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 - 12/1/2008

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

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

 

December 1, 2008

 

2.   Supply -

 

 

 

Opinion:

Californians need to worry about food security

San Francisco Chronicle

 

Drought deepens strain on a dwindling Colorado

Flows falling » California first in line as Utah, other states fight for water.

Salt Lake Tribune

 

State water supplies increasingly cloudy

Agencies hoping seeding process can help bolster key watersheds

Stockton Record

 

Officials hope for snow to fill up Lake Tahoe

Nevada Appeal

 

Normal rainfall predicted for north state this winter

Sacramento Bee

 

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

 

Opinion:

Californians need to worry about food security

San Francisco Chronicle – 11/30/08

A.G. Kawamura

A.G. Kawamura is the secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Kawamura and his family have been growing and shipping produce in Southern California for three generations

 

 

At a time when people are deeply concerned about our dependence on imported oil, we should also be concerned about increasing our state's dependence on imported food. In fact, our ability to feed our state could be seriously threatened by problems such as a long-term drought, the state's aging water delivery and supply system, and court-ordered water supply cuts.

 

When people talk about food security, it's normally a social justice topic at international conferences on hunger and famine. But it's a term that we're hearing more in California as population growth, along with land use and water policies, puts more pressure on this state's agricultural industry. Rather than referencing worries about global food shortages, food security for Californians is about whether our state can continue to be the nation's top food producer.

 

One of the major threats to the state's farming industry is our lack of water. California's drought, combined with court-ordered cuts in water deliveries, is threatening our food production.

 

Because of the water shortage, growers are cutting back on production, fallowing land and stumping trees. The drought has cost the state more than $250 million in lost plantings and 80,000 acres of crops this year alone. And that doesn't include the huge amount of idle farmland that hasn't been planted in the past few years because of an unpredictable water supply.

 

While the drought seriously complicates matters, our problems will not be solved with just one wet winter. The comprehensive, bipartisan plan proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sen. Dianne Feinstein will provide the water necessary to meet California's needs during wet and dry years alike.

 

Critics like to say that California farmers are wasting water and that if farmers would just conserve water, we wouldn't need to build more delivery systems. That is far from the truth.

 

California farmers have always practiced innovative water resource management, while producing food that feeds the state and the world. Over the past four decades, the amount of water used on California farms is relatively consistent, while crop production has increased more than 85 percent. Water conservation is not inexpensive, often requiring investment in new equipment or technology. In fact, farmers in the San Joaquin Valley invested more than $500 million in high-efficiency irrigation systems from 2004 to 2006.

 

Furthermore, water use on California's farms is enormously efficient. It's not used just once, but as many as eight times.

 

It's fashionable today to talk about eating locally. In fact, with the amount of food grown near the Bay Area - a recent study reported that 20 billion pounds of food, valued at $10 billion, is produced within a 100-mile radius of San Francisco - it's not hard to buy locally grown food.

 

Feeding our families locally grown food makes sense in many ways. First, we know that farmers in California adhere to the strictest environmental and food safety standards in the world. Second, for people who worry about the effect that industrial shipping and transportation have on the climate, purchasing California's produce, dairy, meat and wine means reducing your family's carbon footprint.

 

We Californians have good reason to be proud of our state's agricultural bounty. Anyone who has lived in the Midwest or Eastern parts of the nation knows just how blessed California is to have fresh fruit and vegetables year around. But as our farmers are squeezed by issues such as a declining water supply, rising energy prices and demands for residential development, it becomes harder and harder for California farmers to stay in business. And that means that residents may see their choices narrow as the variety of crops decreases.

 

Will farmers be forced to change their crops because of a lack of water? Will there be sufficient water so we can choose what to grow?

 

California's historically strong agricultural industry is facing a tough future. Water is one of the biggest problems confronting our farmers today. In the end, California's water problems can only be solved through a comprehensive program that balances conservation with an improvement in the state's water delivery and supply system.

.#

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/29/INPD149ND9.DTL

 

Drought deepens strain on a dwindling Colorado

Flows falling » California first in line as Utah, other states fight for water.

Salt Lake Tribune – 11/29/08

By Patty Henetz

 

The drought gripping Utah, Southern California and the rest of the Southwest this century shows no sign of ending. Scientists see it as a permanent condition that, despite year-to-year weather variations, will deepen as temperatures rise, snows dwindle, soils bake and fires burn.

