[Water_news] 1. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS - Top Items for 10/22/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment

 

October 22, 2007

 

1.  Top Items

 

Guest Column: Dams provide one key element for state's future water supplies - San Jose Mercury News

 

Guest Column: Dry times ahead - even for the Bay Area - San Francisco Chronicle

 

Guest Column: Understanding the water crisis - Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

 

Guest Column: Shaping the region's water future - North County Times

 

 

Guest Column: Dams provide one key element for state's future water supplies

San Jose Mercury News – 10/21/07

By Senator Dianne Feinstein

 

California needs every drop of water possible to ensure a healthy future for our state.

 

Yet - unless Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez come together on a single water bond proposal - California may be left high and dry.

 

So I'm urging both sides to sit down, find a compromise and work this out.

 

Here's the good news: Both sides in Sacramento recognize the need for action. Schwarzenegger has a plan to rebuild California's water infrastructure, as do Perata and Núñez.

 

Both plans provide for conservation, recycling and local solutions to water quality and supply issues. Any effective plan needs these features.

 

But the key difference is this: The governor's plan allows for surface water storage - where it is economically feasible and beneficial - while the Perata/Núñez plan does not.

 

Given our uncertain water future, I believe you've got to allow for surface water storage.

 

This could help increase our water supplies and help restore the ailing Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Three of the projects contemplated - Sites Reservoir, Los Vaqueros and Temperance Flats - have the potential to produce new fresh water to help the deteriorating delta water ecosystem.

 

I've spoken to both sides and urged them to reach an agreement.

 

I'm no water expert. But I've legislated long enough in the field - rebuilding our levees, restoring the San Joaquin River and ensuring adequate water for farmers - to have learned that there are certain significant facts that must be grappled with:

 

• California is largely a dry state. To be sure, we get bursts of precipitation in the northern part of the state during winter months.

 

So it's absolutely critical that we be able to save that water from the times when it is wet, and be able to move it to the places that need it when it is dry.

 

• California has an insatiable thirst for water. We've got 37 million people now, and more and more people come every day. Yet, we essentially have the same water infrastructure that we had when we were 16 million people. Where are we going to find enough water for residents, for fish, for farms? Conservation and recycling are critical, but will not be enough.

 

• I just visited Santa Clarita, a booming city just north of Los Angeles. A developer came up to me at a town hall event and said he is building a new community of 20,000 homes. I asked the question: Where does the water come from? And this question is being asked in every fast-growing community across the state.

 

• We've got a melting Sierra Nevada due to global warming, which will only reduce our water supplies. As a result of global warming, two-thirds of the Sierra Nevada snowpack may disappear. That's an amount sufficient for 16 million people. Where, in the future, will this water come from if we can't store water from wet years to use in dry years?

 

• Lake Tahoe is a harbinger of what's to come for the rest of the state. A recent report found that, since 1911, the percentage of precipitation that falls as snow has dropped by 18 percent. And we will see similar trends across the state.

 

So what should be done?

 

This fight can't turn into one based on political, regional or economic differences - north vs. south; west vs. east; farms vs. fish; Republicans vs. Democrats.

 

We need to see the state as a whole. That means protecting all those things that make our state great - our precious environment; our agricultural industry, the largest in the nation; our great cities; and our economic growth.

 

If there are two conflicting proposals, the likelihood is that both will go down to defeat.

 

So my message is this - find a solution that ensures that California has an adequate water supply for the future. Doing nothing is not an alternative.

 

So we must have a plan that includes conservation, recycling, desalination, groundwater recharge and, yes, surface storage.

 

There is no one silver bullet. All must be done to ensure that California is not left scrambling for water. #

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_7240781?nclick_check=1

 

 

Guest Column: Dry times ahead - even for the Bay Area

San Francisco Chronicle – 10/22/07

By Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, a coalition of 450 public water agencies

 

With its mild climate and breathtaking views, it's easy to think the San Francisco Bay Area is immune from California's water problems. But the region faces its own share of water challenges, and its economy and lifestyle are no less reliant on water than any other part of the state.

 

State leaders and environmental authorities agree that California is facing a serious water crisis that cannot be ignored. Yet, despite intense media coverage and focus by the governor and legislators, the public remains unaware of the state's water problems. That's why a statewide coalition of 450 public water agencies has launched a public education program to inform people about critical challenges now confronting the state's water supply and delivery system. Those challenges affect each and every Californian.

