Coalition of San Diego leaders supports water bond measure
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 19, 2008 at 11:28 amFrom KPBS:
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders and a coalition of business, labor, environmental and other leaders say California’s water supply is at the tipping point. The group is urging the state legislature to put a water bond measure on next November’s ballot. KPBS Environmental Reporter Ed Joyce has details.
Sanders says California is in a water crisis and a water bond is vital to fixing the state’s water supply problems.
Sanders: We need to create a diverse and sustainable portfolio of water supply resources that provides stable sources of water throughout the state. This bond does that by providing money to fix the Delta, create storage, clean groundwater and fund regional water supply projects.
Sanders says because San Diego County is at the end of California’s water system, it’s vulnerable to drought and reduced supplies from Northern California. He says the water bond measure proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Dianne Feinstein is a good starting point.
Read more from KPBS by clicking here.
Dan Walters on the peripheral canal: it’s time for the larger public interests of improving Delta ecology and reliable water supply to assert itself
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 18, 2008 at 6:42 amFrom the Sacramento Bee, this column from Dan Walters, who notes the impeccable credentials of the researchers, and says that this report is possibly the most important paper the PPIC has ever relased:
With the courts severely restricting water exports from the Delta because of declining fish populations, there has been renewed interest in a peripheral canal, although that term is largely banned from official discourse. But fierce opposition persists, mostly from Delta farmers concerned that a canal would isolate them from public money to fix their deteriorating levees (although they rarely admit to that motive) and from environmental groups that want to use restricted water supply as a tool to curb development in Southern California (although they are equally reluctant to admit that).
Environmental groups once supported a peripheral canal as the best Delta fix, but pulled off. While shedding public tears over the Delta’s plight, they have been, in effect, willing to sacrifice its environmental health for their other agenda.
Many years and countless billions of dollars and human-hours of meetings and studies have been squandered in a vain search for a consensus that does not include a peripheral canal. The PPIC team concludes that it’s time to end that charade and do what’s been needed for decades.
“To be viable,” the PPIC team said, “a long-term solution must include governance, regulatory and financial arrangements to ensure that various goals are well served, including water supply, environmental management, and the state’s local interests in the Delta. It is unlikely that local and regional stakeholders can negotiate such arrangements on their own in a timely way, given the complexity of the problem and its innumerable stakeholders. Pursuit of a grand consensus solution for the Delta’s many issues is likely only to continue the deteriorating status quo.”
The PPIC report is unlikely to sway a peripheral canal’s opponents, but their agendas pale next to the larger public interest in improving the Delta’s ecology and assuring the state of a reliable water supply. It’s time for that larger interest to assert itself.
Read the full text of Dan Walter’s column in the Sacramento Bee by clicking here.
Divisions and diversions: proposals for new Delta infrastructure “must be complete package that ensures sustainable restoration of fisheries”
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 18, 2008 at 6:33 amFrom the San Francisco Chronicle, this commentary written by Laura Harnish, regional director of the Environmental Defense Fund (this commentary was written before yesterday’s PPIC report):
The task force and others are considering, as part of a solution for the state’s water problems, a Peripheral Canal - basically a large ditch or pipe that would bring water around the delta instead of through it. Voters solidly rejected a canal in 1982, but it may be that in a post-Katrina, climate-changing world, a new and improved Peripheral Canal has merit. However, new infrastructure for our water supply cannot be considered without also meeting the needs of the bay-delta ecosystem and restoring its fisheries.
Any proposals for new infrastructure, whether a Peripheral Canal or new water storage, must go beyond lip service about restoring salmon, and actually do it. There must be a complete package that ensures sustainable restoration of the delta’s valuable fisheries. We need to provide the water that fish need when and where they need it. There must be money available to ensure that key restoration projects are not merely planned, but executed. We need to create financial incentives that will encourage everyone to do a far better job of conserving water. Most critically, we need guarantees that our water managers will be held accountable to ensure that promises are kept.
Read the full text of this commentary from the San Francisco Chronicle by clicking here.
Water war begs for compromise; Bill Jennings on the real culprits in the Delta (and, surprisingly, it’s not Southern California!)
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 10:38 pmFrom the Tracy Press, this commentary by Jon Mendelson:
For many, the slow death of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a mystery. Experts of all stripes, special commissions, even blue ribbon task forces have tried to tackle the Delta’s problems for decades. All, so far, have been unsuccessful.
For Bill Jennings, longtime activist and watcher of the waterways, the answers to fixing the Delta’s woes are simple: Take less water out, pour less bad stuff in, don’t introduce animals where they don’t belong.
What a concept.
