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 - 3/24/08

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment 

 

March 24, 2008

 

2. Supply

 

SNOWPACK WATER SUPPLY:

Snowpack survey: Some things really don't change; WATER FORECASTERS USE CENTURY-OLD METHOD - San Jose Mercury News

 

Let It Snow: With regional shortfalls imminent, Pasadena will become more dependent on local water resources - Pasadena Weekly

 

DROUGHT PLANNING:

County water supplier considers model drought plan - North County Times

 

NESTLE ISSUES:

U.S. town splits after quenching Nestlé's thirst for water - International Herald Tribune

 

KERN RIVER:

Editorial: Tired of having a dry riverbed running through Bakersfield? - Bakersfield Californian

 

WATER STORAGE:

Editorial: Water storage crucial to Delta, state's future - Alameda Times-Star

 

AG ISSUES:

Guest Opinion: Why California farmers go with the flow - Eureka Reporter

 

WESTERN WATER ISSUES:

Water authority goes with Virgin River flow - Las Vegas Review Journal

 

 

SNOWPACK WATER SUPPLY:

Snowpack survey: Some things really don't change; WATER FORECASTERS USE CENTURY-OLD METHOD

San Jose Mercury News – 3/23/08

By Julie Sevrens Lyons, staff writer

 

James E. Church once said, "Nature tells you things if you but question her and open your eyes."

 

For the professor of Latin, German and art appreciation, nature spoke in the form of the tiny snowflakes that danced atop Sierra mountaintops in the early 1900s, speaking loudly about a crucial issue for the West - the region's fickle water supply.

 

Church never owned a car, had no formal scientific training and was labeled a "freak" by some because he scaled mountain peaks - in the midst of winter. So he might seem like an unlikely father of snow surveying and water forecasting.

 

But when surveyors with the California Department of Water Resources go out this week and take the most important snowpack measures of the year, they will use essentially the same methods Church pioneered a century ago. Their findings will help predict whether you'll have to ration water come summertime.

 

"In the snow survey world, he's like the Brett Favre of football. He's very famous," said Steve Hale, a recreation specialist with the U.S. Forest Service who portrays Church several times a year for schoolchildren. "His work is finding even more value as time goes on."

 

Important finding

 

It was Church who found there was a correlation between the water content of the snow on Mount Rose each winter and the rise of the water level of Lake Tahoe every spring. His work helped placate angry property owners along Lake Tahoe who were fearful a dam owned by a power company was keeping lake levels too high, putting them at risk for flooding. They had been threatening to blow up the dam when Church showed them his research.

 

By 1929, his work had resulted in a state law, with California Water Code Section 228 requiring the state to take snowpack measurements and provide annual forecasts of the water supply.

 

When surveyors follow in Church's snowshoes Wednesday, they will carry with them a "Mount Rose snow sampler," a long, hollow aluminum tube almost identical to the device Church invented to measure the depth and water content of snow.

 

Frank Gehrke is one of those surveyors.

 

Gehrke, who at 60 is still thin and muscular, is among dozens of surveyors from more than 50 state, national and private agencies who collect snow data from more than 250 places across the state.

 

During the winter and early spring, the Sierra serves as his office. He trudges up mountainsides and along snowy meadows, taking several measurements at each stop, averaging the results to help determine how much snow the state received.

 

The world of snow surveying does not stop for blizzards or rain. It is only when avalanche conditions are extremely high that Gehrke does not don his Gore-Tex vest and head out into the chill.

 

During a recent outing to Tamarack Flat, not far from the hamlet of Strawberry, the skies were sunny. Hoisting several pounds of equipment over his shoulder, including a scale, measuring tape and notebook, Gehrke skied a few hundred yards to get to the snowy measurement course.

 

Since his last visit just four weeks earlier, a wooden bridge straddling the creek had collapsed. Skillfully, using his skis and a shovel, he fashioned a pile of snow into a bridge, compacting it so he could cross to the survey site.

 

"Actually getting to that point can be tricky sometimes," he said.

 

It isn't just the depth of the snow that matters. A century ago, Church was the first to demonstrate that not all snow is created equal - some contains significantly more water.