 

In the Bay Area and throughout California, water is a critical factor in our economy, quality of life and environment. Experts are warning that California's water problems are so serious that many parts of the state, including water-rich Northern California, may soon be facing water restrictions and reduced supplies. In the Bay Area, local water agencies, including the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Santa Clara Valley Water District and East Bay Municipal Utility District, have already asked their customers to voluntarily conserve water.

 

One of the biggest worries is the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, a prized estuary and the single most important link in California's water supply system. The delta is in an ecological crisis that threatens both our water supply and the environment.

 

To complicate matters, a strong earthquake could collapse deteriorating delta levees, impeding state water deliveries for up to two years.

 

While many Bay Area residents regularly enjoy the delta's recreational aspects, they may not be aware of the critical role it plays in the Bay Area water supply. In fact, one-third of the Bay Area's drinking water is tied to this critical estuary. In portions of Alameda County, as much as 80 percent of the water used comes from the delta. The Contra Costa County Water District uses 100 percent delta water to supply its customers, while the Santa Clara Valley Water District receives 50 percent of its water from this important source.

 

The delta is also an important environmental resource that is home to 750 distinct species of plants and wildlife, including the threatened delta smelt. A U.S. District Court recently ordered the state's largest water systems to cut deliveries by one-third next year to protect the fish - potentially the largest court-ordered water supply reduction in California history.

 

The effects of that reduction already are being felt in the Bay Area. While water agencies are still determining the exact effect of this court decision on their customers, the prospect of stringent water use restrictions - and even rationing - is very real for many communities.

 

These challenges, combined with the demands of the state's growing population and the effects of climate change, create a water crisis that we cannot ignore. With reserves already low for many agencies following a 10-day stoppage to delta water deliveries this summer to protect the smelt, the situation will be dire if dry conditions continue.

 

Drought is a serious worry to state water managers. The 2007 water year (Sept. 1 to Aug. 31) was one of the driest years on record. Forecasters now predict a La Niña - dubbed a "demon diva of drought" by weather experts - this winter, which could result in two-thirds less rainfall than normal. Frankly, another record-dry year, combined with the cutbacks, will spell disaster for a system that already struggles to meet the needs of people and the environment.

 

Never before has California's water system faced the troubles it faces today. It is critical that Bay Area residents - and indeed all Californians - take the combined threat of drought, climate change, supply reductions and potential natural disasters seriously.

 

We simply cannot afford to ignore these problems -California's economy, environment and quality of life depend on a reliable water system. #

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/22/EDN6ST769.DTL

 

 

Guest Column: Understanding the water crisis

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin – 10/19/07

By Paul Cook, R-Yucaipa, represents the 65th District, which includes Big Bear Lake, Calimesa, Twentynine Palms, Yucaipa and Yucca Valley

 

Californians have come to grip with our latest and greatest crisis. In late August, U.S. District Court Judge Oliver Wanger ordered the state to cut Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water deliveries by one-third in 2008, in order to protect the smelt - a small fish native to the region. Wanger found that California failed to live up to the standards set forth in the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and as a result, the smelt, considered a "canary in the coal mine" as it pertains to the health of Delta ecosystem, was being driven to extinction. I'm not here to debate the ESA. The real danger is the reduction of water deliveries to Southern California. Continuing and improving water storage and delivery is the issue, and we must act fast.

 

Many Southern California residents have two lapses in knowledge:

 

One, they do not know how they get their water. Two-thirds of all Californians, and most Southern California residents, get their water from the Delta. Water moves hundreds of miles from Northern California to be delivered right to your faucet.

 

Two, many don't understand that California's water system is interconnected and interdependent. When we increase storage capacity in one area, the benefits are felt throughout the state.

 

If we experience a cut in Delta water delivery, greater demands will be placed on those water systems not directly connected to the Delta. Water rationing will increase, the price of water will increase, and the price of food grown in California (from farmers dependent on the Delta) will increase, thus affecting all Californians.

 

The public has been sold lies with past ballot water bonds. These multibillion-dollar bonds promised increased water storage and delivered close to nothing. Most money has gone to purchasing and improving habitat. The major Democratic proposals circulating in Sacramento allege to address the crisis, but in fact are consistent with past water-bond misrepresentations. These proposals do not provide for additional above-ground water storage. Sure, they might improve underground storage, marginally.

