Kunal Patel: Brown politically shrewd, focuses on reducing urban water consumption

After failing to push through substantive water reform legislation during his first two terms as governor, a more politically shrewd Gov. Brown will not let his vision for a more water-sustainable California fail again.

Earlier this month, Brown issued an executive order which mandated California towns and cities – but not California agricultural corporations – to cut their water usage by 25 percent compared with 2013 levels. Brown also mandated that agricultural water suppliers create a plan on how they will reduce their water use by July 1, 2016. But Brown’s executive order does not tackle the large issue of water usage in California. California farmers account for 80 percent of the state’s water use while California urban areas account for only 20 percent of the state’s water use. Additionally, California’s water use by farmers is also disproportionately high as agriculture accounts for less than 2 percent of the state’s economy. When questioned why the order does not extend to farmers, Brown said that farmers are not taking long showers or frivolously watering their lawns.

While Brown’s mandate seemingly targets the lesser culprits of excess water use, it would be politically unwise for Brown to blame farmers as the prime culprit for California’s drought. Big agriculture has shown that it is willing to obstruct Brown’s plans if its interests are at stake. Thus Brown has a vested interest not to vilify the farming industry as major culprits of excess water use.

Brown knows the strength of big agriculture firsthand. During his second term as Governor in 1982, Brown attempted to push water legislation to build a peripheral canal to move Sacramento River water to Southern California. While Brown managed to push the referendum to the ballot, over 60 percent of voters voted against his championed bond referendum to fund the canal. The overwhelming failure was partially attributed to a statewide campaign funded by two large agricultural corporations – J. G. Boswell Company and the Salyer Land Company – that did not support the Peripheral Canal Act. Those corporations did not support the Peripheral Canal Act because the environmental controls designed to protect water quality were too restrictive.

On the other hand, last November, Brown’s championed $7.5 billion water bond – designed to help the state combat the drought conditions, increase water storage capacity and protect drinking water – was passed. Agricultural businesses in the benefitting areas supported the bond because it allocated nearly $2.7 billion for additional water storage in drought-stricken areas.

Brown’s recent mandate is just a small piece in a comprehensive effort to avert the California drought and make the state more water-sustainable. Brown has again begun to push water legislation similar to the Peripheral Canal Act he supported in 1982. His championed Bay Delta Conservation Plan intends to create twin tunnels to send water around the delta to Southern California farms. Except this time around, Brown has relaxed on some restrictions that big agriculture took issue with in the past.

While it may seem that Brown is not addressing the real water issues by not targeting big agriculture, his actions are politically shrewd. In the long-term, Brown’s overall water strategy – headlined by the Bay Delta Conservation Plan – may help remedy both California’s water infrastructure and conservation problems during drought seasons, even while it cannot replace the groundwater that California is rapidly losing. But in order to garner support for his keystone water legislation, Brown cannot have conflict with big agriculture.

While Brown’s current plan of action does not target the root of California’s water problem – big agriculture – it is a good first step in bringing water issues to the forefront of the state’s political discussion.