This is a site mirroring the emails of California Water News emailed by the California Department of Water Resources

[Water_news] 5. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, PEOPLE - 1/30/09

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

January 30, 2009

 

5. Agencies, Programs, People –

 

Water for Monterey County Coalition wants to stop studying, start acting.

The Monterey County Weekly – 1/29/09

By Jessica Lyons

 

W ater continued to be something to fight over, not drink, at a recent Water for Monterey County Coalition meeting. (Unfortunately, no whiskey was offered.)

 

The group has met monthly for the past two years. During that time it developed a regional solution to the area’s water woes– including recycled water, Salinas Basin ground water, water from the Salinas River diversion program, a regional seawater desalination facility, on-going water conservation and other recommendations.

 

The regional water project is being considered as an alternative to California American Water’s Coastal Water project– which centers on a planned Moss Landing desal facility– and will be evaluated in the Coastal Water project’s draft environmental impact report, slated for release Jan. 30.

 

“[THE REGIONAL PLANT] IS THE POSTER CHILD OF ALL WATER PROJECTS.”

 

Many at the Water for Monterey County Coalition meeting say the regional plan is the better alternative. It’s more environmentally sound because it doesn’t suck sea creatures into the system or discharge highly concentrated brine back into the ocean. They also say it will cost taxpayers less than Cal Am’s Moss Landing proposal because it will require less desalinating equipment and pipelines.

 

The coalition’s feisty leader, Steve Kasower, a senior research economist at UC-Santa Cruz’s Center for Integrated Water Research, wants to see dirt move on the regional plan– and see implementation begin yesterday, if not earlier. He’s using his seat at the bully pulpit to put “political pressure on California American Water Company [and other government agencies] to step up,” sign a financing agreement and support the regional plan.

 

“There is no reason to continue to meet unless we are ready to build it,’’ he says. “That’s where we are at.

“Cal Am has said, ‘We would be willing to buy water [and not own the operating system],’ so now we need that willingness on a piece of paper.”

 

Cal Am General Manager Craig Anthony responds: “We’re waiting for the draft EIR to come out at the end of January. If it says [the preferred alternative] is the regional project, great, because we don’t care who owns it. We’d like to operate it. We don’t see any reason to write any new documents until the draft EIR comes out.”

 

The wait is nearly over. At the end of this week, the California Public Utilities Commission will release the draft EIR. It’s expected to consider three primary water projects: Cal Am’s Moss Landing desal facility, an alternative desal plan for a north Marina site and the regional project.

 

Cal Am’s preferred project, the Coastal Water Project, would supply 11,730 acre-feet of potable water per year to the company’s Peninsula ratepayers primarily through a desalination plant next to the Moss Landing Power Plant. Many environmentalists don’t like this proposed solution because the desal operation would use the power plant’s once-through cooling system.

 

Once-through cooling draws ocean water through industrial intakes– and kills fish and other marine organisms in the process. For that reason, both the state and the feds appear to be moving toward eliminating once-through cooling at power plants. Some environmentalists say there’s no way that the state will issue Cal Am the necessary permits to build a plant that relies on the embattled technology– let alone produce a long-term water supply for the Monterey Peninsula.

 

An alternative Cal Am desal plan for a north Marina site wouldn’t use once-through cooling, but instead would extract water from beach wells through a pipeline beneath the ocean floor. This system uses the sand on the floor of the ocean as a natural filter to keep seaweed, fish and fish larvae from being sucked into the pumping system. For this reason, beach wells, or other subsurface intake systems, are generally considered the environmentally superior technology.

 

Like the so-called North Marina alternative, the regional proposal would extract seawater from beach wells at smaller desal facilities including one in Marina. It would also use other components– aquifer storage and recovery in the Seaside Basin, recycled water, reprogrammed use of the Salinas Basin ground water, water from the Salinas River diversion project and storm water recovery and conservation. But unlike Cal Am’s proposals, which would produce water for the company’s Peninsula service area, the regional project would produce potable and agricultural water for the entire region– up to 26,500 acre-feet per year for the Cal Am service area (Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Seaside and the unincorporated areas of Pebble Beach, Carmel Valley and the Monterey-Salinas Highway Corridor) along with Marina, the former Fort Ord, Salinas, and north Monterey County. All of the local cities (except for Sand City) have endorsed the regional plan.