 

Depth, moisture

 

Using the sampler, Gehrke and his colleagues will extract cores of snow to measure the depth and then weigh them to determine their moisture level. Their measurements will be tabulated to make water supply forecasts.

 

"You don't want to be wrong," said Gehrke, a hydrologist with the state Department of Water Resources.

 

Which is one of the reasons why Gehrke still has a job. The measurements taken by the surveyors are considered more accurate than the data provided by 150 electronic sensors located throughout the state.

 

Although those provide hourly snowpack data, they are also prone to problems like foraging animals, and they gauge less ground.

 

"Sometimes, even low-tech works pretty well," said Keith Whitman, a water supply manager with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. "They're still pretty good methods."

 

The snow surveys are funded by more than a dozen entities, including water agencies and Pacific Gas & Electric, which have come to rely on the data for water supply forecasts.

 

But the information also is being used increasingly to help monitor climate change, because the samples are relatively pure - taken from untouched rural areas - and consistent, with comparison data going back more than five decades.

 

Scientists can compare whether snow is melting earlier than in past years, therefore altering how much melted snow is captured in reservoirs and when. Wednesday's snow survey data might help substantiate or discount researchers' fears that the snow is disappearing earlier than they would like.

 

Other agencies use the data to calculate when to harvest timber. One Forest Service worker used it to study how predators migrate in the winter. And farmers use it to plan their crop planting and irrigation schedules.

 

Gehrke has been surveying California snow for 27 years. He's taken measurements during the El Niño years when snowfall was abundant, and during the devastating drought of 1987 to 1992. Of all the snow courses up and down the state, he estimates he's taken measurements at more than half of them.

 

Summers are even busier than wintertime, with Gehrke and his colleagues performing maintenance on the electronic sensors. They also oversee maintenance of the snow survey sites, ensuring that new trees don't pop up in the middle of the meadows, which could skew snowfall measurements in the winter.

 

Surveys take time

 

If Church's longtime method of snow sampling is effective, it is also extremely time-consuming.

 

One day in late February, Gehrke's colleague, Dave Hart, spent all day - including six hours of non-stop skiing - covering an 11-mile loop that took him to just two survey areas.

 

Surveyors get to rugged wilderness sites in any way they can: boats, trams, snowmobiles and helicopters, and even horses and mules. Their treks take them thousands of feet up mountains.

 

"It can be pretty brutal," Gehrke concedes. "You can spend two to three days getting some place to do a half hour's work."

 

Some surveyors have been stranded in the snow for days at a time, while others have ended up with broken bones.

 

Church, for his part, didn't seem to mind the treacherous commutes he made generations ago. In 1944, when he was 75 years old, he was still making regular trips to the snowy forest, even though he had already trained others on how to carry out his work.

 

At that time, he sat down with the Reno Gazette Journal, revealing how simple the inspiration was for his snow measuring device. In the 1880s, when refrigeration was problematic, the grocer in his native Michigan would plunge a hollow metal tube into tubs of butter, withdraw the shaft and check to see if the butter was rancid inside.  #

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8668542?nclick_check=1

 

 

Let It Snow: With regional shortfalls imminent, Pasadena will become more dependent on local water resources

Pasadena Weekly – 3/20/08

By Joe Piasecki and Liz Hendrick, staff writers

 

That it's cold outside one day does not mean global warming is a myth.

Likewise, the picturesque snowcaps visible earlier this year on the mountains above Pasadena were a good sign for our area's water supply, but far from evidence of an inexhaustible supply.

 

A Sunday driver or nature enthusiast visiting the peaks near Mt. Wilson a few weeks ago would have seen snow that had built up along the sides of Angeles Crest Highway slowly melting into mountainside streams. In time, after the water has percolated into the ground and is pumped up through a city-operated well, that same person may be drinking it.

 

With Pasadena's underground water supply at historic lows last year, this winter's rain clouds and mountain snowfall were comforting signs for Shan Kwan, director of water services for Pasadena Water and Power.