 

That's grim news for all of us in the West, perhaps most especially for the 10 million residents along the northern stretch of the Colorado River -- Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming and Colorado -- whose water rights are newer, and therefore junior, to those in Southern California, Nevada and Arizona.

 

Making matters worse, the Colorado -- the 1,450-mile-long lifeline that sustains more than 30 million souls and 3.5 million acres of farmland in seven states, 34 tribal nations and Mexico -- is in decline, scientists warn.

 

Even so, demand for the Colorado's water echoes from city leaders, industry giants, oil drillers, farmers, fishers, ranchers, boaters, bikers and hikers -- along with silent pleas from wildlife and the ecosystem. Trend analyses by federal scientists, probably conservative, predict the population dependent on the river will reach at least 38 million during the coming decade.

 

Right now, California, with the most senior rights and the largest share of the Colorado under a 1922 law, is struggling with a statewide water shortage. Not enough rain has fallen in the southland, as weathercasters like to call it, home to 18 million people, roughly half the state's population.

 

California already uses all of its Colorado River allocation. As the drought has worsened, Southern California water bosses have labored to keep the taps running through a host of conservation schemes. Meanwhile, water managers in Utah and the Upper Basin are working to get all of their water rights in use, even as their cities and counties register some of the highest per-capita consumption in the nation.

 

Demand is up. Flows are down. Something has to give. And when it does, Utah could be in trouble if it doesn't change its wasteful ways -- just as 19th-century explorer Maj. John Wesley Powell predicted.

 

The West lacks water, he wrote in his 1879 Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States, With a More Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah. "Disastrous droughts will be frequent."

 

Law of the River

The 1922 Colorado River Compact may have given California water rights senior to the other six states, but the Metropolitan Water District (Met), which supplies up to 60 percent of the water for 19 million people spread across six Los Angeles-area counties, made its claims after the state's allocation already had been divvied up. That means the most populous part of California is last in line among its peers when water runs low.

 

"If California ever did take a shortage," said Assistant General Manager Roger Patterson, "Met would take the hit."

That's already happened.

 

In 2003, California had to curtail its Colorado River use to its 1922 allocation of 4.4 million acre-feet per year, enough water for about 8 million households. Previously, under water-sharing deals with Arizona, the Golden State had been funneling about 5.2 million acre-feet.

 

Because of its junior standing, Met had to eat about half the total shortage. No one else in the state had to cut supplies, Patterson said.

 

In February, Met agreed to a rationing plan for most of Southern California, including Los Angeles and San Diego. It expects to add 5 million residents during the next five years. Since the Pacific Ocean blocks growth to the west, the district is pushing eastward, where it's hotter.

 

A federal judge has ordered California water managers to leave 30 percent more water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in Northern California to stave off fish kills and keep the massive estuary healthy. More for the environment means less for Los Angeles.

 

Other populous regions of California also have taken steps to ensure a good water supply.

-- Developers in Riverside, Kern, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties must guarantee a 20-year water supply before they build.

-- The state has brought back a water bank, last used 17 years ago, in which Southern California cities can buy water from willing Sacramento Valley farmers. However, given the high prices farmers can get for their crops, especially rice, willing sellers might be hard to find.

-- Orange County residents are drinking recycled sewer water.

-- In San Diego County, the Coastal Commission greenlighted a $300 million desalination plant adjacent to a state beach. The operation still has to meet lots of conditions -- which probably will make the plant more costly to build and run -- but even if completed would supply no more than 9 percent of San Diego's current needs.

-- Met residents have cut back to about 185 gallons of water per person per day. Residents of Long Beach are down to 115 gallons.

 

"If Long Beach can do this," said Kevin Wattier, the city water department's general manager, "so can every other city in Southern California."

 

Splish, splash

Upstream, Utahns on average use 291 gallons of water per person per day, a rate second only to Nevada. In Salt Lake County, it's 255 gallons; Washington County, 350 gallons; Kane County, a bloated 430 gallons.

 

Sixty percent of Utah's water goes for outdoor use, including landscaping and agriculture. In California, agriculture consumers about 85 percent. California, however, is the fifth-largest farm economy in the world. By comparison, Utah's agriculture profile is nearly nonexistent, contributing less than 1 percent to the state's economy.

