A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment
October 1, 2007
1. Top Items
Governor, Democrats at odds over water woes; Push on to reach deal to put plan on Feb. 5 ballot - San Diego Union Tribune
Governor wants dams, but Democrats focus on delta - Ventura County Star
Debate dams up state lawmakers - Fresno Bee
Column: Water duel symbolizes deep chasm -
Guest Column: Water plan would boost ailing system -
Editorial: California's water works; Gov. Schwarzenegger deserves credit for taking on one of the state's most intractable problems, but his solution isn't complete - Los Angeles Times
Drop water bill veto threat, agree on bond - Contra Costa Times
Governor, Democrats at odds over water woes; Push on to reach deal to put plan on Feb. 5 ballot
By Michael Gardner, staff writer
Yet as pressures build from different directions, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders remain far apart over how to respond.
“We have a golden opportunity to do big-picture thinking,” said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies.
But that opportunity may be lost to a stalemate. Perennial divisions over dams and canals and who pays for expensive water projects threaten to push any compromise out of reach.
The Republican governor and Democratic legislative leaders are tangling over competing bond measures that would raise billions of dollars to build reservoirs, restore the fragile
There is a push to reach an agreement by Oct. 16 – the deadline for placing a measure on the Feb. 5 ballot. If a deal is struck, rank-and-file legislators will be called to interrupt their fall recess. A two-thirds vote is required to send a bond measure to the governor, meaning any agreement has to have bipartisan support.
Illustrating the deep divisions statewide, some of
Metropolitan and
“There's a potential to marry pieces of all the plans and come up with something that has wider appeal,” said Gary Arant, general manager of the Valley Center Municipal Water District.
The county water authority board has withheld its endorsement of the governor's bond proposal. Directors question his plan to earmark funds for major new reservoirs to serve the entire state. They suggest that local projects, such as raising the San Vicente reservoir, would provide additional storage at a lower cost – and more quickly. San Vicente could be enlarged and filled by 2017, authority officials say.
Much of the state's water supply starts north of the delta and must flow through an 1,100-mile maze of waterways to reach
Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, a legislative leader on water issues, opposes using a bond measure to build a new aqueduct to carry water south.
“The people who want a canal say they'll pay for it,” Laird explained. “Why does it have to be in a bond and drag down everything else?”
The centerpiece of Schwarzenegger's proposal is $5.1 billion to build two dams – one north of
Leading environmentalists, a core constituency of legislative majority Democrats, have rejected proposals to build the new reservoirs. They say conservation and groundwater storage could provide additional water cheaper.
Democratic leaders agree. Unlike the governor's financial commitment to large new dams, Democratic proposals prioritize spending on aquifers and regional projects that could store water closer to where it's needed.
Some environmentalists also fear that new water works to bring supplies south will reduce the urgency to restore the
“If we start funneling water around the delta, no one's going to care about the delta,” said Jim Metropulos of the California Sierra Club.
Environmentalists also question allocating money before the governor's own advisers release a long-awaited new plan for delta improvements toward the end of the year.
“The policy should come before the money,” said Mindy McIntyre of the Planning and Conservation League.
Powerful
The governor is urging Californians to set aside past prejudices, convinced that reservoirs can provide reliable supplies, guard against floods, and benefit fish and wildlife.
“Californians are smart people. They realize we need all the tools,” said Schwarzenegger ally Mario Santoyo, assistant general manager of the Friant Water Authority, which is pushing a new reservoir along the
California is under increasing pressure to act, prodded by a federal judge's ruling to reduce pumping water south to protect an endangered 3-inch fish, the delta smelt. The order could reduce deliveries out of the delta by as much as a third – a potential annual loss of up to 2 million acre-feet, or enough for 4 million households.
“It makes a normal year a drought year,” said Stan Williams, general manager of the San Jose-based Santa Clara Valley Water District.
U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger's recent decision exacerbates an already challenging time for water agencies that have issued dire warnings that rationing may be in place by next summer.
