Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
July 21, 2008
5. Agencies, Programs, People –
Dry times revive an old debate
In the delta that is the state's water well, ecology vs. usage rises to the fore.
Editorial:
First, we must drain the political swamp
Is growth over?
Editorial
San Francisco Chronicle
Opinion:
Canal not a solution for Delta
Daniel Weintraub: Get used to hearing a lot more talk about the Delta
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dry times revive an old debate
In the delta that is the state's water well, ecology vs. usage rises to the fore.
By Peter H. King,
The first is the California Aqueduct, main artery of the State Water Project, which propels delta water on a 444-mile beeline to
They're easy to miss from the road, announced only by minimal signage, tangles of barbed wire and posted warnings, in English and Spanish, "Stay Out: You May Drown" and "Danger: Swift Current." Yet these are critical pieces of connective tissue, binding together the watery north with an arid south.
Not that everyone's sanguine about the arrangement. Grumblings about plugging Sierra rivers to fill
Of more pressing concern at present is the environmental cost -- an escalating collapse of the fragile Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the West Coast's largest estuary. It is a crisis marked by creeping saltwater, toxins and, most visibly, the disappearance of fish.
"It all looks pretty innocuous, doesn't it?" said Bill Jennings, peering down into the rippling aqueduct at a point south of the pump house. "Just looking at it, you wouldn't know what this is doing to the delta, would you?"
There are many other classifications of water people -- engineers, irrigators, biologists, bureaucrats, lobbyists and lawyers, many, many lawyers. If
Their ceaseless wrangling has gone on for decades, since the Gold Rush really, but typically without much notice. Only in dry years do Californians on the faucet end of the plumbing begin to pay attention. Only in dry years do low-flow toilets and
This has been a dry year, the second in a row. It has not been, at least not yet, bleached-bones-in-the-lake-bed dry -- "a marginal call," is how one veteran hydrologist politely described Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision last month to declare a drought.
Still, it's been dry enough to infuse the water debate with a jolt of heightened urgency and to generate interest beyond the ranks of its perpetual participants. In this particular form of trench warfare, dry spells present an ideal climate for advancement. Whether the objective is to build more dams or provide more cool, fresh water for salmon runs, it's better to push during a dry time than in a season of downpours.
More than 15 years have passed since
Somewhere along the way, though, that happy train careened off the rails. Today, in federal courtrooms and before blue ribbon commissions, in farm-town coffee shops and newspaper opinion pages, the brotherhood is slugging it out, same as ever. Farm versus fish. North versus South. Concrete versus conservation. Once again, farmers on the valley's west side are grousing loudly about water cutbacks. Once again, environmentalists are fighting in court to keep fish from being driven toward extinction.
"Sometimes I wonder," mused Thomas Graff, an environmental lawyer and longtime key water person, "if we all just disappeared, would anything be all that different?"
To make the deja vu complete, there even have been fresh calls to resurrect the
This end run would ensure a more reliable flow of water for Southern California's Metropolitan Water District and several San Francisco Bay Area cities, and also for
There are, in fact, some differences between the water world today and where it was when we left it after the last drought. For starters, the delta, while always important, has moved to the center of the debate. The fight was once about which rivers to dam, which valleys to flood. Now it's about how to save the delta -- and still quench the great
Also, suburbs have been spreading across the
Conservation, once seen condescendingly as a noble gesture on the way to throwing up ever-bigger dams, has gone mainstream, embraced by a Republican governor, the state Department of Water Resources and the MWD alike as a main source of "new" water.
There also seems to be some rethinking of basic rules. Not all farmers are short of water this year. Not all cities have been compelled to mandate conservation. In fact, for much of
This leads to some contradictory images. On one day there's a front-page photo in the Sacramento Bee of a state worker spraying down a
One fundamental remains unaltered: Everybody wants more water than the system can deliver. Said former Assemblyman Phil Isenberg, who heads a state task force exploring the water dilemma: "We are, as they say in the water world, oversubscribed." What the competing factions want the water for, by and large, are noble endeavors. But at some point, choices must be made.
