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 - 3/12/08

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment 

 

March 12, 2008

 

2. Supply

 

MWD RATE HIKE:

MWD approves 14% hike in rates for imported water; The effects of the increase, which takes effect Jan. 1, on Southern California household bills will vary broadly - Los Angeles Times

 

Water rate hike OK'd by district - San Diego Union Tribune

 

MWD board approves 14.3% water-rate increase - Torrance Daily Breeze

 

EEL RIVER DIVERSIONS:

Advice puts Eel River diversion plan on shelf - Santa Rosa Press Democrat

 

CVP ALLOCATIONS:

Central Valley Water Allocation - California Farmer

 

SOUTHWEST WATER ISSUES:

Lake's ghost town seen as a warning; To some, emergence of town's remains is sign that water poses eternal challenge to Vegas, all of Southwest - Las Vegas Sun

 

 

MWD RATE HIKE:

MWD approves 14% hike in rates for imported water; The effects of the increase, which takes effect Jan. 1, on Southern California household bills will vary broadly

Los Angeles Times – 3/12/08

By Deborah Schoch, staff writer

 

The Metropolitan Water District board on Tuesday approved a 14.3% increase in the 2009 rates it will charge for imported water, a hike that will vary widely in the dollars it adds to Southern California household water bills.

The increase is a harsh reminder of water shortages caused by dry weather in California, drought in the Rockies and a court ruling hundreds of miles away, board members said.

Some members argued unsuccessfully that rates should rise 20%, an increase that would reflect the full cost of importing water. Next year, the MWD will take $166 million from already low reserves to balance the budget, officials said.

The 14.3% increase will go into effect Jan. 1, 2009, and rates are expected to rise again substantially in 2010 and 2011, they said. The board's largest voting blocs -- representing Los Angeles, San Diego and the Municipal Water District of Orange County -- all supported the rate increase.

Board Chairman Timothy F. Brick said in a statement after the meeting that the MWD must work with its 26 member cities and agencies to manage rising costs, including through "more aggressive water conservation." Some critics have said the MWD has not championed conservation to reduce imported water use and keep rates down.

The effect of the rate increase on 2009 residential bills will depend on how much imported water a customer's city or water district buys from the MWD. Los Angeles residents will see an estimated boost of $3.31 a month for the average household as of July 1, 2009, if today's increase is added to two rate hikes proposed by the L.A. Department of Water and Power.

The MWD increase will translate into a boost of about $2 a month in the bill of an average household in Santa Monica and $1.40 a month in Long Beach, not including any local rate increases, city officials said. The MWD estimates that the average household in the region will see a $1.50 monthly increase.

Officials in several cities, including San Diego and Beverly Hills, said they had not yet calculated the effect on local bills.

The rate increase will help fund the MWD's budget for next year of $1.98 billion, a 7% increase from this year.

The rise reflects increased spending for more water purchases, higher power costs, debt service and efforts to stave off the spread of invasive quagga mussels discovered last year in some MWD pipes and reservoirs.

However, the rate increase does not provide for significant funds to help ease environmental problems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Those problems led to the court decision to protect the delta smelt by reducing water deliveries to the south. Nor does the rate hike cover the rise in labor costs anticipated to result from union contract negotiations that open next year. The agency's labor costs amount to $260 million, or 13% of the total budget.

Some members warned that the public agency's triple-A bond rating could be jeopardized by effectively using reserves to shield consumers from higher water bills.

"I just think it's responsible to pay one's bills and adopt a balanced budget," said member Willard H. Murray Jr., who represents the Carson-based West Basin Municipal Water District. His motion for a 20% increase failed, garnering support from only seven of the 30 board members present.

The 14.3% increase passed 183,695 to 0, with 10,595 abstentions, under the board's weighted voting system. It allocates members' votes by property valuation in the cities and water districts they represent. #

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-water12mar12,1,4423073.story

 

 

Water rate hike OK'd by district

San Diego Union Tribune – 3/12/08

By Michael Gardner, staff writer

 

SAN DIEGO – A dollar and a half will buy a tall coffee, a 16-ounce soda or perhaps cover the increased cost of delivering 13,600 gallons of water to your home every month starting Jan. 1.

