[Water_news] 2. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: SUPPLY - 4/30/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment 

 

April 30, 2007

 

2. Supply

 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER SUPPLY:

'Perfect Storm' Brewing for San Diego's Water Supply - Voice of San Diego

 

CENTRAL COAST WATER SUPPLY:

A drop in the bucket; Despite a dearth of showers this past winter, 2006’s normal rainfall will spare the county from water rationing and other measures, officials say - San Luis Obispo Tribune

 

RUSSIAN RIVER FLOWS:

Editorial: Low flow; Sonoma County Water Agency plan is necessary -- but not enough - Santa Rosa Press Democrat

 

CONSERVATION:

Editorial: Conserving every last drop - Stockton Record

 

WATER STORAGE:

Editorial: California must increase water storage - Contra Costa Times

 

WATER FOR AG USE:

Editorial: Can't drink ethanol - Sacramento Bee

 

DELTA ISSUES:

Editorial: Plan could make Delta unreliable - Tracy Press

 

 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER SUPPLY:

'Perfect Storm' Brewing for San Diego's Water Supply

Voice of San Diego – 4/30/07

By Rob Davis, staff writer

 

San Diego's two largest water sources -- the Colorado River and the Sierra Nevada range -- are at their lowest levels in decades, raising concerns that the arid region may face water shortages as soon as next year.

 

The Colorado River is enduring its eighth year of drought, and the winter snow that blanketed the Sierras contains just 40 percent of the water content it typically does. San Diego County relied on the two sources for 78 percent of its fresh drinking water last year. The region, in recent years, has had to import up to 95 percent of its water a year from those two sources.

 

The prolonged drought on the Colorado -- the worst in a century -- is not news to water agencies. But the state Department of Water Resources is now reporting that the water stored in the Sierras is at its lowest level since 1988. If next year's winter is similarly dry, water shortages could follow.

The Sierra Nevada range serves as a large reservoir of California's drinking water. But less snow fell across the Sierras this winter, said Arthur Hinojosa, chief of the hydrology branch in the state Department of Water Resources' flood management division. And what little snow did fall melted earlier, at a time when flooding concerns prevented dams and reservoirs from catching it.

"Usually one year is not an issue in this state," Hinojosa said. "So many regions are built to handle it. The southern water agencies have lots of storage. They can weather a dry year. [But they] would be hard-pressed to survive two years like this, especially with the Colorado on short supply."

Southern California's water supply is designed to be diverse, relying on two mountain ranges separated by hundreds of miles. Even though the Colorado River has run low, the Sierras have been more reliable. Until this year.

 

"It is a double whammy," Hinojosa said. "The Colorado system is still suffering. To have two of the big imported supplies running on the dry side is reason enough to be cautious with conservation plans."

The reservoirs fed by Sierra snowmelt are now full, which will provide a stable water supply through this year, Hinojosa said. Neither the state Department of Water Resources nor the Los Angeles-based Metropolitan Water District have trimmed their water allotments. The San Diego County Water Authority receives most of its water from the district.

But as a precaution, wide-reaching requests for voluntary water conservation should be expected this summer, said John Liarakos, a water authority spokesman.

Adding to the problem, an Alameda County Superior Court judge has ruled that water cannot be pumped south from Northern California reservoirs, until the state receives proper permits to kill the endangered fish that the pumps trap and grind up. While a brief shutdown wouldn't affect San Diego's water supply, a long-term closure could force the Metropolitan Water District to draw down its reserves -- a potentially valuable water source if the Sierras and Colorado River continue running low.

 

"We're kind of in the perfect storm here," Liarakos said. Asked whether the situation is as dire as the drought that hit San Diego between 1987-1992, he answered: "It is on par. Some are saying it's more severe."

Drought is not an unusual phenomenon in California, but it is a significant policy-shaping force. The legendary 1987-1992 drought brought severe water shortages. In 1991, the Metropolitan Water District cut its water delivery to San Diego by 31 percent and threatened a 50 percent reduction. The calamity helped reform the way Californians considered their water reliability, just as the 2000-2001 energy crisis similarly reshaped the electricity industry.

In the years since, cities throughout California have begun considering desalination plants as drought-proof water supplies. The water authority diversified its supplies and launched conservation efforts, though 78 percent of the San Diego County's water still came from the Sierra Nevada and Colorado River last year.

