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 - 10/15/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment 

 

October 15, 2007

 

2. Supply

 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUPPLY ISSUES:

Water agencies planning in case of water cuts - North County Times

 

Officials gather for water conservation summit - North County Times

 

Editorial: Incentives are key to water conservation in Southern California; How about a rebate for replacing a water-sucking landscaping with a drought-tolerating one? How about rate cuts for people who consistently use 10 percent less water? - Torrance Daily Breeze

 

CITY OF DAVIS WATER SUPPLY ISSUES:

Officials look again at city's water, costs - Davis Enterprise

 

GROUNDWATER COSTS:

Debate on water fee gets intense; Petition, legal notices in tussle over groundwater - Stockton Record

 

DRY CONDITIONS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA:

Drowning on dry land: Ranchers fear mild winter might spawn drought crisis - Redding Record Searchlight

 

 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUPPLY ISSUES:

Water agencies planning in case of water cuts

North County Times – 10/14/07

By Gig Conaughton, staff writer

 

With statewide shortages looming, Southern California water agencies are scrambling to create a detailed plan of how much water they -- and each of us -- would get if supplies are cut.

The region could lose 30 percent of its Northern California water supplies next year because of a court ruling to cut use of the pumps that send Northern California rainfall and snowmelt south to the semi-arid southland.

 

The pumps, which provide much of the region's water, are killing an endangered fish, prompting the federal courts to step in.

 

A number of smaller water agencies in Southern California have historically fought over their rights to water during shortages, and old arguments over which communities should endure deeper cuts could resurface as officials work out shortage plans.

So far, the area's larger water providers are working together to make those plans and to stave off a shortage rather than fight about who should get more water should one occur, said Jim Bond, a board member of the San Diego County Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District. Metropolitan is Southern California's main water supplier.

"It's not unlike a forest fire," Bond said. "You know, you don't see the foxes go after the chipmunks when there's a forest fire. They're all running to get away. Everyone is running together to solve this problem.

"Whether we'll all stay that way is hard to tell," he said.

Metropolitan officials said last week they are working on a shortage plan to bring to the district's board next month.

Metropolitan supplies water to nearly 18 million people represented by 26 cities and water agencies, including the Water Authority, in six counties.

Brandon Goshi, a Metropolitan manager who has been working on the plan, said the proposal would revolve around three basic ideas: limiting the harm that water supply cuts could have on retail consumers and the economy; recognizing the steps Metropolitan's member agencies have taken to develop their own water sources; and taking into account how much agencies relied upon Metropolitan for their water.

Difficult process?


Creating a plan to divvy up Southern California's water equitably if Metropolitan cuts supplies could be difficult because not all regions' water needs are equal.

Some areas' water agencies have their own partial water supplies, allowing them to rely less upon Metropolitan than other agencies. If Metropolitan were to cut water equally to all agencies, some areas would be affected more than others.

For example, the city of Los Angeles built its own aqueduct to Owens Valley early in the 20th century, creating a pipeline that delivers half of Los Angeles' water supplies every year. The city also has groundwater supplies of its own. Consequently, Los Angeles only buys 34 percent of its water supply from Metropolitan.

In contrast, San Diego County, which has few reservoirs and doesn't have the kind of porous rock needed for groundwater storage, buys 73 percent of its water for county residents from Metropolitan.

That means the San Diego area would lose a greater percentage of its overall water supply than Los Angeles would if Metropolitan issued an across-the-board cut.

Goshi said the formula that Metropolitan plans to propose to board members a system that would take that discrepancy into account and would increase rates for agencies who can't live within suggested water budgets.

Water rates already are on the rise in most of the county, where local agencies have begun passing on an expected fee hike of 5 percent to 10 percent from Metropolitan.

Many local growers face certain water cuts beginning in January under a program that lets farmers buy discounted water in exchange for being the first to cut back in dry times.

