[Water_news] 1. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS - Top Item for 5/19/08

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment

 

May 19, 2008

 

1.  Top Items -

 

 

 

Doolittle opposes Auburn dam water rights revocation

Auburn Journal- 5/18/08

 

 

Drought, shortages could mean big payoff for state rice growers

The San Diego Tribune – 5/19/08

 

  Editorial:

  Tapping into the future: THE GREAT THIRST The mayor's water conservation plan is a worthy  

  first step.

  The Los Angeles Times – 5/18/08

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

 

Doolittle opposes Auburn dam water rights revocation

Auburn Journal- 5/18/08

By Gus Thomson, Staff Writer

 

Reacting to a proposed move by the state Water Resources Control Board to revoke U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water rights on the American River connected to the long-stalled Auburn dam, U.S. Rep. John Doolittle has lodged a protest with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

Joined by all 18 other members of California’s Republican House delegation, Doolittle is urging Schwarzenegger to take steps to halt the proposed revocation of water rights gained by the federal government in 1971 for storage and use of water from what was envisioned to be a multipurpose dam.

 

The state water board has scheduled a pre-hearing conference in June and a revocation hearing in July in Sacramento to take away four bureau permits allowing use of up to 2.5 million acre-feet of the river’s water.

 

Doolittle wrote that while construction of the dam has been delayed since the late 1970s, existing water rights are “a valuable potential source of much-needed water.”

 

“As recent conditions demonstrate, now is not the time for the State Water Resources Control Board to be using its resources to decrease potential water supply for the state,” Doolittle said. “The existing water rights for the Auburn dam would assist in our combined efforts to provide California’s residents with adequate water supply.”

 

While Doolittle is fighting the revocation effort, the president of a local group opposed to the dam said that the water board is “simply performing its obligation to revoke the water rights for a project that has shown no meaningful movement toward completion for more than 30 years.”

 

“Under California law, water rights may not be retained indefinitely on the speculative hope that some day the permit holder may be able to appropriate water as contemplated in the permit,” Protect American River Canyons President Tim Woodall said.

 

While dam proponents and opponents gird for yet another round of discussion on the merits of the megaproject, the Placer County Water Agency is taking a neutral stance on revocation.

 

The agency, however, wants to ensure that if water rights are revoked, it is on record with a request that any resulting unappropriated water be reserved as a supply for unmet local needs.

 

Agency Strategic Affairs Director Einar Maisch said the agency does see an opportunity to possibly secure additional rights on the American River for the county and possibly others within the watershed. The agency has consistently protected its status as area-of-origin water rights holder on the American River watershed.

 

The agency board voted Thursday to inform the water board that if revocation occurs, the water should be reserved for local water purveyors to meet current and future demands. The board voted 3-0 in favor of the motion. Auburn-area director Lowell Jarvis, an employee of the state Water Resources Control Board, abstained from voting because of a potential conflict of interest. East Placer County director Otis Wollan was absent.

 

“Fifty years ago, PCWA was formed to protect and perfect water supplies of the American River in our county for local use,” board chairman Mike Lee said. “This board stands ready to once again do the same for future generations should any additional water become available on the river by any action of the state water board.” #

http://www.placeropolis.com/detail/84461.html

 

 

Drought, shortages could mean big payoff for state rice growers

The San Diego Tribune – 5/19/08

By Michael Gardner

 

SACRAMENTO – In one of the most volatile years of their farming experience, California's rice growers eagerly planted a new crop this spring that could reap record profits.

 

Drought in Australia, food riots in Egypt and a shortage of other food grains such as corn because of the move to ethanol are just a few of the complex global ingredients roiling the global market for rice, a diet staple for half the earth's population.

 

The immediate fallout has brought surging prices, sporadic panic buying and limits on exports by some countries. Whether those responses are permanent or a temporary reflex will not be known for some time.

 

“There's no asking the guy who was here before you what it was like and what happened next. We've never seen this,” said Tim Johnson, president of the California Rice Commission.

 

These market shifts also may have broader policy implications as some countries rethink their opposition to genetically modified rice and U.S. taxpayers question why they should subsidize corn, wheat and rice at a time of soaring commodity prices.

 

At the Richvale Cafe, a tiny diner that substitutes for the backyard fence in the heart of rice country, about 70 miles north of Sacramento, growers are understandably excited.

 

“We're going to get some returns we've never seen the likes of,” said Frank Rehermann, who has been farming for 36 years.

Rehermann's enthusiasm is tempered only by profit-draining costs for diesel and fertilizer.