The system might seem out of balance. Yet no state, not even Nevada, which has the measliest Colorado allocation, wants to reopen the 1922 Colorado River Compact that divided the water. Each fears getting an even worse deal. Nor does anyone know what soon-to-be-settled Navajo claims on the river will mean to both basins.

 

There is, however, a growing sense that the Colorado Basin states are all in this together.

 

"Everybody ought to share in the reality of the river," said former Utah Attorney General Paul Van Dam, now director of Washington County-based Citizens for Dixie's Future. "And there ought to be great flexibility in how we use it without losing it."

 

Dozens of scientific studies issued since 2004 have documented the Colorado's decline.

 

The river's annual flow has averaged 11.7 million acre-feet this decade, according to federal records. In 2002, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation measured only 6.2 million acre-feet passing Lee's Ferry below Glen Canyon Dam, the lowest flow of the decade. Even after this year's above-average precipitation, Lake Powell and Lake Mead combined are at 57 percent capacity.

 

A 2007 U.S. Geological Survey report found that, by 2050, rising temperatures in the Southwest could rival those of the nation's fabled droughts, including the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Hotter weather is expected to reduce Colorado River runoff by at least 30 percent during the 21st century.

 

If the USGS is correct, and if this century's trend persists, average annual flow in the Colorado could fall to 8.2 million acre-feet per year.

 

Imagine that. The Law of the River requires 9 million acre-feet to pass Lee's Ferry on the way to the Lower Basin and Mexico. Under a strict interpretation of the law, the Upper Basin could be left with nothing.

 

A far more likely scenario would have the states banding together to rework the river allocations. But when Arizona Sen. John McCain suggested just that during his failed presidential campaign, the shrieks emanating from Colorado's halls of power were enough to prompt the Republican nominee to back down.

 

Pipeline dream

Dennis Strong, director of the Utah Division of Water Resources, in October told the state Water Development Commission that the state is using about 1 million acre-feet of its yearly 1.4 million acre-foot allotment from the Colorado.

 

Tribal water settlements yet to be signed would take up about 186,000 acre-feet, he said. New agricultural uses, mostly dedicated to controlling the salinity of the water that flows back to the Colorado, would take 35,000 acre-feet. Municipal and industrial uses along the river corridor would account for 5,000 acre-feet, and the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline would need 100,000 acre-feet, leaving about 74,000 acre-feet unused, theoretically.

 

Utah water managers are pushing the $1 billion-plus pipeline, which would lavish more water on a Dixie desert region likely to feel the full brunt of global climate disruption and permanent drought within the next 40 years.

 

The state hasn't actually secured rights to the 100,000 acre-feet for the pipeline. Strong said that would have to be nailed down by 2010, when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is expected to issue the license necessary to start building it. He's confident the water will come.

 

By 2040, the pipeline's water would be entirely committed to a regional population of about 400,000, Strong said.

 

Given current scientific warnings about the shrinking Colorado, that prospect looks shaky.

 

But Strong isn't worried. He's skeptical about global warming, though he "sees evidence" of it.

"Water managers," he said, "have been dealing with drought forever."#

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11096669

 

State water supplies increasingly cloudy

Agencies hoping seeding process can help bolster key watersheds

Stockton Record – 11/29/08

By

 

SAN ANDREAS - Keep your eyes on the clouds rolling east this week. If they're fat enough, they'll get squeezed.

Thirsty California water and power agencies - including those serving San Joaquin County - this winter are again sending pilots out to seed the clouds over key watersheds.

 

In fact, the cloud-seeding programs are growing and could potentially double in coming years, according to the California Department of Water Resources.

The year's first seeding in the central Sierra could happen this week if conditions are right.

 

The seeding involves the use of chemicals such as silver iodide that cause more water droplets or snowflakes to condense and fall to the ground. Various agencies spend more than $3 million a year statewide on the seeding, which typically generates rain and snow fall that yields an extra 300,000 to 400,000 acre-feet a year of water, according to the California Department of Water Resources.

 

An acre-foot is enough water to cover an acre 1 foot deep. Water managers say an acre-foot is about enough water to serve two typical family homes for a year.

"It definitely is worth it," said Kevin Cunningham, hydro facilities manager for the Northern California Power Agency, which this year for the second time is seeding clouds over watersheds in Calaveras and Tuolumne counties that feed the North Fork Stanislaus River.