 

“What’s beautiful about the regional plan,” says Jim Heitzman, general manager of the Marina Coast Water District, “is that it has several spokes to the water wheel: ground water and recycled water. A number of engineering consulting firms, both state and national, have told me that it’s the poster child of all water projects.”

 

Heitzman says he’s confident the CPUC will select the regional plan as the best project for the environment. He says it’s also the best project for taxpayers. “It’s environmentally superior, it’s cost effective, it benefits citizens and it serves the regional need.”

 

Cal Am officials won’t comment on claims that the regional project will cost less and be better for the environment than the Moss Landing desal proposal.

 

“It would be premature to give you any response… We haven’t seen the document [draft EIR] yet,” says David Berger, Cal Am’s coastal water supply projects manager. Before selecting a water-supply project, the CPUC will analyze each proposal’s cost to taxpayers– in addition to the environmental impacts, Berger adds.

 

“It’s not so much our role to advocate for any one alternative as it is to put our faith in the process and hope it comes out with the project that will be the most environmentally sensitive, acceptable to the community, acceptable to our ratepayers and permitable to the various regulatory agencies,” spokeswoman Catherine Bowie says.

 

Bring on the whiskey. #

 

http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2009/2009-Jan-29/water-for-monterey-county-coalition-wants-to-stop-studying-start-acting/1/@@index

 

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

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.

 

 

[Water_news] 4. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS -WATER QUALITY-1/30/09

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

January 30, 2009

 

4. Water Quality – Nothing Significant

 

 

[Water_news] 3. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: WATERSHEDS - 1/30/09

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

January 30, 2009

 

3. Watersheds –

 

'Threatened' status urged for longfin smelt

The Sacramento Bee

 

No fishing zones off OC? Discussion begins

The Orange County Register

 

Plan envisions Sacramento riverfront without fuel tanks

The Sacramento Bee

 

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

 

'Threatened' status urged for longfin smelt

The Sacramento Bee – 1/30/09

By Matt Weiser

 

Wildlife officials have recommended adding the longfin smelt to the state's list of endangered species.

 

In a report filed Tuesday, the Department of Fish and Game proposes "threatened" status for the 5-inch fish under the state Endangered Species Act, citing threats from water diversions, pollution and predation by foreign fish species. The longfin is one of nine fish species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that have declined sharply in recent years. A fall survey concluded in December found one of the smallest populations of longfin in 42 years of monitoring. Its cousin, the Delta smelt, set a new low.

 

"This is acknowledging that yet another species in the Delta is at risk of extinction, and it's going to help drive improvements in the way we're managing the ecosystem," said Tina Swanson, executive director of The Bay Institute. The state Fish and Game Commission must vote to list the longfin, probably at its March meeting. It imposed new Delta pumping limits to protect the fish during the review, which may now become permanent.

 

A federal listing proposal is under review.#

 

http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/1585126.html?mi_rss=State+Politics

 

No fishing zones off OC? Discussion begins

The Orange County Register -  1/29/09

By Pat Brennan

 

A months-long effort that could result in no-fishing zones off the Southern California coast, including Orange County's, intensified Thursday as emissaries from a variety of interests met in Los Angeles to discuss "areas of importance." 

The "stakeholders" group, which includes recreational and commercial fishing advocates, environmental activists and government regulators, had previously identified important sites up and down the coast.

 

But it is not a list of likely locations for Marine Protected Areas, which are limited or no-fishing zones being created as part of a state effort to address concerns about declines in marine habitat and species. Preliminary ideas for such zones will likely be released in March.

 

Instead, the areas discussed Thursday are important to one or more of the stakeholders. In some cases, for example, they are areas considered important for recreational fishing, which fishing advocates are urging the state not to designate as Marine Protected Areas, or MPAs.

 

"Today was an important first step to ultimately redesigning Southern California's existing MPAs,"  said Melissa Miller-Henson, program manager for the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative.

 

In each case, the reasons for the area's importance are listed, as well as, in some cases, suggestions by one or more of the 64 stakeholders on how the area should be treated (should be considered, not recommended etc.).

Here is a sampling of references to Orange County from the list (you can find more information on the South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group web site ; the document should be posted here on Friday, under "briefing document G1″ ):

 

Laguna Beach to Newport Harbor: Marine habitat that includes already designated "areas of special biological significance." Should be considered for protection.

