Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment
August 11, 2008
1. Top Items -
Fish fight may doom dam: Environmental lawsuit to decide fate of Lake Red Bluff
Redding Record Searchlight- 8/11/08
Harvest of cash: Kern County
Contra Costa Times- 8/9/08
EDITORIAL:
Approval of desalination was critical, OUR VIEW:
Lives affected by eco-imposed water laws
The Gridley Herald- 8/8/08
South Bay
KGO San Francisco- 8/8/08
Major water ruling challenged
Associated Press- 8/8/08
Proposal to harness wind power off Mendocino coast worries fishing industry
The
+++++++++++++++++++++
Fish fight may doom dam: Environmental lawsuit to decide fate of Lake Red Bluff
Redding Record Searchlight- 8/11/08
Local recreation enthusiasts, businesspeople and agricultural interests have watched with dread this summer as an environmental lawsuit against the Central Valley Project's water diversion system has proceeded in a
Central in the suit is the fate of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, which is put in place from mid-May through mid-September to supply water for a 125-mile irrigation canal that runs to Glenn, Colusa and Yolo counties. The city of
U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger has ruled the dam and other diversions imperil the state's beleaguered salmon population.
Wanger stopped short of ordering the gates removed immediately, but the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority will have to remove the gates Sept. 2 - about two weeks early - if it's determined that at least 5 percent of winter-run salmon have already reached the dam.
"They dodged a bullet this time," Red Bluff City Manager Martin Nichols said of the dam and the lake, home of the popular Nitro Nationals Drag Boat Festival each Memorial Day weekend. "But we're a long way from being out of the woods on this."
Beyond September, the dam's future is very much in doubt. Wanger ordered the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the National Marine Fisheries Service to find ways to protect endangered salmon and steelhead trout, including the winter- and spring-run chinooks at the heart of the Red Bluff controversy.
And the agencies are working on a new biological opinion, due out in March, that will analyze the CVP's impact on the endangered fish.
Irrigators fear the dam could be jettisoned before a $160 million fish screen and pumping system can be put in to feed the canal, perhaps by the 2012 irrigation season.
"We're certainly working with the resource agencies to find ways to help the status of threatened and endangered species, as well as working to maintain operations of the gates in a manner that will continue to protect the viability of the regional economy by permitting us to irrigate our crops," said Jeff Sutton, the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority's general manager.
"In the interim, until we get the fish screen and fish passage improvement project .¤.¤. we'd hate to have the rug pulled out in front of us when we're so close to a solution," he said.
Irrigation from the canal produces about $250 million in crops each year, contributing about $1 billion to the regional economy, Sutton said.
The pump is only the latest in a long series of attempts to address fish problems associated with the 42-year-old diversion dam. Agencies first tried to put a spawning bed at the dam, which didn't work, then built fish ladders, pumps and later, gates, Nichols said.
The latest fish fight began in February 2005, when the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups sued federal authorities over the water diversions' impact on Delta smelt. They challenged a biological opinion for salmon and steelhead a couple of months later, according to published reports.
In April, Wanger invalidated the biological opinion on salmon, ruling that regulators failed to consider the effects of global warming and other environmental issues on the species' decline, published reports said.
Wanger later affirmed that water diversions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta have jeopardized the fish, but he denied a request from fishing and environmental groups for emergency injunctive relief.
Tina Swanson, executive director of the Bay Institute, said the dam's gates are a barrier to adult salmon trying to get upstream and to juveniles coming downstream. She said predator fish gather at the dam to feed on the juveniles, further reducing their numbers.
"They've been known to be a hazard for salmon for decades," Swanson said of the gates.
Installing a new pumping system with a proper fish screen would be preferable, she said, but the facility doesn't address how much water should be taken from the river.
"We've been taking too much water," Swanson said. "One of the things we need to do is reevaluate how much we can safely take .¤.¤. That's a larger issue than the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, but the Red Bluff Diversion Dam is part of it."
One of the most vocal advocates for keeping the dam has been the city of
But lately, City Council members have discussed working with the canal authority to win funding for projects to offset the economic damage. Such projects could include an amphitheater at
For Sutton, collaborating with the city beats being adversaries when it comes to the future of the dam.
"Obviously the writing is on the wall that operation of the diversion dam will not remain long into the future," Sutton said. "If we don't look forward to solutions, we'll both be sitting on the side of the river watching the water go downstream."#
http://www.redding.com/news/2008/aug/11/fish-fight-may-doom-dam/
Harvest of cash: Kern County
Contra Costa Times- 8/9/08
Delta fish suffered a crippling decline while taxpayers paid nearly $100 million to a
In the process, the wholesaler sold water to the state for as much as $200 an acre-foot and last year bought water from the state for as little as $28 an acre-foot.