"If it comes down to water for Los Angeles children or water for delta fish," Jennings said, playing out the poster-child game as he drove a couple of visitors through the delta, "delta fish are going to lose every time. No doubt about it."
What if it comes down to farms versus fish?
"Well," he said, "Let's separate farms into food crops and nonfood crops. Rice grows great in
That's one viewpoint. There are many. For every call to fallow the valley's west side, there are others to check suburban sprawl, or to build a
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oncal21-2008jul21,0,2400567.story
Editorial:
First, we must drain the political swamp
When Gov. Schwarzenegger announced his second effort in two years to fix
The governor wants to spend $9.3 billion for more storage and conservation programs and to fix the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. If voters are ever to get a chance to voice their opinions on the plan, it must go through the Legislature. That appears unlikely. State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata says he is too busy trying to pass a long-overdue budget to reconsider water bonds. He pointed out, correctly, that the governor has vetoed legislation that would have allowed expenditures of nearly $2.6 billion still available from Proposition 84. Perata's statement was the political equivalent of a ransom note: "If you ever want to see your water bond alive, help us deliver a state budget."
It's not that lame-duck Perata doesn't want to solve the problem. Last year, he countered the governor's proposal with his own. Though similar, they wouldn't compromise over how to allocate the money and both plans died.
As usual, dam-haters back Perata; ag groups and most water agencies like the governor's plan. Some want it both ways. The Metropolitan Water District, which provides water for 22 million
Thursday, the Public Policy Institute of California really muddied the waters, saying the best way to save the delta was to build a canal around it. A delta fix is essential, but the governor avoided mentioning the still-radioactive canal, which voters rejected 25 years ago.
After 30 years of neglect, the state must re-invest in water storage, levees, methods of getting water to where it is most needed and a plan to keep the delta from turning into a collection of mucky ditches.
Unfortunately, we haven't figured out how to drain the political swamp that keeps that from happening.#
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/story/365587.html
Is growth over?
By
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent executive order certifying that California is in a drought and directing state agencies to start thinking about what to do about it is only the latest sign that a way of life built on cheap and readily available water is coming to a close. For much of the state, June was the driest month on record, according to the
For the last century, it seemed there was no limit. More than any other state,
Growing Western cities at crossroads, report says
The most obvious indicators certainly point in that direction. Snowmelt in the Sierras, which historically has filled the state's major reservoirs and aqueducts, has been shrinking steadily.
Initially, the public agencies responsible for ensuring water supplies were cautious in their response to the signs of a growing water crisis, perhaps fearing a political backlash from Californians who expect to be able to open a tap and let it flow, without limits, any time, anywhere, for any purpose. Adding a reservoir, drilling a few more wells or cutting deals with farmers to transfer some of their water to nearby cities helped soften, if not avoid, the effects of the state's growing water shortage. Now, however, the situation is becoming sufficiently dire that the water agencies are beginning to give the public a taste of what lies ahead.
Earlier this year, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the largest water agency in the region and the principal supplier to the cities of
Such steps alone will probably not make enough of a difference to avert a water-supply crisis. There is a finite amount of water available in
Meanwhile, environmental groups such as the California Water Impact Networkare contending that many of our water-use practices violate the state's constitutional mandate that water be put to beneficial use to the maximum possible extent and that waste or unreasonable use be prevented.They particularly object to pumping water from the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta to irrigate thirsty crops like cotton and alfalfa, as well as lawns. These environmentalists plan to petition the state Department of Water Resources to permanently reduce Delta pumping. If state officials or the courts agree, it would affect virtually every aspect of water use.
Real estate development already is feeling the pinch. State laws that took effect six years ago require water agencies to document sufficient long-term water supplies to support large developments. If they can't, they must block the developments, and these agencies are increasingly doing just that. The Eastern Municipal Water District, the largest water agency in
Courts are increasingly weighing in on the issue. Last year, the state Supreme Court overturned approval of a major new planned community in the
Scaled-down developments that clear the water-supply hurdle must still meet tough new water-use standards. For instance, don't expect new homes to be built along the fairways of a new golf course or the shores of a man-made lake. The appliances in the new homes will be low-flow, and the pavement outside permeable to help replenish groundwater. State legislation that would have required developers to utilize all feasible water-efficiency measures in new construction and carry out other conservation measures in the surrounding community didn't pass earlier this year, but it undoubtedly will be back. Meanwhile, the Legislature is considering a requirement that all urban water agencies reduce their consumption by 20% within 12 years.