 

The Northern California Power Agency, whose local members include the Lodi Electric Utility and Turlock Irrigation District, wants the extra water to spin the turbines at its power generation plant at Collierville Powerhouse on the Stanislaus River south of Murphys.

 

Cunningham said that he estimates the seeding will squeeze an extra 7 percent of water out of a winter's storms. That adds up to about 28,000 acre-feet during a typical year on the North Fork Stanislaus. And the power agency isn't the only beneficiary. The extra water also means better conditions for boaters at Spicer Meadow, and Union and Utica reservoirs, and a better chance that Valley cities like Stockton might get water that ends up stored downstream at New Melones Lake.

The Northern California Power Agency program is only in its second year. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., however, has been seeding clouds over the Sierra for five decades, including portions of the Upper Mokelumne River watershed above Salt Spring Reservoir.

 

PG&E also has a new cloud-seeding effort this year in the watersheds of the Pit and McCloud rivers in the far north end of the state. The announcement of cloud seeding there stirred consternation among community residents concerned about the effects of the chemicals used.

 

Independent experts, however, say the concentration of silver in the resulting water and snow, although measurable, is so low that it is below typical background concentrations, or the concentrations humans already encounter from dental fillings or silverware.

 

"We really haven't seen negative effects associated with it," said Jeffrey Mount, a geography professor and expert on state rivers at the University of California, Davis.

Cloud seeding got a brief spurt of fame this summer when word got out that Chinese officials used the technique to squeeze rain out of clouds before athletes and fans got to Beijing, thus clearing the skies over that city during the Olympics.

 

In California, all cloud seeding is done to yield precipitation where it is wanted. But there are many unanswered questions about cloud seeding - including whether it can make up for rain shortages caused by pollution and climate change.

 

A draft of the California State Water Plan update for 2009 calls for more research on cloud seeding, including how the process interacts with the effects of air pollution. According to the plan draft, recent research suggests that clouds here are yielding less rain and snow because of the effects of dust and other air pollution.

Still, the state Department of Water Resources estimates that California might be able to get another 300,000 to 400,000 acre-feet of water each winter if cloud seeding was expanded as far as possible, and that it would only cost around $7 million, or roughly $20 per acre-foot.

In a state where water sometimes sells for $200 or $300 an acre-foot, that's a bargain.#

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081129/A_NEWS/811290323/-1/A_NEWS

 

Officials hope for snow to fill up Lake Tahoe

Nevada Appeal - 11/30/08

By Annie Flanzraich

 

With Lake Tahoe’s water level nearing the natural rim, water authorities are hoping for record-breaking precipitation to bring the level up.

“We desperately need a big winter and a big snowpack to bring Lake Tahoe back up again,” said Federal Water Master Garry Stone.

When the water in Lake Tahoe nears the natural rim, at 6,223 feet, water flows more slowly into the Truckee River.

At midweek the lake measured 6,223.25. Under normal conditions, the flow into the Truckee is about 250 cubic feet per second. The current rate is about 12 cubic feet per second, Stone said. If the lake level drops below the natural rim no more water will flow into the Truckee.

“We can’t get any more water out of it,” Stone said. “It’s like a bathtub, we do not have the ability to release water through the natural rim.”

Water from Boca Reservoir and smaller natural streams will continue to flow through the Truckee.

Stone said there is enough water in Boca to supply the river until sometime in December.

Stone said the region needs a winter with three or four times the average snowpack to bring the river above the natural rim and to an adequate level.

“It’s a very tenuous situation,” he said.

The average winter precipitation for the Tahoe area is 31.77 inches, said Jim Ashby, climatologist with the Western Regional Climate center. In the past 100 years, only two winters have topped 60 inches of precipitation, in 1981-1982 with 64.25 inches and 1994-1995 with 61.21 inches.

“Those winters are pretty unusual,” he said.

A snowpack large enough to keep the lake safely above the rim would be unusual and unprecedented, said Dan Greenlee, a Water Supply Specialist with the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

“We’d be buried from here until next July Fourth,” he said.

Although this fall has been mild, anything could happen this winter, Greenlee said.

“It’s not untypical to have no snow at these sites,” he said. “You can’t tell what’s going to happen at this point in the year.”#

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20081130/NEWS/811299970/1001/NONE&parentprofile=1058&title=Officials%20hope%20for%20snow%20to%20fill%20up%20Lake%20Tahoe

 

Normal rainfall predicted for north state this winter

Sacramento Bee – 12/1/08

By Philip Reese

 

Weather experts believe Northern California will see normal precipitation this winter – a welcome tonic after two years of drought.

