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 - 2/26/08

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment 

 

February 26, 2008

 

2. Supply

 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AG ISSUES:

Water cuts slicing into avocado groves; Some farmers are 'stumping' hundreds of healthy trees to keep others irrigated - Los Angeles Times

 

DEVELOPMENT ISSUES:

El Dorado County utility sharply hikes water fees for developers - Sacramento Bee

 

ALL AMERICAN CANAL:

Canal lining angers Baja California governor - Imperial Valley Press

 

WATER SUPPLY POLICY REVIEW:

Editorial: Channeling Mulholland; The Times launches an editorial series on water and water policy in California and around the world - Los Angeles Times

 

KERN RIVER DIVERSIONS:

Letters to the Editor: Kern River rights not that simple - Bakersfield Californian

 

 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AG ISSUES:

Water cuts slicing into avocado groves; Some farmers are 'stumping' hundreds of healthy trees to keep others irrigated

Los Angeles Times – 2/26/08

By Deborah Schoch, staff writer

 

FALLBROOK, CALIF. -- -- Deep in the green avocado groves, the winter quiet is shattered by the whine of chain saws. Workers wielding machetes slash leafy branches from the trees and spray-paint the tall stumps white to protect the bark from sunburn in the forced hibernation to come.

Here, in the heart of the nation's avocado industry, growers are beheading their avocado trees.

 

Less than two months after a mandatory 30% cutback in agricultural water deliveries, some Southern California growers have begun "stumping" hundreds of healthy, well-nurtured avocado trees, putting them out of production for the next one to three years to leave more water for the rest of their trees.

Their actions represent the downside of a water deal between area farmers and the region's water wholesaler, the Metropolitan Water District. Over the years, thousands of farmers signed up for a program that gave them discounted water in return for their willingness to be first in line for a water cutback.

This winter is payback time.

For the first time since the program started in 1995, farmers must reciprocate for years of discounts. The MWD cut their water deliveries by 30% on Jan. 1 because of the regional shortage caused by last year's record dry weather, an eight-year drought in the Colorado River Basin and a court order protecting the endangered smelt in the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta.

Even though this season's rainfall to date is above normal, with the most recent storm dousing Southern California this weekend, farmers say the wet weather is only postponing the inevitable.

Come the dry months of summer, they still will have 30% less water to nurture their crops.

>From Ventura to the Mexican border, farmers are rethinking their crop plans and curtailing spring plantings of pumpkins, potatoes and watermelons. Some citrus growers said they will have to remove trees to save water. Those using too much could be fined thousands of dollars and have locks installed on their water meters.

"There is a lot of anxiety and angst out there," said Rex Laird, chief executive of the Farm Bureau of Ventura County. "Water is not something you can skimp on. Plants either get what they need, or they die."

Most farmers in the six-county MWD service area are subject to the cutback, including 5,000 in San Diego County alone, according to the county water authority. The county is the nation's largest avocado supplier.

By idling parts of their groves, growers can fully irrigate remaining trees to produce the heavy, plump, well-nourished avocados prized by shoppers nationwide.

Avocados cost about $1.50 each, and though prices may increase in time, the more immediate effect will be fewer California avocados in 2009 and smaller incomes for farmers in this verdant, orchard-studded valley.

Most farms flanking Fallbrook's winding roads are 10 acres or smaller. Many are owned by families whose finances are less stable than those of large corporate farms. Some probably will go under, farmers said. Maybe they bought overpriced land 10 years ago and already are struggling to meet their debt payments.

"You pray it's not going to be the case, but there are some that are on the edge," said Guy Whitney, industry affairs director at the California Avocado Commission.

Residents fear that the hillside orchards will be replaced by more residential projects like the ones closer to town, with agrarian names such as Sycamore Ranch and Shady Grove.