 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California directors yesterday voted to raise base rates by 14.3 percent – including a $25-per-acre-foot surcharge to obtain more supply.

 

The increase would work out to about $1.50 per month for the average household, Metropolitan officials said.

 

However, that is just an estimate that could end up being higher or lower depending on later budget decisions reached by Metropolitan's customers, such as the San Diego County Water Authority. Jim Bond, a county water authority director and member of Metropolitan's board, said the rate increase was unavoidable.

 

"Water supply costs are going up and up and up," he said.

 

The San Diego authority will likely follow suit, but hold the increase "to the neighborhood of 10 percent or less," Bond added.

 

Metropolitan officials say the various increases are necessary to offset the rising cost of securing more water to replace supplies lost by court-ordered pumping restrictions in the Sacramento delta.

 

"We're running out of water, pure and simple," Bond said.

 

Metropolitan's search to replace water lost under a new Colorado River sharing agreement also is partly to blame, he said.

 

Metropolitan once drew about 1 million acre-feet from the river, but now takes closer to 600,000 acre-feet annually.

 

The raw river water costs about 25 cents an acre-foot, plus delivery expenses. Replacement water is being sold to Metropolitan for at least $250 an acre-foot, Bond said.

 

San Diego households use about half an acre-foot every year, or 13,600 gallons monthly.

 

Metropolitan's higher bills also will squeeze farmers, who will have to pay more for less. The new rate structure imposes a charge of $322 per acre-foot, up from the current $261. Deliveries to agriculture already have been cut.

 

The $25-per-acre-foot surcharge on delivered water will be set aside to buy up to 200,000 acre-feet of water from various sources. Metropolitan warns that compulsory measures to protect endangered smelt, a tiny fish, in the Sacramento delta could dramatically reduce supplies moving out of Northern California.

 

The county water authority buys three-quarters of its 700,000 acre-feet of annual supply from Metropolitan, San Diego officials said.

 

Metropolitan's charges are only part of the overall water costs, authority officials note. Local rates also reflect the cost of ensuring reliable supplies, such as investing in expanding San Vicente Reservoir and potentially contracting with agencies other than Metropolitan for additional water.

 

As an example, Metropolitan raised its rates by 5.8 percent for this year. The water authority passed along that increase, but added nearly 1 percent on top of that for its programs, bringing the overall increase to 6.6 percent.  #

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080312-9999-1m12water.html

 

 

MWD board approves 14.3% water-rate increase

Torrance Daily Breeze – 3/12/08

By wire service reports

 

Southern California cities and water agencies will pay 14.3 percent more for water from the Metropolitan Water District starting Jan. 1, 2009, thanks to rate hikes approved Tuesday by the district's board.

 

The increase in the district's wholesale water rate is necessary in light of a federal court decision aimed at protecting Delta smelt, an endangered species of fish, in addition to a longtime drought on the Colorado River, MWD officials said.

 

The impact on residents will depend on how much their local water agencies rely on MWD supplies. Officials estimated that the average household could see an increase of $1.50 a month.

 

West Basin Municipal Water District, a member agency that imports about two-thirds of its water and supplies it to cities across the South Bay, will likely take the higher rates to its board next month, said Fernando Paludi, manager of planning and water resources.

 

South Bay rates could fluctuate, depending on how much local cities mix imported water with cheaper groundwater supplies, Paludi said. But without passing the hike on to its customers, Carson-based West Basin would be forced to subsidize the higher cost of MWD water, he added.

 

MWD typically receives 60 percent of its water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta but will now get substantially less as it restricts its pumping to protect the smelt.

 

"Over the next few years, we must continue to work creatively with our 26 member public agencies to manage our supply challenges as well as the rising cost of energy, financing capital improvements and operating and maintaining our water distribution system," said MWD board Chairman Timothy Brick.

 

"These costs include the need to acquire increasingly costly water transfers and more aggressive water conservation."

