This is a site mirroring the emails of California Water News emailed by the California Department of Water Resources

[Water_news] 3. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: WATERSHEDS - 1/14/08

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

January 14, 2008

 

3. Watersheds

 

DELTA ISSUES:

Crucial California Delta Faces a Salty Future – NPR

 

Editorial: California must act to rescue a delta in severe distress - San Jose Mercury News

 

OWENS RIVER VALLEY RESTORATION:

A Long-Dry California River Gets, and Gives, New Life - New York Times

 

SANTA CLARA RIVER STEELHEAD:

Guest Column: United Water strives to balance needs of people and fish - Ventura County Star

 

 

DELTA ISSUES:

Crucial California Delta Faces a Salty Future

NPR – 1/14/08

By Joe Palca

 

If you've never heard of the Sacramento Delta, you're not alone. Even people who live in California aren't too sure where it is. But the Sacramento Delta is crucial to the health of the state, and climate change is threatening the delta's very existence.

 

The Sacramento Delta is a small triangle of land just inland from the San Francisco Bay Area. It's where the fresh water from California's major rivers and the salt water from the Pacific Ocean meet. More than 20 million Californians get some of their drinking water from the delta. It also provides much of the water for California's huge agribusiness.

 

But rising sea levels threaten to turn the delta into a salty marsh, contaminating all that freshwater and flooding the homes and farms of delta residents.

 

"The delta of today is not sustainable even under today's conditions, never mind climate change," says geologist Jeffrey Mount.

 

Failing Levees

 

Here's the problem. On one side of the delta is saltwater from the ocean. On the other side is freshwater coming down from California's mountain. And in the middle is the low-lying delta land, much of it below sea level.

 

About 1,100 miles of earthen walls called levees keep the land dry, and keep the salt- and freshwater from mixing.

 

The situation is shaky now, and it's going to get worse. With climate change, sea level will rise, and there will be more rain and less snow in the mountains. That means there will be more water in the rivers.

 

Engineer Jay Lund says something has to be done, because he's certain of what will happen if nothing is done.

 

"The levees will fall down, the saltwater will come in, and you will not be able to pump water from the delta," he says.

 

And that means the freshwater Californians depend on could be lost.

 

"The forces arrayed against those levees are inexorable," Mount adds. "They will inevitably go."

 

Mount and Lund are part of a group of University of California, Davis professors who have been meeting every week for the past two and a half years to discuss the future of the delta.

 

Peter Moyle, the group's ecologist, says there are constant reminders about how fragile the levees are, including one in the spring of 2004.

 

"This was a nice June day, on a levee that had just been inspected the day before. It collapsed," Moyle says.

 

"Probably a beaver did it," Mount says. "How are you going to fix that?"

 

"And the state spent between $75 and $100 million to restore about $22 million worth of real estate," says Richard Howitt, the economist in the group.

 

It's partly economics that makes raising the levees impractical.

 

"Just to raise the levees one inch in this delta would cost you more than $100 million in materials," Mount says.

 

An Obstacle to Every Solution

 

But you have to do something to keep up with climate change. There are options, but every solution has its opponents. And any solution will be expensive.

One possibility is to build something called the peripheral canal. Right now, freshwater flows through the delta. But you can capture most of the freshwater before it even enters the delta. If you routed the freshwater around the delta, then you wouldn't have to worry if the levees failed. They would no longer be part of water supply equation.

 

"That was political poison for about 20 years," Mount says. "You simply did not talk about that as an option."

 

California voters killed the peripheral canal in 1982, largely because northern Californians saw it as an attempt by southern Californians to rip off the North's water.

 

But if a peripheral canal solves the water-supply problem, it doesn't solve the flooding problems for the delta itself.

 

And delta residents worry that once people get their water, they won't care what happens to the delta levees.

 

Overshadowed by 'Water Buffalos'

 

Marci Coglianese has lived in the delta for 40 years in the town of Rio Vista. It's on the Sacramento River, and one of several small towns scattered around the farmland of the delta. Coglianese is the former mayor.

 

About 4,500 people live in Rio Vista. Coglianese says getting the state to pay attention to the levees that keep her town from flooding isn't easy.