 

The fall 2007 rice harvest will fetch nearly $20 for every 100 pounds when the final sales are logged later this year. The preliminary estimate for the 2008 crop is approaching $25. By comparison, just four years ago the price was $13.50 for every 100 pounds.

 

The difference is staggering for a grower who farms 500 acres with average yields of 82 hundred-pound sacks per acre. In dollar amounts, $13.50 would gross about $550,000; $20 would bring in $820,000; and $25 would top $1 million.

 

“The question is how long will this last? Any honest person will say, 'I don't know,' ” said Dan Sumner, a University of California agricultural economist. “We know prices will come down. The question is when and how far.”

 

California consumers, struggling to adjust to nearly $4-a-gallon gas and $3.50 for a loaf of bread, should brace for paying up to 5 percent more for table rice and other products made with the grain – cereal, baby food and frozen meals. Ethnic dishes, from spring rolls to curry, also will ring up higher, economists project.

 

Some maintain rice is still a bargain at less than $1 a pound.

 

“You can't buy a candy bar for 65 cents,” Rehermann said.

 

Southern California water agencies, shopping for extra water to import from Northern California, also are finding a tighter market. Sacramento Valley rice farmers are positioned to drive harder bargains as long as rice prices remain attractive.

 

The Metropolitan Water District this year lost deals for more than 23,000 acre-feet, enough water to meet the needs of at least 46,000 households a year. The Los Angeles-based wholesaler paid about $200 an acre-foot for the water it did get, compared with historic prices of closer to $125 to $150.

 

The San Diego County Water Authority was relieved to be able to lock in more than 20,000 acre-feet at $200 each from rice growers.

 

“We expect the price of Northern California transfers to be higher and supplies more difficult to obtain next year,” said John Liarakos, a water authority spokesman.

 

Rice country

Rice is California's 16th-most valuable farm commodity; the 525,000 acres of green, flooded and flat fields between Sacramento and Chico brought in $464 million in 2006, according to industry figures. In some of the Sacramento Valley's smaller counties, such as Butte, Glenn and Colusa, the crop is considered a key to the economy.

 

California exports about 700,000 tons a year, compared with the 26 million tons traded annually worldwide. In the United States, only Arkansas produces more rice.

 

The factors driving turmoil in the world rice market are multiple, from foreign policy to farmers lured by ethanol producers to chase corn dollars. Beyond that, the falling dollar has made U.S. rice even more attractive to big buyers from overseas.

 

As incomes in China and India grew, so did demand for higher-priced food, particularly pork and poultry. Responding, rice farmers in some areas switched to growing grains for animal feed. As a result, the rice supply isn't keeping pace with demand.

 

In the United States, the rising price of corn, spurred by ethanol development, enticed growers to switch crops. Rice growers in the South, plugging the hole left by the migration to corn, moved into wheat, as did some California rice producers.

 

Then the rice market steamed up.

 

Drought in Australia, a once formidable competitor, brought that country's rice production to a virtual standstill, leaving a share of the market for California to fill. California rice is even being sold at stores in the West Bank, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

 

“That's just incredible to believe,” said Michael Sandrock, president of Farmers' Rice Cooperative.

 

If world rice shortages become more acute, industry officials say pressure could build on rice-importing nations to drop opposition to genetically modified, or GM, rice, which is not yet grown in California. It holds some promise of lower costs and better yields.

 

“We don't have any aversion to GM, with the exception that our customers don't want it,” Sandrock said.

 

Fearing shortages and inflation, major rice-exporting countries have moved to protect their domestic supplies by restricting shipments. Egypt, for example, had learned its lesson from food riots over bread and wheat. Egypt's export ban opened the Turkish market to California.

 

“Their policy was to keep rice home,” said Johnson, the rice commission executive. “That's when you saw the huge run-up. Prices became incredibly volatile.”

 

In the United States, Asian communities, particularly, led a run on rice at some of the larger stores, such as Sam's Club and Costco. The older generation remembered near-starvation as children. Small restaurants, mom-and-pop store owners and some large households also stockpiled, prompting some large retailers to restrict sales.

 

“Customers were exhibiting rational economic behavior. They were hedging against even higher prices,” said Pat Daddow, head of the California Rice Exchange, which runs an Internet-based rice trading market.

 

The situation at stores is calmer even though limits remain at some locations. California producers insist they will fill all of their customers' orders, even with strong demand and virtually no surplus stocks.

 

“There is no shortage of California rice,” Daddow said. “But there is a shortage of rice in the world – no doubt about it.”

 

Japan, California's top export customer, is moving under international trade agreements to sell stockpiles to stabilize world supplies and prices. Japan already has released 600,000 tons of California rice it had stored, foreshadowing future purchases to restock its reserves.

 

Farmers' costs

It is no surprise that as they wrap up spring planting, California rice farmers are smiling.

 

“Everyone's optimistic,” said grower Charley Matthews Jr.

 

Not all is rosy in rice country, however. Diesel and fertilizer costs have soared, already chewing up potential profits.

“We're not going to the bank with it,” said farmer Charlie Hoppin. “It's a long way to harvest.”

 

Rehermann paid $2.41 a gallon for his off-road diesel fuel last year. This year, it's $3.85.

 

Moreover, the price of natural gas combined with growing global demand have sent fertilizer bills up.

 

These costs are reminders that the market could turn on rice growers, particularly if expenses stay high as crop returns level out, Hoppin said.

 

“It's not going to go on like this infinitely,” Hoppin said. “When it goes the other way, it could just wipe people out.”

 

That's why farmers argue they still need the security of subsidies included in the new federal farm bill, approved last week by the House and Senate.

 

With prices high, a couple of costly market-based aid programs will not be utilized. However, rice growers still will receive a maximum direct payment of $40,000, which amounts to about 15 percent of average production costs.

 

Rehermann sees the direct payment as a safety net to ensure rice farmers stay in business during downturns.

 

“I would hate to think the day will come when we're depending on foreign nations to feed us,” he said.#

 http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080519-9999-1n19rice.html

 

 

Editorial:

 Tapping into the future: THE GREAT THIRST The mayor's water conservation plan is a worthy first step.

The Los Angeles Times – 5/18/08

 

It's long past time for Los Angeles' leadership to get serious about saving water -- and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's new water-supply action plan is a responsible effort to move beyond our hysterical past to a reasonable future.

Designed to make sure the city can meet all of its new demands for water through conservation and recycling, the plan calls for enforcing a 1991 ordinance restricting water use, including prohibitions against hosing down driveways and watering lawns in the middle of the day. It lays out a strategy to recover some of the millions of gallons of rainwater that flow to the ocean each year and promises to push the federal government to clean up the San Fernando Groundwater Basin, a key source that also happens to be a Superfund site. The city will spend $2.3 million on an awareness campaign. It will offer rebates for efficient appliances. It will install "smart irrigation controllers" in parks and will require new development to comply with green standards.

It was tiresome, if somewhat predictable, that the media focused on just one aspect of the plan: water recycling for indirect potable use, sometimes referred to, vividly, as "toilet to tap." Gerald A. Silver, president of the Homeowners of Encino and an opponent of an earlier recycling program, told The Times it was "grossly unfair" for the mayor to decide that residents should reuse water.

Enough, already. Perhaps -- perhaps -- there was reason to fret in 2000, when politicians across the city, including Villaraigosa, forced the Department of Water and Power to shutter a spanking-new, $55-million plant that processed sewage to make it safe to return to underground aquifers. Back then, recycling technology was still too expensive, and water still seemed too plentiful, for this worthy project to overcome its howling opponents. It didn't help that the city kept the public out of the planning process.

Today, Los Angeles gets almost 90% of its water from outsidesources -- all of which are under pressure. Imports from the State Water Project, for example, could drop 30% this year and are expected to remain low indefinitely, no matter how much it rains or snows in winters to come. If Los Angeles hopes to thrive, it must turn to local water supplies to make up for shortfalls. Recycling technology has improved. Orange County has already started recycling water for indirect potable reuse. The mayor said he plans to reach out to residents, as Orange County did, to make the case for recycled water. He must follow through.

Los Angeles residents must follow through as well. DWP officials say the utility will expand its incentive programs to encourage homeowners to cut back on outdoor water use, which accounts for 40% of residential consumption in the city. Homeowners must take advantage of offers like these and must install landscaping that is more water-friendly. In return, the city should do what it can to remove the red tape that can make it difficult for well-intentioned folks to experiment with water-saving projects, such as using gray water in the garden and installing permeable driveways and hardscapes that recover storm water.

We in Los Angeles live in a dry land with precious little local water. We need to recognize that we can no longer go out and grab water wherever we can find it, whenever we need it. This means not standing in the way of projects, including recycling, that will make Los Angeles more self-sufficient.

The mayor's plan won't get us all the way there -- it doesn't address incentive pricing, a key component to reducing use, nor does it set aside all the money to pay for the new initiatives (though federal and state funds are available). But it lays a good foundation for the aggressive action the city will have to take to save water for decades to come. Antiquated attitudes about reuse can't be allowed to thwart these essential first steps.#

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-water18-2008may18,0,1286714.story?track=rss