 

The board approved a 9.8 percent increase in the agency's base rate and a $25 surcharge, which together equal a 14.3 percent overall increase.

 

The rate increase was part of a $1.98 billion budget approved by the board. The spending plan includes money for 20 major projects, including construction of the Inland Feeder water line that will bring water to Diamond Valley Lake in Riverside County and two other major pipelines in Riverside and San Diego counties.

 

Staff writer Kristin S. Agostoni contributed to this report. #
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8540843

 

 

EEL RIVER DIVERSIONS:

Advice puts Eel River diversion plan on shelf

Santa Rosa Press Democrat – 3/12/08

By Glenda Anderson, staff writer

 

UKIAH -- A recently revived proposal to divert water from a protected portion of the Eel River near Dos Rios has been quietly shelved following a negative legal opinion.

ADVERTISEMENT


"For now, we've put the whole Dos Rios thing on hold," Mendocino County Water Agency chief Roland Sanford said.

Mendocino County supervisors had resuscitated the decade-old proposal aimed at increasing the county's water supply, agreeing in September to spend up to $50,000 for a study and legal opinion.

The board was scheduled to discuss the plan and legal opinion last month, but Sanford said that has been delayed indefinitely.

"We're very pleased," said David Drell of the Willits Environmental Center, which has been at the forefront of opposition to the proposal.

The legal opinion listed expensive obstacles to taking water from a section of the Eel River that has state and federal designations as wild and scenic.

At the least, the project would require an environmental impact report, and it undoubtedly would face legal challenges from environmental groups, according to the opinion by Rossmann and Moore, a San Francisco firm specializing in water and land use.

The opinion echoed issues raised by environmentalists and other critics since the proposal was first raised by Mendocino County Supervisor John Pinches in the 1990s.

"This outside legal opinion agreed with us almost completely," Drell said.

At issue was a plan to take water during spring high-flow runs from the main stem of the Eel River near the Covelo exit on Highway 101 in northern Mendocino County.

In the most recent incarnation, the water was to be piped about 45 miles along the railroad right-of-way to Lake Mendocino at an estimated cost of more than $200 million.

The legal opinion notes that the county would need to keep track of the water to ensure that it was needed, was used within the county and was not used for purposes, including agriculture, that are prohibited under wild and scenic regulations.

An early incarnation of the plan called for a new reservoir to store the water.

The diversion plan has met with resistance and legal threats since its initial unveiling. Critics said it would be too expensive, face too many legal hurdles and wasn't needed.

The county has plenty of water in the winter, they said. What it needs is more places to store that water.

Most county agencies initially ignored Pinches' proposal.

Only the Redwood Valley County Water District pursued the plan, seeking rights to the water in 1997.

Redwood Valley has been under a moratorium on new water hookups for almost 20 years because it has only a limited, winter water right. It buys the bulk of its water from Sonoma County, which controls supplies in Lake Mendocino.

The water agency spent almost $90,000 applying for water rights and initial engineering studies for the Dos Rios project. But the project was too big and expensive for Redwood Valley alone, which was unable to persuade other county agencies to join its efforts.

Redwood Valley eventually abandoned the effort in favor of other projects, and the state dropped its water right application.

When Pinches returned to the Board of Supervisors last year, he renewed his push for the project. At the very least, he said, the county should apply for a water right to keep someone else from making a claim.

Pinches said this week that the project is too costly for the county to pursue alone. Instead, it will focus on other water projects, some of which have yet to be revealed.

"We've got a smaller project on the horizon," Pinches said. #

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080312/NEWS/803120321/1033/NEWS01

 

 

CVP ALLOCATIONS:

Central Valley Water Allocation

California Farmer – 3/11/08

 

The Bureau of Reclamation announces the initial Water Year 2008 allocation for the Federal Central Valley Project. Reclamation prepared two forecasts: a conservative forecast with a 90% chance of having runoff greater than forecasted and a median forecast with a 50% chance of having runoff greater than forecasted. In the 90% exceedence forecast, the water year inflow into Shasta Reservoir is about 3.8 million acre-feet.