 

Dana Point, Doheny State Beach: habitat, recreational and commercial fishing, research and education, cultural practices. Should be considered.

 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to Newport: recreational and commercial fishing. Much boat traffic; not recommended for protection.

 

San Mateo Point to Newport: habitat, recreational and commercial fishing, research and education.

 

Newport Bay to Point Loma: recreational and commercial fishing. Rocky habitat, kelp forest important for kayak fishing.

 

Dana Point north to Newport Bay jetty: habitat, recreational and commercial fishing, research and education. High biodiversity and many educational programs, as well as tidepooling. Several protected areas already exist here.

 

Newport Harbor to San Onofre: recreational and commercial fishing. Keep open to fishing.

 

Palos Verdes to Newport Beach: Important for recreational and commercial fishing.

 

Newport Harbor to Dana Point: Habitat, research and education. Area includes a persistent kelp canopy and rockfish habitat.

 

Dana Point north to Newport Bay: High biodiversity area.

 

Huntington Flats area: Important for recreational and commercial fishing.

 

Laguna Beach to Newport Harbor: Habitat; "areas of special biological significance" already designated. Should be considered for protection.#

 

http://greenoc.freedomblogging.com/2009/01/29/no-fishing-zones-off-oc-discussion-begins/4010/

 

Plan envisions Sacramento riverfront without fuel tanks

The Sacramento Bee – 1/30/09

By Hudson Sangree

 

With its vast stretches of tomato fields, Yolo County isn't exactly known for luxury waterfront living.

But that could change.

 

A plan to replace acres of large fuel storage tanks on the Yolo side of the Sacramento River with housing, shops, restaurants and offices is moving ahead.

 

The idea focuses on tanks south of the Pioneer Bridge in West Sacramento. Meanwhile, fuel tanks on the Sacramento side of the river also would be cleared out under the plan. These are the big tanks on either side of Broadway near Miller Park.

 

In their place would be promenades and parks – creating instant new playgrounds for residents and visitors. And housing with picture-perfect views of the Sacramento River.

 

It's all envisioned under a document called the Sacramento Riverfront Master Plan. It describes the river's transformation from industrial corridor to center of urban life.

 

Making it happen requires patience: It's taking a long time – piece by piece – and involves local governments and private enterprise.

 

A current proposal focuses on the fuel tanks that are the major distribution point for gasoline in the region. All the tanks on both sides of the river would be moved to a new location at the Port of Sacramento in West Sacramento.

 

"It gets the tanks off the incredibly valuable riverfront and moves them to a better industrial site," said Mike McGowan, chairman of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors and a West Sacramento native.

 

McGowan also heads the Sacramento Yolo Port Commission.

 

The plan took a big step forward Jan. 15 when West Sacramento's planning commissioners unanimously approved a private company's proposal to build a large, state-of-the art fuel storage facility at the port.

 

The proposed 1.2 million barrel facility, with 17 large tanks on 20 acres, would replace the approximately 50 white circular tanks that now dot both riverbanks.

 

Major hurdles remain, however.

 

West Sacramento City Councilman William Kristoff has appealed the Planning Commission's decision, meaning it now must face review by the City Council.

 

Kristoff said he's concerned about increased rail and truck traffic along already congested Jefferson Boulevard. He's worried about fuel spills at the port. And he wants more assurance that the West Sacramento tank farms will relocate, so that the city doesn't end up helping Sacramento at its own expense.

 

There's also the question of money to mitigate the project's impact on the city. "I would like to see all the parties that will benefit contribute," Kristoff said.

 

Perhaps more importantly, no one is sure if the oil companies that own the tanks by the river – Chevron, BP/Arco, Shell and ConocoPhillips – will think it's worth moving. Serious negotiations have yet to start, according to those involved.

 

Roy Wickland, who heads SacPort Regional Terminal, the private company that wants to build at the port, said it was difficult to "keep up the momentum" of talks with the oil companies while the project was awaiting approval by West Sacramento officials.

 

The planning process took three years, he said.

 

"It's been hard to get (the oil companies') attention," Wickland said. "We're hopeful that we can sit down and begin the process of serious discussions." Wickland said that to start construction at the port, his firm would need commitments from at least two of the oil companies.

 

The tank farms have been in their current location for decades. Pipelines connect them to refineries in the Bay Area.

One major pipeline already travels through the port area, making the project more feasible, according to proponents.