It'll be just average, though. And these days, just average may not be enough.

 

There's disagreement about whether a normal year will be sufficient to completely erase a water-level deficit left by drought.

 

"Even if we get a nice, wet winter, there's still going to be difficulties," said Dave Kranz, a spokesman for the California Farm Bureau. It would take at least a couple years of good rain to replenish resources, he said.

 

Paltry rainfall during 2006 and 2007 marked the first time since the early 1990s that most of California saw two consecutive dry years. The state has so far shouldered the burden well, drawing on reserves and groundwater.

 

But the water supply can only stretch so far. Another dry season would likely mean mandatory restrictions on water use in many cities across the state – and would have a steep economic impact on everything from ski resorts to Central Valley farms.

 

Against that backdrop, several experts met recently to compare weather models at a San Diego conference sponsored by the California Department of Water Resources. One theme was that meteorological patterns in the Pacific Ocean would mean Northern California should have a typical winter, but Los Angeles and San Diego probably would see drought conditions persist.

 

"Just be glad you don't live in Southern California," Klaus Wolter, a University of Colorado climatologist who spoke at the conference, told The Bee. "It has a much higher likelihood of being dry."

 

So what does a normal rainfall year mean for the Sacramento region?

 

Most local cities should continue to do fine, though a crisis might only be forestalled, not avoided, said John Woodling, executive director of the Regional Water Authority in Sacramento.

 

"We are in pretty good shape," Woodling said. "If we get a normal water year, it probably keeps us where we were during this last year."

City leaders in Folsom, the local community most affected by drought, agree and are planning accordingly.

 

Folsom, which has little groundwater and draws from an oft-siphoned reservoir, recently declared a water alert, telling residents to limit watering lawns, and ordering restaurants to serve water only when it's requested.

 

A dry winter would likely mean stricter measures in Folsom. A normal year probably would mean existing restrictions stay in place, said Ken Payne, Folsom's utilities director.

 

Farmers and ranchers also are worried. During this drought, good rangeland has disappeared. Crops have withered sooner. And it could get worse.

"It'll take more than one year in the sense that you are already behind," said Jerry Maltby, owner of Broken Box Ranch in Williams. "(The drought) puts everyone in a real bind."

 

Maltby usually keeps his cattle out grazing until late May or early June. This year, he pulled them back in mid-April; there was no good rangeland. Maltby had to buy expensive feed for his cattle.

 

This year is even more precarious, Maltby and others said, because high cattle and crop prices seen during much of the drought have recently fallen, leaving little extra money for feed.

 

Just as worrisome is the state of Maltby's local reservoir, which is way below normal levels.

 

It's a justified concern, water experts say, because ranchers often find themselves at the bottom of the water-rights pecking order.

"The big cuts will be in the agricultural supply," said Maury Roos, chief hydrologist of the California Department of Water Resources, describing what will happen if there is another dry year. "The cities can buy their way out."

 

Roos, however, is more optimistic than most experts. He thinks a normal rainy season in Northern California would replenish reserves to pre-drought levels.

Tahoe ski resorts are also anxious about the upcoming season, though they have a more mixed recent history with the drought. Two years ago, the state's snowpack was far below average for much of the year. But during the most recent winter, things didn't get dry until late in the season – after snowfall had given ski resorts a solid base.

 

"We did receive quite a bit of snow," said Rachael Woods, spokeswoman for Alpine Meadows Ski Resort, referring to some large early and mid-winter storms last season. "So we had this wonderful spring ski season."

 

So far, signs are promising. Thanks to a large storm system around Halloween, Northern California rainfall levels are typical for this time of year. Most ski resorts will likely be opening in a couple of weeks.

 

Ultimately, though, everyone is making an educated guess: It could be months before the water situation becomes clear. Few would be happy, for instance, if the region enjoyed solid precipitation at the start of winter but the spigot turned off again around February.

 

This year, given the recent depletion of water reserves, the stakes are higher.

 

"It's a make-or-break winter," said Kelly Redmond, deputy director and climatologist at the Western Regional Climate Center. "We've been able to live off the buffer provided by the reservoir system. But some of the reservoirs are getting pretty low." #

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1438420.html

 

 

 

 

No comments: