This is a site mirroring the emails of California Water News emailed by the California Department of Water Resources

[Water_news] 2. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: SUPPLY - 4/17/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment 

 

April 17, 2007

 

2. Supply

 

STORAGE OPTIONS:

Water more precious as state grows; Strong feelings over dams: Not everyone agrees with governor that new reservoirs are best way to prepare for dry years -- some experts wonder if they'll even be needed - San Francisco Chronicle

 

BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY ISSUES:

East Bay wants to 'hoard' water; Stockton-area officials protest rights request - Stockton Record

 

DESALINATION:

Desalination proposal takes center stage; Water summit: Size, impact on sea life major concerns - Monterey Herald

 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SUPPLY CONDITIONS:

It's dry, but most of north valley will be OK this year - Chico Enterprise Record

 

Editorial: Water scarcity may force action - Chico Enterprise Record

 

 

STORAGE OPTIONS:

Water more precious as state grows; Strong feelings over dams: Not everyone agrees with governor that new reservoirs are best way to prepare for dry years -- some experts wonder if they'll even be needed

San Francisco Chronicle – 4/14/07

By Tom Chorneau, staff writer

 

(04-14) 04:00 PDT Maxwell, Colusa County -- From a ridge overlooking bucolic Antelope Valley, rancher Bob Alvernaz can almost make out the banks of the Sacramento River about 15 miles to the east.

 

Somewhere in the distance, he said, the state wants to build a canal and pumping system to bring the river water across the rice fields and up the hills to the valley, creating California's next big reservoir.

 

Although the Sites Dam project has been in the planning stage for years, it is still hard for the 76-year-old cattleman and rice farmer to visualize the whole length of the valley -- including his 5,000-acre ranch -- under nearly 2 million acre-feet of water.

 

And even after one of the driest winters on record, he doesn't see the sense of it.

 

"The water won't be for us," he said. "It will be too expensive. It's for the cities down south.

 

"And they say it will generate power, too -- but what about all the power it takes to get the water up here? There's got to be more sensible places to build more storage."

 

His concerns about the $2.4 billion dam project cut to the heart of a bigger debate among water resources experts and elected officials over the best way for California to meet future demands as the population increases an expected 30 percent over the next 20 years.

 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been pushing a $4 billion bond measure he wants to put before voters next year that would help fund the Sites project, as well as one other reservoir in the Central Valley -- a plan that U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein endorsed just last week.

 

But a number of water resources experts say water demand is not likely to increase substantially, even with the population growth expected by 2030. They say conservation programs, improvements in residential design and changes in the economics of farming will likely offset increased demand from a larger population.

 

Both sides agree that climate changes are likely to produce smaller snowpacks and more flooding in the future, but there is no agreement on how best to prepare for those changes -- nor even if adding more storage facilities to capture the runoff is the best approach.

 

"I think spending money on new storage is grossly premature," said Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, an Oakland-based think tank that specializes in water and environmental issues. "There are other options that are faster, cheaper and more environmentally sound. I think that's supported by the state's own assessments."

 

Jay Lund, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis, said that during the next 20 years, urban users are expected to continue to be more efficient even as cities continue to grow. He said more farmland will be converted to housing -- which will reduce water use as the state imports more foods that can be grown cheaper elsewhere.

 

Under such a scenario, some said, making good choices for water-project investments will be critical.

 

"In order to make decisions on billions of dollars of investments, we need to have a clear understanding of all the costs and benefits and all the options. I've not seen that study yet," said Bob Wilkinson, head of the water policy program at UC Santa Barbara.

 

"As we allocate scarce resources to meet our needs, what are the best investments?" he asked. "Surface storage may or may not be there. But clearly, efficiency strategies and recycling are very attractive from an economic standpoint, and from a reliability standpoint, too."

 

Lester Snow, director of the state's Department of Water Resources, disagreed that conservation alone could sustain state through multiple drought years. He said the governor also supports alternative strategies -- but new reservoirs must be part of the plan.

 

"Our future droughts are going to be worse, they are going to be longer and deeper, and our flood peaks are going to be higher," he said. "People say, 'Let's just conserve more.' But conserving this year will not help you in the eighth year of a drought, if you haven't stored the water somewhere.

 

"And conserving water will not reduce the height of a flood peak. That's why we've put this on the table -- to deal with these kinds of uncertainties."

 

Snow said that state forecasts show water demand will outpace supply by at least 2 million acre feet by 2030 -- which requires the state to find more supply.

 

He pointed out that the governor is not taking a reservoir-only approach. Snow said the state is spending millions of dollars a year on conservation and noted that Schwarzenegger last year supported passage of Proposition 84, which provides $5.4 billion in bond money for a variety of water programs -- including conservation.

 

State Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, author of the legislation that if approved would put the dam bond measure on the ballot, said reservoirs have traditionally served as the best protection against drought.

 

"To me, it's always been a common-sense issue," he said. "I don't claim to be a hydrologist or water expert, but I have lived in this state for 56 years and I know what happens during dry years. You can conserve all the water you want, but during certain dry years, if you don't have enough water in reservoirs, we're going to have real problems."

 

The Sites project has been in the planning process since the early 1990s and would likely be the first to be built if voters approve the bond measure. The other project, called Temperance Flat, would be located on the San Joaquin River near Fresno and is still in the early planning stages.

 

Cogdill and Snow pointed out that both projects will require funding partnerships with other agencies before work could begin. They also noted that feasibility studies have not been completed, which could also disqualify either proposal.

 

The biggest issue with the Sites project is the amount of energy required to pump the water into the reservoir.

 

Snow said that the state is still looking at different ways of getting the water to the valley and ways of generating power by releasing water from the dam during peak usage periods to offset storage costs.

 

Gleick argued that while there may be some good reasons for the Sites reservoir, power generation is not one of them. "This reservoir will use more energy than it produces -- that's a fact," he said. "That means that it's going to be a producer of greenhouse gases because we will be using fossil fuels to run the pumps."

 

Cogdill's bill, SB59, is set to have its first hearing before a Senate committee later this month. If approved by both houses and signed into law, the bond measure would go before voters in the November 2008 election.  #

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/14/BAGT9P8QB51.DTL

 

 

BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY ISSUES:

East Bay wants to 'hoard' water; Stockton-area officials protest rights request

Stockton Record – 4/14/07

By Alex Breitler, staff writer

 

At its headwaters in the Sierra Nevada, the Mokelumne River splashes sweet into the bottles of thirsty backpackers.

 

What's left is the subject of sometimes bitter debate.

 

Stockton-area water officials are protesting a Bay Area agency's request for 40 more years to put the river's water to full use.

 

East Bay Municipal Utility District takes the lion's share of the Mokelumne water and sends it west to 1.3 million people from Crockett to Castro Valley, and from Oakland to Danville.

 

It's been that way for years; East Bay MUD got its water rights in 1956. But even today, it doesn't use all of the water that those rights allow.

 

Since water rights are often a matter of "use it or lose it," the utility is asking for more time before it is required to use all of the water it has been given. Population growth in the Bay Area could make that extra water increasingly important over the few decades, East Bay MUD officials say.

 

The request is an attempt to "hoard" water, making it unavailable for others, San Joaquin County officials argue in their protest that was recently filed with the State Water Resources Control Board.

 

The protest becomes even more important since local officials in recent weeks saw their own application for Mokelumne water rights canceled by the state.

 

"We're so short on surface water supply - that's one of the reasons we protested," said Mel Lytle, the county's water resources coordinator. "It (the Mokelumne) is one of our last hopes."

 

East Bay MUD uses about 220 million gallons per day, Lytle said; its full water right allows it to take 325 million gallons.