 

"I understand we are outgunned completely by powerful economic and political forces," she says. "And the reason we're terrified of the peripheral canal is that if we feel that we're not counting for much now, we're absolutely certain we'll count for nothing if that canal is built."

 

Coglianese says you can't use accounting tools to assess the value of communities like Rio Vista.

 

"We don't have movie theaters. We don't have malls. We have each other, basically, and it isn't fancy, it's plain, but it's a unique part of American life that is gone from almost everywhere," she says. "When you travel across the country, everything looks the same until you get to the small towns, and they have an intrinsic value that needs to be preserved and honored."

 

There is a process under way in California to come up with a plan for the delta called the Deltavision Blue Ribbon Task Force. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger created the task force to help chart a way forward in the delta.

 

Phil Isenberg chairs the task force and is a veteran of California's water wars. He says making tough decisions and then moving forward with them it tricky in a democracy.

 

"When voters are unhappy, they put measures on the ballot themselves, or interest groups do, and they just pile them on top of each other and have since 1911," he says. "It's not a wonder nothing happens rapidly. It's a wonder anything happens at all."

 

Isenberg says the California's competing interests are known as the "water buffalos." The big players are the farm industry, the urban water districts, the land developers and the environmentalists. Their biggest concern is that the much anticipated giant northern California earthquake will turn the delta into a disaster area. They aren't really focused yet on climate change.

 

"Global warming is a new kid on the block," he says. "And the funny side effect is to watch all of these water buffalos acknowledge that global warming's there, and then explain that's why their prior positions are even more necessary than they were before."

 

For the time being, life in the delta rolls along.

 

Steve Mello, a delta farmer, also hates the idea of a peripheral canal. But he predicts it won't be built. Because even if Gov. Schwarzenegger decides a canal is necessary, he won't be around long enough to see it through.

 

"When he is out of office, the next governor will come in, and what will happen?" Mello asks. "It depends on the political winds that are blowing then. How strong are the environmentalists, versus how strong are the builders in southern California? It's all about money, and water is money. John Wayne had a good quote: 'Whiskey's for drinking and water's for fighting over.'"

 

Actually, some attribute that line to Mark Twain. And climate change probably means there'll be plenty of drinking and fighting ahead. #

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18031391

 

 

Editorial: California must act to rescue a delta in severe distress

San Jose Mercury News – 1/14/08

 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers have nothing to show from last year's special legislative session on water strategy for California. But there's one challenge that cannot be put off any longer: fixing the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

 

The delta is the hub of the state's water system, supplying water to two out of three Californians and irrigating much of the state's farmland. Santa Clara County gets half its water supply from the estuary.

 

Yet the delta is on the verge of ecological and physical collapse. Human population growth and the effects of climate change will only increase the pressure on it in the next decade. This critical natural and economic resource for the entire state must be restored, even if Sacramento can't agree on a broader statewide water plan.

 

Signs of distress in the delta are everywhere. A report last week showed severe depletion of several fish species. Last year, a judge ordered cutbacks in pumping from the delta to protect the endangered delta smelt. The order was implemented in December and could cut water deliveries to some users as much as 30 percent this year.

 

This ecological stress is in addition to ongoing threats of levee failures, sinking lands and other issues.

 

The first step is stabilizing the delta. To begin, the governor and legislators should expedite a bill passed by the Senate last week that directs $611 million in previously approved bond money to immediate water projects, including flood control, storm water management and levee restoration.

 

Then they should move ahead on long-term reforms, guided by findings of the governor's blue ribbon task force. The group issued 12 recommendations in December, including urging that the environmental and water supply functions of the delta be considered "co-equal." Until now, ecology has been mostly an afterthought.

 

Another recommendation was to create a broad governing authority with clout and money to manage the delta. It deserves a serious look. Currently, more than 220 government agencies are involved, a recipe for eternal paralysis.

 

The task force recommendation for building new storage and conveyance facilities for delta water will spark the most controversy. A 1982 ballot proposal for a "peripheral canal" was soundly defeated, largely because Northern Californians viewed it as a water grab by thirsty Southern California. But today, there's recognition throughout the state that the status quo in the delta is unacceptable.

