A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
October 9, 2007
3. Watersheds
DELTA ISSUES:
No guarantees on Delta breeze; Earthquake, flood could turn off our air conditioner, experts say - Sacramento Bee
LAKE SHASTA
Lake levels sank, but water will avoid 1992 mark - Redding Record Searchlight
RESTORATION PROGRAMS:
Wiggins introduces salmon restoration, monitoring bill - Ukiah Daily Journal
Editorial: Nunes change is right move -
Guest Column: Watching water down to last drop -
DELTA ISSUES:
No guarantees on Delta breeze; Earthquake, flood could turn off our air conditioner, experts say
Sacramento
By Matt Weiser, staff writer
When the familiar Delta breeze blows through a
But the future of our signature Delta breeze is not guaranteed.
It may be hard to fathom, but after a major flood in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, our natural air conditioner could go on the fritz.
There is at least a 20 percent chance for a major earthquake in the Delta within the next two decades, according to recent research on threats to the region. A quake measuring 6.0 or larger could turn miles of levees into jelly, instantly flooding 20 islands.
Within hours, this would create a new body of water the size of
Three climate scientists recently interviewed by The Bee said a water mass that large could upset the temperature dynamics that drive the Delta breeze. Evaporation and the humidity that follows could keep the breeze from reaching
"That evaporation requires huge amounts of energy that would otherwise go into increasing the air temperature," said Mike White, a professor of climatology at
A variety of experts are worrying over disaster scenarios in the Delta because the state's economy depends on it as a water supply. At least 23 million Californians get a portion of their drinking water from the Delta. It also irrigates more than 3 million acres of farmland.
That such a disaster could also disrupt something as elemental as the evening breeze is a reminder that our way of life really is tied to the Delta -- maybe more than we thought.
"It's one of the things that makes our summers bearable. We boast about it," said former Sacramento Mayor Anne Rudin, a 49-year resident. "I just know when my evenings feel good, and I know that it matters."
The Delta breeze is driven by a temperature difference between the Central Valley and the
Evaporation from a massive new Delta water body could cool the Valley enough to reduce that key temperature differential.
Yet it might not push down temperatures enough to make a summer day any cooler, especially in the city, where the "heat island" effect of asphalt and buildings stores heat and boosts temperatures.
"What's dominating the urban and suburban megalopolises -- which you've become in
As an illustration, Patzert said
"It's definitely
The Delta breeze usually doesn't reach
That stalling effect could happen more often after a major flood in the Delta, said Jorge Gonzalez, a professor of mechanical engineering at
"
"So it could be a possibility that some years in
Delta islands are formed by levees mostly built out of sand and muck dredged from river bottoms. They're not strong structures, and they could liquefy in an earthquake.
The islands themselves have sunk, in many cases, more than 20 feet below sea level over the past 100 years. That's because they consist of peat soils that decompose when exposed to air. The islands would fill like bowls in a flood, pulling in salty water from
According to the disaster scenarios now being studied, levee failures caused by an earthquake would not be isolated breaks.
They could involve slumping and collapse along miles of levee at each island.
Experts estimate it would take more than five years to recover from a scenario involving 20 flooded islands.
Even then, some islands might never be restored, but would be left as open water bodies to avoid the cost and difficulty of rebuilding levees and pumping out the water.
After a catastrophe, then, a large body of open water is likely to remain a permanent feature of the Delta.
Add in sea level rise associated with climate change, levees that grow weaker with age every year, and the constant threat of routine high tides and big storms, and the odds of a disaster only worsen.
How that affects the regional climate in the long run will depend on many factors.
Global warming, for instance, is expected to shrink the Sierra snowpack, which would increase the heat-absorbing surface area in the mountains. Continuing urbanization of the Valley is likely to intensify the heat-island effect that makes cities hotter.
Some scientists say coastal breezes will actually increase with global warming, because the land surface is warming faster than the ocean.
Those effects could be enough to maintain the Delta breeze and counteract the effects of a flood.
Patzert said a massive flood in the Delta might bring cooler temperatures overall by effectively creating an extension of
But would that neutralize the scorching effects of a 110-degree summer day in the Valley? Daytime temperatures might decrease slightly, Patzert said, while overnight temperatures would climb -- and both would become more humid.
In other words, the Delta could become more like Chesapeake Bay than
"You would see the breeze earlier, which would make you more balmy, actually," Patzert said. "There might be some benefit.