Widespread drought simultaneously striking the Sierra Nevada range and Colorado basin is not unprecedented, said Dan Cayan, director of the Climate Research Division at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

"There's more than a random chance that when we get drought in the Southwest it tends to have a broad footprint," Cayan said, "so it covers part of the Sierras and a good part of the Colorado basin at the same time."

 

The threat of those infrequent but far-reaching droughts highlights our water reliability's precariousness, as well as the stress that residential development is putting on the Colorado River. The federal Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the Colorado and supplies water to 20 million people in the lower river basin -- Southern California, Nevada and Arizona -- boasts that it has never declared a shortage. Today it is developing contingency plans for water deficiencies.

Rampant development in desert metropolises such as Las Vegas and Phoenix is taxing a water supply once considered inexhaustible. At the same time, the upper Colorado basin -- states such as Colorado, Wyoming and Utah -- is rapidly growing and using more of the water it is entitled to. The southern states have historically relied on that excess water.

 

"At some point in the future, the extra water we used to get from the upper basin into the lower basin isn’t going to be available," said Bob Walsh, a Bureau of Reclamation spokesman. "Even without a drought there may not be as much water as there has historically been."

Eight years ago, the Colorado River was so full the bureau was drafting guidelines to address surpluses. Today, it is contemplating the opposite -- how to address shortages. The river is expected this year to get 70 percent of the snowmelt it typically receives. Lake Mead, the massive Colorado River reservoir formed by the Hoover Dam, is at its lowest level since 1965.

But Colorado River shortages don't appear imminent. While Lake Mead and Lake Powell are at half-capacity, they still have massive amounts of water stored, giving at least a two-year cushion before shortages are declared, said Michael Cohen, senior associate at the Pacific Institute, an Oakland-based think tank.

 

"San Diego and California in general have pretty senior rights to the Colorado River," Cohen said. "There can be shortages on the Colorado for years and California would continue to receive its rights, while Phoenix and Central Arizona takes the largest hit."

The threat of climate change also complicates the future of our water supply, though scientists are quick to point out that there's no provable connection between the current situation and human-fueled climate change.

"There are a lot of things we don’t understand -- and one is the decadal swings of climate," said Brad Udall, director of the Western Water Assessment at the University of Colorado. "In the long run, in the 25- to 50-year timeframe, it's got to get drier if you believe these [climate] models."

Simultaneous drought in the Sierras and Colorado basin "may be unlucky," Udall said. "On the other hand it may be the future."

In a warmer world, more snow is expected to fall as rain, while spring melts are projected to begin earlier, at a time when reservoirs must be kept low for flood control. The unanswered question for scientists is whether rainfall will increase and offset the lost snowmelt.

"I think the lesson here is that drought is a part of our climate, regardless of climate change," said Dan Cayan, the Scripps researcher. "Climate change could exacerbate it. The warmer world that’s developing will make water demand by humans and plants and ecosystems even more intense. But drought is part of the climate, and we should expect that we're going to see it now and again." #

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/04/30/news/01water043007.txt

 

 

CENTRAL COAST WATER SUPPLY:

A drop in the bucket; Despite a dearth of showers this past winter, 2006’s normal rainfall will spare the county from water rationing and other measures, officials say

San Luis Obispo Tribune – 4/28/07

By David Sneed, staff writer

 

The end of April brings with it the likely close of San Luis Obispo County’s rainy season, which experts say was one of the driest locally in decades.

 

Dry conditions have already cost cattle ranchers millions of dollars in the early sale of their animals or feed purchases they’ve had to make and will significantly heighten the danger of wildfires in the summer months, local officials say. But normal rainfall last year will spare the county from drought-related hardships, such as water rationing over the coming summer. This year’s total rainfall for San Luis Obispo is slightly below 10 inches. Paso Robles, meanwhile, has had about 8.9 inches, and Arroyo Grande has had 8.1, according to The Tribune’s weather watchers. Rain totals can differ in a community, depending on the location of data collection. The last time the county experienced a drier year was in 1989, when less than 8 inches were measured in San Luis Obispo.

 

“In almost 60 years of data, this is one of the driest years we’ve seen,” said John Lindsey, meteorologist at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. “You have to wonder if Sunday’s rain was the last of the season.” Storms on Friday and Sunday of last week collectively dropped about an inch of rain.

