[Water_news] 2. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: SUPPLY - 3/19/09

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment 

 

March 19, 2009

 

2. Supply –

 

Rains allow state to raise water deliveries

The San Francisco Chronicle

 

Canal wins few converts in Delta

The Stockton Record

 

California water supply nightmare crisis in search of bold leadership

The Western Farm Press

 

Yuba joins wastewater study

The Appeal Democrat

 

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

 

Rains allow state to raise water deliveries

The San Francisco Chronicle – 3/19/09

By Kelly Zito

 

SACRAMENTO -- A spate of late winter storms prompted California officials Wednesday to raise by 5 percent their estimate of how much water will be available this year for cities, farms and businesses.

 

But state water managers warned that supplies remain low enough - and precipitation increasingly unpredictable - to warrant further conservation, water swaps between agencies and long-term investments in storage and recycling.

 

"With reservoirs below normal and runoff below normal and a dry watershed, we still consider we're in a drought," said Lester Snow, director of the California Department of Water Resources.

 

Snow's department announced Wednesday that it would deliver about 20 percent of the water requested by the agencies that serve 25 million Californians and 750,000 acres of farmland. Earlier this year, the department said it would deliver 15 percent.

 

Snow and others said a series of storms between February 12 and March 5 helped boost snow depth and reservoir levels. Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, the main source of the state's water supply, is about 90 percent of normal; water levels in the state's main reservoirs are about 55 percent of capacity.

 

But the recent precipitation was not enough to offset an extremely dry start to the winter or the two parched years before that. The forecast for runoff, the melt waters that flow into municipal water systems, is 64 percent of normal - the third below-normal year in a row.

 

"It's not just an issue of measuring snowpack or measuring runoff," Snow told reporters in a conference call Wednesday. "It's multiple dry years in a row."

 

The Santa Clara Valley Water District, which serves 1.8 million residents in Santa Clara County, receives about half of its water from the state and federal water systems.

 

With reduced deliveries this year, the district will rely more on water "banked" with a Kern County water agency as well as its 10 local reservoirs, spokeswoman Susan Siravo said.

 

"Any additional water we can get is good, but it's not significant enough to make a huge impact," she said.

 

Statewide, 18 agencies have instituted mandatory water rationing and about 57 agencies have asked for voluntary cutbacks.#

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/18/BACD16IRN1.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

 

Canal wins few converts in Delta

The Stockton Record – 3/19/09

By Alex Breitler

 

Peripheral waterway plan gets harsh reception in S.J.

 

STOCKTON - Where's the water?

 

County water leaders peppered peripheral canal proponents with questions and a few pointed comments Wednesday, saying there's not enough water to maintain high exports to two-thirds of California while also saving the Delta.

That's precisely what the roughly $10 billion Bay-Delta Conservation Plan proposes to do: find a balance between water supply and ecosystem, in part by building a canal, plan spokeswoman Karla Nemeth told a feisty group of water commissioners.

 

Coming up

 

Public comments on the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, including a peripheral canal, will be accepted at a meeting from

6 to 10 p.m. Tuesday at the Stockton Memorial Civic Auditorium. To learn more, visit www.resources.ca.gov/bdcp.

 

"This is tough," Nemeth said.

 

"It's not tough, it's impossible," responded Commissioner John Herrick, an attorney who represents south Delta farmers.

 

The peripheral canal would be big enough to match the current capacity of the state and federal export pumps near Tracy; opponents fear it will siphon so much water around the Delta that farms will wither and the estuary will degrade into an inland sea.

 

Wednesday's meeting, while lively, was informational only; on Tuesday, the public will have a chance to make formal comments and suggest alternatives to the plan, which would give water users authority to continue taking Delta water.

 

"I understand there's a lot of questions and concerns, and that's probably putting it mildly," Nemeth told water commissioners.

 

Few new facts about the plan were revealed Wednesday. Nemeth estimated the cost at $10 billion to $11 billion; those who benefit from exported water would pay for the canal and some habitat restoration in the Delta, she said, although the government is paying a share of the current planning process.

The canal would be built within 15 years, she said. While the exact route is undetermined, it would skirt the east side of the Delta.

 

The heart of opponents' argument is that the State Water Project, which delivers Delta water to cities from the Bay Area to San Diego, was supposed to be supplemented with 5 million acre-feet of water diverted from North Coast rivers.

 

Those streams were later designated wild and scenic, and the water never came.

Nevertheless, pumping from the Delta increased over the past decade, peaking at more than 6 million acre-feet.

 

"The reality is likely to be that there is very little water available for exports" while also protecting the Delta, said Dante Nomellini, representing central Delta farmers.

 

Commissioner John Holbrook of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District asked Nemeth if the plan included returning Southern California to a desert landscape.

 

"Since we're restoring (the Delta), are we going to restore everything?" he asked.

 

No, Nemeth said, though she noted that the conservation plan does fit into a larger strategy that includes, for example, per capita water conservation of 20 percent.