Agriculture, which consumes two-thirds of the delivered water in the state and remains a huge component of the
The entire state economy ultimately will be affected by the water crisis. Yet it is unrealistic to expect that
Unlike previous droughts, the current shortage of water is largely the product of long-term climate change because of global warming. This means that the shortage will not abate without major changes in how we consume water.The cheapest and easiest way to increase water supplies is conservation. Even small increases in the efficiency of agriculture's use of water can produce huge savings. Cutting back landscape irrigation, which accounts for more than half of urban and suburban consumption, is another option, as is treating and recycling water. Finally, rain and snowmelt can be collected and stored for future use.
As things stand now,
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-lowe20-2008jul20,0,875155.story
Editorial
San Francisco Chronicle – 7/20/08
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature are fighting over the direction of the state's water planning again. This time, each has some good points - and some unrealistic expectations. The best solution, and unfortunately the one that is least likely to happen, would be for both of them to get out of the way.
In the meantime, the Republican governor and Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein have proposed an additional $9.3 billion in water bonds for new storage (e.g. unpopular dams and reservoirs) and delta restoration projects.
That's a lot of money at a time when the state is staring at a deficit that tops $15 billion, and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista (Los Angeles County), and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, are right to ask the governor why the state still hasn't spent billions of dollars in water bond money that was approved years ago.
It seems that the unspent water bond money was approved for flood control, local water projects and conservation - not the storage projects that the governor wants, and that's the main reason why it hasn't been appropriated and spent. The governor vetoed a Perata bill last year that would have appropriated the money.
That move was unhelpful and unhealthy for the state's long-term interest. Before the Legislature approves any new water bonds, the governor needs to come up with a reason to reverse his decision from last year.
That said, the Legislature shouldn't reject the governor's new water bond request out of spite. Schwarzenegger and Feinstein are on to something when they insist that the state has to make some unpopular choices about water storage and conveyance soon.
How unpopular? Well, conveniently, the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California just released a new report, "Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta," that concludes that the best solution for the shattered delta is to build a peripheral canal.
And it's difficult to imagine how the state will survive the population influx that's expected over the next several decades without creating some kind of storage - the question is, how, where and when?
In the past, those questions have been drowned out by the din of political opponents and proponents, which is why it's more important than ever that these decisions be turned over to outsiders. To their credit, the governor and Feinstein have recognized this - their proposal says that a state water commission would be responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of potential projects.
The commission wouldn't be entirely free from politics - members would be selected by the governor and subject to Senate confirmation - but the idea is a good one, and necessary if
Ultimately, the governor's proposal and the Legislature's proposal aren't mutually exclusive.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/19/EDA811PEP0.DTL
Opinion:
Canal not a solution for Delta
By
I'm not a gung-ho environmentalist, but I'm pretty much against Earth dying, including the part I live in - the Delta, a wonderful place. So last week's recommendation by the Public Policy Institute of California to build the
Here is why, in a nutshell:
"Selecting an export strategy," the report reads, "does not, in itself, solve the Delta's problems; ... many technical regulatory, financial, governance, and policy decisions must accompany the implementation of a long-term strategy.
"In particular," it goes on, "no matter which export strategy is selected, there will have to be investment in improvements of aquatic habitats within the Delta to increase the likelihood of fish recovery."
In other words, a peripheral canal is necessary because the Delta is dying. But a peripheral canal will not keep it from dying.
In those lines, the peripheral canal can be seen for what it is: just another export-oriented engineering solution so contrary to nature it guarantees destruction.
"
Every time it appears progress has buried the crew-cut strain of 1940s dam builders arrogant enough to believe they can go nature one better, they bulldoze out of their graves and rev up their cement mixers.
And don't kid yourself. Once the water users get their water, you can bet "investment in improvements of aquatic habitats" will never be more than a gesture.
Of course, I don't want to be holier than thou. We, the people of the Valley, were wreaking havoc on the Delta back when
But Valley residents never brought the Delta to more than a middling stage of desecration. The Delta's tides and seasonally shifting salinity - plus, ironically, the Delta's backwater irrelevance - preserved some degree of its nature.
You can go out there and feel the aquatic energy, the fish swirling below the tules, see the waterbirds skimming and sometimes great flocks descending, and know something of the day when life, not puffed-up humans, called the shots in a perfect web of water and living things. One crafted over millennia.
The
One day, we'll be able to see from our cars on I-5 the giant diggers excavating the canal bed. And after, we'll see the water flowing by, southbound. Us, exported.
What we'll see out in the Delta I dread to imagine. I hope only that the natural order finds a way to outwit our crazy culture and endure to a saner generation.#
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080720/A_NEWS0803/807200307/-1/A_NEWS05
Daniel Weintraub: Get used to hearing a lot more talk about the Delta
By Daniel Weintraub , staff writer
I can't prove it, but I'd be willing to bet that the delta formed by the confluence of the
But that might soon be changing.
The Delta is in crisis, and that crisis could undermine the water supply for Southern California and the Silicon Valley, and curtail agriculture in the southern
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is part of the largest estuary on the West Coast. More than 50 species of fish and 300 species of birds, mammals and wildlife have tried to make it their home.
The Delta also serves as a transfer point for the state's water supply. Snowmelt from the Cascades and the Sierra drains into the
Until modern Californians began to control its terrain, the Delta was a place of constant change. Tides, floods, droughts and changes in sea level meant that the salinity of the water and the boundaries of the estuary were forever in flux. But now the Delta is defined by more than 1,000 miles of man-made levees protecting dozens of islands, many of which are used for farming. The levees also keep saltwater out of the Delta, making it easier to send fresh water south for drinking and irrigation.
But this man-made landscape is not sustainable. The islands are sinking, falling victim to decades of farming and the oxidation of the soil. As the elevation of the islands goes down, the pressure on the levees protecting them increases, making them more prone to failure and more expensive to maintain. The sea level, meanwhile, has been rising, presenting another threat to the levees and the freshwater transfer point that the Delta has become.
The population of Delta smelt – one of those creatures that elicit eye rolls from conservatives, but one that turns out to be a pretty crucial link in the food chain – is dwindling fast, with many baby fish destroyed by the pumps that move water south. The more widely admired Chinook salmon is also in danger, its numbers in such a slump this year that commercial salmon fishing has been banned along most of the West Coast.
The cost of treating the water for human consumption keeps rising, too, and could climb past $1 billion annually if current trends continue.
The ever-present risk of a catastrophic flood or a major earthquake means that, at some point, all of the efforts to hold back the tides, literally, could be moot. A major levee failure could send seawater rushing in and transform the Delta's ecology overnight, making its water useless to farms and residents to the south and west.
A new study by the Public Policy Institute of California and researchers from the
One would be to turn off the tap, to stop exporting water through the Delta. The other would be to build a canal around the Delta so that water could still be shipped south without further endangering the region's environment.
Ending water exports from north to south, the researchers say, would be best for the fish. But that would leave much of
Building a canal to shuttle water from the lower
But the researchers' support for reviving the idea will give a boost to a plan that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been trying to move to the top of Sacramento's policy agenda. As a result, Californians from north to south can expect to start hearing a lot more about the Delta, its future and a possible canal in the months ahead.#
http://www.modbee.com/2062/story/365320.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DWR's California Water News is distributed to California Department of Water Resources management and staff, for information purposes, by the DWR Public Affairs Office. For reader's services, including new subscriptions, temporary cancellations and address changes, please use the online page: http://listhost2.water.ca.gov/mailman/listinfo/water_news. DWR operates and maintains the State Water Project, provides dam safety and flood control and inspection services, assists local water districts in water management and water conservation planning, and plans for future statewide water needs. Inclusion of materials is not to be construed as an endorsement of any programs, projects, or viewpoints by the Department or the State of
No comments:
Post a Comment