Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
April 7, 2009
5. Agencies, Programs, People –
A Big Gulp for water users
Local agencies have the best sharing idea in 40 years.
The
My View: New canal would not help the 'ailing' Delta
The
S.D. area official tapped for EPA water post
The
Study aims to keep residents safe
The
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A Big Gulp for water users
Local agencies have the best sharing idea in 40 years.
The
Water is something people mostly fight about in the West, but a group of water suppliers serving 4 million customers in
That's not likely the term they will be using Friday, when they petition L.A. County Superior Court to create a new framework for making better use of underground storage capacity that is the equivalent to a billion dollars worth of reservoirs. But despite the support of most water suppliers, the plan is not without controversy.
The agreement would affect an area known as the
Politics has a lot to do with reasons this agreement wasn't reached decades ago. Some water agencies still are sitting on the fence and two cities,
But it's time for those ideas to dry up and blow away in the face of a prolonged drought, development that has outstripped water supplies, resultant rate increases and, we've got to say, good judgment. If approved by the court, the Central and West Coast Groundwater Basin Judgment Amendments, as they are known, would expand on existing rules in a change that some say history will judge as second in importance only to the recent compact that assured Southern California continued access to Colorado River water.
The existing local rules cover water rights and recordkeeping, both currently left to the supervision of the state's Department of Water Resources. The amendments would add storage approval, to be overseen by local water suppliers working with the WRD.
The amendments would create a sharing system allowing local water suppliers to make use of underground storage capacities vast enough to hold 450,000 acre feet of water. This means that in wet years, the agencies could load up on water at low rates to help tide the region over dry years.
It also would facilitate the transfer of water and increased storage of reclaimed water. An individual agency, for example the Long Beach Water Department, could put water into storage now, but would have no way to lay claim to it later without the threat of litigation. So the space goes unused.
That made no difference 40 years ago, when the judgments first were adopted and water was more plentiful. But it isn't now.
Would any of the holdouts get hurt by the amendments? There are no harmful effects, and many advantages. Not only would the storage capacity smooth out the uneven supply of water and help reduce rates, it would, according to water economist David Sunding, increase the value of water rights $1,988 to $3,349 an acre foot, or up to $944 million.
It's easy to see why a court could approve the amendments quickly, and hard to see why anyone should would want to delay them. The semi-arid Southland can only benefit from the Big Gulp.#
http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_12086849
My View: New canal would not help the 'ailing' Delta
The
Commentary by Mark Wilson
Mark Wilson co-manages
The recent Viewpoint by Jeffrey Knightlinger of the Metropolitan Water District and the Northern California Water Association's Donn Zea ("Canal would help ailing Delta to recover," March 20), purporting a consensus around a peripheral canal as a means to "help the Delta to recover," and former MWD executive Timothy Quinn's letter ("Delta left out of climate scenario," March 20) present a one-sided view of a multifaceted situation that affects Delta residents and the entire state.
From co-managing a family farming operation in the Delta that dates back to 1922, I am gravely concerned that the plans being made to benefit water exporters would negatively impact the people, economy, natural resources and ecology of the Delta.
George Orwell would grimace at the claim that a canal built through five tributary rivers to the Delta, thousands of acres of prime farmland, a national wildlife refuge, American Indian burial sites, migratory corridors and other sensitive resources, and that significantly reduces freshwater inflow into the Delta somehow helps the Delta. A canal does not create any new water and is first and foremost a new northern diversion point for those with contractual rights to Delta water.
The canal would secure better-quality water for out-of-watershed users and potentially avoid some of the endangered species problems plaguing the pumping of water from the south Delta. Yet this would be accomplished at the expense of the Delta watershed and long-standing beneficial uses.
While new intakes south of
The reference to "isolation of a recovering ecosystem from the movement of the water supply" as some kind of favor to the Delta is self-serving. A canal does nothing to address the underlying problems caused by the vast distance between most of our state's surface water supply and the bulk of water demand to the south.
Some may point to the benefits of the tens of thousands of acres of habitat "restoration" that is another element of the Bay Delta Conservation (peripheral canal) Plan. Creating new marshes on working farms and other landscapes is a disruptive and dangerous experiment, not good science.
Little is known, about the effectiveness of these activities to avoid, minimize or mitigate take of listed species like the coho salmon and Delta smelt, which is what a habitat conservation plan is supposed to do. And what about the destruction of existing habitats when new habitat is constructed? Pointing to restoration projects of little known benefit that will certainly harm existing ecosystems and economies is also a farce.
We need to address a host of problems, including rising sea levels, seismic risks, water pollution and invasive species, while protecting endangered species, improving water quality within the Delta, sustaining agricultural economies within and outside of the Delta, all while providing a sustainable water supply to a growing population. It is no small task, and has been called a "wicked" problem.
To address these challenges, we need an "all hands on deck" approach. We need a process that respects all interests and draws on the entire body of available knowledge.