 

Despite those spring showers, rainfall totals throughout the county are consistently well below half of what is normally received by this point of the rain year, which is measured from July 1 through June 30. Although it varies widely from year to year, San Luis Obispo averages 22 inches of rain a year.

 

As May typically delivers only a half an inch of rain, the chances of making up the deficit are low, Lindsey said.

 

Weather experts don’t have an explanation as to why this rainy season has been so dry.

 

The good news is that an average amount of rain fell last year, filling reservoirs and recharging underground aquifers, which are the county’s main sources of water. It takes several consecutive dry years to force water rationing and other drought-related hardships.

 

“We can withstand a twoyear drought pretty easily, but when we get into the third year it starts causing problems,” said John Moss, San Luis Obispo utilities director.

 

The county’s last multiyear drought was 1986-91. Like many municipalities, San Luis Obispo had to resort to mandatory water conservation measures, Moss said.

 

But this year’s dry conditions are bad enough to cause the U.S. Drought Monitor, a coalition of federal weather agencies, to classify all of San Luis Obispo County as in a “severe” drought.

 

It’s one of many counties throughout California with some level of drought classification. Some areas of Southern California are in “extreme” drought — the next worst level after “severe.”

 

Determining fire danger

 

Conditions that prompt a “severe” classification include high fire risk and the loss of crops or pasture along with water shortages and restrictions.

 

The county is already experiencing the first two of those conditions.

 

Although the hills are still green from the recent rains, they will soon dry out. Cal Fire officials expect the fire season to start in May as usual, said Fire Capt. Jane Schmitz.

 

“We are looking at a season that has the potential for a lot of fire,” she said.

 

Communities with limited water supplies, such as Cambria and San Simeon, are considered the most vulnerable to a catastrophic wildfire.

 

A dry year sometimes has the unexpected benefit of lowering the fire danger because not as much chaparral and other brush has grown.

 

But that’s not the case this year, officials say. The county experienced few wildfires last year and, as a result, there is a lot of unburned brush that got little moisture over the dry rain season.

 

“There is more fuel out there than people think,” Schmitz said. “This year’s seasonal grass hasn’t grown, but last year’s grass is still there and is dead and ready to burn.”

 

Fire officials urge people to be aware of the fire danger and avoid hazardous activities such as using lawn mowers after 10 a.m. and driving over dry grass. State law requires that rural homeowners thin brush in a 100-foot radius around their houses.

 

Cattle ranches are the sector of the county’s economy that suffers the most immediate ill effects of the dry weather. Less rain means less forage, and ranchers have been forced to sell their herds off or buy them expensive feed.

 

County Agricultural Commissioner Bob Lilley estimates the losses this season to be nearly $7 million. In March, Lilley asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a drought declaration because of a 70 percent loss of forage. #

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/183/story/28403.html

 

 

RUSSIAN RIVER FLOWS:

Editorial: Low flow; Sonoma County Water Agency plan is necessary -- but not enough

Santa Rosa Press Democrat – 4/30/07

 

The Sonoma County Water Agency has no choice but to move forward with a proposal that will allow it to reduce the amount of water flowing into the Russian River during summer months.

ADVERTISEMENT

By taking less water from Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma, the agency hopes to have enough water stored to increase river flows in the fall when fish begin their upstream journey to spawning grounds. Storing water now will ensure that there is water available to meet residential demands, too.

If the rains come early, the whole exercise will be in vain -- but the agency can't risk betting on an early, wet autumn.

The fact that the proposal is necessary doesn't make it good. If approved by the state water board, it will mean less water for farmers this summer -- especially those between Ukiah and the Dry Creek Valley. It would also be a major economic blow to people who depend on river-related tourism for their livelihood.

Then there is the fact that drastic cuts in river flow might not be necessary if the water agency required cities to impose mandatory rationing upon customers, instead of relying on voluntary reductions.

Farmers and people living on the lower Russian River are naturally angry about a plan that requires them to change their lives, while 600,000 urban users are being asked to cut their consumption.

It is increasingly evident that conservation can no longer be an emergency response during a dry year: to reduce pressure on the river and to help replenish aquifers, people need to use less water even during rainy years.

So, at the same time the water agency is asking the state for approval to cut river flows, it needs to ensure that residents do their share by reducing per capita consumption -- permanently.