 

Still, the oil giants would have to be convinced that leasing space from Wickland's company at the port made economic sense.

 

Sooner or later the tanks will have to go as part of riverfront master plan, but that doesn't mean they'll move in the immediate future, McGowan said.

 

McGowan said he's optimistic that the oil companies will realize their land is worth much more if it's developed for mixed residential and commercial uses.

 

The companies could take advantage of new tanks, better vapor-recovery systems and other environmental protections at the port, proponents contend.

 

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1584943.html?mi_rss=Our+Region

 

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

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.

 

 

[Water_news] 2. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: SUPPLY -1/30/09

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment 

 

January 30, 2009

 

2. Supply –

 

Upfront: Water, water...everywhere

The Marin Pacific Sun

 

Drought puts pressure on ground water: Overdraft a problem

The Lemoore Advance

 

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

 

Upfront: Water, water...everywhere
But nary an unsalty drop to drink—the desal debate reaches end game

The Marin Pacific Sun – 1/30/09

by Peter Seidman

 

 

 

The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) is about to sit down and wrestle with some hard facts as it begins the end game in the environmental report process for a proposed desalination plant.

 

With all the information and investigation the district has received, it's time for district directors—as well as district residents—to decide their water future. The first step is finishing the environmental review for the proposed plant. The review process that has led up to this point began in 2007. After numerous discussions, meetings, workshops and wrangling, the final report is ready for the district to consider.

 

The report comes at a time when it's clear, and perhaps somewhat ominous, that the cautionary note sounded for so many years still rings true: Residents and businesses in the district's 147-square-mile jurisdiction, which stretches from Sausalito to Novato, use more water than the district can supply when the next drought hits. The North Marin Water District serves Novato. That leaves MMWD supplying the bulk of the population in the county, about 190,000 people.

 

The ominous note about water supply is evident in the "water watch" statistics the district compiles. For the week ending Jan. 25, the seven reservoirs that supply water for district customers held 42,846 acre-feet of water. That's 54 percent of the reservoirs' capacity. The average capacity for the same date is 79 percent. Last year, the reservoirs were at 77 percent of capacity. Some cause for concern then, but by the time April rolled around, enough rain had fallen to preclude rationing.

 

And it's entirely possible, statistically, for rains to pelt Marin in the latter part of the rainy season this year, bringing the reservoirs up to average capacity or more. Longtime Marin residents can remember a year when it seemed the seasonal rain spigot was rusted shut; very little precipitation fell for most of the year. Then the sky opened up in what was called the "March Miracle."

 

But even if the rain does start falling in a more statistically average way, the county still is caught in a water deficit that natural rainfall within the county cannot ameliorate. And it's a situation that nations all over the globe face. It's not a theoretical hypothesis when water experts say the next great crisis in the world will focus not on oil supply—but water supply.

 

In Marin, rainfall supplied the needs of residents who, for the most part, thought little about supply and demand and water deficits—until 1976. That's when a "drought of record" hit—the worst water deficit since the district formed in 1912. Until that point, virtually all the water the district supplied came from the Lagunitas Creek watershed in West Marin. When the two-year drought hit in 1976, water customers came face-to-face with what a water deficit really meant. By the time that drought ended, district customers cut their consumption by about 65 percent.

 

People who lived in Marin at that time know how many bricks it takes to fill a toilet tank; that was one of the ways people cut their water consumption. Low-flow toilets were an oddity back then. District residents also learned to wash their dishes in pails and use the gray water to water their plants. People took pride in short showers, and in keeping a bucket in the shower to collect more gray water. Lawns were left to turn brown in the summer. Washing cars in the driveway became an exercise in determining how much water a sponge could hold. No more hosing down the car—or the driveway. To ensure supply, the district built a temporary pipeline across the Richardson Bay Bridge for an emergency connection.

 

That drought experience led the district to consider any and all alternatives, on the supply side as well as the demand side, including the proposed desalination plant.

