwater hydrology – to understand that everyone in and around MID is sucking the same water out of the same bucket, an unconfined aquifer,
* Conjunctive use – to understand the importance of groundwater recharge of unconfined aquifers in wet years and that everyone benefits from that recharge,
* California groundwater law – so they’ll understand urban agencies are junior appropriators to the rights of those pumping for use on overlying land – usually farms,
* Groundwater overdraft conditions in Madera County – to understand that raising water rates to drill ever deeper wells is not the answer to the city’s worsening water supply problem,
* State law regarding municipal water conservation, water management and most particularly water supply assessments – to help them come to grips with the reality that without dedicated groundwater recharge any plans for significant future development in the city are all but dead,
* That as was pointed out by city staff: Sooner or later the city will have to start buying and importing water to meet its water needs — and the only way to deliver that water, regardless of the source, will be via MID’s delivery system,
* Impending wastewater treatment and disposal regulations — to understand requirements coming down the pike are, without MID’s assistance, going to make the city’s wastewater treatment and disposal much more difficult and costly, and finally …
* That in the absence of buying water from MID, the open market price for out-of- county supplies delivered for use by the city starts at well over $75 per acre-foot plus conveyance charges and regulatory costs which add another $25-40/acre-foot. And in dry years those costs can be expected to triple.
In summary, it’s incumbent, vital actually, that the City Council start getting a grip on reality and educate themselves starting by listening to and heeding the advice and recommendations of city staff, highly qualified people who do understand the issues and ramifications. If council doesn’t deal appropriately and timely with these matters the city and its residents will be facing some very difficult, costly, no win, scenarios.
Lance Johnson, general manager of Madera Irrigation District