Another scheme to protect profits for the few at the expense of ratepayers
By Max Gomberg, C-WIN Senior Policy Advisor
When the legislature passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in 2014, the harms from unregulated groundwater pumping had become dire. Rural community drinking water wells were running dry, land subsidence was damaging key infrastructure, and the capacity to recharge groundwater basins was being lost. Much of the crisis owed to demand created by water-intensive permanent crops like almonds, which were planted on massive swaths of land due to their profitability.
SGMA created a new set of agencies to manage groundwater and gave them roughly a quarter century to develop and implement plans to bring overdrafted groundwater basins into balance. Loathe to impose pumping restrictions that would impact profits, most of these Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) have focused on ways to store additional water. However, getting more water into the ground means getting more water from somewhere else without harming other water users and the environment.
Since such compliance is incompatible with aggressive corporate earnings goals, water agencies controlled by corporate agriculture have been pushing legislation that would allow them to take more water out of our rivers and move it into groundwater storage without environmental and public interest review. This year’s attempt, AB 2026, is sponsored by the Northern California Water Association, whose members control some of the oldest water rights on the Sacramento River, making the prospect of compensation for additional water transfers to GSAs very lucrative.
During his tenure, Governor Newsom has prioritized projects and policies aimed at capturing and supplying more water for corporate agriculture. He has vocally supported the Delta Conveyance Project, Sites Reservoir, and “voluntary agreements” to provide less water for the Bay-Delta ecosystem and its iconic fisheries and has pushed for multiple rollbacks of environmental and public process requirements in budget trailer bills. To justify these positions, he has advanced a narrative that replacing water supply “lost” due to climate change is the only possible path forward.
The key fallacy in this narrative, however, is that total consumptive water use—80% of which goes to agriculture—must remain constant. Newsom, the water industry, and allied legislators are holding fast to this bankrupt narrative because the alternative means reducing the amount of irrigated agriculture—and thus opposing wishes of the major donors who control a politically powerful industry.
The argument for AB 2026 is simple and appealing. If we can capture and store more water from big storms, which produce high river flows, then we will have greater reserves during dry periods to allow for continued water use unencumbered by conservation mandates. The problem, however, is that the AB 2026 uses this argument to permit water transfers at the expense of other water users and the environment.
First, it changes the definition of “excess” flow to one that includes periods when river flow is critical for fish survival and tribal water uses. Second, it removes environmental review and assessment of whether the diversion and storage of water is in the public interest.
And therein lies the rub. The “extra” water storage that AB 2026 would permit would be used for revenue generation—growing more crops by pumping additional groundwater in dry years when surface water supplies are restricted. The bill contains no provisions to ensure depleted groundwater basins are refilled or that stored water would go toward maintaining drinking water wells for disadvantaged communities. Those are public purposes that do not generate profits. Their exclusion is hard evidence demonstrating this bill is not about societal climate change response—rather, it is solely designed to maintain revenues for an industry whose extravagant water use is harming tribal culture, compromising groundwater dependent communities, and destroying ecosystems.
We need leadership that prioritizes equity and environmental protection in our water and climate policies. The legislature should either amend AB 2026 to serve the public good or reject it outright.
Note: The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Maven’s Notebook.
Max Gomberg is a senior policy advisor and board member for the California Water Impact Network and the former Climate and Conservation Manager for the State Water Resources Control Board. He is an expert in state and federal water policy and has focused on equitable policies targeting affordability and cost allocation.
The California Water Impact Network is a state-wide organization that advocates for the equitable and sustainable use of California’s freshwater resources for all Californians.
COMMENTARY: AB 2026 is an duplicitous response to climate change
Another scheme to protect profits for the few at the expense of ratepayers
By Max Gomberg, C-WIN Senior Policy Advisor
When the legislature passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in 2014, the harms from unregulated groundwater pumping had become dire. Rural community drinking water wells were running dry, land subsidence was damaging key infrastructure, and the capacity to recharge groundwater basins was being lost. Much of the crisis owed to demand created by water-intensive permanent crops like almonds, which were planted on massive swaths of land due to their profitability.
SGMA created a new set of agencies to manage groundwater and gave them roughly a quarter century to develop and implement plans to bring overdrafted groundwater basins into balance. Loathe to impose pumping restrictions that would impact profits, most of these Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) have focused on ways to store additional water. However, getting more water into the ground means getting more water from somewhere else without harming other water users and the environment.
Since such compliance is incompatible with aggressive corporate earnings goals, water agencies controlled by corporate agriculture have been pushing legislation that would allow them to take more water out of our rivers and move it into groundwater storage without environmental and public interest review. This year’s attempt, AB 2026, is sponsored by the Northern California Water Association, whose members control some of the oldest water rights on the Sacramento River, making the prospect of compensation for additional water transfers to GSAs very lucrative.
During his tenure, Governor Newsom has prioritized projects and policies aimed at capturing and supplying more water for corporate agriculture. He has vocally supported the Delta Conveyance Project, Sites Reservoir, and “voluntary agreements” to provide less water for the Bay-Delta ecosystem and its iconic fisheries and has pushed for multiple rollbacks of environmental and public process requirements in budget trailer bills. To justify these positions, he has advanced a narrative that replacing water supply “lost” due to climate change is the only possible path forward.
The key fallacy in this narrative, however, is that total consumptive water use—80% of which goes to agriculture—must remain constant. Newsom, the water industry, and allied legislators are holding fast to this bankrupt narrative because the alternative means reducing the amount of irrigated agriculture—and thus opposing wishes of the major donors who control a politically powerful industry.
The argument for AB 2026 is simple and appealing. If we can capture and store more water from big storms, which produce high river flows, then we will have greater reserves during dry periods to allow for continued water use unencumbered by conservation mandates. The problem, however, is that the AB 2026 uses this argument to permit water transfers at the expense of other water users and the environment.
First, it changes the definition of “excess” flow to one that includes periods when river flow is critical for fish survival and tribal water uses. Second, it removes environmental review and assessment of whether the diversion and storage of water is in the public interest.
And therein lies the rub. The “extra” water storage that AB 2026 would permit would be used for revenue generation—growing more crops by pumping additional groundwater in dry years when surface water supplies are restricted. The bill contains no provisions to ensure depleted groundwater basins are refilled or that stored water would go toward maintaining drinking water wells for disadvantaged communities. Those are public purposes that do not generate profits. Their exclusion is hard evidence demonstrating this bill is not about societal climate change response—rather, it is solely designed to maintain revenues for an industry whose extravagant water use is harming tribal culture, compromising groundwater dependent communities, and destroying ecosystems.
We need leadership that prioritizes equity and environmental protection in our water and climate policies. The legislature should either amend AB 2026 to serve the public good or reject it outright.
Note: The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Maven’s Notebook.
Tags