The Kern County Water Agency was the biggest buyer in a program that delivered discounted Delta water in a way that now appears to have been particularly harmful to the environment. It also was the biggest seller of water to an ill-fated, publicly-financed state program meant to protect the same environment, the investigation found.
The Kern agency collected $96 million in taxpayer money — nearly all of it borrowed on the bond market — for sales to an "environmental water account" that was shelved after seven years at the end of 2007, records show.
While state water officials took steps to ensure they did not directly repurchase the discount water, the exchanges amounted to "classic arbitrage," where investors exploit price differences in financial instruments, said Barry Nelson, a water policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"What makes this arbitrage so remarkable is they're buying the water and selling the water to the same entity, using water that should never have been pumped in the first place," Nelson said.
The newspaper's investigation, which spanned six months and involved dozens of interviews and reviews of hundreds of pages of documents, some of which were obtained through the California Public Records Act, reveals:
Regulators were kept in the dark as the California Department of Water Resources delivered far more discounted Delta water than was specified in its environmental permit — more than four times as much in 2005. The permit contained restrictions that were supposed to protect Delta smelt, a tiny fish whose population has collapsed along with a large part of the Delta's ecosystem.
Although state water officials took steps to keep the discount water sales to
Some researchers believe that increased pumping of Delta water at times when the discount water deliveries were occurring — far in excess of permit limits in the past few years — may have contributed significantly to the ongoing collapse of Delta smelt, which triggered a court order last year sharply restricting Delta water deliveries and tightening water supplies in parts of the state.
The Kern water agency wrested control of the Kern Water Bank from the state in the 1990s by withholding needed local approval and eventually trading a small portion of its contractual water rights for the 20,000-acre site. The bank enhanced the region's ability to buy and sell water.
Proceeds from the taxpayer-financed water sales were distributed to
The story of how a powerful water agency was able to gain advantage in state water initiatives developed during the 1990s is coming to light as California's top political leaders once again try to deal with a broken water delivery system.
After a punishing drought that ended in the early 1990s, a series of deals were negotiated to stabilize water supplies and protect the environment. Rather than impose cutbacks on water users or accept some environmental degradation, the deals promised all sides' interests would be served by programs paid for with taxpayer-backed bond funds.
It didn't work.
Instead, the spigot to the state's biggest water users flowed with record amounts of water from the Delta beginning in 2000.
And as Delta water pumping reached new highs — boosted in part by the new discount water program, especially in the past few years — several fish populations crashed, including Delta smelt, longfin smelt, striped bass and threadfin shad.
Pollution, invasive species and other factors are likely also to blame for the collapse, but Delta pumping was a major factor, biologists say.
The ecological crisis became severe enough that last year a federal judge stepped in and ordered sharp restrictions on Delta pumping.
The result: Despite at least $3 billion spent since 2000 to improve Delta water supplies and the environment, the West Coast's largest estuary is experiencing an ecological collapse and Californians appear to be faced with years of uncertainty about the reliability of future water supplies.
The programs set up by the state to sell surplus water in wet years and to buy water for the environment were never directly linked.
But both were among the many initiatives that grew out of attempts to resolve water problems in
The Kern County Water Agency was the largest participant in both, thanks in part to its takeover in 1995 of a 20,000-acre groundwater bank that the state purchased seven years earlier.
It was in the bank that the Kern water agency stored about one-third of its purchases from the discount water program and from which it delivered about 60 percent of its sales to the environmental water account, according to the agency.
At the same time, the new discount water program known as Article 21 was set up to encourage water agencies like Kern and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to buy surplus water during wet periods and store it in local reservoirs.
Under Article 21, the agencies buy the water for the cost of pumping it. The idea was that once the water was stored in the southern part of the state, it could be used in dry years when less Delta water is available.
But in recent years the water districts took far more Article 21 water than was authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and some researchers now think that an increase in Delta pumping during winter — the same months when Article 21 water is delivered — might have contributed significantly to the ongoing Delta smelt collapse.
"It really looks like that was a hit on the head," said Bruce Herbold, a fisheries biologist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Separately, the environmental water account was supposed to provide supplemental protection for the Delta without restricting water users.
The Delta is home to hundreds of species and a crucial link in the migratory paths of birds and salmon. It is also an unrecognizable version of its former self, badly degraded by pesticides, pollution and invasive species.
But the water deliveries from the Delta command the most attention.