Some cry foul at equal cuts


Some water officials suggest imposing across the board cutbacks and making agencies bid on water for their customers could help the region deal with a shortage.

But forcing communities to pay even more for water when supplies dwindle is a dangerous option for nonwealthy communities and areas that have not created their own supplies, said Glenn Peterson, a board member from the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, during a planning meeting with Metropolitan last month. That district covers parts of the Los Angeles area and has none of its own water supplies.

"I don't think we all want to compete with Beverly Hills," Peterson said. "I think we have to be above that."

But areas that have invested in their own supplies say uniform cuts would be fair to districts that have invested in finding and storing more of their own water.

Larry Dick is a board member from the Municipal Water District of Orange County, which gets half of its water from its own local supplies.

Dick suggested that Metropolitan could just issue 10 percent across-the-board cuts, then say "but we have more water. And you can bid for it."

Dick said he raised the idea to protect cities and agencies that had made "significant investments" to create their own water supplies and reduce their reliance on Metropolitan.

Transfer deal put SD County in better shape


Even though it still relies heavily upon Metropolitan, the San Diego County Water Authority is one of those agencies that spent a lot of money to find new supplies and cut its dependency on Metropolitan.

In 2003, the Water Authority completed a deal to buy up to 65 billion gallons of water a year from Imperial Valley farmers for about $50 million for 45 to 75 years. The deal ramps up slowly until it reaches the full 65 billion gallons a year in year 19, when it will provide about 22 percent of the county's total water supply.

The Water Authority worked for eight years to complete that deal, and started chasing it out of frustration after the last time Metropolitan had to issue mandatory water supply cuts -- during the state's last big drought in 1991.

Drastic cuts were avoided during that scare when what officials called "Miracle March" rains broke all around Southern California, ending the drought.

Some say L.A. could grab local water supplies


In the discussion of how Metropolitan might divvy up Southern California's water supplies, there is a potential joker in the deck -- an arcane Metropolitan water-allocation system the agency says it would never use, called "preferential rights."

The Water Authority railed against that system for years, and even sued unsuccessfully to have it changed, saying it was a threat that could let other agencies "steal" water from San Diego County residents.

The system was created as part of Metropolitan's charter when the state Legislature created the agency in 1928.

It guarantees Metropolitan's member agencies a right to the agency's water based upon how much each agency contributed to Metropolitan in property taxes.

Under the system, San Diego County residents "own" about 16 percent of Metropolitan's water even though they annually buy about 28 percent of the agency's supplies.

By contrast, Los Angeles owns more than 22 percent even though it typically buys about 7 percent.

Water Authority officials have said Los Angeles could make a telephone call and Metropolitan would divert water that San Diego County residents use to Los Angeles.

Could preferential rights be invoked if shortages appear and Metropolitan hasn't adopted an allocation plan?

Metropolitan managers say they would never invoke the system. Others say it wouldn't be up to Metropolitan.

Goshi, meanwhile, said he was confident the board would adopt a plan -- even if though it hasn't before.

"Here's the difference, we have a threat," he said. "This is different than trying to develop a theoretical plan." #

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/10/14/news/top_stories/22_02_2010_13_07.txt

 

 

Officials gather for water conservation summit

North County Times – 10/12/07

By Gig Conaughton, staff writer

 

SAN DIEGO -- Water officials, politicians, building, irrigation, planning and landscape architects gathered to talk about creating a culture change to get people to conserve water Friday at the University of San Diego.

 

The event was the second annual conservation summit, hosted by the San Diego County Water Authority, San Diego Gas & Electric, the WateReuse Association, and Descano's Water Conservation Garden.

 

Hundreds of officials listened to a roundtable discussion about what tactics agencies should use to prod the public into conserving more, as well as presentations on how to appeal for public support to use recycled water; and how conserving water also conserves energy.

The daylong event also featured an update on attempts to create a model landscaping ordinance that cities and counties could use to reduce outdoor irrigation; and afternoon workshops to offer feedback on the draft ordinance and discuss how to get industry and businesses to work together on the conservation issue.