 

The state should assess a so-called "dual conveyance" system for delta water, as the task force suggested. Besides relying on the flow in the delta itself, it would create a canal to divert water for population centers and farms before it enters the delta. That canal, along with some reconfiguring of the delta itself, could reduce the environmental impact of water exports.

 

There's room for legislative action. Even before the blue ribbon report was issued, Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, proposed a comprehensive approach to improving the delta, which is what's needed. This year, he plans to offer a new, updated version of his bill that passed the Senate last year. It could become a framework for long-term revitalization and management of the estuary.

 

Last year's special session debate on water got hopelessly bogged down, leaving dueling proposals for water bond ballot measures in limbo for 2008. The governor and Republicans deadlocked with Democrats on whether to build major dams, reviving a years-old political schism.

 

Crafting a comprehensive strategy was worth a try. It failed. But repairing the delta is something everybody should agree is necessary for California. That's the problem to solve in 2008. #
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_7966097?nclick_check=1

 

 

OWENS RIVER VALLEY RESTORATION:

A Long-Dry California River Gets, and Gives, New Life

New York Times – 1/12/08

By Randal Archibold, staff writer

 

INDEPENDENCE, Calif. — What Los Angeles took a century ago — a 62-mile stretch of river here in the parched Owens Valley — it is now giving back.

Skip to next paragraph

One of the largest river-restoration projects in the country has sent a gentle current of water meandering through what just a year ago was largely a sandy, rocky bed best used as a horse trail and barely distinguishable from the surrounding high desert scrub.

 

Mud hens dive for food. A blue heron sweeps overhead. Bass, carp and catfish patrol deep below. Some local residents swear they have even seen river otters.

 

So much reedy tule has sprouted along the banks, like bushy tufts of hair, that officials have called in a huge floating weed whacker, nicknamed the Terminator, to cut through it and help keep the water flowing — a problem inconceivable in years past.

 

The river, 2 to 3 feet deep and 15 to 20 feet across, will not be mistaken for the mighty Mississippi. And an economic boon promised to accompany the restoration has yet to materialize.

 

Yet the mere fact that water is present and flowing in the Lower Owens River enthralls residents nearly 100 years after Los Angeles diverted the river into an aqueduct and sent it 200 miles south to slake its growing thirst.

 

“This is infinitely better than before,” said Keith Franson, a kayaker pumping up his boat on the banks this week and preparing to explore a stretch of the renewed river. “You got birds, herons, terns, all sorts of wildlife coming back in because life is coming back in the river.”

 

Francis Pedneau, a lifelong Owens Valley resident who had sparred with Los Angeles city officials over access to fishing sites, said word was spreading among fishing enthusiasts about new spots along the river. Mr. Pedneau said he had actually caught fewer bass this past season, “probably because the schools are more spread out now.”

 

But Mr. Pedneau, 69, has praise for the project, even though he, like many old-timers, is generally suspicious of Los Angeles, given the tension-filled history behind its acquiring water and land here (the inspiration for the 1974 movie “Chinatown”).

 

“The river didn’t look anything like it does now,” he said. “I never thought I would live long enough to see this.”

 

Los Angeles officials are in a celebratory mood. Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa plans to come here next month when engineers temporarily step up the flow as part of regular maintenance.

 

The flow is carefully controlled, kept at a minimum of 40 cubic feet per second, well above the 5 cubic feet per second in the parts that had still managed to have something of a stream after the river was diverted.

 

Los Angeles agreed to restore the river as part of a settlement of a lawsuit filed by the Owens Valley Committee, a local group, and the Sierra Club over what it called the excessive pumping of groundwater in the valley in the 1970s and 1980s to increase drinking water supplies beyond what the city was taking from the river.

 

Under the settlement, Los Angeles, working with Inyo County on the $24 million project, has also taken steps to restore the cottonwoods, willows and wetlands that flourished along the river decades ago and drew an array of wildlife.

 

Near the river’s delta, the released water is recaptured, with most of it used to control dust on Owens Lake, which the diversion had dried up, and the rest sent back into the aqueduct and on to Los Angeles.

 

The city still gets about 50 percent of its water, including groundwater, from the valley, down about a third in the past several years because of environmental obligations like the river restoration.

