The beginning of fall is just around the corner, but California’s dry season is far from over. Water storage reservoirs are slowly being drained for agricultural and residential consumption, with no replenishment expected for a couple more months.

This process happens every year, but it’s even more pronounced during drought conditions. This time of year brings to the forefront California’s management of water resources — or as many would claim, the state’s mis-management of these resources.

Our state’s native fish, such as salmon, steelhead and sturgeon, evolved over many thousands of years to rely on the natural, seasonal water flows from the various river systems to support and continue their respective species.

But during the last century, most of the major rivers have been dammed and the water diverted for human uses, leaving little for the fish and putting many species on the brink of extinction.

Political battles are underway on how to manage the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the heart of the Central Valley Water Project.

The Napa Valley Register frequently runs editorials by Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee. I always enjoy Walters’ articles as they offer great insights into what’s going on in the legislature and in the minds of our elected leaders.

His recent piece, titled “Finding a way to finance ‘something big’ for California,” revealed two very disturbing clues as to the mind-set of our elected politicians.

First is a comment made by senate leader Darrell Steinberg regarding why the water issue is important.

“Water is the best opportunity we have right now to show that we can do something big,” he said.

As a conscientious citizen of California, I am deeply offended by this statement! Steinberg doesn’t appear to really care about the water issue itself, or the ecosystems and wildlife it impacts. He just wants to make himself look important, to have something “big” on his political résumé.

The actual outcome is irrelevant, as long as they can get something done. Shameful!

The second revelation is a fact about the financing of California’s water facilities that I’ve always feared was true. Originally, dams and water conveyance systems were paid for directly by the end users.

This makes perfect sense, for the city to where the water is sent to cover the cost of its storage and delivery. Then these costs are passed down to the citizens, farms and businesses of that city based on usage.

But in recent decades, new water projects have been paid for out of California’s general fund. This means ALL California taxpayers have been footing the bill for the new water facilities being built.

But are the benefits of these new systems evenly spread throughout the state’s population?

This financing method provides a huge discount to all the water users who benefit from these new facilities, courtesy of all California taxpayers.

Perhaps if these new users of water resources had to pay full price, they would find another source for their water or maybe even discover the concept of conservation.

Or perhaps if water were appropriately priced in parts of the state that are otherwise dry and desolate, maybe not so many people would choose to live there.

California’s natural resources are amazing and impressive, but they are not endless. Our elected leaders must take responsibility for finding a compromise whereby fish and wildlife can co-exist with the human population.

The dramatic decline in California’s salmon fisheries might be a sign that our state has taken in more people than its resources can accommodate.

Far too much pressure is being put on our rivers and streams to sustain life for all species. It’s time to either start looking elsewhere for our water, or to stop encouraging population growth in this state.

Guy Carl is a CPA and partner with BDCo Accountants and Advisors in St. Helena (www.bdcocpa.com). Contact Guy at GC.outdoors@sbcglobal.net.