Sonoma County is blessed to have a river as beautiful and plentiful as the Russian. It will require compromises by everyone to keep it that way.
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070429/NEWS/704290372/1043/OPINION01

 

 

CONSERVATION:

Editorial: Conserving every last drop

Stockton Record – 4/30/07

 

Coming soon to San Joaquin County: the summer of serious water conservation.

 

If not this year, next. If not now, soon.

 

It's time to look at the tap as a limited source to be treasured, not as an infinite supply to be squandered.

 

California's 2007 water-supply picture is mixed - some areas have enough in storage to do just fine; others are worried already.

 

The water content of the Sierra Nevada snowpack is at its lowest level in almost 20 years, and it is less than 40 percent of normal, according to the California Department of Water Resources.

 

What happens in the Sierra - California's primary source of drinking water - continues to impact the rest of the state.

 

Water districts serving San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties already are urging urban customers to conserve up to 15 percent of normal usage.

 

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has asked for conservation from its city customers and 28 other Bay Area agencies that buy water from it. It was a drier-than-normal winter for the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, that area's primary supplier.

 

The outlook is even worse in Marin and Sonoma counties, where local officials are asking for state help, because Lake Mendocino is dangerously low.

 

Tuolumne County also is short on water and has warned that without voluntary savings, it could make odd-even day lawn watering mandatory by June.

 

The East Bay Municipal Utility District is asking for its first voluntary cutback in 15 years. The plea hits 1.3 million customers in the hope it will forestall more-serious rationing next year.

 

So far, San Joaquin County communities and agriculture can expect normal deliveries, but the state's overall water picture bears watching.

 

Allocations from the State Water Project will not be reduced. This is the system that sends Northern California water down the California Aqueduct.

 

But the federal Bureau of Reclamation has cut by 50 percent its allocations to agribusiness south of the San Joaquin Delta. The federal agency operates the Central Valley Project.

 

The 2006-07 snowpack, depending where in the Sierra Nevada you take the measurement, is "pretty dismal," said Elissa Lynn, a state meteorologist.

 

So far, because of three consecutive wet years, most Sierra reservoirs are OK.

 

But back-to-back drought years could alter that status in a hurry. And state hydrologists are warning that fast-growing California hasn't added any new water storage in a generation.

 

Nobody is calling it a drought yet, but that could change with one more dry year.

 

If summer demand exceeds expectations, look for voluntary measures to become mandatory.

 

Water conservation needs to be a way of life in California. #

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070430/A_OPINION01/704300312/-1/A_OPINION06

 

 

WATER STORAGE:

Editorial: California must increase water storage

Contra Costa Times – 4/29/07

 

EVEN THOUGH MOST of California's reservoirs are full, water districts are calling for voluntary cutbacks in use. The East Bay Municipal Utility District, which serves 1.3 million users, is requesting residential customers to reduce water use by 15 percent.

 

The San Francisco Public Utility District has asked its 2 million customers to cut back water use by 10 percent.

 

These water conservation actions are the first in 15 years. Fortunately, rainfall and the Sierra snowpack have been adequate to meet the water districts' needs.

 

But just one dry year has put water managers on alert. Modest voluntary conservation now can prevent severe mandatory cutbacks later, they say, if there is another dry year or two.

 

The requests for water-use reduction are stark reminders of just how limited California's water supplies are.

 

With a population growing at nearly 600,000 a year and the threat of ever-decreasing snowpacks linked to global warming, there will be an increasing strain on water supplies.

 

It should be obvious to our lawmakers and the public that the state's water systems are not adequate to meet future needs. That is particularly true if even some of the more benign global warming forecasts are accurate.

 

California needs a comprehensive water policy that includes greater efforts at conservation. But more efficient use of water will not be enough.

 

In the last drought from 1987-92, Californians, especially those in the Bay Area, made significant gains in water conservation. However, many of the things people did to save water, such as low-flow showers, smaller toilet reservoirs, more efficient lawn watering and increased use of recycled water are already in place.

 

Further conservation will not be as easy as it has in the past and could result in hardships for businesses and residential users.

 

Californians can be proud of their conservation successes. The state has cut water use in half in the past 40 years. Much of the savings have come from more water-efficient agriculture, which still uses more than 80 percent of the state's fresh water supply.

 

But there is a limit to what conservation can achieve. More water storage is going to have to be built. Much of any new storage capacity can be in underground aquifers. That's the strategy favored by state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland.