The Shasta Reservoir inflow is a criteria used to impose shortages to settlement contractors and refuges. This initial announcement of the available water supply outlook is based on February 1, 2008, water runoff information prepared by the California Department of Water Resources. In February, Reclamation notified the water rights settlement contractors and water rights exchange contractors that they will receive 100% of their water supply based on the Shasta Reservoir inflow criteria.

Reclamation is implementing interim court-ordered measures this year to provide additional protection for delta smelt. The actual actions will vary depending on a real-time assessment of Delta conditions and the location and maturity of Delta smelt. The extent that these actions will impact the water supply available for allocation can vary, and this initial project water supply allocation will be updated as more specific actions are identified.

The Friant Division deliveries for Water Year 2008 are projected to be 800,000 acre-feet, or 64% of 1.25 million acre-feet, which is the 5-year average allocation. The allocation for the Friant Division Contractors will be 100% Class 1 water and 0% Class 2 water. The projected Friant Division delivery of 800,000 acre-feet is based on the DWRs' 90%, February 1, 2008, forecast. As of February 25, 2008, precipitation in the San Joaquin River Basin was 24.19 inches for the water year compared to 14.83 inches this time last year.

The CVP Eastside Division (Stanislaus River) contractors will have 24,000 acre-feet (15% allocation) of project water available under the 90% and 50% exceedence forecast. Reclamation is reviewing the New Melones Reservoir operations and the Interim Operations Plan of Operations for New Melones that is used as a guide for water allocations from the Stanislaus River. #

http://californiafarmer.com/index.aspx?ascxid=fpStory&fpsid=32658&fpstid=2

 

 

SOUTHWEST WATER ISSUES:

Lake's ghost town seen as a warning; To some, emergence of town's remains is sign that water poses eternal challenge to Vegas, all of Southwest

Las Vegas Sun – 3/12/08

By Phoebe Sweet, staff writer

 

Water gave birth to the town, and then buried it.

 

Now years of drought combined with the thirst of a burgeoning Las Vegas Valley have forced Lake Mead to give up all of St. Thomas' silted remains.

 

A historian documenting the old Mormon settlement for the National Park Service visited its ruins for the first time Feb. 27 amid a growing belief that St. Thomas may never be covered by water again.

 

A recent study by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego found that Lake Mead, which supplies 90 percent of Las Vegas' drinking water and water for all other uses throughout the Southwest, could go dry in 13 years.

 

The region's water officials have, in large part, dismissed the study as overly pessimistic. But they admit that no one knows how long the drought will last or what role climate change will play in the drying of the Southwest.

 

Whatever the future may hold for St. Thomas, one thing is clear: The ghost town's past is a cautionary tale.

 

Just a few years ago the town was 70 feet under Las Vegas' supply of fresh drinking water. Although it has peeked above the water before, when the lake was low, never have the ruins of St. Thomas' concrete foundations, once a popular spot for scuba divers, been so far from the shoreline of the lake that covered them for 65 years.

 

"What I find interesting about it," says Aaron McArthur, a UNLV doctoral student who is writing the history of St. Thomas for the National Park Service, "is that in 1945, in 1963, the times it emerged from the water before, there were always reunions here. Reunions in the real sense that, 'We might have been pushed out, but this is our home.'"

 

"Now most of the people are dead ... Now the lessons that people seem to be drawing from it have less to do with matters of faith and 'grow where you're planted,' and more with a cautionary kind of thing about what happens when we're not responsible stewards of water."

 

McArthur, a Mormon originally from Montana, said St. Thomas teaches that lesson, but also others about family and faith.

 

As McArthur took his first walk through the town's remnants last week, he said, "Sometimes I think I understand some of it, but then I didn't live here when there was no running water and no air conditioning."

 

Later that night McArthur would shower in his temperature-controlled condo near UNLV, in the middle of one of the nation's fastest-growing metropolitan areas.

 

The Mormons sent to the scorching valley had settled in 1865 at the confluence of the Virgin and Muddy rivers. They referred to them as rivers, but they might have more rightly been called streams or even creeks. After the Mormons had traveled for weeks in wagons across an unforgiving desert, perhaps those trickles of water, constant through both winter and summer, looked like rivers to them.