 

"We're a little better off, but we need five or six years of above-average rain and snowfall until we see some real improvement," said Kwan, who explained that in wet years, the city's water supply can rise by as much as 7 percent.

 

The complex ecosystem that connects the San Gabriel Mountains to the Arroyo Seco to your kitchen sink is the subject of a $2.68 million, two-year study by the Army Corps of Engineers on how to better harness area rain and snow while possibly tearing up sections of the concrete flood channel that passes underneath the Colorado Street Bridge.

 

Restoring water courses to a more natural state, said Kwan, will allow more water to percolate into the ground rather than flow into the Los Angeles River and spill into the Pacific Ocean. Currently, the city maximizes percolation by maintaining decades-old spreading basins below Devil's Gate Dam. Spreading basins are essentially large ponds that slow runoff, Kwan explained.

 

Other projects under consideration for Pasadena include covered channels and naturalized stream-courses through Brookside Golf Course and paved parking areas of the Rose Bowl that once existed as wetland areas.

 

The study covers a 47-square-mile watershed that includes parts of Pasadena, Altadena, La Cañada Flintridge, Los Angeles and South Pasadena. In February, Pasadena City Council members agreed to contribute $312,700 to the effort.

 

Capturing precipitation to augment the area's native water supply is becoming more important than ever as resources continue to dry up elsewhere, said Kwan.

 

To satisfy the city's thirst, Pasadena Water and Power must purchase 60 percent of the water it serves from the Metropolitan Water District, Southern California's largest water contractor. And less than two weeks before council members approved funding for the watershed study, the MWD announced a new water supply allocation plan in response to imminent shortages.

 

Though that plan is unlikely to take effect this year, now is the best time to prepare for shortfalls, said Tim Brick, Pasadena's longtime representative on the MWD's Board of Directors and its current chairman.

 

"To even consider the fact that we might not have adequate supplies is a very tough thing to contemplate. This, however, is the time to do it," said Brick.

 

Water that comes to Pasadena through the MWD originates from the Colorado River and the Sacramento-area San Joaquin Delta, said Kwan. Residents of Los Angeles and other communities are also dependent on the Sierra Nevada Mountain snowpack and Owens Valley areas.

 

Although a recent analysis of Sierra Nevada Mountain snowpack depth and composition by the state Department of Water Resources found it to be 13 percent better than average, the future of that supply is uncertain. In recent years, snowpack measurements have not shown any consistent pattern. Furthermore, that supply and others may be stretched past its limits by 2050, when the state's population is expected to be double its current 36 million.

 

A 2007 federal court order to slow pumping from the San Joaquin Delta to places like Pasadena gives the MWD another good reason to predict water shortages. The order calls for an 11 to 30 percent reduction in delta pumping in order to protect the delta smelt, a slender-bodied fish that reaches an adult size of only 2 to 3 inches and is currently an endangered species found only in that estuary area. Smelt frequently get sucked into water pumps and have been disappearing rapidly for that reason, explained state Department of Water Resources spokesman Don Strickland.

 

Water contractors such as the MWD make annual requests of the DWR based on the specific water needs of the areas they serve. This year, the DWR has allocated only 35 percent of the water requested by agencies, forcing many to tap into historic reserves. "We'd be closer to 50 percent of the allocation if not for the court order on delta pumping," said MWD spokesman Bob Muir.

 

Decreased water levels in the Colorado River will also reduce the amount of available water. Although pumping has reduced some stretches of the waterway to little more than a trickle through desiccated marshland, the Colorado River is Southern California's second greatest source of imported water.

 

"California has historically overused its Colorado River allocation," said Strickland, "and other Southwestern states are not going to tolerate it anymore."

 

For all of these reasons, the San Gabriel Mountain snowpack may be more important for Pasadena than ever before. The historic groundwater lows produced by several years of drought triggered water-level drops of as much as 40 feet below normal, and this year's closer-to-average rainfall replenished only 10 to 15 feet of what was lost, explained Brad Boman, an engineering manager with Pasadena Water and Power.