Inevitably, especially at the high levels of recent years, pumping water to more than 23 million Californians and 2 million acres of farmland degrades habitat and kills fish, larvae and eggs.
The environmental water account was set up to counter that problem by giving regulators greater flexibility to slow Delta pumping to prevent fish from being sucked into the pumps.
But the water account also put regulators on a budget. If they wanted to decrease pumping rates, they had to keep water users whole by delivering water from the account.
Despite the bond funds, the environmental water account never had enough money or provided as much water as planners promised. In addition, the original plan was to use the environmental water account to supplement existing environmental water assets. But a key court ruling reduced the other assets, forcing the environmental water account to make up the difference.
In other words, the account was not as big as promised and it had to buy more than was expected.
After spending nearly $200 million in public funds, the environmental water account expired at the end of 2007.
Despite the expense to taxpayers and the continued decline in environmental conditions, both programs worked well for
The $96 million in sales to the environmental water account since 2001 was more than twice as much as sold by any other water agency in the state, records show. Half of all the money spent by the environmental water account went to the Kern agency.
And the bulk of the purchases were financed with the proceeds from environmental bonds authorized in 1996 by Proposition 204 and in 2002 by Proposition 50, meaning taxpayers will be paying for those purchases for years to come, with interest.
The price taxpayers paid for environmental water, before interest: typically between $170 and $200 per acre-foot.
Kern paid much less.
The price for Article 21 water varies, but last year Kern paid $28 per acre-foot. And, in 2007, the average price it paid for all Delta water — both Article 21 and its standard contractual water — was $86 per acre-foot, according to the Department of Water Resources.
They also said a portion of the proceeds was set aside to buy replacement water in dry years.
And state water officials could not get water to thirsty parts of the state at a better price, they said.
"We were the most economical game in town," said James Beck, general manager of the Kern County Water Agency.
The state Department of Water Resources, meanwhile, only bought "previously stored" water — basically, Delta water that was injected into
But minutes of meetings show
In other words, although a lot of water was sold to the environmental water account from the aquifers beneath
During a May 2003 meeting, for example, water managers made note of the fact that despite "substantial" sales of water from Kern County to the environmental water account, the region's groundwater had not been drawn down much because most of the sales were achieved through trades and other exchanges, "rather than outright sales and extractions," according to minutes from a meeting of the Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District.
Beck, meanwhile, said that in some cases his agency sold Article 21 water directly back to taxpayers. At least 3 percent of the water sold to the environmental water account came directly from Article 21, according to figures provided by the agency. That water would have been eligible for sale to the environmental account so long as it was stored in the late 1990s.
"It's a little bit of a shell game," said Jim White, an environmental specialist at the California Department of Fish and Game.
"It's not as if they (the state Department of Water Resources) were selling Article 21 in 2006 (and buying it back the same year). But you could say, what difference does it make?"
It was "water laundering," said a critic at an environmental group that sued over the agreements that resulted in Kern getting the water bank and the water discount.
"People ask how we could spend billions of dollars and still have the fish crash. This is the type of thing we were setting up," said Mindy McIntyre, a water policy analyst at the Planning and Conservation League.
"In the end, the public ends up paying," she said. "Not just with loss of species, but then bond funding and, of course, a water crisis."
Since 1995, the Kern County Water Agency bought 1.2 million acre-feet of water under Article 21, making it the biggest purchaser of that category of water, according to a tally of annual purchase records compiled by the Times. The next biggest purchaser was the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which bought about 830,000 acre-feet.
Those numbers are higher than environmental regulators expected, and the Department of Water Resources in recent years delivered far more Article 21 water than was approved in the endangered species permit that was meant to protect Delta smelt.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit called for 168,000 acre-feet of Article 21 deliveries in an average year. In 2005, state water managers delivered a record 730,000 acre-feet in a year that was only slightly wetter than average.
An acre-foot is enough water to cover a football field with 1 foot of water, or enough generally for two families of four for a year, meaning Kern's share of discounted water that year was enough for 3.6 million people or enough to irrigate 150,000 acres of farmland with 3 feet of water.
The higher Article 21 deliveries were the result of
"A lot of this was a cost saving mechanism," said Jerry Johns, deputy director of the Department of Water Resources.
"They got smarter about how to request this stuff, rather than us changing the rules. These guys are not stupid."
Normally, when an endangered species permit is violated, the agency holding the permit — in this case the Department of Water Resources — would be expected to ask regulators to reopen the permit for new analysis and modifications.
That did not happen.
Instead, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, a federal water agency that was also a party to the same Delta water permit, asked for a new permit in July 2006.
Its request did not mention the state's Article 21 deliveries.