 

Mr. Villaraigosa, who has promised to patch up relations with the Owens Valley, said ending litigation and reviving the river sent an important message.

 

“By releasing this water, we are demonstrating our commitment to environmental stewardship and a new era in terms of our relationship with Owens River residents,” he said. “We can’t claim the mantle of the cleanest, greenest big city in America if we continue to degradate the environment in places like the Owens Valley.”

 

Not all disputes are settled.

 

The Owens Valley Committee and the Sierra Club, while largely pleased so far, said they would like to see Los Angeles more closely monitor the wildlife and habitat making a comeback. Better management of the burgeoning ecosystem, they say, will ensure its success.

 

“We will have concerns if certain species that should be here are not returning,” said Mike Prather, a birder and a committee member.

 

Brian Tillemans, who manages the project for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, said it was working on a plan. But the department generally prefers a “build a habitat and they will come” approach, Mr. Tillemans said, which costs less and allows nature to take the lead.

 

“The best we can do is optimize the habitat, and nature will take its course,” Mr. Tillemans said. Within three years, he said, trees will line the banks, drawing more wildlife and naturally controlling weeds and underbrush.

 

One species locals hope to see more of is humans.

 

Some businesses have noticed a slight increase in people coming to see or play on the river, and the Lone Pine Chamber of Commerce, one of the larger business development groups here, plans to revise its tourist guide to play up the restoration.

 

“People are starting to come at odd times of the year, like now, to visit, but what we look forward to is it making a great deal of difference in the long term,” said Kathleen New, the chamber president and a lifelong resident.

 

“Right now, it’s a lot of local people going out and getting wet and acting foolish,” Ms. New said. “It’s marvelous.”

 

Mr. Franson, the kayaker, prepared to launch his inflated boat. Some forays have been long, he said, and others cut short by the tule, but they were all a pleasure.

 

“I may just get around the corner and I’m stuck,” he said. “But, look, this was completely dry not long ago and now it is not.” #

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/us/12water.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

 

SANTA CLARA RIVER STEELHEAD:

Guest Column: United Water strives to balance needs of people and fish

Ventura County Star – 1/13/08

By Roger Orr, president of the board of directors of the United Water Conservation District in Santa Paula

 

Letters from Ron Bottorff ("Time to stop dragging feet") and Alasdair Coyne ("UWCD reponsible for steelhead decline") in the Dec. 2 Star blame United Water Conservation District for the demise of steelhead in the Santa Clara River, and accuse us of being uncaring and uncooperative. We admit that diverting water for homes and farms may affect the fish. But reasonable people can disagree over solutions to this problem. Recovering the seagoing form of rainbow trout will not be easy, and should proceed with reason and dialogue.

 

The fish have declined along the entire California coast south of Monterey, and blaming a single district is neither productive nor accurate. Many groups are working to protect steelhead: branches of state and federal governments, environmental groups, fishing clubs and lawyers. United Water is the only organization safeguarding our district's water supply and striving to balance the water needs of people and fish. The federal government would like us to build another fishway at our Freeman diversion and provide fish passage around Lake Piru. Before spending public funds on such projects, we would like to be assured they will work. We are willing to engage in constructive dialogue on these issues.

 

UWCD doing its share to recover steelhead

 

In the meantime, United Water is doing its share to recover steelhead. At our Freeman diversion, we operate a fish ladder, which was designed with the approval of National Marine Fisheries Service, a federal agency. We have adopted generous fish-ladder operating criteria. Next year, a panel of independent experts will review our fish-passage facilities. We will also study the feasibility of fish passage around Lake Piru. We have started a habitat-conservation plan for the Santa Clara River, similar to a process under way for the Ventura River. We have diligently pursued compliance with the Endangered Species Act, despite delays by federal agencies.

 

To recover steelhead, it is essential to understand their historic numbers and range. We discovered that no one had researched the history of steelhead in our area before 1930. So, we hired a historian to do this research, as mentioned in our Nov. 23 commentary ("Study of fish-stocking under way") to The Star. We were surprised to be vilified for our efforts. But once fish advocates review our work, we hope it will assist steelhead recovery planning.