The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance director, formerly of Deltakeeper fame, has dedicated years to carrying out his three-point solution to the three-point problem of excess water exports, high pollution and invasive species that plagues California’s most important river system.
Often, his mission has been fulfilled in the courtroom. Jennings and his organizations have filed hundreds of lawsuits to force those who rely on the Delta to treat it with more care. His outfit’s most recent suit is against Stockton for a sewage system Jennings calls “the worst we’ve seen.”
Jennings has no tolerance for those who abuse the waterway Californians rely on to grow their food, fill their glasses, wash away waste, incubate wildlife and be a waterskiing wonderland on weekends. That includes cities like Stockton, whose wastewater treatment system allegedly racked up 1,500 sewage spills in five years.
Ask Jennings who truly wears the black hats in the shootout over Delta water, though, and you’ll get a far-from-standard response. To hear him tell it, most folks in NorCal have it all wrong. “The problem’s not the people in the LA basin,” he said last week. “It’s not even the issue for most of the farmers.”
According to Jennings, the main culprits for damaging the Delta — and those at fault for drying up the San Joaquin River somewhere north of Friant Dam — are the corporate farms tilling thousands of acres of alfalfa and cotton in the middle of what was once a grassland desert.
“What really is killing the Delta is using that subsidized water to grow subsidized crops on impaired land that never should have been farmed in the first place.”
Read more from the Tracy Press by clicking here.
Coverage Wrap-Up: Delta peripheral canal should be built, report concludes
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 10:21 pmLeading off with Mike Taugher at the Contra Costa County Times.:
A team of experts says the best way to fix California’s troubled water system is to build a controversial peripheral canal that would deliver water around the Delta rather than through it. Their report concludes a canal would be the cheapest economic alternative and the best choice for the environment short of cutting off altogether Delta water shipments to the Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.
“Ultimately, there are two choices here: no exports or a peripheral canal. If there are no exports, the biggest losers are the Bay Area (residents),” said Jay Lund, a UC Davis engineering professor and one of the report’s co-authors.
The report was done by the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California and written by several leading Delta experts, mostly at UC Davis.
In essence, the report finds that the Delta, which is widely considered the weak link in a water system that delivers to millions of acres of farmland and two-thirds of California’s residents, will inevitably succumb to rising sea level or earthquakes. And, the report notes, the current system of taking water from giant pumps in the south Delta is already wreaking havoc on protected fish populations to the point that water managers are being forced to curtail water deliveries. As a result, the state should build a canal now to shield the economy from the effects of a major failure.
The Sacramento Bee adds this:
“The bottom line is if we are to pump water from north to south, then a peripheral canal is the only way you can do it and be somewhat environmentally friendly,” said William Bennett, a UC Davis fisheries ecologist and co-author of the report.
The team recommends against a “dual conveyance” strategy favored by policy makers. This involves both a peripheral canal and a “through-Delta” water canal assembled by modifying existing levees within the Delta. They argue that any canal that relies on levees will not be sustainable in the long run and will always remain vulnerable to weather, climate change and weak soils.
The team also recommends a comparable investment in ecosystem restoration projects that would allow some Delta islands to flood permanently, and new government structures to improve Delta management.
From the AP and the San Jose Mercury News:
The study says continuing to channel water through the delta’s maze of fragile levees and sinking islands is a risky and costly path.
Projected sea level rise, increased runoff from early spring snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada and the potential failure of multiple levees during a major earthquake eventually could cost Californians much more than building and operating a canal, the study says.
The debate over such a canal goes back decades and has long been contentious. California voters soundly rejected plans to build a so-called peripheral canal in 1982, largely on the strength of Northern California voters who feared the proposal was nothing more than a water grab by Southern California agencies.
The Public Policy Institute says much has changed since then, with the delta’s health declining rapidly and global climate raising alarm about California’s long-term water supply.
More details from the Central Valley Business Times:
Although it would be best for fish populations if California stopped using the Delta as a water source altogether, this would be an extremely costly strategy, according to the report, authored by a multidisciplinary team including Ellen Hanak, PPIC associate director and senior fellow, and Jay Lund, William Fleenor, William Bennett, Richard Howitt, Jeffrey Mount, and Peter Moyle from the University of California, Davis.
The PPIC-UC Davis team concludes that a peripheral canal is not only more promising than the temporary and ultimately unsustainable “dual conveyance” option – which combines the current approach with a canal – but is also the best available strategy to balance two equally important objectives.
“Coupling a peripheral canal – the least expensive option – with investment in the Delta ecosystem can promote both environmental sustainability and a reliable water supply,” Ms. Hanak says.