“
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070930/news_1n30water.html
Governor wants dams, but Democrats focus on delta
By Timm Herdt, staff writer
SACRAMENTO — While Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was clearly thinking big earlier this month when he proposed a $9 billion water bond measure he wants lawmakers to quickly put on the ballot, Democratic lawmakers have responded with a decidedly more modest approach.
Rather than rush ahead with plans to build two dams and expand an existing one, as Schwarzenegger suggests, the chairwoman of the Assembly's water committee said this week the state should instead focus all its immediate attention on fixing
"The delta is dying; that is the immediate crisis, and that's where the money should go," said Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, chairwoman of the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee.
Advocates of the delta-first approach have an important, and somewhat surprising, urban ally: the Metropolitan Water District, which supplies water to 18 million
The district has made delta restoration its No. 1 priority, and the head of the agency that distributes imported water in
"We need to move forward incrementally," said Don Kendall, general manager of the Calleguas Municipal Water District in
Crisis has gotten worse'
The degraded condition of the delta created the sense of urgency that led Schwarzenegger to order a special session of the Legislature to deal with water issues.
A federal judge in August ruled that exports from the delta, which supplies water to 25 million Californians from the San Francisco Bay Area to
"Our water crisis has gotten worse with the recent federal court action that is going to have a devastating impact on the state's economy and the 25 million Californians who depend on delta water," Schwarzenegger said in unveiling his plan. "We need a comprehensive fix."
Supporters of Schwarzenegger's approach, including business and agricultural leaders, say delta restoration is necessary but must be accompanied with more aggressive actions to increase water storage and improve the flow of water from north to south.
Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines of
"They've hoodwinked Californians and gotten money for environmental restoration," he said. "I'm not interested in putting out a bond that's a half-fix."
The state Senate will begin hearings next week and consider three issues: Schwarzenegger's $9 billion bond proposal, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata's $5 billion bond proposal, and plans for spending already-approved bond money for delta restoration.
Perata's plan does not include money for dams but would provide funds for regional projects that could include dams.
Villines said he remains optimistic that lawmakers could act by Oct. 12 to place a comprehensive water bond proposition on the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot.
Wolk said such quick action is unlikely and that lawmakers would be wise to wait until a consensus can be reached on long-range proposals such as dams.
"I'm not optimistic about our ability to do anything in the special session," she said. "It's premature to go to the people and ask for billions of dollars on projects that don't have enough reality to them."
It's not just the smelt'
Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Planning and Conservation League, oppose new dams because of the adverse consequences for riparian habitat.
Wolk is promoting what she calls a $250 million "no regrets" agenda, so named because it involves only projects that are universally recognized as necessary. It includes projects such as diverting some
"It's not just the smelt," she said of the problems that plague the delta. "It's the crumbling levees, it's the invasive species, it's the increased pumping. The entire food chain is in crisis. You have an incredible system failure."
Villines said the need for delta restoration is evident, but the state is at the point where it must begin working toward long-range solutions to increase the water supply. "Without surface storage, there's no reason to even meet," he said of the special session.
"You cannot sustain the delta without more surface storage in
Year's supply for 600,000
Kendall said
His Calleguas district, which supplies imported water to
Thanks largely to underground storage in
The source of nearly all of the district's water is the State Water Project, which is fed by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Preserving that resource,
Debate dams up state lawmakers
By E.J. Schultz, staff writer
Gov. Schwarzenegger called a special session on water, it was clear what the sticking point would be.
Dams. Republicans say the state needs more. Democrats aren't convinced. More than two weeks into the session, lawmakers have yet to find common ground.
Schwarzenegger's $9 billion plan puts an emphasis on three new dams -- including one near
Assembly Democrats also have a plan. It is short on details but discourages using state money for dams, by stating that local users bear "the strong majority" of water project costs.
The dam debate is expected to pick up in coming days, as lawmakers near an Oct. 16 deadline to place a water bond on the Feb. 5 ballot.
Here's a closer look:
Q: Does the state need more dams?