 

To mitigate shortages, the MWD has encouraged the use of "gray water" (such as that already used for showers, dishwashing and laundry machines) for landscape irrigation and is studying possibilities for desalinization of ocean water, said Muir.

 

Ultimately, the success of conservation efforts lies in the hands of water users, he explained.

 

Although it may not seem like there's much any one person can do, "One shower multiplied by 36 million people is a lot of water," said Muir. #

http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/let_it_snow/5800/

 

 

DROUGHT PLANNING:

County water supplier considers model drought plan

North County Times – 3/22/08

By Bradley J. Fikes, staff writer

 

Hoping to forge a unified response by local water districts if water supplies are threatened this summer, San Diego County's major water supplier will consider a model conservation ordinance now.

Local water districts would also have to adopt the suggested plan for it to work, said Dana Friehauf, principal water resources specialist for the San Diego County Water Authority. The authority, which imports water from outside the county and resells it to local water districts, takes up the proposal at next Thursday's meeting.

The model ordinance has been developed over six months in cooperation with the districts, Friehauf said. If approved by the Water Authority, it will be sent to the districts with an official recommendation.

"Every one (of these districts) has one of these ordinances in place, but what we've found is there's inconsistencies between the ordinances," Friehauf said. "We also found that one of them hadn't been updated since 1991, during the last drought."

The model ordinance sets up four levels of conservation, with increasingly stringent cuts called for at each level.

The first stage, a Drought Watch, calls for voluntary conservation of up to 10 percent.

Stage 2, Drought Alert, seeks up to 20 percent conservation; Stage 3, Drought Critical, up to 40 percent; and Stage 4, Drought Emergency, seeks more than 40 percent conservation. Each stage outlines steps to achieve the conservation goals. These include restricting irrigation of landscaping or car washing.

Levels 2 through 4 are mandatory, and punishable by various penalties, such as fines or up to 30 days in the county jail.

By making the definitions the same across the board, agencies will make it easier for the public to cooperate, Friehauf said. The ordinance makes allowances for those who are already taking steps to conserve water. It would be unfair to ask them to make the same percentage cutbacks as those who are not conserving, she said.

It's a good time to update the ordinances, Friehauf said. With winter over, California's rainy season is nearly at an end, and the county faces an uncertain outlook for its summer water supply. Imports from Northern California are likely to be cut because of threats to the delta smelt, an endangered fish.

"We will be officially notified in April by the Metropolitan Water District, the agency that supplies us," Friehauf said.

The impending cutback complicates a water outlook that otherwise is not too bad after years of below-average rain and snow prompted drought warnings. The county's rainfall, which supplies a fraction of the county's water, is a little less than average. The snowpack in the Sierra mountains, a much bigger source of water, is a bit above average.

The complete text of the model ordinance is in PDF at the water authority's Web site, at:
http://tinyurl.com/27m529. #

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/03/22/business/ba4da2afa18cf8fc8825741300694ec1.txt

 

 

NESTLE ISSUES:

U.S. town splits after quenching Nestlé's thirst for water

International Herald Tribune – 3/19/08

By Eric Giles

 

SAN FRANCISCO: McCloud, a former lumber company town in the far north of California, has the charm of a small village and a breathtaking setting among pine and fir trees on the southern flank of Mount Shasta.

 

In 2003, the town government signed a contract to sell its spring water to Nestlé Waters North America, a subsidiary of the largest food and beverage company in the world. Nearly one-third of bottled water sold in the United States in 2006 came from the 23 Nestlé plants in the United States, earning the company $3.57 billion.

 

The Nestlé deal has divided this close-knit town of about 1,350 people. While some support it because they welcome economic development, others object to the lack of public input on the contract, the contract's terms, and the possible environmental effects. Five years after the contract was signed, construction of the plant, mired in conflict, has yet to begin.

 

"It's the issue in town," said Curtis Knight, the Mount Shasta area manager of California Trout, a wild fishery conservation group. "You know, who are you and are you pro-Nestlé or are you anti-Nestlé? It's really been a wedge through town, and I think it's unfortunate."