Farmers say they're protecting their investment when they stump their orchards. "The tree would be hurt more having water cut back than if you cut it down and shut the water off," said Charley Wolk , 71, a prominent farmer who has grown avocados here for half his life. He owns his own groves, and his management firm, the Bejoca Co., oversees hundreds of acres of other owners' avocado trees. So far, he's stumped 1,000 trees.

Wolk is matter-of-fact about the cutback, saying that the MWD gave farmers plenty of notice before reducing deliveries.

Still, he is grappling with tough decisions about how best to tend to his trees.

He pointed to the ceiling of his office. "Where do I go with a tree that's as high as that beam?"

He held his hand 4 feet off the floor. "What about trees this high, maybe 3 years old?" He has a number of 3-year-old trees growing on a hill, and he thinks he's figured out a fix: He'll irrigate less often at the bottom of the hill, since moisture from above should keep the soil damp.

The tree-cutting comes as residents in Los Angeles, San Diego and most other area cities are still getting 100% of the water they need, with most of it going for lawns and landscaping.

"People need to know that in Southern California, water is a precious resource. But they'd rather water their lawns and cut off the farmers," said Laura Blank, executive director of the Los Angeles County Farm Bureau.

The state agriculture industry is often criticized by environmentalists, who say that it wastes water and raises moisture-hungry crops such as rice and cotton. Several Fallbrook-area farmers, however, say they have worked for years to reduce consumption.

Carl and Ed Kessel, who are tending 3,100 lemon trees on their Fallbrook farm, added water-stingy flow devices to their computerized irrigation system and installed 28 moisture sensors, hoping to reduce water use by 50%.

January meter readings showed that Fallbrook-area farmers reduced their use by 85% from the dry January last year. Still, Keith L. Lewinger, general manager of the Fallbrook Public Utility District, had to start making calls to customers using the most water.

"Some of them said, 'I had a broken pipe,' " he said. He warned they would be fined $2.51 per 1,000 gallons, or nearly twice the regular rate of $1.36.

If they fail to make a 30% cut two months in a row, the district will install a meter flow restricter, a washer-like device that reduces water delivery.

"If push comes to shove," Lewinger said, "we can shut the meter off."

Lewinger said he has no extra water to give them. If every farmer in town were to exceed the water limits by 10% for the year, the Fallbrook district would owe the MWD $609,000 in penalties, he said.

The MWD board of directors is expected to discuss the future of the 14-year-old agricultural water program at its May meeting, amid criticism from some urban water districts that farmers should not be receiving discounted water during a shortage.

Whatever the outcome, farmers must still grapple with water cutbacks that could grow more severe if the shortage worsens or if the courts further reduce delta deliveries. If the MWD were to cut water to its urban users by 15%, farmers' deliveries would be cut by 40% under a drought plan approved two weeks ago. If urban users see a 35% reduction, deliveries to farmers would be halted altogether.

Bob Polito, 57, who grows oranges in Valley Center, near Fallbrook, plans to take down as many as 1,500 trees, many with unripened fruit still on them. He has not started the work.

"I think I'm waiting until the last minute," he said last week. "You have these trees you've been raising for 40 years, and now I'm going to lose both the crop and the trees."

Polito sells oranges, tangerines and lemons at the Santa Monica Farmers' Market and other area markets, where many shoppers haven't heard of the 30% cutback.

That does not surprise him, since the water crunch is not being felt in the city, he said. "As long as they have enough water to put on their lawn and wash their dishes, they're happy." #

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-avocado26feb26,0,1257990,full.story

 

 

DEVELOPMENT ISSUES:

El Dorado County utility sharply hikes water fees for developers

Sacramento Bee – 2/26/08

By Cathy Locke, staff writer

 

The water utility that serves about 100,000 residents in El Dorado County voted Monday to boost connection fees for water, sewer and recycled water service as much as 90 percent.

 

El Dorado Irrigation District directors rejected developers' pleas for further analysis. Building industry representatives said the increase represents another blow to the struggling housing market.

 

The one-time fees, known as facility capacity charges, apply only to new construction. The increases range from 34 percent to 90 percent, depending upon location.