A: Depends on whom you ask. Farmers, developers and some municipal leaders say that dams are the best way to increase the state's water supply. Water that now flows to the ocean could be captured to serve the state's growing population. Supporters also tout other benefits, such as protecting communities from flooding and stabilizing river flows to aid fish.
Environmentalists say dams are too expensive and take too long to build -- more than a decade in most cases. Because most of the good sites have been taken, new reservoirs might only fill up in really wet years, they say. They also note that studies on proposed dams haven't been completed. Also, dams would impede the natural flow of rivers, harming surrounding habitat that relies on rivers changing course every so often, opponents say.
Q: How much water could be stored at the new dams?
A: The three dams proposed by the Schwarzenegger administration would increase the state's storage capacity by 3.3 million acre-feet. They wouldn't fill every year, so water supplies would be boosted by a far smaller amount each year -- by up to 1 million acre-feet, according to estimates. For perspective, each acre foot is enough to meet the annual water needs of one to two average
Q: Where would the dams be built?
A: The Schwarzenegger administration favors three sites.
One site is northeast of
A second site, known as Sites Reservoir, is on the west side of the
The third project is an expansion of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, located about 11 miles north of
Q: How much would the dams cost and who would pay?
A: The three dams would cost a combined $10.3 billion. Under Schwarzenegger's proposal, voters would be asked to approve $5.1 billion in state bonds to help pay for the projects.
But here is where it gets tricky. The bond money could only be used to pay for the portion of the project deemed to have a statewide "public benefit." Examples include increased flood protection or new water supplies to aid fisheries.
Remaining costs would be picked up by water agencies and other local groups that would benefit from the new water. Voters would be asked to approve the bond before any local financing is secured, but the state would not spend the money until local agencies commit to paying their fair share.
The plan does not spell out how to determine the "public benefit" portion. The final amount would likely be challenged by environmentalists and others opposed to using state money for dams -- a process that could possibly tie up the projects for years.
Q: Would local users be willing to pay their share?
A: Environmentalists say if the dams were needed, users would find a way to pay for them on their own. Under Schwarzenegger's plan, the state could pick up as much as half the tab of the three new dams. Democrats say that's way too much. They point to recent water storage projects -- such as
But administration officials say the three proposed dams have a statewide benefit. For instance, newly stored water could be sent across the state, so everyone could benefit, officials say.
Q: But wouldn't each new dam have specific local benefits?
A: Yes. A new dam at Temperance Flat would bring a new water supply to east
Temperance Flat supporters say the river's major reservoir,
As for Sites Reservoir, state officials mostly tout environmental and water management benefits. For instance, by increasing statewide storage by putting water in Sites, more colder water could be kept in
Water from Los Vaqueros is now used by customers of the Contra Costa Water District. The district also has the ability to send water to other Bay Area users. State officials also say a bigger reservoir could store water for fisheries and wildlife refuges in the
Q: Aren't there problems with each dam proposal?
A: None is perfect and environmentalists say each one has major issues. A dam at Temperance Flat would drown hydroelectric power plants upstream and flood the San Joaquin Valley River Gorge, home to animals and plants, opponents say.
There also is a debate on how often a new reservoir would fill up. The average yield would be 208,000 acre feet of water, well under the 1.3 million acre-feet capacity. Dam supporters say the dam would fill in wet years. But only Mother Nature really knows how often that would occur.
In the past 15 years, the reservoir could have filled seven times, according to operators of Friant Dam. Environmentalists say that a longer look at history suggests the dam would fill up far less frequently.
Environmentalists fear that Sites Reservoir -- located north of the delta -- could be used to steal too much water from the
There are concerns that Los Vaqueros might be used to suck too much fresh water from the delta. And statewide benefits of the dam are questionable because
Q: What are the alternatives?
A: Environmentalists say ground-water storage, conservation and recycling programs are more cost-effective than dams. New conservation efforts could save as much as 3.1 million acre-feet of water a year, triple the amount provided by building new dams, according to an analysis by the state Department of Water Resources.