Finding new ways to cut water use has become an increasingly hot topic all around California in the last year, and particularly so in desert-like Southern California.

The region's principal sources of imported water, the Colorado River and Northern California's State Water Project -- a 600-mile series of dams, reservoirs, pumps and pipelines that deliver northern rainfall and snow melt south ---- are fighting drought. Southern California itself is in the midst of a worsening single-year drought.

Adding to those pressures, a federal judge ruled in August that the pumps that send Northern California to the rest of the state must be cut back next year to protect an endangered fish. Southern California's main water supplier, the Metropolitan Water District, said the ruling could cut the region's northern supplies by 30 percent next year.

At Friday's summit, landscape architect Glen Schmidt said a task force had created a draft ordinance that cities and counties might eventually use to require builders and landscapers to use more water-efficient equipment and practices.

The state passed a law in 2006 requiring all local agencies to adopt some sort of law to compel more efficient outdoor water use by 2010.

Schmidt said Friday that the draft ordinance would make large developers and irrigators adopt and use water budgets.

Schmidt said the ordinance would require water agencies to enforce the use of those budgets. That would likely be done through tiered rate structures that charged groups more if they exceeded their water allocations.

Schmidt said that although a draft ordinance had been created, landscapers, builders, irrigators and other "stakeholders" were still working to create a final plan.

Meanwhile, a panel of speakers said the use of recycled wastewater -- vilified years ago as "toilet-to-tap" water -- had gotten a bad rap, and that water officials needed to lobby the public to increase use of a "drought-proof" water supply.

One of the panel members was Water Authority board member Keith Lewinger, who is also general manager of the Fallbrook Public Utility District.

Lewinger said San Diego residents have supported the idea of using recycled water for irrigation, but they and most others have balked whenever officials suggest putting recycled water into reservoirs or groundwater supplies that would become drinking water.

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, who visited Friday's summit, recently restated his opposition to putting recycled water in city reservoirs after City Attorney Mike Aguirre stumped for its use.

Lewinger said Friday that recycled water was safe, that the public should be educated about the process, and water officials needed to give the controversial supply "a positive brand."

Pointing to a map showing hundreds of wastewater treatment plants parked along the Colorado River, Lewinger said people were already drinking recycled water.

He said recycled water was highly treated.

"Nowhere in the world is there water that goes from toilet to tap," Lewinger said, his voice rising. "It goes from toilet, to treatment plant, to treatment plant, to treatment plant, to either a river, groundwater or the lake ---- to a treatment plant ---- to tap.

"Opponents to reuse use negatively charged and inaccurate terms," he said. "We need to beat them to the punch." #

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/10/13/news/top_stories/20_11_5310_12_07.txt

 

 

Editorial: Incentives are key to water conservation in Southern California; How about a rebate for replacing a water-sucking landscaping with a drought-tolerating one? How about rate cuts for people who consistently use 10 percent less water?

Torrance Daily Breeze – 10/11/07

 

As Southern California's water officials prepare for dry years ahead, they should think "incentives" - not just "penalties" - to promote conservation.

 

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has announced water cuts of 30 percent to farmers, with everyone else likely to face rationing and rate increases of up to 10 percent. The MWD supplies water to most Southern California cities, including Los Angeles. It supplies Torrance, which has its own municipal water agencies, with 80 percent of its water.

 

And when the MWD puts the pinch on local water providers, the immediate reaction would be to pass those costs on to the users.

 

That might be an effective way to recoup costs, but alone not the best way to do what needs to be done for long-term conservation. Changing public behavior should be the real goal.

 

So far, South Bay water agencies are encouraging water conservation but have yet to impose rules on mandatory compliance.

 

Water is a limited resource, and the recent court ruling protecting Northern California's delta smelt, which prompted these water cuts, illustrates what our collectively cavalier attitude about water has wrought.