 

What happens to the remainder? "It just goes out the Golden Gate," said Ed Steffani, head of the North San Joaquin Conservation District, which also filed a protest of East Bay MUD's proposal.

 

East Bay officials say they haven't needed all that water because their customers have conserved so much. Leaky pipes are fixed, water rates are designed to encourage conservation, and rebates are given to those who acquire water-thrifty toilets.

 

However, "as customers install water efficient fixtures and change habits, their ability to further reduce water use in the future ... becomes constrained," utility officials wrote in their request for a time extension.

 

East Bay MUD "cannot predict with certainly" how many people will need its water 40 years from now, the request says.

 

Whatever its population gains, they likely won't be as great percentage-wise as those seen in the Valley, San Joaquin officials counter.

 

The county's own water needs should be filled first, those officials say. The area's groundwater supplies have dwindled, and other rivers are already well-tapped.

 

"East Bay MUD has had 50 years to put its water to beneficial use," county attorneys wrote in their protest. "It now requests an additional 40 years to do so. In so doing, East Bay MUD attempts to completely tie up otherwise available water for the next four decades."

 

East Bay MUD and local officials will at some point sit down to negotiate these differences, Steffani said. If successful, the protests will be dropped.

 

The water board deals with hundreds of requests for time extensions every year, said spokeswoman Liz Kanter. It's unclear how long the Mokelumne process might take. #

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070414/A_NEWS/704140332/0/A_ENTERTAIN03

 

 

DESALINATION:

Desalination proposal takes center stage; Water summit: Size, impact on sea life major concerns

Monterey Herald – 4/15/07

By Brian Seals, staff writer

 

Alternatives to desalination and staying involved in the decision-making process were the main messages early Saturday as about 50 people attended an event called People's Water Summit at the Monterey Senior Center.

 

The summit was sponsored by Citizens for Public Water and Democracy Unlimited Monterey County.

 

While panel experts touched on environmental conditions around the Monterey Bay, the evils of bottled water and corporate-owned water, California American Water's proposed desalination plant at Moss Landing -- and how residents can navigate the state Public Utilities Commission's approval process -- took center stage.

 

Some assailed Cal Am's desalination proposal because of its impact on sea life, while others said the plan was too big. To David Dilworth, of Helping our Peninsula's Environment, the question of the plant's size suggested a strategy for stopping it.

 

"The bigger we make the desalination plant, the more likely it is to fail," Dilworth said.

 

A better plan, said Dilworth, would be a "right-sized" desalination plant combined with things such as storing water in aquifers, repairing leaky lines, reducing water pressure, and requiring golf courses to use reclaimed water.

 

He said such a multi-pronged plan was launched by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District in 2003, but a change in board members left the plan on a shelf.

 

Cal Am Vice President Steve Leonard, who was present to observe the panel, said the company considered a range of alternatives and didn't take the desalination path lightly or as being an exclusive solution.

 

"We are continuing to look for water solutions," he said.

 

Cal Am's Web site states its Coastal Water Project "encompasses more than desalination." The proposed desalination facility is the Coastal Water Project's "central feature," but the site adds that the CWP "will create a comprehensive water supply through an efficiency and demand management program, including aquifer storage and recovery in addition to desalination."

 

One panelist called the process for drawing fresh water from sea water too energy-intensive at a time when fuel prices are rising and because of carbon dioxide emissions that could result from fueling such a plant.

 

"I believe it's actually a waste of money to build it," said Deborah Lindsey of Sustainable Monterey County. "It will be impossible due to rising fuel costs to even run it."

 

One way to offset the demand for desalination would be conservation measures, such as home systems that use rainwater for household uses, she said.

 

Leonard reacted with skepticism about the effectiveness of the proposed water alternatives. Conservation is part of the solution, he said, but Monterey water customers use about half the water than is used in Southern California, he said. Plus, the company is under a state order to provide more supply to ease pressure on water coming from the Carmel River.

