After years of dangerously low levels of the nation’s groundwater, a series of developments in western states suggest that state and federal officials may begin to step up protections for the scarce resource.
In Nevada, Idaho and Montana, a series of court decisions have strengthened states’ ability to limit over-extraction of groundwater. California is considering penalizing local officials for draining their aquifers. And the White House has asked scientists who focus on groundwater to advise how the federal government can help.
“This is really exciting,” said Upmanu Lall, director of both the Water Institute at Arizona State University and the Columbia Water Center at Columbia University. “There have been such things, but not in such a short time in the western states.”
Groundwater levels have dropped significantly across the country over the past four decades, according to data gathered from tens of thousands of monitoring wells and analyzed in a New York Times investigation last year.
This water, used to support industrial farms and large cities, may take centuries or millennia to replenish, if at all. Climate change is accelerating this depletion, which threatens irreversible damage to American society.
Groundwater supplies 90 percent of the nation’s drinking water systems, meaning draining the aquifers could render some communities unviable. The loss of groundwater also reduced crop yields in some areas and caused soil subsidence across much of the country.
State governments have traditionally been the primary source of regulation for groundwater use. And since the beginning of the year, a handful of states with particularly steep groundwater declines have begun to take action.
Idaho has the worst rate of groundwater decline in the nation, as measured by the share of monitoring wells that have shown a drop in water levels since 1980, according to the Times investigation. Much of this water is used to irrigate crops, particularly alfalfa grown to feed one of the nation’s largest collections of dairy cattle.
As farmers draw more groundwater from wells, the amount of water flowing into streams and rivers has also decreased. In response, state officials have instructed farmers in parts of the state to reduce the amount of water they draw from these wells.
Some farmers objected, saying the state was overstepping its authority. But on Jan. 12, the Idaho State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, a decision that will make it easier for the state to demand cuts in other areas, according to Brian E. Olmstead, a member of the Idaho Water Resources Board and former farmer .
Two weeks later came another major groundwater decision, this time from the Nevada State Supreme Court.
More than half of Nevada’s monitoring wells have seen significant declines in water levels since 1980. And nearly one in five monitoring wells hit record lows in the past decade, the Times found.
But big water users, including real estate developers and mining companies, have pushed back, arguing the state is overstepping its powers to limit pumping. A proposed development that could lead to tens of thousands of new homes about an hour north of Las Vegas has been mired in lawsuits after the state warned it would harm water supplies.
Last year, a state lawmaker introduced a bill that would have clarified the state’s ability to say no to such projects. Water users, particularly Barrick Gold, one of the world’s largest gold mining companies, opposed the bill, which subsequently failed to become law.
On January 25, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a ruling that upheld the state’s ability to block development north of Las Vegas. Development attorney Emilia Cargill said in an interview that the decision means hundreds of millions of dollars worth of infrastructure for the new development is now “useless.”
The ramifications of that decision are sweeping, according to Adam Sullivan, the state’s top water regulator. He said the ruling essentially does the same thing last year’s bill would have accomplished. “It helps us move in the direction of being realistic about science,” Mr. Sullivan said in an interview.
A few weeks later came a third decision, this time in Montana, where a judge ruled that the state had not imposed sufficient limits on new housing construction that relies on groundwater.
The decision blocks a proposed housing development in a valley east of Eleni, which is already facing the effects of groundwater depletion. But the impact of the decision will be felt more widely, experts say, forcing the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation to apply a higher standard before approving similar developments.
The push for tighter groundwater regulation isn’t just coming from the courts. Some of the worst impacts of aquifer depletion in the United States are in California. In some parts of the state, including the Central Valley, so much groundwater has been extracted that the ground has sunk 20 feet or more.
A decade ago, state lawmakers passed a law to curb overpumping, requiring local officials to eventually reduce pumping to sustainable levels. And last March, the state found officials at six groundwater basins failed to develop adequate plans.
California begins imposing penalties. In April, the State Water Resources Control Board will hold a hearing to decide whether to test the first of those basins, the Tulare Lake groundwater basin south of Fresno.
That could mean farmers in the area, who use groundwater to irrigate tomatoes, cotton, nuts and other crops, would have to install meters to measure their water use and start paying a fee for water they use. It could also lead to the state forcing those farmers to pump less water.
The state water board has announced plans to hold trial hearings for the other five groundwater basins over the next year or so. After Tulare Lake, the next area to face possible sanctions is the Tule Basin, also in the Central Valley, one of the nation’s most important agricultural regions.
The state is focusing on areas where over-pumping poses the biggest threat to drinking water, as well as areas with the highest rates of subsidence, officials said.
The state’s decision to hold trial hearings is significant, James Nachbaur, director of the office of research, planning and performance at the California State Water Board, said in an interview. These hearings “show that the efforts of local governments responsible for groundwater management continue to be deficient.”
Late last year, the White House asked several of the scientists cited in the Times’ groundwater coverage to brief the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. “How much trouble are we in?” was one of the questions the council asked the experts to answer Update December 1staccording to an email the organizer sent to the scientists, which included a link to the Times investigation.
The White House also asked experts to look at how much time is available for the administration to take action and what the federal government, and particularly the president and the executive branch, can do to address concerns.
A council spokeswoman, Jackie F. McGuinness, did not respond to questions about what steps the council has taken since the notification.