 

"We're always willing and want to make sure we're paying our fair share," Kirk Bone of Serrano Associates told the board Monday. But he said, "You need to understand that our industry is in a depression. We're not seeing any light at the end of the tunnel."

 

Everything that increases development costs pushes the sale of a house further into the future, Bone said.

 

District directors said they had struggled with the fee increase. They noted that staff members had worked with a task force made up of building industry representatives over the past year to update the fees.

 

"This is one of the few things I've actually lost sleep over since I've been on the board," said director Harry Norris.

 

But board members said their first duty was to ensure the district's fiscal welfare and protect ratepayers by making sure they don't bear the cost of serving new development.

 

"We have to reach some kind of balance," director John Fraser said. "I don't think we can take into account the best interest of the developer."

 

Under the new fee schedule, the total fee for a new single-family home on a potable water system will be $29,192 in El Dorado Hills, $25,200 in Cameron Park, $29,708 in the Mother Lode service area and $26,202 in the district's satellite areas.

 

For dual plumbed homes -- those using potable water indoors and recycled water for landscape irrigation -- the new hookup fee will be $24,625 in El Dorado Hills and $20,633 in Cameron Park. Recycled water is not available elsewhere in the district.

 

The new fees are slightly lower than those proposed in January. The board agreed to eliminate water lines 5 inches or smaller from its fixed-asset calculations because those lines typically provide service within subdivisions and are not part of the transmission system that would be used by new customers. The board rejected developers' requests to further reduce the fees by eliminating the value of lines 6 inches and smaller, or 8 inches and smaller.

 

Staff members said 6-inch and 8-inch lines are part of the larger transmission system in much of the district.

 

The value of the district's fixed assets are used to calculate the "buy-in" portion of the fee, which reflects the cost to reimburse existing customers for investments in current facilities that will serve new customers. The hookup fee also covers the cost of system expansions required to meet the needs of new development.

 

John Costa, legislative advocate for the North State Building Industry Association, urged the board to postpone adopting the new fees to allow discussion of options such as deferring fee payment until a house is ready for occupancy. He said industry representatives are pursuing similar talks with El Dorado County officials regarding payment of traffic impact fees.

 

District Counsel Tom Cumpston said deferring fees would require a change in board policy. Currently, he said, a builder must have a guaranteed water supply to obtain approval of a final map, and a guarantee of water comes with payment of the connection fee.

 

Camino resident Terry Kayes said he came to Monday's hearing to speak as a ratepayer. Kayes said he doubted that the fee increase would determine whether houses were built or sold in El Dorado County.

 

"This isn't a water crisis," Kayes said. "This is a credit crisis at the national and international level."

 

Cumpston noted that no one had argued that the current hookup fees were high enough. "The longer we wait (to raise the fees)," he said, "the bigger the hole that we dig."

 

The hookup fees were last adjusted in 2005. Staff members said they now will be updated annually to keep pace with district costs and avoid sharp increases. #

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/740521.html

 

 

ALL AMERICAN CANAL:

Canal lining angers Baja California governor

Imperial Valley Press – 2/26/08

By Victor Morales, staff writer

 

Baja California’s governor protested the cement lining of the All-American Canal while in Washington, D.C., on Sunday, according to Mexican news media.

During the Winter National Governor’s Association meeting here this weekend Gov. Jose Guadalupe Osuna Millán reportedly complained that the encasement is negatively impacting agricultural and economic activity in the Mexicali Valley.

Osuna privately met with Department of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on Sunday and discussed “water issues along the U.S.-Mexico border,” confirmed Shane Wolfe, a spokesman for Kempthorne.

Details on that discussion were not being released as it is the department’s policy not to publicize details of the secretary’s private discussions with governors.

Mexican and Baja California lawsuits had held up construction of the lining for about year. The cement lining of a 23-mile stretch of the canal is under way to recapture 67,000 acre-feet of water per year that would otherwise seep into the Mexicali Valley.