Rather, the federal agency requested a new permit because Delta smelt numbers were falling drastically.
The overdeliveries, meanwhile, went unnoticed by federal regulators because they never expected the Article 21 program to be a significant source of water.
"There wasn't a great focus on how much it was because it was supposed to be infrequent," said Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Al Donner.
Because the permit is being rewritten to correct other legal and biological deficiencies, nothing is expected to be done about past over-deliveries of Article 21, Donner said.
The environmental toll of what happened is unknown.
But one leading theory about what may have contributed to the Delta fish crash suggests that pumping out of the Delta during the early months of the year could have been particularly damaging to Delta smelt and other fish.
It is during those periods that genetically superior smelt spawn, some researchers now believe. If pumping in those months killed the early-spawning fish and their offspring, it might have removed the fish that had the best chance of survival.
If correct, the theory would place a finger of blame on the State Water Project, and in particular the increased water deliveries that coincide with Article 21 deliveries.
In retrospect, the possibility of a link between increased deliveries of Delta water to places like
In 1991 — two years before Delta smelt were listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act — a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulator warned that if the Kern Water Bank, which at the time was owned by the state, were opened, it would lead to increased pumping out of the Delta and harm to fish, specifically Delta smelt and winter-run chinook salmon.
"The reason for this concern is that water storage capacity within the Kern Water Bank would be filled through additional water exports from the Delta averaging approximately 90,000 acre-feet per year," said the 1991 letter from the agency.
That prediction, which was at least roughly on target, appears to have gone ignored.#
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_10152127?nclick_check=1&forced=true
EDITORIAL:
Approval of desalination was critical, OUR VIEW:
By
We applaud the California Coastal Commission's approval Wednesday of the proposed $300 million desalination plant at the Encina Power Station in
We urge the California State Lands Commission to follow Wednesday's affirmative vote at its Aug. 22 meeting, the last step in a long approval process for Poseidon Resources Corporation's Carlsbad Desalination Project.
If approved, construction could begin in the first half of 2009. Upon completion, this plant would supply 50 million gallons of water a day, representing 9 percent of
As
For them, construction can't begin soon enough. The longer it takes to bring this project online, the more perilous their situation becomes.
It is hoped the price of treated water will be reduced in the years ahead, as it remains significantly more expensive than water delivered from the
Additionally, this plant will generate more than 2,000 temporary construction jobs and 400 permanent slots at the facility.
And Wednesday, as part of this process, the Coastal Commission approved a greenhouse plan and wetlands plan, which includes restoration of 55.4 acres by Poseidon.
This far-reaching decision by the Coastal Commission takes into consideration that Poseidon officials pledged that they are prepared to build "the most technologically advanced and energy-efficient desalination plant in the country."
A plant that will bring needed water to
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/08/08/opinion/editorials/z606e4fc3627ffef78825749e006c26db.txt
Lives affected by eco-imposed water laws
The Gridley Herald- 8/8/08
By Karen Duncan
The Department of Water Resources reports that
Between 1990 and 2000, as the result of new regulations, one million acre feet of water was taken from farms, residential and commercial use and handed over for "environmental" purposes - water that would have served eight million people andworth 250 million dollars annually.
To save the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta from "ecological" collapse, these regulations were increased, preventing even more water from getting to farmers in counties such as
Paul Gosselin, Director of Butte County's Water and Resources, wrote in his monthly newsletter, "The largest court-ordered water transfer restrictions in state history contributed to place most of the state in a drought condition".
This action has not only been devastating to agriculture but to
Matthew Park, Director of Kern County's Farm Bureau, indicated, (by phone), that their small businesses, dependant on farming, are suffering greatly. "Farmer's have had to let people go. Everyone is effected". He mentioned how equipment sales and repairs are down and how some farmers are plowing their fields under.
Two hundred and forty-five million dollars in losses have been tallied to date throughout the
In June, the Governor issued a "State of
Currently, all reservoirs except New Bullards Bar, (
Closer to home, farmers in Glenn and
Gosselin stated that
Dave Kranz, Manager of Media Services for the California Farm Bureau Federation out of
The tragedies go on and on all the way to
http://www.gridleyherald.com/news/x2087535787/Lives-affected-by-eco-imposed-water-laws
South Bay
KGO San Francisco- 8/8/08
Although there is a great push behind the bond measure, it may never get to voters.
The predictions are as dire as water levels in Lexington Reservoir.
The state drought only promises to get worse.
Crop loss in
"You don't have to wait for global warming, you don't need to wait for climate change, we're in a crisis right now. We need the water, we need to plan ahead," said San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District gets half of its water from the delta which is why a news conference was held in
The bond was first proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.