 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is promoting the construction of two new dams in addition to other efforts to increase water supply, improve the Delta ecosystem and boost conservation.

 

We believe that above-ground storage in the form of new dams and/or enlarging current dams is essential.

 

Greater water storage needs to be part of a comprehensive strategy to make sure Californians have an adequate supply of water for environmental protection as well as residential, commercial, agricultural and recreational use.

 

Legislators should not be taking sides for and against dams, but instead they should be looking at the big picture of California water needs for the next half century and beyond.

 

Providing new water storage facilities above or below ground takes many years of planning and construction. Facilities that will provide water in 2050 need to be planned now.

 

Without adequate dependable water supplies in the future, the most likely victims are the environment and agriculture.

 

California is the leading agriculture state in the nation and one of the most productive farming regions in the world.

 

The Delta and other major ecosystems in California rely on a flow of fresh water in dry as well as wet years. Water storage is the most effective way to provide enough water for environmental needs without shortchanging farmers, businesses and residents.

 

But the future does not look bright for farms or the environment if our lawmakers continue to delay action on increasing water supplies, and that means more storage in both above- and below-ground reservoirs. #

http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_5779693

 

 

WATER FOR AG USE:

Editorial: Can't drink ethanol

Sacramento Bee – 4/29/07

 

Businesses in California are racing to build plants to make ethanol, a substitute for gasoline that may or may not (depending on the study) lower greenhouse gas emissions. But it will take the state's most fought-over resource -- water -- to grow the crops used to produce ethanol.

 

Many crops can be used for that purpose, but at the moment ethanol plants are picking corn -- the most water-intensive ethanol crop there is. How much water? How much corn? The answer is startling.

 

The following, by admission, is a back-of-the-napkin look at ethanol's impact on California water. The numerical conclusions will undoubtedly be imprecise. But since we can't find any energy, water or utility agency that has given this topic a better look, the humble napkin is a way to start the conversation.

 

To illustrate the potential problem, let's make a couple of assumptions: California, which can't import enough corn because other states are producing more ethanol, has to grow all of this crop domestically. And let's assume the current trend continues, and corn remains the crop of choice to make ethanol.

 

So how much water does it take to grow corn? According to a study of California agriculture by the respected Water Education Foundation, it takes about 118 gallons of water to grow a pound of corn. And how many pounds of corn does it take to produce a gallon of ethanol? About 21 pounds of corn, according to one publication from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. So do the multiplication (118 gallons of water per pound of corn, times 21 pounds of corn) to get the water it takes to produce the corn for a gallon of ethanol.

 

If these numbers are accurate, the answer is about 2,500 gallons of water. For one gallon of ethanol.

 

Gulp.

 

There is a goal to produce about a billion gallons of ethanol in California a year. So each of those gallons of fuel, based on the calculations and assumptions above, would require 2,500 gallons of water. That's about 2.5 trillion gallons of water for 1 billion gallons of ethanol.

 

How much water is that in the scheme of things? Take all the water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that now goes to Southern California and Valley farms, use it to grow corn -- and it still wouldn't be enough water.

 

This back-of-the-napkin analysis suggests three things about ethanol in California. First, a water-intensive crop such as corn in the Central Valley is a bad choice. Second, since there is only so much water for agriculture in California, some other existing crops won't be grown. Third, it behooves the state to grow ethanol crops in the most water-efficient manner possible and set up laws and policies that guide industry in that direction.

 

It is downright scary to see such a rush to ethanol without a better look at the consequences. #

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/162586.html

 

 

DELTA ISSUES:

Editorial: Plan could make Delta unreliable

Tracy Press – 4/28/07

 

With the Colorado River literally drying up, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California board has adopted a plan to ensure its other major water supplier, the Delta, remains reliable.

 

That reliability is shaky at best. Worries that an earthquake will crumble Delta levees and endanger the water quality have prompted action from the water district and its 18 million users, although the action won’t occur until after a quake knocks down levees and saltwater from San Francisco Bay intrudes the Delta.

 

In an odd move, the water district wants to float a bond that will pay for post-quake repairs, estimated at $50 million to $200 million, which will feature patching up certain levees to create a pathway for clean water from the central Delta to the Tracy pumps.

 

This project sounds to us like the precursor to a permanent peripheral canal, because the rest of the Delta will be too salty for anyone to use. #

http://tracypress.com/content/view/8983/2/

#####