 

Walking through the now bone-dry ruins of St. Thomas, it is possible to imagine girls in gingham dresses kicking up dust while running past the Gentry Hotel. Its curved facade and second-story balcony made it one of the town's most recognizable buildings.

 

Clear away the water-sucking, invasive tamarisk plants that choke what was once a dirt highway and picture the rows of cottonwood trees the settlers planted for shade along that highway through town. You can still see the path the road took across the hard-packed earth.

 

Listen hard and you can nearly hear the school bell ringing or the town's first radio playing on the steps of the car repair shop while bachelors jawed over the day's news. Hugh Lord, who owned the garage, refused to leave until the waters were lapping at his doorstep.

 

Walking from cistern to cistern along dirt trails that lead through the ruins of modern-day St. Thomas, it is evident that here water was central to life.

 

But water is central to life throughout the Southwest, and it was a dam to control the fickle Colorado River and distribute its waters that eventually put St. Thomas at the bottom of a lake. Construction began on Hoover Dam, then called Boulder Dam, in 1931. Giant hydroelectric power generators would pay for the $48 million project, which would regulate the water delivered to Arizona, Nevada, California and Mexico and create a reservoir known as Lake Mead.

 

Surveys showed that St. Thomas, along with warehouses at Callville and a cluster of farms at Kaolin, would soon be underwater.

 

There's nostalgia about St. Thomas in Overton and Logandale, nearby towns where many descendants of the lost town live. Census records show the settlement never topped more than a few hundred people, even before news came that it would be swallowed by the lake.

 

Logandale resident Verna Heller, 89, was born in St. Thomas. She remembers how hot it was and how she and the other children would roast ears of corn and steal chickens for fun.

 

Her family left in 1932, six years before the waters covered St. Thomas. She was 14.

 

The government moved the town's cemetery — which held the remains of Heller's twin brother — to Logandale before the waters came.

 

Heller recalls nightmares of a scene that would be a dream come true for 21st-century Las Vegas: the lake filling all at once.

 

"It did come up fast when it came up," she said. "I was too young to have anything but resentment."

 

When the residents of St. Thomas packed their belongings and moved their homes, brick by brick, out of the path of the growing lake, they weren't the first to take leave of the valley.

 

Thousands of years before, the Anasazi, an ancient Pueblo people, knew all too well that life in this area was impossible without plenty of water.

 

Eva Jensen, an archaeologist with the Lost City Museum in Overton, thinks about them every time she turns on her faucet.

 

"Everybody should think about that," she says. "Just what is the capacity of the land and the resources that we have?"

 

Unable to grow crops to feed a population that had grown too fast to support their nearly 1,000 people, the Anasazi abandoned the dry valley about 1150, after living here for 1,000 years.

 

"The question we should be asking is: How were they able to survive here for as long as they did?" Jensen says. "Our current community hasn't been here that long, so we haven't really been tested. We'll see how we handle this latest drought."

 

Jensen, like many Southwest archaeologists and anthropologists, says there are lessons — or at the very least questions — to be taken from the history of Indians who were eventually beaten down by the realities and natural water cycles of desert life.

 

"Rapid growth anywhere is a stress on a population. We ... have always used our technology to take care of our problems, but there probably reaches a point where technology can't fix everything," she says. "We have to think about changing our philosophy of what we should be doing with the land and how rapidly we can grow.

 

"That question has been faced by populations throughout the world, throughout time."

 

Conservationists and archaeologists alike predict that our relatively young Las Vegas civilization could eventually face many of the same hardships the Anasazi did if urban sprawl and reckless water use continue.

 

"We have to consider the lessons of the past, and think about what it takes to be a sustainable community," said Launce Rake, spokesman for the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, a group that advocates water conservation. "It remains to be seen if we can overcome our self-destructive impulses when it comes to living in the Southwest." #

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/mar/12/lakes-ghost-town-seen-warning/#/A_town_dies/

####

No comments:

Blog Archive