"This water bond that we're trying to put on is a real comprehensive plan. It would solve a lot of problems for a lot of different areas of the state," said Jim Earp of California Alliance for Jobs.
State Senator Don Perata says the timing for the multi-billion dollar bond is not good and argues the state hasn't spent all the money voters approved for other water projects.
State Senator Don Perata stated "You keep faith with the voters of
Supporters of the bond measure say long-term planning is urgently needed.
"We need to do everything we can to guarantee and assure safe clean drinking water for our purposes into the future," said California State Assemblywoman Anna Caballero of
Even if the legislature comes to a quick agreement, Governor Schwarzenegger may have boxed himself into a corner.
"The secretary of state says the drop-dead date for getting a water bond on the November Ballot is August 16th but a spokesperson reiterated today the governor won't be signing any bills until a state budget is passed, including those he supports."#
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6315852
Major water ruling challenged
Associated Press- 8/8/08
By BRENDAN RILEY Associated Press Writer
Representatives of the Great Basin Water Network and other groups and individuals opposed to the Southern Nevada Water Authority pumping plan said in a petition filed in district court in Ely that the pumping from Delamar,
The petition says state Engineer Tracy Taylor overestimated the amount of water that can be drawn from the valleys, didn't evaluate impacts on existing water rights and the environment, and didn't reserve enough groundwater for future economic development in the valleys.
In his July 9 ruling,
The valleys, located between about 75 miles and 125 miles from
In a related case, two
Last month,
In their lawsuit, the
SNWA hopes to begin delivering rural groundwater to
The project is backed by casino executives, developers, union representatives and others who point to water conservation efforts in the Las Vegas area and who warn of a worsening economic downturn affecting the entire state unless the city has enough water to keep growing.#
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10141633?nclick_check=1
Proposal to harness wind power off Mendocino coast worries fishing industry
The
By Maddalena Jackson
Oil companies, some politicians and commuters paying $4 for a gallon of gas might look at
The state's
In less time than it would take to fire up new offshore oil drills, waters off our coast could host floating wind turbines and undulating buoys driven by waves, producing abundant electricity for a power-thirsty state.
The Electric Power Research Institute estimates enough wave power can be extracted from coastal waters to account for about 15 percent of
Wind power off
Offshore wind and wave technologies are promising, but they're untried. They also raise concerns about potential damage to the coast's prized vistas and fish industry.
One proposal to draw electricity from waves off the Mendocino coast already has generated problems for developers, government agencies and coastal residents.
Moreover, the potential for wind and waves depends on someone building transmission lines to connect offshore power to the state's grid.
Power in the waves
Out at sea, the ocean's surface ripples rhythmically, and the up-and-down motion can be harnessed to produce electrical energy, via bobbing buoys, jointed snakes and undulating tubes.
PG&E plans to capture some of that potential. It has preliminary permits for two projects – one off
The
Toman added that wave energy now is "at a state of technological maturity that wind energy was at 20 to 25 years ago when the first wind machines went up in the Altamont hills, between
"They had a lot of problems," he said. "But there were several generations of design evolutions that occurred from that learning experience."
Current wave technology is mature enough for demonstration testing, Toman said.
PG&E would build the expensive transmission lines. The utility would select three or four developers to test their power generators.
Results will lead to "a decision about whether we would build our own wave energy farm," he said.
Mendocino coast residents are examining PG&E's plans with cautious optimism.
"Wave energy sounds like a good idea, as long as it doesn't harm the environment," said Bruce Lewis, a nature photographer and volunteer light-keeper at the Point Cabrillo Light Station. "Using the power of the waves seems like a better way of generating power than building oil platforms off the coast."
Others are wary. "When you first hear about it, you think, 'That's a great idea!' "said Jim Martin, director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance.
He's concerned wave power may interfere with fisheries. He wonders if electrical signatures from the devices also might disturb fish.
His biggest complaint right now, however, is that local fishermen and residents have had no say in the planning.
Martin is also associated with Fishermen Interested in Safe Hydrokinetics, or FISH. With local lawyer Elizabeth Mitchell, FISH is battling for a role in the planning.
A federal deadline has passed for gaining an official voice in the legal planning for the wave projects, alongside PG&E and federal energy regulators.
Mitchell has filed a request for a belated entree with the Federal Electric Regulatory Commission. She argues that an isolated community, with limited high-speed Internet service, and few residents who even know what FERC is, could not have met the deadline.#
http://www.sacbee.com/378/story/1146712.html
No comments:
Post a Comment