Among the report’s recommendations:
• Plan to allow some Delta islands to flood permanently. The state should invest in the levees that protect high-value land, ecosystem goals, and critical infrastructure – and allow lower-value islands to return to aquatic habitat.
• Begin the transition from the current Delta management system. The current system is harming the native fish now, as federal court rulings have found, the report says, adding that over time, it will hurt the state’s economy.
• Develop a new framework for governing and regulating the Delta. With the proper safeguards, a peripheral canal can be economically and environmentally beneficial, the report says. It is a more cost-effective strategy than dual conveyance, which, because it relies on continued pumping through the Delta, is an interim solution.
An updated Sacramento Bee story adds this:
The researchers recommend that rather than restricting the canal’s size to limit diversions, it should be large enough to handle surplus flows during flood conditions. This water could be stored in the Bay Area and Southern California for use during droughts, and so that diversions can be halted when water is needed for migrating salmon. The work of restricting diversions would fall to a new governing body with new legal powers, under the researchers’ recommendations.
They also recommend dedicating a significant share of the canal’s capacity to the ecosystem. This would allow water quality and fishery needs to restrict diversions. “It’s guaranteeing the environment some water rights it doesn’t currently have,” said Ellen Hanak, PPIC associate director and a report coauthor.
Water interests praised the report as a vital affirmation that California will suffer unless bold steps are taken. “If we build a better water system in tandem with improvements to the ecosystem, we can have a healthy environment and healthy economy,” said Laura King-Moon, assistant general manager of the State Water Contractors, in a written statement.
But not everyone agrees with the PPIC’s findings. Said Barbara Barrigan-Parilla in a press release:
Restore the Delta’s Campaign Director, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, adds that the report’s analysis of water quality is also faulty. “Their analysis assumes that water flowing into and out of the Delta remains unchanged when the point of diversion is changed. But everyone who lives, works, and recreates in the Delta knows that with less fresh water flowing through the Delta, more salt water will intrude into local waterways.”
In fact, the report makes a highly inaccurate assumption that water quality would improve for farmers near the San Joaquin River. Barrigan-Parrilla says that the report’s authors have not engaged in any conversations with local Delta experts, South Delta farmers – some of whom have lived on the land for ninety years.
Barrigan-Parrilla also adds that such changes in water quality to the Delta will result in economic chaos for the region. “Neither the PPIC Report authors nor officials with the State have done a full-scale economic analysis of how a change in water quality with the operation of a peripheral canal would impact farming, recreation, or fisheries. It is estimated that Delta farming alone contributes $2 billion per year to our local economy, and recreation like boating and fishing another $750 million. If the Delta is made into a salty inland sea the economic impacts will be devastating to those living in the surrounding five counties of the Delta.”
And from Stockton’s Record:
“To me, this is nothing but a water grab,” said longtime fisherman Jay Sorensen of Stockton.
A peripheral canal “will not make more water,” Bill Loyko, president of Stockton-based Restore the Delta, said in a statement. California’s problem, he said, is that it’s millions of acre-feet short of water.
The question now is how policymakers will receive the new report. Schwarzenegger’s panel is due to issue recommendations on a Delta solution by October.
Democrat Lois Wolk of Davis, chairwoman of the Assembly’s water policy committee, said it was premature to support a canal that might not improve the health of the Delta. “No evidence in this theoretical study takes into account the rough and tumble of real life, present-day water politics,” Wolk said in a statement. “If all of the state’s attention and resources are devoted to the construction of a pipe to keep pumping all that water out of the region, then the Delta will surely die.”
The report drew praise from Senator Cogdill:
“Nothing is more important to the future of California than a reliable water supply. Whether you are a farmer, a business or a home owner, you expect there to be water when you turn on the tap.
“Clearly the PPIC looked carefully at the many complex issues facing California with regard to long term water delivery solutions. At the end of the day, California must have a comprehensive solution that takes delivery, storage and the environment into consideration.
“The need for responsible water policy goes beyond partisan politics. I hope this thoughtful examination by PPIC of this issue will encourage lawmakers to avoid a piece meal solution and instead take action on this crisis sooner rather than later.”
Metropolitan Water District statement & ACWA’s statement on PPIC’s “Comparing Futures” report on Delta
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 8:38 pmFrom Business Wire, this press release from Metropolitan Water District:
Timothy F. Brick, chairman of the board of directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, issues the following statement regarding the report “Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta” released today by the Public Policy Institute of California:
“This report shows the way to change the future of the Delta toward a sustainable system. The old Peripheral Canal of the 1980s was all about water supply and perceived water needs. The alternative conveyance recommended in today’s PPIC report is about preparing for climate change, insuring against seismic risk, and balancing the needs of the environment and the economy.
