Department of Water Resources
California Water News
A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment
August 24, 2009
1. Top Items–
Governor's Delta plan hits bumpy patch
Contra Costa Times
Consensus is possible on saving Delta
Sacramento Bee
The Conversation: Saving the Delta
Sacramento Bee
A peripheral canal won't make any more water; it will just send more of it from north to south
Sacramento Bee
State's water talks near stalemate
Democrats are delaying action toward substantive change; we may need special session.
Merced Sun-Star
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Governor's Delta plan hits bumpy patch
Contra Costa Times-8/23/09
By Mike Taugher
August started out with a big step forward for the governor's plan to address twin crises in water supply and the environment when water officials, regulators and environmentalists belatedly published a 200-page outline of a key part of the plan.
Then things got complicated.
First, after eight years of pronounced disinterest from Washington, the Obama administration signaled it would be much more active in California and committed to fixing the Delta, an estuary whose importance it compared to that of the Florida Everglades. But the administration's point man, Deputy Secretary David Hayes of the Department of the Interior, did not appear anxious to follow the state government's lead when he appeared with state water officials recently.
Then state lawmakers weighed in with their own fix — which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed to veto if it does not change — that among other things would firm up the plan's environmental protection. Key parts of the bills would, for example, require the plan's authors to figure out how much water must flow through the Delta to ensure its health and that the plan make a firmer commitment to recovering species in the Delta.
Add to that the inflamed opposition of anglers and residents around the Delta and the observation last week by a Contra Costa Water District engineer that the central feature of the plan — a highly controversial canal — would take many years to build, might not deliver as much water as agencies hope and would not eliminate the need to maintain fragile levees.
All that left administration officials in the contradictory position of, on one hand, claiming they were in the "ninth inning" of writing the plan and, on the other, facing an increasingly complicated political environment.
Many of the plan's critics say the Bay Delta Conservation Plan might still be a good idea, but that it might not happen as quickly or in the form envisioned by Schwarzenegger's team.
The administration still contends it can finish the plan by the end of next year. If that were to occur, it would appear to be the fastest "habitat conservation plan" ever written and what may be the most complicated such plan ever.
Taken together, the challenges that broke into public view in recent weeks add up to a reality check for an administration that has been barreling forward on a highly ambitious schedule.
"What we're witnessing is a much more public reality check on the direction and timeline of the (Bay Delta Conservation Plan) given its immense complexity," said Ann Hayden, a water policy analyst at the Environmental Defense Fund who is on the committee drafting the plan. "Many of the issues being raised by Delta interests and the Legislature are valid and are not going away — it's best to deal with them head on and soon."
To be sure, except for many Delta residents and anglers, plenty of the plan's critics agree it might be a good idea if done properly. If it works, it would secure water supplies for much of the state while also providing a plan and funding to restore an entire ecosystem, the West Coast's largest estuary and a water supply for much of the state.
But there are plenty of disagreements about its numerous details.
None is more contentious than its central feature, a new canal, tunnel or other structure that takes Sacramento River water to south Delta pumps outside of the region's maze of levees and channels.
By building a new aqueduct to deliver Sacramento River water to pumping plants near Tracy, the strategy would reduce the impact those powerful pumping stations have on fish in the south Delta while also restoring wetlands. An aqueduct could, however, also reduce the amount of water that flushes through the Delta and reduce flows salmon need to migrate, depending on how big it is and how it is operated.
The origins of the conservation plan go back to 2006, when the ripple effects of the collapse of several Delta fish populations were beginning to be felt and policymakers were coming to the conclusion that the state's existing water plan for the Delta was not working.
The collapse in the environment and of the state's guiding policy left water officials with two big problems: how to secure reliable, high-quality water and how to avoid conflicts with endangered species.
The answer: a habitat conservation plan, which is an alternative way to comply with endangered species laws. It requires more comprehensive ecosystem protection, but water agencies would get more assurance that supplies would not be disrupted by issues with Delta smelt, salmon or other imperiled wildlife.
One Bay Area state senator with a record of strongly siding with environmentalists said the canal is worth considering but the Schwarzenegger administration has so far refused to address related issues.
"You have to talk about these other issues," said state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto. "Saying, 'No, no, no, that's not our department,' is not satisfactory."#
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_13182092?source=rss&nclick_check=1
Consensus is possible on saving Delta
Sacramento Bee-8/23/09
Editorial
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is in crisis.
The Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast, a fragile wildlife habitat and the crucial transition point for Northern California water flowing to the Bay Area and Southern California.
But decades of misuse and mismanagement have altered the natural flows of river and sea water through the Delta's many tributaries, contributing to the decline of the region's wildlife, especially the fish. Rising sea levels and new information about seismic threats suggest that the levees separating the Delta's fresh water from salt water are in danger. And with flows already restricted to protect the environment, a third year of drought has tightened the vise further, forcing some Central Valley farmers to fallow their land.