 

The exact amount of water that can be sent south while protecting fish is yet to be determined, Nemeth said. But cutting exports to zero, she said, "would not be in keeping with the goals of the plan."#

 

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090319/A_NEWS/903190320

 

California water supply nightmare crisis in search of bold leadership

The Western Farm Press – 3/18/09

By Harry Cline

Sacramento Valley rice farmer J. T. Thompson said in an interview that he could farm rice without burning straw and even without chemicals.

 

“But I do not even get out of the blocks without water,” he says.

 

The obvious is more insightful than ever before.

 

Put aside water for agriculture and farmers like J. T. and his father John. Without water, the entire state of California will not get out of the blocks.

This year alone, 95,000 people will be out of work in agriculture due to a lack of water. The price tag for the third year of drought will be $3 billion in the midst of an economic crisis that is already shuttering businesses and foreclosing homes by the thousands.

 

California’s water crisis is not new. It has been debated, dissected and deliberated upon for decades without definitive actions toward a solution.

 

The latest drought emergency declaration and water bond proposals are more of the same things heard in the past, resulting in nothing so far.

 

The politics of water have become so absurd that Abel Maldonado, Santa Maria, Calif., state senator and farmer, says he will vote no on the next water bond issue he sees, unless it contains definitive funds for additional storage.

 

Heresy from a farmer? It’s reality. He is as weary as are most other Californians of watching bureaucrats and head-in-the-sand environmentalists think they can extract massive amounts of water via conservation measures.

 

Thirty-seven million people relying on a water system designed for 20 million says we have gone far past solutions by putting bricks in toilet bowls.

 

It is disheartening to realize that I or anyone else reading this likely will not see new, significant water storage in California in our lifetime and maybe in the lifetime of our children. I hope I am wrong. However, every time I look toward Sacramento for leadership on any issue, all I see is pathetic political partisanship. Term limits we approved and the resulting gerrymandering are literally bringing the once great state of California to its knees on many more issues than just water.

 

If this water crisis is not aggressively addressed now with strong leadership from somewhere, we can all enjoy ketchup and lasagna made with tomato products from China, the same place that has given us lead-laden toys for our children and grandchildren. We can enjoy fresh vegetables from Mexico, a country better known for drug smuggling and civil upheaval than safe food production.

 

It is a senseless crisis that has grown far beyond water for farmers. Truth is, there are solutions to the problem. Significantly more storage is the first step, but it is almost too late for that to get California out of what is almost certain to be at least a decade-long drought. The peripheral canal or other flow improvement work in the Delta should begin immediately. Urban water users must be made economically accountable for the water they use — and waste. It is insane to talk about a water crisis when a city the size of Fresno and countless other metropolitan areas have no water meters. The solution list goes on and on.

 

California has long been a world and national leader. No longer. It is a state in chaos searching for unwavering, bold leadership.#

 

http://westernfarmpress.com/environment/cline-column-0318/

 

 

Yuba joins wastewater study

The Appeal Democrat – 3/18/09

 

$110,250 report could determine feasibility of regional plant

 

Just by the name alone, wastewater doesn't sound like much fun to deal with.

And several government agencies in the Yuba-Sutter region are finding the topic messier than ever, with more user demand, more regulations, and aging treatment sites to handle it all.

 

On Tuesday, the Yuba County Board of Supervisors became the latest local government to join a contract for a consultant to study whether the county and other local governments should cooperate on a future wastewater facility, or examine other options.

 

Ultimately, experts said, the result could be lower sewer and/or water rates for county residents, and increased use of such approaches as recycled water for landscaping and irrigation.

 

Doug McCoy, Yuba County's director of Administrative Services, said county officials have recognized there are regulatory issues with wastewater and several small government entities trying to solve them independently.

 

"The county wants to look at this more holistically," he said. "It's a matter of looking at what's most cost effective. Let's see what the actions are, how it's situated, what the options are."

The consultant, Kennedy-Jenks Consultants, received a contract for a similar study from the Linda County Water District earlier this month. Along with the county, Marysville, Wheatland, Beale Air Force Base and the Olivehurst Public Utility District are involved in the study.

 

The study cost is $110,250, split among the governments and agencies, with some additional money from the Yuba County Water Agency.

 

Brian Davis, a Kennedy-Jenks project manager, said several factors compel the different agencies to approach wastewater from a regional perspective.

"The rule of thumb is that there's a real economy of scale and savings of dollars with a regionalized approach," Davis said.

 

Yuba County has a number of options for dealing with wastewater, but it's not easy for all government agencies involved to use all those options, he said.

 

For example, one agency might have discharge rights into the Feather River or a recycled water program, Davis said, and a regional approach gives more agencies those options.

 

The need for a study began years ago, Davis added, but reached critical mass as governments faced aging infrastructure and regulatory concerns.

 

McCoy noted that supervisors asked for some findings in 90 days, a timeframe he said reflects some regulatory questions that need resolution.

 

"There's a sensitivity to keep the ball moving on this," he said.

 

Davis said he expected the study to take three to six months, and was more likely to end with a suggestion for a strategy rather than construction of a new regional plant.

 

There might also be a need for more studies of approaches that seem promising, Davis said.#

 

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/county_75461___article.html/study_davis.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 California.