But you're just blowing hotter air. What's the difference if you get a better breeze but it's hotter air?" #
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/419224-p2.html
LAKE SHASTA
Lake levels sank, but water will avoid 1992 mark
Redding Record Searchlight – 10/7/07
By Dylan Darling, staff writer
Already at a 15-year low,
Late last week, the lake's waterline was 118 feet below what's considered full, said Larry Ball, operations chief for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Northern California Area Office.
"It's a result of less-than-normal rainfall as well as heavy demand on the water," he said.
Although the lake has dipped well beyond 100 feet below its high water mark five times since 1992, this year's drop likely will be the biggest since the water was down to almost 156 feet below that year.
Still, the low water is nowhere near the reservoir's all-time low of 230 feet below set in 1977, Ball said.
"It's not good now, but it'sbeen a lot worse," he said.
And it's a big change from last year, though, when the water dipped only to 54 feet below.
With growing season nearing its end, the amount of water headed down the
Lower water this year has made for a smaller lake and has cut access to the water, said Cheryl Adcock, assistant recreation officer for the
A third of the Forest Service's six boat launches are closed, she said. Of the four that are open -- Centimudi,
With the lake lower than it has been in years, forest service work crews have been working hard to keep boat launches that still extend into the water clear of mud and debris.
"It's 15 years of accumulation that you are trying to clear," Adcock said.
Discouraged by the long, muddy walk to the campsites, visitors have become fewer than normal this year, said forest service technician Jeff Walsh.
Walsh said he saw a drop in boaters on the lake and suspects those who didn't show were locals.
People coming from far away likely had made reservations months in advance, he said.
"Most people aren't going to cancel just because the lake is lower," Walsh said. #
http://redding.com/news/2007/oct/07/lake-levels-sank-but-water-will-avoid-1992-mark/
RESTORATION PROGRAMS:
Wiggins introduces salmon restoration, monitoring bill
Ukiah Daily Journal – 10/8/07
North coast Sen. Patricia Wiggins (D -
On September 11, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called lawmakers into special sessions on two issues areas, water and health care. Wiggins, who had considered the possibility of folding the language on salmon restoration and monitoring into an overall bill on water bonds, opted instead to introduce her own legislation, which may be heard in committee on October 8.
"While I had hoped to secure these funds during this year's regular session, the special session on water presents a real opportunity to provide resources for some very important programs," Wiggins said. "These issues are of course near and dear to many people throughout the north coast, but funding these programs will have long-term benefits for the state as a whole."
The bill seeks to appropriate $5.293 million from Prop. 84. towards the state Department of Fish and Game's Fisheries Restoration Grant Program (which includes coastal salmonid monitoring).
The Fisheries Restoration Grant Program, created by former north coast State Sen. Mike Thompson, is a collaborative effort that focuses on restoring fish habitat, with the goal of ensuring the survival and protection of salmon and steelhead trout in coastal areas of
In November 2006,
Wiggins had another bill, SB 562, that was similar to her current legislation (SBX2 5), but the earlier measure failed to pass out of the Legislature before the 2007 regular session ended. Assemblywoman Patty Berg (D -
The Senator and Assemblywoman both say they are willing to continue their efforts until salmon restoration funds are finally secured.
"We tried to get it in the budget, we tried during the regular session, and now we're trying to get it in the special session," Berg said. "We just don't plan on giving up." #
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com//ci_7117920
Editorial: Nunes change is right move
U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, made the smart play last week in dropping his previously vehement opposition to the San Joaquin River Settlement.
It's a smart play for Nunes politically. Continuing his stubborn opposition to the settlement not only alienated him from the state's most powerful politicians, it was freezing him out of his own congressional delegation.
It's also the smart play for his constituents. It allows Nunes to push for the mitigation projects he has said from the beginning are necessary to keep his constituents from a crippling loss of water.
We applaud Nunes' new position, especially because it keeps him in the game as a player fighting for local water interests.
Nunes has been fighting all along, but fighting all wrong. His condemnation of the San Joaquin Settlement isolated him from the very important interests in the settlement — the federal Bureau of Reclamation, the National Resources Defense Council and the Friant Water Users Authority, who in turn had what it said was unanimous support from its members.
These three interests last year agreed, after years of negotiations, to come to an out-of-court settlement of a lawsuit the NRDC filed in 1988. The environmental group sued the federal government under the Endangered Species Act, demanding that a salmon fishery be restored to the
It was anticipated that a federal judge would rule in favor of the NRDC. Local water interests figured they had better get the best settlement they could before that happened.