 

"We have to solve the problem," said Leonard. "We need to keep moving forward."

 

Cal Am's plan for an approximately $200 million desalination plant is winding its way through the Public Utilities Commission approval process and will need approval from the California Coastal Commission. That process is stacked in favor of utilities and corporations, said George Riley of Citizens for Public Water.

 

Riley cited Cal Am leaders meeting with PUC staff and influencing its recommendations as proof.

 

"The PUC is in the hands of the corporations, there's no way around it," Riley said. "The PUC is not your friend."

 

Even Fred Curry, a PUC staff member, agreed that is a concern. Regulators often get cozy with the people they are regulating because they have constant contact, something he called "regulatory capture."

 

But the PUC's ratepayer advocate division gives frustrated residents someone to call when they are fed up with their water provider. He said, the division is there to enable residents to get involved and that it can tell customers if they have a good case in arguing against a utility's proposals. #

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/17082170.htm

 

 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SUPPLY CONDITIONS:

It's dry, but most of north valley will be OK this year

Chico Enterprise Record – 4/14/07

By Heather Hacking, staff writer and Steve Schoonover, City Editor

 

The feds are saying most of California is in a drought. State officials aren't going that far. But everyone agrees it's a dry year.

 

What does that mean for the north valley? Well this year, there should be enough water for most homes and farms, but more wildfires are expected.

 

And if the dryness continues until next year, there are no guarantees.

 

"We like to say one dry year doesn't make a drought," said Jeanine Jones, interstate resources manager for the Department of Water Resources.

 

The state of California has a complex, interconnected water delivery system the allows for water delivery to major customers even in times when rain and snow is light.

 

However, there are some rural areas with small water systems or reliance on wells that become affected when nature's faucet turns slow. Those areas have a more difficult time "hooking up" to water infrastructure, Jones explained.

 

Especially vulnerable are areas with "fractured rock formations," such as the Paradise ridge area. The soil isn't porous and water permeates through cracks in lava. It's difficult to drill wells, thus difficult to provide more reliable water supply.

 

While the Paradise Irrigation District and Del Oro Water Co. — which provide water to most of the residents on the ridge — say they have enough water this year, both are asking customers to conserve.

 

In the valley, where there are thousands of feet of alluvial soils deposited by flowing water, a couple of dry years don't make an impact, Jones said.

 

"This year the risk areas will be the Sierra Nevada foothills, the north and central coast," Jones said.

 

For example, the city of Santa Cruz has a small watershed and "precautionary conservation" might be needed.

 

"They're not hooked up to a regional plumbing system," she said.

 

"California's water system has evolved. There are a number of agencies that have water banking and groundwater contracts."

 

Even in the last statewide drought, from 1987-1992, most of the water delivery systems were able to achieve 20-30 percent in decreased water use through conservation.

 

Ted Trimble, manager for Western Canal Water District, said his agency will get final notice soon on water deliveries it gets from the Feather River, but he's not worried this year. His agency has only had cutbacks three times, in 1977, 1991 and 1992.

 

But there are other water districts in the Sacramento Valley who have less secure water rights and have seen more water cutbacks.

 

The Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the federal water system, will be releasing a water supply update Monday.

 

Jeff McCracken, spokesman for the bureau, said the reservoirs are actually more full than last year at this time because much more water was released for flood control.

 

"The concern would be if it's a dry year next year," McCracken said.

 

That's because there's not going to be much more water flowing into those reservoirs this spring.

 

Each year around April 1, teams head into the hills to check how much snow is on the ground, and how much water that snow represents.

 

That water, released when the snow melts, is what fills the state's reservoirs.

 

Each year the crews go to the same places. This year, they found very little snow, and in some cases, none.

 

Except in places shaded from the sun, there's no snow at Chester, Mineral or in the meadows in between. Usually, there would be a couple of feet on the ground at those locations.