Construction began in July and is expected to be completed before the decade’s end, said Kevin Kelley, spokesman for the Imperial Irrigation District. The IID manages the U.S.-owned canal and is the lead agency in the lining’s construction.

Kelley said Mexican opposition to the canal is expected.

“It isn’t surprising because there have been ongoing discussions at diplomatic levels … since the project began,” he said.

Osuna reportedly discussed the canal with other border governors, including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, about the possibility of storing Colorado River water in U.S. dams, desalination plants and applying agricultural technology, presumably to mutually benefit both countries, according to media reports.

Osuna’s press office in Mexicali did not respond to requests for more information.

Osuna was reportedly successful in reaching an accord to hold a discussion regarding the canal with each nation’s respective water and diplomatic agencies. And a date of March 11 in Phoenix would continue those talks.

The 80-mile All-American Canal is the Imperial and Coachella valleys’ only source of water from the Colorado River, Kelley said.


Kelley said the additional 67,000 acre-feet of water that is expected to get captured from the lining will not deduct Mexico’s legal and established allotment from the Colorado River, 1.5 million acre-feet per year.

The captured water is scheduled to be transferred to the San Diego County Water Authority. #
http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2008/02/26/local_news/news04.txt

 

 

WATER SUPPLY POLICY REVIEW:

Editorial: Channeling Mulholland; The Times launches an editorial series on water and water policy in California and around the world

Los Angeles Times – 2/25/08

 

The early history of Los Angeles was defined by its struggle to get water wherever, and whenever, it could. William Mulholland and his colleagues did such a good job of securing water supplies during the early 20th century -- building the 223-mile-long, gravity-fed Los Angeles Aqueduct, which imports water from the Owens Valley; establishing the Metropolitan Water District, which brings in water from the Colorado River and Northern California -- that those of us living here today take for granted our lush gardens and year-round blooms. They appear a native bounty when they are, in fact, a work of man. We offer pious lip service to the notion that water is scarce when the weather is dry, only to forget our concerns at the fall of the first raindrop. Implicitly, we behave as if water will always be available and unlimited.

This must change. This page did not like the water bond that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger backed last year, but he is on to something when he insists that California needs to rethink its complicated and woefully overburdened water system. It has been said many times before, but it bears repeating: Our state's breathtaking natural beauty, envied easygoing lifestyle and booming economy -- the California dream chronicled and immortalized by our resident historian, Kevin Starr -- depend on an ambitiously conceived network of aqueducts, pumps, dams and pipes that will literally run dry if we don't invest heavily to change the way we use, capture, store and distribute water.

 

Figuring out what kind of investments are called for will not be easy. Dwindling freshwater supplies are a worldwide problem, not limited to dusty Western states. In Atlanta, which gets more than 50 inches of rain in an average year (that's more than three times Los Angeles' typical rainfall), drought forced Gov. Sonny Perdue to declare a state of emergency in 2007 as water supplies sank to a frightening three-month supply. In the Upper Midwest, fear that dry Southern states will muster the political power to build pipelines to import water from the region has become "the third rail of Great Lakes politics,” as one observer wrote. Worldwide, according to research cited recently by U.N.

 

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, about 2.7 billion people live in countries where climate change and water-related crises create a high risk of violent conflict. Another 1.2 billion suffer high risk of political instability from water shortages. Ban has pledged to protect water resources as a part of his global anti-poverty efforts.

Studying water, even on a local scale, exposes a universe of dazzling complexity. Here in Southern California, our sources of imported water, including the Colorado River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, are threatened.

 

Deliveries from the delta, which provides water for 25 million Californians, could drop by as much as a third this year. Imports from the Owens Valley to Los Angeles are down too. A recent study suggested that there is a 50% chance that the Colorado River's vast Lake Powell and Lake Mead reservoirs will dry up by 2021. No one knows how future climate change might further affect imports. Many of our local aquifers, which could provide well water and storage capacity for "extra" water supplies, are polluted or overdrawn. Long-standing political battles pit North against South, older cities against new ones, farmers against urbanites and environmentalists against developers.

