California is facing a critical issue plaguing the state every year that affects all people.  This issue is how California stores its water and uses it efficiently for farming, commercial uses, and families in the state.  Currently the state has a heavy emphasis on funding projects for above ground water projects. Naturally, the state has experienced heavy droughts that have dried vegetation and forests causing more fires and pumping of ground water for the farming industry.  As a result, the Central Valley region has seen a decrease of elevation by 28 feet as more demand for food is needed by the nations growing population and the state.  These issues pertaining to water storage can be solved with a cheaper way of storing water and more efficiently by using the natural storage areas the state has while also changing policies on how water is stored.  

       The state naturally has a Mediterranean climate where during the spring and summer temperatures are above average from the world resulting in a very dry climate for farmers, families, and businesses.  In the fall and winter seasons, this climate tends to change to a very wet season thereby allowing the state to collect water needed for the other seasons. Recently, these above average temperatures have continued to rise every year breaking records and causing terrible droughts for the state, that have begun to deprive people of water especially in Southern California.  To combat this, the state government allowed several propositions to be on the ballot aimed at protecting wildlife habitats, water ways, and promoting storage of water.  One big proposition was Prop 1 in 2014.

       Prop 1 was a proposition made by a collaboration of the state government and governor to allow over seven billion dollars of bonds towards wildlife protection and water projects across cities and counties deemed worthy by the Department of Water Resources.  This ballot measure was controversial in part because of its cost to the state, which was already in enormous debt, and because of the governor’s pushback on it.  Originally, the measure was scheduled to allow voters to choose whether to spend $12 billion for projects forcing Governor Brown to block the measure being allowed for two election cycles to bring the cost down.  His view was that the legislature was putting too much money into the system that was not nessecary. Ultimately, the ballot passed after during the 2014 midterm election. The results of this prop continue into today including many of the projects proposed to the Department of Water Resources.

       Following the passage of Prop 1, the Department of Water Resources took applications for projects related to the $2.7 billion allocated for this part of the prop.  Only a handful of these were selected for funding and were only funded for a small portion of the selected projects. The total for the 11 projects was worth almost $11 billion dollars to which the DWR gave less than one fourth of the money needed to fund these critical needs.  Additionally, most of the money after came from taxes of local citizens and most of the projects selected were above ground water projects rather than underground, sustainable projects.  This problem of funding water projects ,overwhelmingly for above ground areas, specifies why the state has a hard time grappling with droughts and changing climates today.

       Above ground water projects cost between $1,700-$2,700 per acre-foot to build and maintain.  These projects include canals, reservoirs, man-made lakes, etc. These projects also take years to start and build through the environmental reviews required by state regulators.  From Prop 1, these projects cost $10 billion dollars of the $11 billion to start the process of being built compared to the half a million needed for groundwater storage projects. Groundwater projects, in comparison, cost only $90-$1100 per acre-foot to build and keep running because of the natural ground built to support these aquifers that already exist.  California had over 500 aquifers and groundwater storage areas across the entire state, mostly in Southern California. These aquifers are constantly used by farmers in the Central Valley for food and crop production.  Clearly, the answer to California’s access to water program is to use the rain poured down from above that is captured and store it in these inexpensive aquifers already built underground.  However, there are obstacles to doing this, such as pushback from farming communities or having ways to properly capture enough water to store underground and provide for all people in an area.

       As a result of the immense agricultural output of farmers in the Central Valley, it is possible for this community to show resistance to government actions made by the state or county if they are not prioritized to receive funding to store water underground compared to cities in Southern California.  Given that the valley provides 25% of food to the country and 75% of the irrigated land in California is in the Central Valley, it seems necessary for the priority of water storage to be put in this region as well as cities such as Los Angeles and San Bernardino who suffered the most from the past drought.  Another barrier to changing approval of water projects is that the California legislature may have a political fight over oversight on these projects.  This barrier shows the most probable resistance to the issue because of its ability to stagnate other legislation for water policy. But, it will most likely be avoided if the legislature either finds a bipartisan way to unite to stop this critical issue or if Democrats who control both houses are united enough to change this policy.

       Water in California is considered one of the most precious resources in California that literally keeps the state economy running.  The state government must find a solution to this issue soon to avoid another disastrous fire season and drought. Otherwise, the status quo will only get worse as years pass over the grumbling of how such funds are to be appropriated or to whom the money can go too.  California must stand united for sake of future generations and for the sake of others in the country that depend on California to help provide for the nation and its allies.