 

Misconceptions about steelhead

 

Instead of pointing fingers, it is more useful to discuss misconceptions about steelhead. Some folks have strongly held beliefs about them that should not be accepted as dogma, but discussed openly.

 

For example, the evidence of a former steelhead run on Piru Creek is weak. Many field surveys by Fish and Game since 1931 failed to find any adult steelhead, despite extensive planting of juvenile steelhead there. The evidence cited by NMFS consists of one dubious photograph from 1915 and a single interview of a fisherman in 1951 who thought he saw steelhead in Piru Creek six years before. Even scientists have difficulty distinguishing between steelhead and trout.

 

Some believe that the fish ladder at United's Freeman diversion is ineffective. Their reasoning is simple: Few steelhead have climbed the ladder, therefore, it doesn't work. They discount the fact that thousands of Pacific lamprey have successfully climbed the ladder, in the same flow ranges used by steelhead. Lamprey swim one-third as fast as steelhead. Federal regulators have used a similar logic: They think the ladder doesn't work, therefore, it must not work. We have yet to see a thorough analysis of our ladder, and that is why we have offered to assemble a panel of experts.

 

NMFS is trying to recover steelhead to an unrealistic population. According to its recent recovery plan outline, Southern California steelhead will not be removed from the endangered species list until there are 4,000 adult steelhead swimming up the Los Angeles River every year. What are the chances of that?

 

Bottorff notes that steelhead were not raised in Southern California hatcheries. That is true. However, steelhead fry were raised in Northern California and transported south by railway. Extensive steelhead planting took place in Ventura County in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Those stocked fish were different from the trout raised in the Fillmore fish hatchery today.

 

A recent genetic study by NMFS is being used to make sweeping claims about local trout and steelhead. The study claims to have found little genetic difference between trout populations above and below the dam at Lake Piru.

 

Unfortunately, few trout survive the high temperatures below the dam. Instead, NMFS sampled fish on Santa Paula Creek and far up Sespe Creek to represent trout below the dam on Piru Creek. The Santa Paula Creek site is above Harvey Dam, and the Sespe Creek site was inaccessible to steelhead. So, what they really compared were sites above barriers in adjacent tributaries — subject to similar planting and fishing pressures. It should be no surprise that the genetics in adjacent streams are similar. But that does not prove that the trout now in Piru Creek are wild steelhead, as claimed.

 

NMFS' genetic study also suggests that local trout are not descended from trout raised today in the Fillmore fish hatchery. But our historical information proves that NMFS has missed the point. Today's hatchery trout differ from the fish planted here in the late 1800s and early 1900s. To show that the remaining trout are not descended from planted fish would require genetic samples of those planted 100 years ago. There is also an unexplained anomaly in NMFS' genetic study: Trout raised in the Fillmore fish hatchery are more closely related to Santa Clara River trout than to the Northern California strains from which they were derived. It is too early to make sweeping conclusions from this data.

 

Ironically, steelhead are one of the most successful species on the planet. Their original range extended along the Pacific coast of North America to north of Japan. Their present range is worldwide. Rainbow trout planted in the Great Lakes in 1876 adapted to a different climate to create a thriving steelhead fishery there. They have been introduced to Europe, South America, New Zealand and even Afghanistan. They are on the list of top 100 invasive species in the world, outcompeting native species in many areas. Their resilience gives us hope that, with our help, these fish may eventually coexist with the 33 million people in California.

 

No surplus of local water

 

Raising these issues has earned United Water the ire of environmentalists. But understanding them will be important for recovering steelhead and for gaining acceptance by those who must pay for it. Reasonable people may disagree over the natural history of steelhead and the best way to preserve them.

 

Meanwhile, there is no surplus of local water. More water for fish means less for homes and farms, and for recovery of aquifers intruded by seawater.

 

United Water places a high priority on steelhead recovery, and the beneficial release of water is important to that goal.

 

At the same time, it is our responsibility to ensure that such releases are reasonable and effective. Only in that way can recovery be encouraged and the water needs of the human residents of United Water's district be served. United Water will continue doing its share to recover steelhead. #

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jan/13/united-water-strives-to-balance-needs-of-people/

###

No comments:

Blog Archive