 

Learning to live with less should be the goal. Technology has made this easier, with low-water clothes washers, low-flow toilets and timers for sprinklers. But sometimes it takes a strategic shove in the right direction.

 

That means more than just water rationing. That means more than an across-the-board rate increase that punishes all users - water hogs and longtime water savers - alike. And it means more than just offering water-saving tips.

 

It means using both carrots and sticks. It means higher rates for unrepentant water hogs; cold, hard cash for longtime savers; and a challenge to everyone to cut back.

 

Americans hate paying more, but they love a good deal - even if the net result is the same.

 

How about a rebate for replacing a water-sucking landscaping with a drought-tolerating one, similar to the deal the Las Vegas Valley Water District offers its users?

 

How about rate cuts for people who consistently use 10 percent less water, similar to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's highly successful electricity-saving program in 2001?

 

If current projections are correct about the effects of global warming, then the future for Southern California is hot and dry.

 

That means that water saving must become a way of life for all residents and not just a temporary solution. #

http://www.dailybreeze.com/opinion/articles/10444592.html?showAll=y&c=y

 

 

CITY OF DAVIS WATER SUPPLY ISSUES:

Officials look again at city's water, costs

Davis Enterprise – 10/14/07

By Beth Curda, staff writer

 

Most Davisites probably don't think much about their household water supply, except when they turn on their faucets or pay their water and sewer bills. But, while the city's water issues are largely invisible to the public, they are high on the Davis City Council's list of concerns. That is in part because, in the minds of many at City Hall, the city needs a new source of drinking water and better treatment system for wastewater.

It also is because the projects the city is considering would cost around $150 million each. The price tags have sparked debate among City Council members over whether the timing is right for the two major water-related projects.

One of the projects - a proposed pipeline and treatment facility that would bring in Sacramento River

water to replace much of the groundwater supply for Davis, Woodland and UC Davis - is on the City Council's agenda for Tuesday evening's meeting.

The city's Public Works Department has asked the council to approve the findings of an environmental impact report on the project and agree that the proposal is the best among a few project options studied.

 

The city began studying the idea in the mid-1990s and has partnered with Woodland and UC Davis. The three would share the costs of the project, estimated at $400 million, with Davis' share being estimated at between $150 million and $175 million.

If the council votes to certify the EIR and reiterate its interest in the pipeline project, the next steps would be to secure an “origin of water rights permit” and work on project design and funding decisions. Future steps would require more approvals from the council, Bob Weir, public works director for Davis, said.

Another water-related project the city has been considering in recent years is an upgrade to its wastewater treatment plant.

The city expects to receive soon its new treatment permit from the state, and expects the standards for the water that leaves the plant at the end of the process to be too strict for today's treatment system.

Both projects would require more rate increases for residents, the city has warned.

 

The rate increases are what has made Mayor Sue Greenwald question the timing of the projects. She would like the city to study whether it could hold off on the river water project for several years, while moving forward with the wastewater treatment plant upgrade.

The plant upgrade is being mandated now by the state, she said, but waiting on the other project would keep residents from having to pay for both at once.

“To me, it's one fund,” Greenwald said, saying supporters of the river water project say the funding is coming from different money sources. “It's the pocket of the rate/taxpayer.”

The Public Works Department and some on the City Council say the river water project is needed because it would rescue the underground aquifers from which the two cities and university draw water today. The aquifers may not produce enough water to meet all of that demand in the future, they say.

Weir said the city already is struggling to have as much water in its system as it would like.

The two projects also are linked, supporters of the river water project argue. If the water going into Davis homes contained less in the way of minerals and other constituents, it would be easier to clean later, in the wastewater treatment process.

City Councilman Don Saylor said the river water project would “improve the water quality and it will give our city and the future generations of people who live here a more reliable source, both in terms of supply and quality.

“It will lessen the cost of the treatment needed for wastewater disposal,” he said, “and it will ensure an ongoing supply of water.”