 

Controversy has followed such Nestlé operations. Its worldwide water bottling earned €6.3 billion, or $9.9 billion, in 2007. Lawsuits against the company have been filed - and some won - in Michigan, Texas, Wisconsin, California, Maine, and in Brazil.

 

The debate in McCloud over the bottling contract is about method and content.

 

Dennis Kucinich, a U.S. congressman from Ohio, was the chairman for the first of several federal subcommittee hearings on water in December. He said bottling companies usually put plants "in rural areas, where people don't necessarily have access to big law firms or the attention of the federal government to protect their economic interests. There are always questions raised in terms of how these contracts are gained and whether people have informed consent."

 

McCloud is unincorporated, so the McCloud Community Services District board serves as the town government, with five elected board members. Many residents said the board signed the deal with little public input.

 

Nestlé's Northern California natural resource manager, Dave Palais, and a district board member, Al Schoenstein, said standard meeting procedures were followed for the contract, with notices inviting public input posted in the newspaper. They said residents largely stayed away from the discussions until a meeting Sept. 29, 2003. That session was well attended, and residents asked Palais and the board many questions. But many questions were not answered, some residents said, and at the end of the night the board approve the deal.

 

"I was really upset," said Tim Dickinson, the board president. "It was announced as being an 'info' session, and after it was done, the board signed the contract."

 

Kucinich said this story was common. At his hearings, people "testified that local and state authorities often short-circuited their complaints and curtailed their input in the face of these perceived economic benefits that a water bottling plant promised to bring to a region," he said.

 

The McCloud contract's terms trouble many people. Debra Anderson is a third-generation McCloud resident who helped create McCloud Watershed Council in 2004 to educate her neighbors about the issues. The group took a survey two years ago and found that 77 percent of the citizens were opposed to the contract.

 

Knight of the fishery group said opponents' top concerns were the price that Nestlé would pay for the water, once the plant started operating, and the length of the contract, which runs for 100 years.

 

McCloud would receive about $305,000 the first year, based on residential water tariffs, which equals $191 per acre foot, or 15.5 cents per cubic meter. By comparison, Nestlé is paying $2,183 per acre foot to Pure Mountain Spring in Maine for its water, according to an economic study conducted by ECONorthwest, a consulting firm.

 

People also objected to an exclusivity clause, the quantity of water to be sold and the lack of information on how it would effect the environment.

 

An local group, Concerned McCloud Citizens, filed a lawsuit against Nestlé, saying that an environmental review, allowing discussion of alternatives or mitigation measures, should have been done before the town agreed to a contract. A district court sided with Concerned McCloud Citizens, but Nestlé appealed the decision and won because it said McCloud still had the right to negotiate contingency issues.

 

A water rights lawyer, Don Mooney, who handled the case for Concerned McCloud Citizens, said that even though the case had been lost, "we have an appellate decision saying that the district has further discretion with regards to the project, the size of the project, or whether or not the project should even go forward."

 

Palais of Nestlé disagreed, saying McCloud had no right to end the contract.

 

While the case was going through the courts, Nestlé began an environmental impact report under the California Environmental Quality Act. The first draft, published in 2006, received 4,000 public comments.

 

Protect Our Waters, a group of residents and trout fishery and habitat conservationists, hired experts to study the report. Betsy Phair of Concerned McCloud Citizens said the report did not address downstream communities, aquifer effects, global warming, fish, diesel fumes from increased trucking, or hazardous waste on the former mill site where Nestlé plans to build its plant.

 

In February, under pressure from conservationists, Nestlé agreed to cap its water extraction at 1,600 acre feet a year, or just under 2 million cubic meters. It also agreed that it would not drill groundwater wells and would conduct more environmental studies in a second environmental impact report.

 

But Nestlé is not altering the contract with the town to reflect these changes. Palais said the issues were already covered by contingency terms.

 

Groundwater and surface water are interconnected in a single hydrological system, said Kucinich, the congressman. "The existing regulatory structure barely recognizes this fact. For every gallon that's extracted for the bottled spring water, that's one gallon lost for surrounding streams and watershed."