William Mulholland and his generation famously secured this region's water and gave Los Angeles a chance to be; the job of our generation is to accept without apology this city's right to continue, to make room for growth and to protect Mulholland's grand, if complicated, legacy.

In the coming months, we will publish a series of editorials examining water and water policy in California, across the country and around the world. Channeling Mulholland, we hope to use these editorials to sketch an impressionistic blueprint for a perfect water system. We stray from Mulholland's vision, however, in our desire to imagine a plan that humbly acknowledges how limited a resource water truly is -- a plan that seeks to balance the needs of people, the economy and the environment in considering how best to use and preserve it.

The water we have

We begin with a call for Southern California to turn its attention to its often ignored, and often neglected, local water supplies. During the 20th century, Los Angeles was built on imported water. But today, with imported supplies curtailed by environmental restrictions and threatened by climate change and natural disasters, we must rely more on the water we already have -- including water we conserve, water we recycle and water we recover. "Generally in Southern California, there's a sea-change recognition that if we're all waiting to get more water from Northern California, it isn't going to happen," says Richard Atwater, general manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency in Chino, which is considered a leader in efficiency efforts. "To maintain our great economy, we need to protect our sources here."

Atwater's agency employs a variety of strategies to develop its local supplies. First, it uses recycled, non-potable water -- "gray water" that might otherwise flow to the sea -- to irrigate its parks, golf courses and school grounds. Within three years, Atwater expects to cut 25% of the district's annual outdoor potable water use, enough to meet the household needs of 400,000 people. Second, the district gets much of its water from local aquifers. It must clean this water, but doing so is doubly valuable because it requires half as much energy as importing the water from the delta and also improves water quality downstream in Orange County.

The agency works with developers to build new homes that are water efficient, using a third as much water as homes built just 10 years ago. It has installed experimental porous surfaces in agency parking lots, which allow rainwater to enter the region's aquifers. Atwater plans to ramp up efforts to recycle wastewater for potable use, as Orange County has already done. (This process is sometimes disparagingly referred to as "toilet to tap." In fact, it produces water so pure that, untreated, it corrodes metal pipes.) Atwater has even copied a program in Las Vegas that pays homeowners $1.50 per square foot to rip out their lawns and put in climate-friendly landscapes. "Lawns may be a luxury we can't afford," he says.

Atwater is not anti-growth. He expects the population of his district to increase 50% in the next 20 years, and he believes, thanks to efficiency efforts, that his region can do this without using "a drop more" of imported water. (In 2005, the Pacific Institute, an Oakland-based think tank, estimated that the entire state could maintain economic growth and cut water use by 20% over approximately the same period.) Most important, Atwater doesn't discount the possibility that the district may have to make do with less water from the delta and the Colorado River in the future. That's a notion still considered heretical by many water users in this state, who are loath to signal willingness to give up any claim to water -- even when the water in question, like the diminishing flows of the Colorado, may not actually exist.

Here in Los Angeles, as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is fond of pointing out, we make do with the same amount of water today as we did 20 years ago, despite an influx of a million new residents. These savings are a result of efficiency measures such as the installation of low-flow toilets and shower heads, and a tiered pricing structure that discourages overuse. That's impressive -- and not nearly enough. We should do more to improve outdoor water use efficiency. We should follow Orange County's lead and begin recycling our wastewater for eventual potable use. We should recover storm water. We should clean our groundwater basins. We should nudge homeowners into ripping out their lawns. And we should admit, our Owens Valley supply notwithstanding, that our future cannot depend entirely on imported water.

The struggles to come

There will be many struggles over water in California -- over the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, over the Colorado, over the Owens Valley -- in years to come. Cleaving to local sources won't prevent these battles and is hardly controversy free, but it could lower the stakes and (we dare to dream) help break the stalemate state policymakers face. No farmer should cry foul if Los Angeles recycles more of its water. No ancient grudges between Northern and Southern California should be revived.