Also, he said, the city is looking at financing options and ways it might be able to bring down the costs of the projects.

Supporters also argue that if the city does not act soon, it will lose its place in the line of applications for permits to draw water from the river. Greenwald disputed that claim.

 

Greenwald said the city has a few issues coming up that have high price tags and has ongoing budget problems. She said she has talked with several water experts outside the city and believes that, while the city will need to import water someday, it can wait.

“I think we're going to need it eventually,” she said. But she thinks the city should “do a serious study ... and frame the question correctly.”

Jay Lund, a UC Davis professor of civil and environmental engineering, said the city hasn't had big problems with its ground water, and that bringing in surface water has risks of its own, such as with water rights, the pipeline, or if there were a spill in the river.

“It seems to be probably the least urgent,” of the city's water projects, he said. “And to me, my guess is that you might be able to put it off for a number of years.”

Ed Schroeder, a UCD professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering, said the deep aquifer is “not going to disappear” and that, if it did begin to fail, the city still would have at least a few years in terms of quantity.

Saylor said the issue is one of concern for the future.

“I think this is a key set of decisions for our community at this point in time in our history,” he said, “because we must ensure a reliable, reasonable-quality water source for future generations. I think this is beyond politics. It is a matter of being responsible stewards of our community's future interest.”

The council's meeting will begin at 6 p.m. in the Community Chambers at City Hall, 23 Russell Blvd. #

http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/10/14/news/078new1.txt

 

 

GROUNDWATER COSTS:

Debate on water fee gets intense; Petition, legal notices in tussle over groundwater

Stockton Record – 10/14/07

By Alex Breitler, staff writer

 

LODI - In 34 years, Bruce Neumann never paid a cent to pump groundwater from his property northeast of Lodi, unless you count his monthly power bill.

 

He is not about to start paying $532 a year.

 

"There's no sense to it," the retired farmer said this week.

 

Neumann, 67, and his wife Patricia plan to protest a groundwater fee approved in May by the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District, which includes nearly 6,000 landowners.

 

The district, meanwhile, seeks confirmation from a judge that its procedures were legitimate. The fee is needed, officials say, to maintain water rights to the Mokelumne River, replenish a sagging underground aquifer and avoid limits being placed on how much groundwater each landowner can use.

 

Such limits could reduce pumping in the North San Joaquin district by about 25 percent and harm the agricultural economy, district General Manager Ed Steffani said.

 

The debate got ugly during public hearings in April and May, and has grown uglier in the months since. Resident Bryan Pilkington started a petition to repeal the fee about two months ago; he declined to comment on its progress this week.

 

Why? "I'm being sued," he said.

 

The water district filed court papers requiring any challengers to step forward, Steffani said. He wants to resolve any complaints soon so that the district can start charging the fees and begin building pipes and canals to take water from the Mokelumne River.

 

Legal notices were mailed to all district property owners, and a complaint filed in San Joaquin County Superior Court on July 12 names all of them as defendants.

 

"We're not suing," Steffani said. "We're simply saying ... that if you don't agree with what the district did, send a notice to the judge."

 

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has challenged the new fee, but an attorney representing Pilkington was not available for comment Thursday afternoon or Friday.

 

The association's complaint was filed Sept. 11 and questions the manner in which the fee was imposed, saying that "neither the district's land owners nor the electorate approved the charge."

 

Residents were allowed to protest the planned groundwater fee, but the votes fell short. Those who did not cast votes were counted as supporting the fee under California's Proposition 218, another point that has raised the ire of water users.

 

North San Joaquin has never been able to take its allotted 20,000 acre-feet of water from the Mokelumne. The state has threatened to revoke the district's water rights unless it can divert the water.

 

A coalition of water districts in east San Joaquin County envisions a canal that could transfer Mokelumne water elsewhere in the county. Getting that surface water could improve groundwater conditions everywhere, Steffani said.