“Inaction is the most dangerous course, both for this treasured estuary and its water system that helps feed the nation and provides 70 percent of the water to the San Francisco Bay area, about 30 percent of the water for Southern California and much of the water for the Central Valley. Partial action is not an option either. Only bold steps will protect California.
All Californians must embrace the need to restore this ecosystem. The question for the Delta’s water system isn’t whether to build a better one, but how? The coming inevitable transition for the Delta, while understandably unsettling for many, must be planned for and managed in a way that recognizes the many key public values associated with the Delta.
“Metropolitan’s priority is to stabilize—not increase—water supplies from the Delta. Southern California’s water to meet future needs will come from continued investment in conservation, recycling and local efforts. That is a very different water management philosophy from a generation ago. Metropolitan supports partnerships in the Delta that place the needs of the ecosystem and of the economy on equal footing.
“This report challenges California and its leaders to urgently pursue a new course for the Delta. We must all rise to this challenge. The price of failing to seize this opportunity and to create a sustainable Delta and smarter water system is simply too great.”
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is a cooperative of 26 cities and water agencies serving 18 million people in six counties. The district imports water from the Colorado River and Northern California to supplement local supplies, and helps its members to develop increased water conservation, recycling, storage and other resource-management programs.
Also from Business Wire, the ACWA issued this statement:
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) Executive Director Timothy Quinn issued the following statement on a new report issued by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). The report, “Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,” concludes that building a peripheral canal to carry water around the Delta is the least expensive and most promising strategy to revive the troubled ecosystem and ensure reliable water supplies for Californians.
Authors of the report include engineers Jay Lund and William Fleenor of UC Davis; economists Ellen Hanak of the PPIC and Richard Howitt of UC Davis; biologists Peter Moyle and William Bennett of UC Davis; and geologist Jeffrey Mount of UC Davis.
“This report takes an unflinching look at the troubled Delta and shines a bright light on the choices we must make to reverse the downward spiral. The analysis offered up by this courageous team of experts is hugely valuable to the public processes under way through Delta Vision and the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. We applaud the authors for taking on this issue.
“We agree that the current system is unsustainable and is failing both our environment and our economy. It will take tremendous investment and leadership to make our system sustainable so it can meet the co-equal objectives of restoring the ecosystem and improving water supply reliability for the economy.
“In developing this report, PPIC has done a great public service; now it is up to our political leaders and the public processes under way to do their job. A deepening drought, struggling ecosystems and court-ordered reductions in water deliveries have put us squarely in the most serious water crisis in a half-century. The need for action has never been more urgent.”
ACWA is a statewide association of public agencies whose 450 members are responsible for about 90% of the water delivered in California. For more information, visit www.acwa.com.
Restore the Delta challenges Public Policy Institute’s support of peripheral canal
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 8:22 pmSubmitted by Dan Bacher to Aquafornia:
Restore the Delta, a coalition including Delta farmers, environmentalists, fishermen, business leaders, the faith community, recreation enthusiasts, and everyday folks, today issued a powerful statement calling into question many of the findings in the Public Policy Institute’s “Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,” a report calling for a peripheral canal. I urge everybody concerned about the fate of the California Delta and the state’s fisheries to read their critique of the report’s conclusions.
The Public Policy Institute(PPIC)-UC Davis team’s report concludes that “a peripheral canal is not only more promising than the temporary and ultimately unsustainable ‘dual conveyance’ option – which combines the current approach with a canal – but is also the best available strategy to balance two equally important objectives.”
“Coupling a peripheral canal – the least expensive option – with investment in the Delta ecosystem can promote both environmental sustainability and a reliable water supply,” said Ellen Hanak, PPIC associate director and senior fellow. The report was authored by a “multidisciplinary team” including Hanak, Jay Lund, William Fleenor, William Bennett, Richard Howitt, Jeffrey Mount, and Peter Moyle from the University of California, Davis.
In spite of the team’s contentions, building a peripheral canal like the one that Senator Dianne Feinstein and Governor Arnold “Fish Terminator,” the worst ever Governor for fish and the environment in California history, are pushing for, will only make the dramatic declines of Central Valley chinook salmon, steelhead, delta smelt, longfin smelt, striped bass and other fish species even worse. There are no examples in U.S. history that I know of where the construction of a canal resulted in increased flows for fish and wildlife.
Make no mistake about it: the Delta’s problem is not that it lacks a canal. The problem is that its water is overallocated, much of it to toxic land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley that should have never been put into agricultural production. To restore Central Valley chinook salmon and California Delta fish species, more water must be allowed to flow NATURALLY through the Delta, not less.
