In Deep Water: Resource and Legal Regulatory Scarcity in the Assessment of Los Angeles County Groundwater Withdrawals 1. LANDSCAPE: THE CURRENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S GROUNDWATER
3. CONCEPTUAL MODEL: POTENTIAL LEGAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS
CA’s limited legal groundwater regulatory framework governing has led to:
CA’s water laws are replete with disharmony:
1. 2. 3. 4.
Fresh-water source over-withdrawal; Land subsidence; Contamination; and Threatened seawater intrusion
Nevertheless, large community water systems in LA County rely, at least in part, on contaminated groundwater.
1. 2. 3. 4.
Nevertheless, CA’s water Hydro-geologically interconnectedness; laws have not substantially Disparate legal treatment; Surface water regulations are robust; and changed in over 100 years. Groundwater regulations are diminutive.
• 1,100 Active • 112 (East Los Angeles) • 76 (Burbank) • 73 (N. Hollywood)
• 8,049 Inactive
Riparianism
• 1496 (Compton) • 1015 (Torrance) • 576 (El Monte)
• = 5.1 MAF/year
Active Groundwater Wells in LA County
Inactive Groundwater Wells in LA County
Reference Point Elevation Ground Surface Elevation Water Surface Elevation Depth to Water
• Riparian + Correlative • Prior Approp. +Prescrip.
• Injurious • Riparian + Prior Approp. • Prior Approp. + Corr.
Prior Appropriation
• Current Law 1
2
• Measurements: • • • •
• Synergistic
Legal Regulatory Frameworks Conceptual Model Surface Water Legal Doctrines
Prior Appropriation
3
4 Correlative Rights
5
6
Prescription
Groundwater Legal Doctrines
• 2014-Sustainable Groundwater Management Act • 2011-Groundwater Management Act Mod. • 2009-Groundwater Elevation Monitoring • 2002-Groundwater Management Act Mod. • 1992-Groundwater Management Act Intro.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW: THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS
4. METHODOLOGY: DEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Collective action is one possible solution to the Commons Tragedy:
Research Question: How do surface and groundwater legal structures, as well as other variables including water scarcity and fear of water scarcity, affect well pumping behaviors in Los Angeles County?
Subordinate individual water interests in favor of an efficient allocation of resources that yields greater collective benefits. 2. The problem: natural resource The Economics of consumers recognize only Marginal Cost (Societal) Commons = Marginal Cost (External) + immediate losses and gains, and Exploitation Marginal Cost (Individual) not accumulated effects. Marginal Cost (Individual) 3. The consequence: commons Deadweight Loss resources depletion. 4. The application: Groundwater Marginal Benefit (Societal) extraction is a clear = Marginal Benefit (External) + manifestation of commons Marginal Benefit (Individual) exploitation. Cost
1.
Seth R. Samuels J.D. Candidate, 2015 M.U.R.P. Candidate, 2015 C: 818.571.3922 E: ssamuels@g.ucla.edu
QM QE
Marginal Benefit (Individual) Quantity
Importance: This research will give policy makers data and tools necessary to craft appropriate stratagems to deal fairly and intelligently with water rights. Research Trajectory
Geographic Area (Central and West Coast Groundwater Basins)
Legal Regulatory Frameworks (1-6)
Treatment (Other Independent Variables)
Outcomes
Surface Water Legal Doctrines Riparianism
1 Prior Appropriation
2
3
Prior Appropriation
1
2
3
Correlative Rights
Groundwater Legal Doctrines
Prescription