 

All options focus on one stark fact: Water supply in the next drought will not meet demand unless the district and its customers take action. After the drought in the '70s, the district took a look at various possibilities. On the demand side, the situation reached an all-time high consumption rate of 33,000 acre-feet a year, leading the district to place a moratorium on new water connections, which the district lifted in 1993. The district has a host of conservation programs in its arsenal, and a good success rate; among the various conservation efforts, the district helps customers with drought-resistant landscaping and maximizing landscape watering schedules to use a minimum amount of water. About 30 percent of water use in the district goes for irrigation. The district also instituted tiered rates and recycling programs for large users in northern San Rafael. Those efforts, along with building the Soulajule Reservoir, expanding Kent Reservoir and importing as much water as possible from the Sonoma County Water Agency's Russian River supply, helped ease the deficit, but the numbers are still alarming.

 

The district now estimates that after all the demand-side programs and customer compliance, customers have reduced their annual consumption to about 31,000 acre-feet per year. (An acre-foot can supply three single-family homes in Marin for a year.) An overview of the supply and demand picture shows that district customers have cut their consumption by 25 percent from levels in the 1976-77 drought. But an increased population and what the desalination plant environmental report calls "demographic changes" have pushed water demand to nearly the levels reached in the late 1980s. The report also notes that "reliable water yield" of the district's West Marin reservoir system and water supply from Sonoma both have declined.

 

The conclusions are stark. When the next drought that matches the severity of the 1976 event hits, unless new sources of water can flow into the district and conservation can be increased, rationing levels in the worst of the drought "would approach the same 65 percent reduction level that was required 30 years ago," according to the district. That's not going to be easy considering that district residents already have reduced their consumption by 25 percent. They would need to reduce consumption another 65 percent on top of that. This time, bricks in the toilet just won't work. Water savers like low-flow appliances already have appeared on the market, and the district has boosted them as part of its conservation incentive programs.

 

That doesn't mean, however, the district has thrown up its conservation hands. District officials remain committed to expanding conservation efforts wherever possible. As evidence, the district plans to invest more than $40 million in the next 15 years to advance the conservation front, an effort that could reduce water use by another 10 percent. By the time district customers use conservation rebates to replace inefficient appliances, install better irrigation systems, etc., they will have spent an estimated $120 million on conservation efforts over the next 15 years. That's a lot, even for critics who say district customers should increase the effort before expanding supplies of new water.

 

Desalination is a technology spreading quickly around the world. In 2006, desalination capacity globally was about 10 billion gallons a day, according to a report issued by the National Academy of Sciences. In the United States, desalination is on the rise, but it still accounts for only .01 percent of municipal and industrial water use. But it is becoming an increasingly mainstream option for water districts in California. The Bay Area Regional Desalination Project is a proposal the four largest water suppliers in the Bay Area are considering. The Contra Costa Water District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and Santa Clara Valley Water District received grant money to investigate a regional plant that could be built in Contra Costa County. Some have suggested that Marin could join a regional effort and pipe desalinated water into the county. The problems associated with laying pipe across the bay, however, make that prospect almost as daunting as building a desalination plant here.

 

The district hasn't focused solely on desalination. Recently, the district took another look at its reservoir and pumping system. It determined that with an investment of about $6 million to its delivery system on Mt. Tamalpais, the district may be able to gain as much as 1,000 acre-feet a year. The increase would come from strategies such as positioning a pump deeper in Alpine Lake and improving the system that feeds Alpine.

 

That 1,000 acre-feet a year is about one-third of the current water deficit. But it's no cause for jubilation. Currently, district customers use about 31,000 acre-feet per year. In a drought, however, the district estimates that it will be able to reliably supply just 28,000 acre-feet a year in the first year, then even less in successive years. And those numbers will worsen unless the district increases its supply—or residents decide they can accommodate massive lifestyle changes. A water deficit that's now estimated at 3,300 acre-feet in a drought will increase to 6,700 acre-feet by 2025. Gaining 1,000 acre-feet a year helps, as does conservation, but it can't meet projected demand in the next drought, a conclusion easily drawn from the desalination environmental report.

 

With limits on the amount of practicable conservation and on the amount of water the district can squeeze from its reservoirs and recycling programs, only a few options remain. A variety of reasons restrict those options: Regulation prevents the district from raising the level of dams; salinity restricts the amount of water that can be recycled; and the county has no usable water table to store supply.

 

The district receives about 25 percent of its supply from the Russian River. But that amount could be reduced if the Sonoma County Water Agency cuts its flow to Marin because of increasing demand in Sonoma County, drought and environmental constraints that could limit the Sonoma agency. Even if a substantial increase in Russian River supply were possible, new piping infrastructure must be constructed to take the flow from Sonoma to the North Marin Water District, which relies on Russian River water, and then to MMWD. Even under the best construction scenarios, the prospect for increasing the supply of water from Sonoma County to MMWD remains uncertain. And a drought isn't going to wait.

That's why desalination is called the only "sure-fire" solution to water supply in Marin. But that certainty carries a price. The construction cost of the most likely option under discussion is about $105 million. The plant could process about 5 million gallons of water a day through reverse osmosis. The district could build a plant in phases, starting with a plant that can process 5 million gallons per day and expand in phases to produce 15 million gallons per day if needed. (An alternate solution made the rounds recently: a smaller desalination plant that would provide water just to San Quentin, the largest single consumer in the district.)

 

Water from the desalination plant would be more expensive than current water supply, but taking into account cost estimates of increasing supply from Sonoma County, the two options would be in the same ballpark.

 

District residents may get a chance this year to taste the urgency of the issues. The district has instituted a procedure that calls for 10 percent rationing when storage on April 1 is less than 50,000 acre-feet. When storage on April 1 drops to less than 40,000 acre-feet, the district will call for 25 percent rationing. And that's just a start if a real drought hits, like the two-year drought in 1976-77. Current storage level is at 42,846 acre-feet.

 

The district has scheduled a meeting Feb. 4 at 7:30pm in the San Rafael City Council chambers to consider certifying the environmental report for the desalination plant project.

 

Even if board members accept the report, it doesn't constitute a go-ahead. The plant proposal still requires board approval to proceed to construction.

 

Three decades after the drought of 1976-77 district residents face an even more urgent prospect of drought rationing, unless new water sources flow in Marin or they embrace a rationing ethic that would change the face of life here.

It could happen—either way. #

 

http://www.pacificsun.com/story.php?story_id=2825

 

Drought puts pressure on ground water: Overdraft a problem

Residents of Kings County walk on water. It's part of an aquifer that provides the vast majority of drinking water to area residents and water to many farms and ranches with irrigation supply. It lies beneath the ground.

Despite the recent rainy weather, a two-year drought has left above-ground storage facilities at some of their lowest levels. Plus, increased population and environmental demands mean groundwater is declining at a great rate in Kings County.

This could cause problems for everyone.

According to Don Mills, general manager of Kings County Water District, the current snow pack is at about 30 percent of what it should be. The Sierra Nevada Mountains provide the water that eventually ends up flowing onto local farms to grow crops and also replenish ground water.

"The local overdraft is sad," Mills said.

 

Mills said area growers and cities are using ground water at the highest rate in recorded history, and it will probably only get worse because of the lack of precipitation in the mountains. Right now, he estimated, groundwater overdraft north of the Kings River is at about 200,000 acre-feet per year and south of the river as much as 400,000 acre-feet per year.

Mills said this pattern of drought is nothing new to California. He researched records detailing the past 42 years and found only two years that were considered average, with four out of seven being dry, two wet and one average.

Growth in population and environmental restrictions are what makes this pattern so difficult now, according to Mills.

Stratford-area farmer Bill Stone echoed Mills' words.

"Everybody is going to pump all the water they can," Stone, who farms as Stone Land Co., cultivates 10,000 acres of cotton and other field and row crops. "That means more and deeper wells."

Stone estimated crops need about 30 inches of water per year to be successful, which costs about $250 per acre. He said most farmers are working on irrigation efficiency, including the use of drip-irrigation systems.

"Drip-irrigation systems don't add that much more water to the crop," Stone said. "It's just more efficient. We still have to turn on the pumps to get the water into the system."

Stone and Mills are also concerned the state will try and tack on additional fees for the use of surface and ground water, just making it that much more expensive.

Stone relies on Westlands Water District to provide above-ground water through the California Valley Project canals. This year that's probably not going to happen. Sarah Woolf, spokesperson for the huge water district that includes 30,000 Kings County acres to the west, said they expect zero allocation this water season because of the drought and environmental restrictions. The district has already fallowed 200,000 acres to save water.

Woolf said the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District is already rationing water and things will probably only get worse. She estimated the cost to sink a new well to be $500,000 to go 1,000 feet deep.