 

The only snow at Manzanita Lake in Lassen Volcanic National Park is a couple of inches that fell Wednesday, according to the park's Web site. The April 1 survey found that even at the base of Lassen Peak, at 8,250 feet elevation, there was less than 10 feet of snow.

 

The park started plowing the main park road April 2, and as of Thursday, had reached Lake Helen. The road has not been opened past the southwest entrance station, however.

 

The picture isn't much different on the other side of the valley.

 

On April 2, Mendocino National Forest employees were able to drive to within 5 1/2 miles of the Plaskett Meadows snow measuring course at 6,000 feet elevation. Seven of the 10 sample sites were bare. The average snow depth was 2.6 inches.

 

The average for the area this time of year is 40 inches, according to Mendocino Forest spokeswoman Phebe Brown.

 

"This is the driest April reading on record since 1944," said Bob Faust, Mendocino Forest hydrologist. That was the year the forest started making the measurements.

 

One thing that's almost certain is that this will be a bad wildfire year.

 

Cal Fire-Butte County spokeswoman Janet Upton said local firefighters have responded to escaped control burns almost daily lately.

 

"That's not usual for April," she said. "We usually don't get those until May or June."

 

"This is shaping up to be a dry season," she said, and that means more fires. "That's the chatter up and down the state."  #

http://www.chicoer.com/fastsearchresults/ci_5671349

 

 

Editorial: Water scarcity may force action

Chico Enterprise Record – 4/15/07

 

The dreaded D-word ("drought") was uttered in California this week, and while the Bay Area and Southern California immediately started talking about conservation and even rationing, the reaction here was "ho-hum."

 

What should we care? We have all the water. The two biggest reservoirs in our area, Shasta and Oroville, are 88 percent full.

 

They're remarkably high, despite the dry year, because there was so much carryover from last winter.

 

Sure, they'll be extremely low by the end of summer as agriculture and cities quickly drain the lakes that won't have much snowmelt feeding them. If there's a second dry year, we'll be feeling the big cities' pain.

 

But for now, let 'em suffer.

 

They get all the money to build and rebuild roads and dismiss the rural north whenever it asks for money of its own. The rationale is always that nobody lives up there, so who cares? They don't know what traffic is, the big-city legislators say.

 

They sure love our water, though.

 

Now those legislators need our resources, but they'll have a hard time convincing us to be team players and start rationing just so big cities can have more.

 

Water management, though, is about to become a big issue -- which means it will be a political issue.

 

Since it will become political, it's worth noting that the big-city areas that are already talking about rationing are represented by Democrats in the Legislature.

 

When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released a water plan that talked about future supplies, it talked about conservation, recycling ... and two new reservoirs near Maxwell and Fresno.

 

Democrats liked the plan -- except the part about the two new reservoirs.

 

They repeated the environmentalists' old line that California doesn't need more water, it just needs to get better at conservation.

 

Well, we're soon going to find out if they're right as California is forced to try to conserve its way through a drought.

 

The fact remains, though, that California is growing and droughts are cyclical. We need to get better at managing our ground water, our surface water, our urban uses and our agricultural uses. We need to get better at conservation. And we need to find ways to increase our water reserves (here's the important part) in ways that do the least damage to the environment.

 

A reservoir at Sites, west of Maxwell, wouldn't dam a year-round stream. Instead, water would be pulled from the Sacramento River during high-water events, such as during last spring's high run-off. Sites Reservoir would come in very handy if it was full, or even half full, in a summer like this.

 

If not for the north state's two reservoirs that are 88 percent full, the state would be in a world of hurt this summer. Let's hope Democratic legislators are wise enough to make the connection.

 

Legislators have done nothing to improve matters, which is great as long as the rain keeps falling. Now, it appears Mother

 

Nature may force them to stop fiddling.
http://www.chicoer.com/fastsearchresults/ci_5671306

 

 

No comments:

Blog Archive