California's population is still growing, and with smart management, the state has enough water to serve more people and employers. But the status quo is not good enough even to ensure that current levels of water usage can survive. Change must come.
This summer, the Democrats in the Legislature have responded to years of nudging from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger by offering a plan of their own to shape the Delta's future. The plan falls short of what Schwarzenegger and legislative Republicans would like, but it's a good start. It should form the basis for a healthy conversation and, we hope, a consensus approach to saving this vital region.
The Democrats have proposed to do just about everything except the one thing that many Republicans, including the governor, most want to do: guarantee reliable water shipments from north to south by building a new canal to ship the water and new reservoirs to hold it.
Their plan creates a new, seven-member council to manage the Delta and a "water master" to operate the pumps on a day-to-day basis. It mandates conservation, with the goal of getting Californians to use 20 percent less water per person by 2020. It steps up monitoring and reporting of groundwater use. And it authorizes new fees on water users to pay for the billions of dollars in fixes envisioned by experts to restore the Delta's habitat and, possibly, streamline the shipment of water to farmers and urban residents south of Sacramento.
Those fees are important because they establish the concept of "users pay," the idea that if Central Valley farms or Los Angeles businesses or San Diego residents want more water from the north, they are going to have to pay the cost of shipping that water south and protecting the watershed from which it is diverted. The fees would also apply to upstream interests whose water diversions are found to degrade the river and Delta environment.
Although linking costs and benefits is something of a Republican idea, Schwarzenegger and Republican lawmakers are pushing to spread that financial burden to all California taxpayers. They want the Legislature to approve billions of dollars of general obligation bonds to finance environmental projects, two reservoirs and part or all of a new canal.
If a stalemate persists past the end of the current legislative session next month, it will likely be because the various sides in this dispute cannot agree about who should pay for what. The Democrats would also like to leave the specifics about which projects should be built to the future, and to the Delta Stewardship Council they are trying to create, while Republicans want to get those details nailed down now.
These are tough issues, but they are not insoluble. People of good faith ought to be able to find a middle ground that will allow the state to achieve the twin goals of a reliable water supply and a restored and protected Delta environment.#
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/2130249.html?mi_rss=Opinion
The Conversation: Saving the Delta
Sacramento Bee-8/23/09
By Daniel Weintraub
Opinion
The Delta is in crisis. All the water that flows from the northern Sierra and the Cascades to Southern California and parts of the Bay Area moves through the Delta, and the movement of that water south is blamed for damage to habitat that has threatened chinook salmon and Delta smelt. The courts have curtailed water shipments to save the fish.
Scientific experts also have warned that sea-level rise in the coming decades will flood the freshwater Delta with salt water, permanently changing its composition and rendering the current system of pumps obsolete. Farming could become impossible in much of the region. Finally, an earthquake could easily damage Delta levees, allowing ocean water to flood the area in a few hours, ending freshwater shipments to Southern California for years.
All of these long-term threats have combined with a third year of drought in California to bring the issue to a boil.
Here is a quick look at five major issues at the center of the debate.
1. Governance
Democrats in the Legislature want to create a seven-member Delta stewardship council to oversee the region, now governed by a patchwork of state and local agencies. The new council's mission would be to ensure a reliable water supply while protecting, restoring and enhancing the Delta ecosystem. The council would be in charge of planning, financing, building and operating new facilities needed to accomplish those goals. A "water master" appointed by an independent scientific panel would control all water diversions within the Delta watershed.
2. Groundwater
The Democrats' plan would step up state monitoring of groundwater use, which has become a bigger issue as surface water shipments have been reduced. The Department of Water Resources would act as a statewide clearinghouse for groundwater information and designate local agencies to monitor and report on groundwater levels in their basins. In basins where no local agency was tracking the groundwater, the state would do it.
3. Conservation
The Democrats' package would require the state to reduce water use by 10 percent per person by 2015 and 20 percent by the end of 2020. The goals would be enforced by the Department of Water Resources, and local water agencies would have to comply to remain eligible for grants and loans from the state. Agricultural water users would also be forced to comply with new water efficiency rules.
4. What to build
The Democrats' plan leaves to the stewardship council decisions on what to build to restore and protect the Delta, store water and move it through the region. The governor and other Republicans are pushing to approve construction of two reservoirs and possibly a new canal to move water through the Delta for export to the south. A canal is possible under the Democrats' plan, but it would have to be approved later by the stewardship council.
5. Paying for it
The Democrats' package would empower the Delta stewardship council to charge fees to anyone or any agency that receives water through the State Water Project or the federal Central Valley Project, or anyone who diverts water within the Delta watershed. The governor and Republicans in the Legislature want at least some of the work financed by bonds that would be repaid by taxpayers rather than only those who use the Delta's water.
Daunting task, but Delta issues manageable
By Jay Lund, Peter Moyle and Ellen Hanak
The Delta is transitioning into a different place.
The new Delta will have more open and sometimes saltier water in its central and western portions, with diverse, wildlife-friendly farmland nearby. The estuarine ecosystem will likely be healthier. And regions relying on Delta exports may receive somewhat reduced, but cleaner and more stable water supplies. This transition will cause disruptions, but in the long term it can create a healthier and more stable economy for the Delta region, with more recreation and an attractive, productive agricultural landscape.
Jeff Mount and Richard Howitt contributed to this article. Lund, Mount, Moyle and Howitt are with the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California, Davis, and Hanak is with the Public Policy Institute of California in San Francisco. Their work is available at deltasolutions.ucdavis.edu and ppic.org.
http://www.sacbee.com/740/story/2130207.html
A peripheral canal won't make any more water; it will just send more of it from north to south
Sacramento Bee-8/23/09
By Burt Wilson
Opinion
The debate over the peripheral canal – or the "conveyance" as it is euphemistically called these days – is the hottest issue in California since Proposition 13. Everyone has something to say about it, and all kinds of appointed commissions have done studies on it. And now, because opposition is so solid, the governor is talking about giving the whole thing to a commission, instead of the voters, to decide.
I worked in the Southern California office of the campaign against the peripheral canal in 1982. Most people saw it then as a water grab by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Most Californians agreed, and we won by a two-thirds vote.
Today, the issue is back once again – now dressed up in new campaign language couched in "saving the Delta" from the "crisis" it's in. And it's harder to tell who the culprits are.
Both sides will tell you that the 40-foot-high pumps that suck Northern California water out of the Clifton Court Forebay near Tracy and send it south cause reverse flows in the Delta. This means that Delta waterways, instead of flowing to the sea as they normally do, reverse direction due to the giant sucking action of the pumps. Now imagine what all this water whipsawing does to the levees? Think erosion. Think erosion big time. Think crisis.
The water agency's answer to this problem is the building of its long-sought-after peripheral canal. Will it mean less levee erosion? Yes. Will it increase the flow of Northern California water south? Yes.
Opponents of the peripheral canal want to "restore the Delta." What does that mean? They want to see less water pumped south so more water can flow freely through the Delta's waterways. Will this mean less levee erosion? Yes. Will it increase the flow of water south? No.
The last "No" is what splits the two camps.
Despite all the "Delta in crisis" talk, the issue today is actually the same as it was back in 1982. It's a water grab, pure and simple. The only thing that's changed is that Big Ag in the Central Valley opposed the peripheral canal in 1982, fearing it would not get enough water, and today it is supporting it for the very same reasons. Go figure!
Over the past nine years, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has been taking more water from the Delta, but it's still under its allotment.
So, when all the propaganda from both sides is cleared away, we find that the Southern California water agencies, instead of cleaning up their own aquifers, instead of prohibiting excessive watering, instead of instituting a vast water-reclamation policy (which is the cheapest way to add to the water supply), are relying on the Department of Water Resources to keep sending more Northern California water south.
Will this solve the Delta's crisis woes? No.
Remember, the peripheral canal cannot make more water. It can only convey more Northern California water south.#
Burt Wilson worked on the staff of the successful No on Prop. 9 campaign against the peripheral canal in 1982 and has remained engaged in water issues since. Read his blog at www.watergrab.blogspot.com.
http://www.sacbee.com/740/story/2130209.html
State's water talks near stalemate
Democrats are delaying action toward substantive change; we may need special session.
Merced Sun-Star-8/21/09
Editorial
We had hoped that the latest round of hearings on California's troubled water system would produce a comprehensive solution in the Legislature. But it appears that key Democratic lawmakers would rather talk about water than solve the problem.
That's not good for San Joaquin Valley farmers, Southern California residents or those wanting more water for environmental uses. Today's water system is serving 38 million Californians, yet it was built for half that many.
The Legislature is handling the water crisis like it handles the budget crisis. Do as little as possible and hope it will go away.
It won't and that makes the problem even more difficult to resolve.
The Democratic majority in the Legislature is using a package of five bills to make it look like progress is being made on water, while in reality this is another delaying tactic to avoid building dams.
At the heart of the Democratic "solution" is the creation of a seven-member council to make key decisions on how to restore the troubled Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta while ensuring more reliable water supplies.
The problem with that strategy is that it does nothing to build the infrastructure to balance California's water supply in wet and dry years. We need to capture water in the wet years, and that can be done with dams and underground water banks.
But Democrats say they want policy changes before putting up a bond measure to pay for infrastructure improvements.
Fortunately, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he will not sign off on a plan that does not include a multibillion-dollar bond to pay for dams and other projects.
It appears to us there's a stalemate in the making, and the Legislature won't have anything significant accomplished on water by the time the session ends on Sept. 11.
If a comprehensive water solution isn't passed by the close of session, we would urge the governor to call a special session on the water crisis.
Water policy is very contentious in California, and it's time for all sides to compromise.
The solution must ensure an adequate water supply for California residents, the industries that drive the state's economy and to protect the environment. That can only be if policymakers are willing to seek common ground.#
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/181/story/1014270.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.
No comments:
Post a Comment