 

But the Neumanns cannot understand how they would benefit from Mokelumne water, since the river is about six miles south of their 32-acre property.

 

"It's not helping these people at all," Patricia Neumann said. "We have good water here, and we've worked hard for our money."

 

Steffani dreads the prospect of future court battles, of budgets spent on lawyers instead of water lines.

 

"It's using up all of our money," he said. #

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071014/A_NEWS/710140316/-1/A_NEWS

 

 

DRY CONDITIONS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA:

Drowning on dry land: Ranchers fear mild winter might spawn drought crisis

Redding Record Searchlight – 10/15/07

By Ryan Sabalow, staff writer

 

HAT CREEK — As ponds dried up and grass withered brown and dry, the last few months have left many area ranchers scrambling to find feed and water for their herds.

 

Many have had to pull cattle off summer and fall rangeland weeks or months earlier than normal.

 

The rains that soaked the areas in recent days came just a little too late.

 

Hat Creek rancher Henry Giacomini, who manages some 900 head, removed cattle from summer grazing land leased in the Lassen National Forest near Eagle Lake a month earlier than usual.

 

Giacomini said doing so hurts his bottom line because by moving the cows to the winter range too soon, it cuts into the feed available during the winter months and could force him to buy hay or cut into his own stores.

 

He estimates losing around $25,000 because of the drought.

 

But, he said, the dry conditions came as no surprise.

 

“It was actually kind of evident all the way back in February that we were going to have a pretty dry year,” Giacomini said.

 

“This year, we had the spring rains for the grass. But no snow runoff for the stock ponds.”

 

Giacomini’s experiences are not unique. U.S. Forest Service rangeland experts say other north state ranchers suffered similar problems this summer and fall.

 

Both ranchers and rangeland officials are hoping this winter will load the mountains with snow in hopes that it might stave off a potential range crisis in the coming years as water tables drop.

 

The Shasta County Supervisors already have taken steps to counteract such an eventuality. In August, they joined at least 19 other California counties seeking federal emergency disaster aid as forage yields dropped by as much as 70 percent.

 

If approved, the disaster declaration would make ranchers eligible for low-interest loans, reimbursements for feed and water and other programs approved by Congress.

 

Mary Pfeiffer, Shasta County’s agricultural commissioner, said the move was designed to secure relief funding in the event the drought conditions worsen.

 

“Frankly, these become almost insurance policies in case something does happen,” she said.

 

And it just might.

 

Anne Yost, a regional range program manager for the U.S. Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest Region, said water tables in many areas of the state’s public forest rangeland have dropped by at least a foot in the last five years.

 

She said it’s not yet known if the drop is isolated or indicative of a larger problem.

 

The lower water tables were particularly evident this summer in the Klamath National Forest, with some ranchers being ordered off public rangelands, while others voluntarily left early because of a lack of water, she said.

 

“We were seeing some really dry conditions,” Yost said.

 

Though not as dry as the Klamath, the Shasta-Trinity National Forest also was parched.

 

Of the 13 ranchers who leased range land, all had to pull their cattle off early, said Hide Wenham, the forest’s range manager.

 

One rancher, who leased enough land to graze 50 cows in the lower elevations near Platina, had to pack up in July because stock ponds, normally full all year long, were bone dry, Wenham said.

 

Giacomini experienced similar problems on his rangeland, where cattle plodded through dust bowls where cow ponds used to be.

 

Giacomini said he should be able to still keep his business viable this season because he was able to plan ahead to find alternate grazing land.

 

But he’s concerned that if snow pack levels don’t return to past depths, even planning may not help in the often fickle world of cattle ranching.

 

“You’ve got to anticipate being ahead of the curve because, if not, you’ll get stuck,” Giacomini said. “That’s when guys can lose a lot of money.” #

http://www.redding.com/news/2007/oct/15/drowning-on-dry-land/

####

 

No comments:

Blog Archive