Improving water efficiency is cost-effective. But it isn't sexy, especially viewed beside wonders like Mulholland's aqueduct or the Hoover Dam. As our governor understands, spending billions on monumental engineering projects has poetic appeal. It conjures the triumph of man over nature. Spending smaller sums on porous parking lot surfaces, filtration plants and programs to put drought-friendly plants and smart sprinkler systems in people's yards -- the workaday, street-level strategies required to develop local supplies -- seems janitorial in comparison.

We know now that we can't triumph over nature after all, yet we need not abandon the dreams of pioneers or the willingness to think big. Even as we dream, we must make the most of collective, modest solutions that, spread across millions, can reap staggering rewards. Our forefathers secured water for us; we must now care for what they made possible.  #

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-water25feb25,0,4405013.story

 

 

KERN RIVER DIVERSIONS:

Letters to the Editor: Kern River rights not that simple

Bakersfield Californian – 2/24/08

By Michael Young, Bakersfield, is a local farmer and president Kern County Farm Bureau

 

As a person who has logged hundreds of miles on the bike path that runs through our great city, I would love nothing more than for the Kern River to always be full and flowing.

 

I have to agree with columnist Lois Henry when she says that "this ribbon of water through the city changed things."

 

She's right, it does make our city a more beautiful and comfortable place to live. What was not said in her recent columns and a subsequent editorial is the fact that all the water that was affected by the forfeiture of one of the existing right holders, has always been diverted and used by the other existing right holders of Kern River water, according to the prior rights as confirmed by the State Water Resources Control Board.

 

We all need to remember that we live in an "irrigated desert." The natural flow of the Kern River is highly variable and rarely sufficient to meet all the beneficial needs of the region.

 

Long before the City of Bakersfield first acquired its right to use Kern River water in 1976, all of the natural flow of the river had been fully appropriated to legally authorized users, as determined by the State Water Resources Control Board. In fact, the SWRCB ruled that prior to 1894, all the natural flow of the Kern River had been fully used according to established court decisions for beneficial uses of irrigation and ground water replenishment.

 

It is crucial to understand that the water rights of the Kern River which the courts have determined to be partially forfeited would only flow during the months of October to January. This is certainly not the period mentioned in The Californian when outdoor recreation use is most popular. Also, zero effort was made to explain that the city's plan will take water away from long-established users. Nor was any consideration given to the consequences that such a proposal will have on the local agricultural economy, which is one of Kern County's core industries. It is an industry Supervisor Michael Rubio stated in his State of the County address that gives Kern County many "homegrown advantages" and adds $3.5 billion to the Kern economy.

 

A plan to let the forfeited water flow down the Kern would be very harmful to the local agricultural economy and the businesses which depend on it. It would reduce the water supply that is essential to grow the thousands of acres of trees and vines that surround the City of Bakersfield.

 

Agriculture adds beauty to our landscape, keeps open space open, provides jobs and tax revenue to Kern County and helps clean up our air. A reduction in water supply would be harsh at this time because Kern County is suffering a historic and perhaps chronic water shortage resulting primarily from environmental issues in the Sacramento Delta.

 

As Lois Henry mentioned, the City of Bakersfield had a plan for providing water in the river channel, but chose not to implement it for financial reasons. If the city is serious about wanting to provide the community with the benefits of a "wet river," it needs to dedicate its resources towards a local plan and coordinate with its neighbor water agencies so that a "win-win" program can be developed. Any acceptable plan should be balanced in order to achieve both an improvement to the Kern River corridor while also preserving the local agricultural community.

 

Michael Young of Bakersfield is a local farmer and president Kern County Farm Bureau. Another View is a critical response to a Californian editorial or story. It may contain up to 500 words. The Californian reserves the right to reprint contributed commentaries in all formats, including on its Web page. #

http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/letters/story/372039.html

####

 

No comments:

Blog Archive