But department officials say all options should be pursued. They say dams can do things other projects can't -- like capturing large quantities of water in wet years.
Q: Will anything really get done this year?
A: Time is running out to get a bond on the Feb. 5 ballot.
Deals can come together quickly in the Capitol. But water issues have led to some of the Capitol's biggest fights over the years and there is no reason to expect that will change.
Still, if anything is going to get done, now could be the time. There is a new sense of urgency ever since a federal judge in
Schwarzenegger and Perata appear ready to strike a deal. But hurdles remain. #
http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/152722-p2.html
Column: Water duel symbolizes deep chasm
By Dan Walters, columnist
When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called a special legislative session on water supply, it underscored that
Ostensibly, as framed by Schwarzenegger and other politicians, the conflicts are largely financial and technological. What's the most reliable and cost-effective way of capturing and conveying enough water to serve present and future needs while protecting, to the extent possible, fish and other wildlife dependent on flows in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the nexus of water in California?
Were that the only question, engineers, hydrologists, construction managers, biologists and other professionals could answer it. It wouldn't be easy, but they could do it, and politicians and voters could decide how to apportion costs. That's more or less how the peripheral canal came to be approved by the Legislature over a quarter-century ago as the best approach to transporting water while protecting the Delta.
There are, however, an infinite number of intangible aspects to water, what Schwarzenegger and others have likened to religious war. Indeed,
The conflicts, moreover, are only tangentially about water per se; fundamentally they are deeply seated, perhaps intractable philosophical differences over how -- or even whether --
Water supply is intrinsically connected to land use, housing, energy and transportation policies. Those are intertwined, in turn, with our widely divergent conceptions of what kinds of lives we Californians should be leading in the 21st century.
Once -- in the quarter-century after World War II -- we Californians knew what we were and what we wanted, empowering a generation of officeholders to build highways and water systems and other infrastructure to serve ever-expanding residential suburbs.
But the economic evolution and cultural change that began sweeping through
When voters rejected the peripheral canal, the last major link in the state's north-south water transfer system, in 1982, it symbolized the erosion of consensus not only on water but on every other major public policy -- taxation, energy, education and transportation being merely the most obvious. And they and other issues have, for the most part, been stuck in neutral ever since.
It may be impossible for Schwarzenegger, lawmakers and the countless economic, ideological, cultural and geographic subfactions to agree on the kind of comprehensive, everlasting water plan the governor seeks. But at the same time, it may be impossible to function in any development pattern without some major alteration of our increasingly unstable water system, and it may be impossible to make incremental change that can stabilize that supply.
Until -- and unless -- we regain some civic consensus about
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/406691.html
Guest Column: Water plan would boost ailing system
By Lester Snow, Director, Department of Water Resources
Lester Snow, director of the state Department of Water Resources, is responding to the Sept. 25 editorial "A Pat Brown-wannabe needs broader support."
The Bee fundamentally got it wrong in comparing the historic investment in water management by Gov. Pat Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed plan to modernize our state's water system.
Over the years, water users and voters have invested more than $50 billion (in 2007 dollars) for a coordinated water system that includes the State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project. Together, these projects provide Delta water to 25 million Californians and irrigate millions of acres of farmland. They also directly support more than $400 billion of our state's economy.
However, today those water supplies are much less reliable than they were just a year ago. In that context, the governor's $9 billion plan is a modest investment to modernize our state's water systems and prepare for the future.
At the time it was built, the State Water Project system was not cheap. Brown initiated the project with a $1.75 billion general obligation bond approved by voters in 1960. Not a single contract for water purchase had yet been signed when the Legislature approved the bill authorizing the SWP, designed to provide about 4 million acre-feet per year into the 1990s. But leaders at the time knew that this investment was vital to fuel
Today, that aging system -- and much of
Some uncertainty is also due to the Delta's decline. The Delta is afflicted by environmental conflict, seismic risk, climate change, supply reliability challenges, judicially imposed cutbacks and pumping limitations. A recent decision by a federal court judge to protect fish may cut Delta water supplies by up to 2 million acre-feet. That's up to one-third of the usual water project deliveries.