The three parties agreed to the settlement a little more than a year ago. Local water interests agreed that it wasn't perfect — local water users, mostly farmers but including some municipal users, were bound to lose some water. But they all agreed it was the best settlement they could get, and better than what they could expect from a federal judge, who was under no obligation to negotiate.
Settlement provisions included some restoration of water flow in the
In normal water years, about 225,000 acre-feet would be returned to the river. That total would change in wet or dry years.
The settlement agreement also provided for water management projects to minimize the impact on water users.
That provision was admittedly vague, because the settlement parties did not want to be tied down, either to specific projects or the cost.
That is where Nunes jumped ship. Every other
To be fair, no other
Nunes has identified 28 water projects he insists need to be built to offset the water losses to Friant users. They would cost $2 billion. That is about four times previous estimates for mitigation projects. U.S. Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, is sponsoring legislation for $500 million in projects.
Radanovich's bill has some chance of passage; Nunes', not so much. However, he needs to get it on the table and keep pushing the projects. It allows him to work for his constituents and support the settlement.
The bottom line is that Nunes' support is important for the settlement and for this area. To be realistic, the settlement is virtually a done deal with no opposition, especially now that Nunes has dropped his. The important thing now is to work within the settlement to get the best deal possible.
This might seem to local residents like some distant and arcane game being played on a theoretical chessboard in
It matters.
Nunes' move is a smart play, because now he gets to keep playing. #
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/OPINION01/710090332
Guest Column: Watching water down to last drop
By Steve Haze, of Auberry, is the program coordinator managing water resource challenges in the upper
Just as it started the conversation on air quality, The Bee is to be congratulated for establishing a dialogue regarding the multitude of water issues that the
I am about to begin my seventh year as the program coordinator managing water resource challenges in the upper San Joaquin River called the Millerton Area Watershed Coalition program.
This program has been funded by grants from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Water Resources and the California State Water Resources Control Board.
The amount spent is nearly $500,000. Almost all of the funds were secured through a statewide competitive grant process under the Cal-Fed Bay-Delta Watershed Program. These funds have been used to encourage the participation of private landowners and engage communities in gaining a better understanding and appreciation of our surface and groundwater resources.
Working forum
Interestingly, the various local, state and federal agencies had decided to participate in a unique role. They became a technical advisory committee, known as a TAC. Cal-Fed allowed for the community to operate around the Millerton area watershed as a coalition -- or collaboration between varied stakeholder interests such as the farming, building and environmental communities as well as the public at large. Cal-Fed helped establish a working forum in our local foothill communities to identify and recommend solutions to pressing problems.
The Bee seems to be quite keen about the necessity of additional surface storage in the upper
The storage investigation is still in the feasibility study phase -- and in 2005/2006 a newsletter was published by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Water Resources under the Cal-Fed program that made five critical statements. With that in mind, I would like to share some key information about the storage investigation as somewhat of an insider:
First, there are six storage alternatives still to be studied.
Second, the preliminary cost of each of the alternatives ranges from as little as $220 million dollars to more than $1 billion.
Third, the feasibility study for each of the six alternatives will not be completed until mid-2009.
Fourth, the loss of clean energy ranges from "no loss" up to 216 gigawatt hours per year, with three of the six alternatives not evaluated at time of publication.
Fifth, and most important, the amount of additional water captured on average would range from as little as 25,000 acre feet per year, with a possible range of up to 165,000 to 183,000 acre feet of water per year. That means that the most additional water under ideal conditions and every politician's "dam dream" maxes out in very short order at less than a 10% increase in supply. And then that's it! Sounds like it could be a "dam nightmare" for taxpayers.
Unfortunately, The Bee does not seem aware of this vast disparity of possible outcomes -- the wide and not fully nailed down range of construction costs; an extremely finite water supply possibly realized; the very real possibility of losing an important and significant source of clean renewable electrical power in a smog-prone area that has a higher than average asthma rate.
The next essential step
Need more be said to declare a state of fiscal prudence and a strong dose of "steady as we go" rather than political expediency?
There seems to be an attraction for a number of the politicians to engage in a rush to judgment and the nearly $6 billion to $9 billion commitment of precious few dollars -- before any of us even know what the feasibility study's outcome and consequences will be. I would suggest that we carefully calculate what each and every precious penny will buy the taxpayers.
The Bee can take the next essential step by creating a forum for everyone to talk about the future of the
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/valley_voices/story/157478.html
####
No comments:
Post a Comment