As a participant in the various processes, I can attest that substantive in-Delta concerns have been treated primarily as an outreach issue. Surprisingly, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is not a collaborative process built on consensus as one might expect, given the massive support for watershed-based planning that emerged from the CalFED process.
Despite the well-known fact that the best way to protect endangered species would be to reduce water exports, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan's only real core component is, and always has been, the canal. Serious consideration of water use efficiency and conservation, alternative supplies such as desalination, wastewater re-use, rainwater collection, groundwater banking, conjunctive use and additional storage south of the Delta are all apparently being relegated to the EIR alternative analysis, where there is little chance they will become project elements.
Calling a canal a help to the Delta is illogical doublespeak and should be rejected, as it was in 1982. The Delta is more than the state's plumbing system. Though not in a purely natural state, it hosts an incredible variety of ecosystems as well as vibrant human communities. We all need to be part of the conversation about conservation of this unique place on earth while continuing to supply at least some of the water needed by our agricultural and urban neighbors to the south. We all must do more to conserve water, protect water quality and respect the myriad species that depend on the Delta for survival.
It is obvious that the biggest loser in the current plan will be the Delta itself. In the short term, this may meet the needs of the water exporters, but in the long term we will all lose because the so-called solutions are neither comprehensive nor sustainable. We can and should do better. #
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1760242.html
S.D. area official tapped for EPA water post
The
By Michael Gardner
For the state, it means having someone up high with first-hand experience.
Locally, Silva worked on water issues for the city of
Contacted at his home in Jamul, Silva declined to discuss the appointment, saying he has been asked to with-hold comments until after confirmation hearings.
He is a senior policy adviser for the Metropolitan Water District with a deep understanding of the Colorado River, Sacramento Bay-Delta and
His official title, if confirmed, would be Assistant Administrator for Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency #
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/ut_polblog/index.html
Study aims to keep residents safe
The
By Michael Moore
It will be another year and a half or so before water district officials know if Anderson Dam in
Contractors and engineers for the Santa Clara Valley Water District began collecting samples from within the dam's downstream shelf last week, beginning a comprehensive "seismic analysis" to determine the earthen structure's ability to withstand about a 6.6-plus magnitude quake.
Friday, about halfway up Anderson Dam, which is east of Morgan Hill on Cochrane Road, a rig and a crew from AMEC Geomatrix were drilling a six-inch diameter hole about 70 feet deep. The contractor hired by the SCVWD will drill at least 20 such holes throughout the dam in the coming months, preserving the dirt and rock collected in a cylindrical tube from each boring for further lab studies, according to SCVWD engineer Dave Hook. The depth of the borings will range from 50 to 200 feet.
While drilling, instruments also measure the pressure applied on the machine until it reaches the bottom of its sample. The engineers will analyze those measurements and the samples to see how much "alluvial material," or soft dirt that could liquefy in the event of an earthquake, is inside the dam, which was built in the 1950s.
Hook said after the first six borings, staff noticed at least one that contained about seven feet of the potentially movable material. Hook explained that if that soft material were suddenly lost or liquefied, the dam's clay core would have no support, essentially turning the dam into a landslide.
"We'll continue to look and find out if it's spread up and down the dam, and if it's widespread (throughout the dam), we'll look at a seismic retrofit," Hook said. "If it's isolated, the dam may be just fine."
A seismic retrofit of Anderson Dam could become a major project, potentially requiring additional structural support in the form of more earthen buttresses and berms on the dam's downstream side. Hook said the East Bay Municipal Utility District is in the process of seismically retrofitting one of its dams at a total cost of about $60 million.
The studies currently underway at Anderson Dam will cost about $3.5 million. A preliminary study conducted in January noted that a 6.6-magnitude temblor centered directly underneath Anderson Dam could cause the structure to slump, causing an "uncontrolled release" of up to 90,000 acre-feet of water.
In response to that study, undertaken as part of the water district's ongoing seismic evaluation program for the eight dams it owns, the SCVWD board of directors ordered the more thorough analysis that began a couple of weeks ago. The analysis is expected to be complete within 18 months, Hook said.
Also in response to the January study, the California Division of Safety of Dams ordered the district to keep the water level in
It is not anticipated that any water will have to be released from the dam, Hook said.
SCVWD Director Rosemary Kamei, who visited the dam with district staff Friday, said the study is worth the cost.
"The board's number one priority is public safety," Kamei said. "The board felt strongly that even though it's an expenditure of several million dollars we needed more information in order to ensure public safety."
Hook said the study will be funded out of the district's water utility fund, which is financed by water rates. He said water rates "could go a little higher" after the study is finished.
Water districts in
Hook said Friday that the inundation map is the result of a "very conservative" study that shows an unlikely scenario, but the district takes the possibility "very seriously."
He noted that last Monday's minor 4.3 earthquake in
Similar seismic analyses are also underway at the dams at Almaden, Calero, and Guadalupe reservoirs, which are also owned by the SCVWD.#
http://www.morganhilltimes.com/news/255094-study-aims-to-keep-residents-safe
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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