The governor's plan is needed to renew
Schwarzenegger's plan is a sound and necessary investment for
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/405112.html
Editorial:
It's the dawn of a crucial era in
The governor deserves an immense measure of credit and gratitude for this. But legislators should be skeptical of the $9-billion bond he's pushing as a "comprehensive upgrade to
Both proposals under consideration -- the governor's and a $5.4-billion plan from Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) -- provide funds for improving the delta's ecosystem, for continued levee repair and for other regional water projects. Both also acknowledge that
Neither Schwarzenegger's nor Perata's bond would pay for the construction of a peripheral canal. That would fall to the localities using the water it would transport. But Schwarzenegger's bill does require the state to implement conveyance improvements. This seems premature, as no one knows yet what those improvements might entail. (Perata's bill supports improvements too but does not mandate them.)
Also troubling, a whopping $5.1 billion of Schwarzenegger's bond would pay for three dam projects in Central and
Schwarzenegger understands how important it is to move the conversation about
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20071001-9999-1m1water.html
Drop water bill veto threat, agree on bond
Contra Costa Times – 9/30/07
PASSING CALIFORNIA water legislation would be a daunting challenge even if it were limited to policy considerations. With the added dimension (or distraction) of political gamesmanship, progress becomes even more difficult and convoluted.
Such is the case with a critically important bill now in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's hands. It's Senate Bill 1002 by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland. The measure would appropriate $611 million for a variety of water projects that are needed now for disaster preparedness in the Delta, protection of fish and water quality.
SB1002 would enable work to begin quickly in a number of areas. One of the most important is the stockpiling of materials that could be used to protect water flows if there is an earthquake.
The material, mostly rocks, would be used to block certain channels in the Delta to prevent salt water intrusion. Without the materials in place, there is no efficient way to protect the quality of Delta water.
The measure also would strengthen key levees, complete 80 percent of the Delta Water Quality Improvement Program, install fish screens at Clifton Court Forebay and initiate other fish protections.
SB1002 funds implementation of a new water intake project for the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, which would result in much lower salinity levels. Also, the bill supplies money for a study of expanding Los Vaqueros.
All of the money for the projects outlined in SB1002 has already been approved by
On its merits, the bill deserves to be signed by the governor and quickly implemented. Unfortunately, the measure has been caught up in a political tug of war between Schwarzenegger and Perata over broader, long-range water policy.
The governor and Senate leader have competing proposals for
An unspecified amount would go toward expanding Los Vaqueros. It also adds $1.9 billion for Delta restoration.
Perata has a less ambitious water proposal, which calls for smaller-scale dam projects, and relies more on underground aquifers.
In an effort to coax Perata to support the $9 billion bond measure, the governor is threatening to veto SB1002. Not only is that tactic unlikely to work, it is counterproductive. The projects funded by SB1002 are needed now, regardless of how many reservoirs are built later.
The Oct. 14 deadline for SB1002 is approaching. That's when the governor must sign or veto the bill. Before then it is imperative that Schwarzenegger and Perata get together to agree on a water bond that at least funds Los Vaqueros expansion and Delta restoration. These projects can proceed far quicker than constructing any other reservoir.
The other two reservoirs in Schwarzenegger's bond proposal are not going to be built for many years. Perhaps a bond measure that included some form of reassessment of need at a later date could win Perata's support if not for the Feb. 5 ballot then for the one in June or November 2008.
A veto of SB1002 would make bipartisan water-policy negotiations more difficult and do nothing to get the governor's $9 billion bond measure on the ballot.
If Perata were to agree to a large water bond that included Los Vaqueros expansion now and two new reservoirs later, subject to need and legislative review, it should persuade Schwarzenegger to drop his threat to veto SB1002.
Such a compromise would allow critically needed Delta water projects to move ahead now and pave the way for more ambitious water improvements in the future. #
http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_7045378?nclick_check=1
####
No comments:
Post a Comment