 

Knight of the fishery group worries that water removal could effect the fish and ecosystem. He said a local fish hatchery had been distributing McCloud River redband trout eggs internationally since the 1870s. "The McCloud River is sacred water," Knight said. "It's one of the most treasured and popular trout fishing streams in the country and has a reputation throughout the world."

 

Under the contract, Nestlé can build a bottling plant covering an area of up to 1 million square feet, or 93,000 square meters.

 

"This would totally destroy the integrity of our small, historic mill town," said Anderson of the McCloud Watershed Council.

 

The contract also allows for 600 daily truck trips, and the trucks could run 24 hours a day all year. Some people are concerned about traffic and pollution. Residents who favor the plant say that plenty of trucks drove through town during logging's heyday. But other residents say logging trucks peaked at 150 per day, and they did not run at night, on weekends, during the winter or on holidays.

 

Project supporters hope that jobs at Nestlé will strengthen the town's economy. But the ECONorthwest report said that, of the 60 to 240 jobs predicted by Nestlé to be generated at various stages of operation, most "would likely be filled by people who do not currently live in McCloud." It said some jobs probably would be seasonal, and only low-paying production jobs would be open to local residents.

 

Still, even low-paying jobs would be welcomed, said Dickinson, the board president. "I know people in town who would dearly love to have a $10-an-hour job with benefits," he said. "I don't think their expectations are all that high."

 

"Most of the businesses in town are dying," Dickinson added. "Forty percent are not occupied."

 

Conservationists point to tourism as an alternative to the bottling plant, but "tourism doesn't contribute a lot of money," he said.

 

Knight of the fishery group said Nestlé would not take care of local residents the way the town's lumber company once did. "Any comparison of what Nestlé is trying to do to that is a complete fallacy," he said.

 

Jane Lazgin, a spokeswoman for Nestlé Waters North America, said: "I think it's appropriate that communities would have questions and concerns. In most cases, we're welcomed because we're able to offer a rural community an economic benefit, while harvesting responsibly a natural resource and providing jobs that otherwise have been lost." #

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/19/business/rbognestle.php?page=1

 

 

KERN RIVER:

Editorial: Tired of having a dry riverbed running through Bakersfield?

Bakersfield Californian – 3/22/08

 

What is it worth to you to have water in the Kern River as it meanders gracefully through metropolitan Bakersfield?

 

According to the thousands of people who participated in Vision 2020, a community planning exercise that first convened in 1999, it's a big deal. It means a lot.

 

Next to having clean air to breathe and decent roads to drive on, it ranks right up there as a top priority with people who live in Bakersfield.

 

Let's face it, in the summer, Bakersfield is hotter than blazes and drier than dust. (We're being polite with this description.)

 

You would think the mighty Kern River that rages out of the canyon in foaming rapids would bring some relief.

 

But the mighty Kern's flow into Bakersfield is controlled at the Isabella Lake dam. By the time the Kern River reaches the city, the water has been bled off into a series of canals, diverted to irrigate farmland.

 

And Bakersfield is left with a dry, sandy riverbed. No water to nurture our spirits, cool our landscape or lift the oppressive heat.

 

Seen the T-shirt? Bakersfield: A Riverbed Runs Through It.

 

It's no joke. It's true. It's often all we are left with. Is anyone laughing?

 

Some years ago, the city was given grants to purchase giant pumps to suck water from the ground and dump it into the riverbed in metropolitan Bakersfield. The pumping scheme acknowledged that we live in a desert. Few years provide enough flow to fill the riverbed naturally.

 

But the pumps have remained idle. City officials won't cough up the $1 million a year it takes to run the pumps. Every year, they find other uses for taxpayers' dollars.

 

Pump water into the river or pave streets? Or hire police officers? Or build sports arenas? Pumping water into the river always seems to be on the losing end of the equation.

 

With state funding cutbacks looming and the city's tax revenues declining, this year will be no different. No money will be available to pump water into the Kern River.

 

We gripe about the dry riverbed. We complain that it looks ugly and gives Bakersfield a bad reputation. We plead with city officials and those who control the river to spare us a few drops. But unless we have had a rainy, wet winter and an abundance of water exists to naturally fill the channel, we are left begging for relief.

 

So what will it take? What is it really worth to us to have what we say we are thirsting to have water in the Kern River as it flows through Bakersfield?

 

Are you willing to give up one big, fancy cup of coffee a year? That's roughly what water officials estimate it would cost to set up an assessment district. Five dollars a year, added to our tax bill, will fund operation of the pumps from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

 

Too cheap to do that? OK, are you willing to give up some city services maybe delay some road repairs to scrape together the money?

 

Is your demand for water in the Kern River just cheap talk? Or are you willing to sacrifice something to make it happen? #

http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/editorials/story/396258.html

 

 

WATER STORAGE:

Editorial: Water storage crucial to Delta, state's future

Alameda Times-Star – 3/24/08

 

THE severe problems facing the Delta and the millions of Californians who rely on water flowing through the estuary have been known for many years. And, the primary water policy goals have been established for just as long.

 

Despite the critical need for a solution, there has been little progress. With a growing population, a collapsing Delta ecosystem and the state's agricultural future at stake, it is past time for action.

 

Most importantly, the 23 million people and a major portion of the state's farms that get water from the Delta need dependable supplies. At the same time, rapidly declining fish populations in the Delta need to be restored and old, decaying levees must be replaced.

 

There is little disagreement on these basic problems and goals. But controversies remain on what course to take to assure a healthy Delta and adequate, reliable water supplies to farms and urban users.

 

To move the process along, the state's Department of Water Resources has begun a 30-month study on how to stabilize water supplies. The analysis will move forward even though the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan is not complete and there is no agreement on a solution.

 

There are three ways, besides the status quo, of moving water from the Sacramento River to farms and cities south of the Delta: a conveyance around the Delta, a combination of such an aqueduct and current pumps, or fortifying levees along Delta channels.

 

Improving the levees should be part of any plan.

 

But the main effect would be to prevent flooding. It would not necessarily make water supplies more dependable.

 

Adding an aqueduct around the Delta to either replace or supplement current pumps could help protect fish in the Delta and improve water dependability. But there are legitimate concerns that an aqueduct would be a reincarnation of the dreaded Peripheral Canal. Voters rejected it in 1982 because of fears that it would reduce water flowing into the Delta that is necessary for fish and a healthy ecosystem.

 

The hope is that the studies sought by state water officials will provide answers on just how much water can be sent south without jeopardizing efforts to restore the Delta ecosystem and fish populations.

 

What should be increasingly clear is that there is no way to provide adequate and reliable water supplies to users and the Delta environment in dry as well as wet periods without substantial water storage.

 

That means any of the possible courses being studied by water officials should include water storage in reservoirs and aquifers. There is no way to assure enough water for the Delta, farms and urban users in dry years without a major increase in storage.

 

Without storage there is a very real threat that either the Delta or agriculture will lose out. California cannot afford to let either take place. #

http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/tribune/ci_8676683

 

 

AG ISSUES:

Guest Opinion: Why California farmers go with the flow

Eureka Reporter – 3/23/08

By Amy Kaleita, public policy fellow for environmental studies at the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco

 

The water shortage in California is leading some farmers to sell their irrigation allotments to cities and other farmers in Southern California, according to an Associated Press story. It is well within their rights to do so, but while those farmers may benefit, the taxpayers will end up paying the price.

 

California is currently experiencing one of the most severe periods of water shortage in the last decade, thanks to eight years of drought conditions along the Colorado River coupled with regulatory restrictions and increasing demand. This year's first survey of the snow pack in the Sierra Nevada, the spring snowmelt that provides another important source of water in the state, estimated a snow depth of less than 60 percent of normal for the season. Prices for water, normally around $50 an acre-foot (3.9 million gallons) of water, may rise to as much as $200 per acre-foot this year.

 

As a result, farmers who grow annual crops such as rice, cantaloupes and tomatoes around Sacramento and the San Joaquin Valley, and who — thanks to state and federal subsidies — are paying only $30 to $60 per acre-foot of water, may make more money by selling their water than by growing and selling the crops that water would normally irrigate. A spokesperson for the State Water Contractor Association, which represents 29 water agencies, noted that "virtually every agricultural district in the Sacramento Valley is thinking about selling their water this year."