 

But underground storage is dependent on delivery from above-ground sources. This type of approach borders on lunacy.

 

Democrats from farming areas understand the real need for new and improved reservoirs. However, rigid environmentalists want nothing more than to return California's rivers to their natural state. This would be fine, except we'd be more prone to flooding, have no agriculture industry, and, most importantly, Californians would have to move out of the state. No kidding. We have 36 million residents. We need an adequate water system. With the Wanger ruling, our already troubled system will be quantifiably inadequate.

 

Let's stop beating around the bush: One, our existing system of reservoirs and dams has caused harm to native species and interrupted natural waterways. (Ironically, improving conveyance and storage capacity to our existing system should improve environmental conditions and satisfy concerns addressed in the Wanger ruling.) Two, the ESA is here to stay. We must accept these conditions. Now the question is, do we want water or not? It really is so simple.

 

Southern California residents, from Los Angeles to the Riverside-San Bernardino area to the Mojave, need to realize this isn't just a Northern California problem. This is our problem. We must urge legislators to take the correct course of action and improve above-ground water storage capacity and conveyance, as well as new recharge facilities for groundwater storage. We should move quickly, but not rush. (There is no policy reason to force a water bond onto the February ballot.)

 

These aren't pie-in-the-sky concepts; we have identified suitable above-ground sites, and, call it what you want, but a Peripheral Canal should be on the table. Without action, we will suffer. We will have higher prices for water, a weaker agriculture industry, and restrained economic growth in this state.  #

http://www.dailybulletin.com//ci_7230528?IADID=Search-www.dailybulletin.com-www.dailybulletin.com

 

 

Guest Column: Shaping the region's water future

North County Times – 10/22/07

By Assemblyman John J. Benoit. He represents the 64th Assembly District, which includes portions of Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Murrieta, Sun City, Temecula, Wildomar and Winchester

 

California stands at the brink of a water crisis.

While our population has exploded in recent years, we have built very little new water storage since the 1960s. A water system designed back in the days when Dwight Eisenhower was still president is certainly inadequate to meet the demands of the 8.4 million people who will call Riverside and San Bernardino counties home by 2050 ---- more than double our current population.

 

Adding to the urgency, a federal judge has issued a ruling that will strictly limit how much water can be pumped from the San Joaquin Delta, to protect the endangered Delta smelt. You may be wondering why those of us living several hundred miles to the south should care about a water problem in the Central Valley, but in fact the Delta is a critical source of our drinking water.

 

The main water supplier for Southern California, the Metropolitan Water District, obtains 60 percent of its water from the Delta.

 

With so much of our water supply at risk, it's clear that lawmakers must act soon if we are to avoid serious problems. Without a more reliable supply, we could be facing strict mandatory water rationing. The longer the Legislature delays taking serious steps to modernize our water infrastructure, the greater the costs each of us will ultimately face. Some water agencies are already discussing plans for significant rate hikes. Others will soon be unable to provide "will server" letters for any development, bringing construction to a halt, with potentially devastating adverse impacts on local economies.

Gov. Schwarzenegger recently called a special session of the Legislature to consider responsible solutions to our water problems. He proposed a comprehensive water infrastructure plan that the Legislature must carefully consider. Unfortunately, the Senate Natural Resources Committee quickly voted down the governor's plan on a party-line vote and, in its place, passed legislation that would borrow $7 billion without authorizing a single water storage project. That measure later failed before the full Senate and policymakers are now looking for compromise.

Before last year, voters had approved $12 billion in water bonds since 1988.

We spent billions of dollars on environmental projects, government studies, more bureaucracy and other lesser priorities. All of this spending has left us with less than one year's worth of stored water.

While conservation, water recycling and aquifer replenishment are important steps, no solution is truly comprehensive unless we invest in real infrastructure that can store significant amounts of water and reliably move that water to areas where it is needed.

 

I am determined to work with my colleagues to find solutions that protect our investment and protect our region's well-being.

California's taxpayers cannot afford another multibillion dollar water bond that does not deliver water. That's why I recently hosted a water conference, with Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries and Metropolitan Water District, to represent our local needs and work with the local water agencies responsible for actually delivering water to our tap.

Working together, we can meet the future water needs of Riverside County. #

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/10/22/opinion/commentarycal/18_57_2810_21_07.txt

####