Another concern is ground subsidence. As more water is pumped from the underground reserves, the ground will compact and sink. After this has happened, even in a wet season, the ground water may not be replenished because there may not be any room for it. Areas on the west side of the Valley have suffered large amounts of ground subsidence -- or a shifting downward of the ground surface -- in past years, resulting in changes to farming methods, road damage. There is even a fear it could affect the landing strips at Naval Air Station Lemoore.

The city of Lemoore is already preparing for the greater demand on ground water. According to David Wlaschin, director of public works, some wells have been lowered and, as of early January, there was 15-30 feet over the top of the pump bowls. Wells are 700 feet deep, with water standing at 200 feet. Wlaschin said the city will do all it can to encourage water conservation. Residents and businesses use 3 million gallons of water per day in the winter and 11 million gallons per day in the summer. Wlaschin felt the city will be able to handle another long, dry, hot summer.

Dairies have always been reliant upon ground water for their cattle. Local dairyman John Droogh said an average milking cow drinks 30 gallons of clean, fresh water per day, and that must be pumped. He has already drilled a new well because of the dropping water table. Droogh called the current situation of little or no surface water available to irrigate crops and replenish ground water, and the raising costs of getting to that water, "Scary."#

 

http://www.thelemooreadvance.com/articles/2009/01/29/news/doc498242a57bcef629716309.txt

 

 

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

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.

 

[Water_news] 1. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS - Top Item for 1/30/09

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

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

 

January 30, 2009

 

Top Item –

 

Low snowpack may mean a third dry year for California

The Los Angeles Times

 

Sierra snowpack findings signal a third year of drought

The Sacramento Bee

 

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

 

Low snowpack may mean a third dry year for California

Statewide, the snow's water content is 61% of the average figure for this point in the season. Another La Niña may be developing, an expert says. Conservation is strongly urged.

The Los Angeles Times – 1/30/09

By Bettina Boxall

The all-important Sierra Nevada snowpack remains well below normal, signaling that California may be headed for a third consecutive dry year.

When state workers took the second snow measurement of the winter Thursday, they found that statewide, the snow's water content was 61% of the average, over many years, for this point in the season. The figure was even lower in the northern Sierra, which feeds the state's biggest reservoirs.

There are still two months left for winter precipitation to catch up. But state officials say it is increasingly unlikely California will get enough to break the drought that is draining reservoirs and prompting increasingly urgent calls for conservation.

Senior state meteorologist Elissa Lynn said La Niña conditions, which led to an exceptionally dry spring last year, may be redeveloping.

"There's not a lot of indications the rest of the year will be normal, and even if it were, we'd still wind up below average for the northern Sierra," she said.

Water storage in California's major reservoirs is about 60% of average for this date, while statewide precipitation is 70% of the norm.

The picture is brightest in the southern Sierra -- an important source of water for Los Angeles -- where precipitation is almost normal. But even there, snowpack -- measured as the snow's water content -- is 68% of average.

Lynn said that overall, hydrological conditions are about the same in the state as they were during the last major drought, from 1987 to 1992.

Court-ordered, environmental restrictions on pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta are adding to water supply worries.

"It's imperative for Californians to conserve water immediately at home and in their businesses," state water resources director Lester Snow said in a statement.

Southern California water managers have warned there is an increasing chance that rationing will be imposed this summer. #

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-snowpack30-2009jan30,0,260986.story?track=rss

 

 

Sierra snowpack findings signal a third year of drought

The Sacramento Bee – 1/30/09

By Matt Weiser

 

State water officials reported Thursday that the statewide snowpack stands at only 61 percent of average for the winter so far; this likely ensures California will see its third straight drought year.

 

The Department of Water Resources conducted manual snow surveys at several locations in the Sierra Nevada, where the snowpack serves as the state's water bank. Along Highway 50 near Echo Summit, surveyors found 34.6 inches of snow, or 68 percent of average. Conditions are worse in the Northern Sierra, which stands at 49 percent of average.

 

"We may be at the start of the worst California drought in modern history," DWR Director Lester Snow said in a statement. "It's imperative for Californians to conserve water immediately at home and in their businesses."

 

Officials have previously said that, because most of the state's reservoirs are so depleted, a wetter-than-average winter is required to recover from the past two drought years.

 

With each passing day, that becomes less likely. The month of January, often the wettest of the year, was unusually dry, and no more precipitation is expected in what remains of the month. #

 

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1585160.html?mi_rss=Our+Region

 

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

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.

 

 

 

 

Blog Archive