 

Who can blame them? These farmers are just doing what makes the most economic sense for them. This situation, however, is less beneficial for taxpayers. Because the farmers' water is subsidized, when they, in turn, sell the water to a municipal supplier rather than using it to grow their crops, the taxpayers are paying for food security they aren't getting. While it's difficult to predict the precise impact the water situation will have on food prices, rising prices are a distinct possibility as planted acreage decreases.

 

Further, when the subsidized water is sold on the open market, the cost of water reflects these artificial prices rather than the short supply and high demand. As this means that city water rates don't accurately reflect the shortage, the costs won't necessarily encourage consumers to conserve as much as they would if the water was appropriately priced.

 

More regulation could address situations such as prohibitions on reselling irrigation water, for example.

 

However, regulations on the water supply system are already complex, and in some cases, exacerbating the situation. A December federal court ruling has forced water managers to limit pumping in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to protect the Delta smelt, an endangered fish.

 

This situation illustrates why governments need to be extremely cautious in allocating subsidies and passing policy that supports one segment of the market over another. No industry exists in a vacuum, not even agriculture, and the ripple effect can cause unintended and negative consequences in times of stress. #

http://eurekareporter.com/article/080323-why-california-farmers-go-with-the-flow

 

 

WESTERN WATER ISSUES:

Water authority goes with Virgin River flow

Las Vegas Review Journal – 3/24/08

By Henry Brean, staff writer

 

Under a sweeping agreement signed in December by the seven Colorado River states, water managers in Las Vegas won the right to tap the Virgin River without having to build even an inch of new pipeline.

 

Now the Southern Nevada Water Authority is moving to secure as much of that worry-free water as it can.

 

Through a series of swaps and purchases approved last week with water users in the Mesquite area, the authority has increased the amount of water it can take from the Virgin River to about 5,000 acre-feet a year.

 

When stretched through reuse, that's enough water to supply about 17,000 homes.

 

That might not sound like much in the grand scheme of things, but getting the water couldn't be easier. All the authority has to do is wait for it to flow down the river and into Lake Mead, then pipe it to the Las Vegas Valley using its existing inlet pipes.

 

Best of all, the water will still be available even when some Colorado River water is off limits due to mandatory shortages, said John Entsminger, deputy counsel for the authority.

 

"It really becomes the best water in our portfolio," he said.

 

Only Virgin River rights permitted before 1929 can be taken by the authority under Nevada's agreement with the other Colorado River states.

 

With that in mind, board members voted to buy about 1,060 acre-feet of water rights permitted in 1914. As part of the $12.4 million deal with the owners of an old ranch southwest of Mesquite, the authority also got 1,200 acre-feet of rights from 1990.

 

Under a separate deal, also approved last week, the newer rights will be swapped with the Virgin Valley Water District in Mesquite for almost 900 acre-feet of pre-1929 water rights.

 

The authority also transferred to the Virgin Valley Water District some pending applications for groundwater in northeastern Clark County.

 

The rural water district serves about 18,000 customers in and around Mesquite but owns the rights to enough additional groundwater to support up to 40,000 people, depending on how the community develops.

 

If Mesquite continues to grow, the district eventually might have to start treating and delivering Virgin River water to customers.

 

Entsminger said the authority plans to start using its share of the Virgin River this year, either by delivering it to customers or storing it underground in the Las Vegas Valley.

 

The new seven-state agreement also allows the authority to bank its Virgin River water in Lake Mead for future use.

 

"We're not going to lose it," Entsminger said.

 

The authority board also has signed off on a plan to develop a comprehensive habitat conservation and recovery program for the Virgin River.

 

The program would be developed in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Clark County, the city of Mesquite, and the Virgin Valley Water District.

 

Water authority General Manager Pat Mulroy said the river could use the help.

 

"The Virgin has been on the threatened river list forever," she said. #

http://www.lvrj.com/news/16948516.html

####

No comments:

Blog Archive