In spite of the hypocritical rhetoric that Feinstein and Schwarzenegger and the Public Policy Institute’s authors spin about “ecosystem restoration,” the only purpose of the peripheral canal is to create the capacity to export more water from the Delta. We need increased conservation of water so that we can restore Central Valley salmon, delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish to historical levels, not increased water exports.
Restore the Delta Board Press President Bill Loyko questions how constructing a peripheral canal could possibly solve water needs throughout the state. “A peripheral canal, first and foremost will not make more water,” he said. “The present problem with California’s water system is that it is short 5 million acre-feet of water annually to meet current state needs.”
Barrigan-Parrilla, Restore the Delta campaign director, contends that changes in water quality to the Delta produced by a peripheral canal will result in “economic chaos” for the region.
“Neither the PPIC Report authors nor officials with the State have done a full-scale economic analysis of how a change in water quality with the operation of a peripheral canal would impact farming, recreation, or fisheries,” she stated. “It is estimated that Delta farming alone contributes $2 billion per year to our local economy, and recreation like boating and fishing another $750 million. If the Delta is made into a salty inland sea, the economic impacts will be devastating to those living in the surrounding five counties of the Delta.”
Future snowmelt in West twice as early as expected; threatens ecosystems and water reserves
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 8:06 pmFrom Science Daily:
According to a new study, global warming could lead to larger changes in snowmelt in the western United States than was previously thought, possibly increasing wildfire risk and creating new water management challenges for agriculture, ecosystems and urban populations. Researchers, including a Purdue University professor of earth and atmospheric sciences, discovered that a critical surface temperature feedback is twice as strong as what had been projected by earlier studies.
The high-resolution climate model used by the team was better able to reproduce the complex topography of the western United States and capture details of the effect of snow cover on the climate system, as well as the historical record of runoff.
The reviewed findings will be published in an upcoming issue of Geophysical Research Letters and are now available online at the journal’s Web site.
Noah Diffenbaugh, senior author of the paper and an associate professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Purdue, said the influence of melting snow on regional climate is far greater than that of increased greenhouse gases alone. “The heat trapping from elevated greenhouse gases triggers the warming, but the additional warming caused by the loss of snow is what really creates the big changes in surface runoff,” said Diffenbaugh, who also is a member of Purdue’s Climate Change Research Center. “Scientists have known about this general effect for years. The big surprise here is how much the complex topography plays a role, essentially doubling the threat to water resources in the West.”
Read more from Science Daily by clicking here.
Controversial peripheral canal best option to solve water woes, group says
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 10:52 amFrom the San Francisco Chronicle:
A giant canal that would route water around the ailing Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will best solve two of California’s most vexing problems: an increasingly unreliable water supply and fast-dwindling populations of threatened fish, according to a non-partisan policy group.
A so-called “peripheral canal” would cost $5 to $10 billion and would bypass and essentially replace the delta, the nucleus of the state’s water system that serves two-thirds of California’s population. Authors of the Public Policy Institute of California report said a canal trumps three other options - a combined delta and canal system, continued pumping through the delta, or the end of pumping altogether - because it balances the needs of humans and wildlife, while taking into consideration rising sea levels, subsiding land and earthquakes.
“The delta is changing no matter what,” said Ellen Hanak, a senior fellow at the influential institute and one of the authors of the report. “The question: Are we going to be proactive as a state and nudge them in directions beneficial to the environment and the economy, or are we going wait to let it happen and suffer the consequences?”
The full 184-page report, titled “Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,” is scheduled to go public today and will almost certainly ignite a new round of controversy. Though all sides agree the delta is on life support, there are as many cures as there are stakeholders.
More from the San Francisco Chronicle by clicking here. See below for links to the report from the PPIC, (or click here). Lester Snow’s statement on the PPIC report can be found by clicking here.
New PPIC publication released today: Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 10:45 am
From the Public Policy Institute, this press release:
SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 17, 2008 — Building a peripheral canal to carry water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the most promising strategy to balance two critical policy goals: reviving a threatened ecosystem and ensuring a high-quality water supply for California’s residents. That is the central conclusion of a report released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).
Under current policy, water is drawn from the Sacramento River and sent south through the Delta to enormous pumps that deliver water to millions of households in the Bay Area and Southern California and millions of acres of Central Valley farmland. This approach, which disrupts the natural water flow, has threatened native fish and made the Delta attractive to invasive species. Furthermore, it is unsustainable. Projected sea level rise, crumbling ancient levees, larger floods, and high earthquake potential will inevitably result in a dramatically different Delta environment. This environment will have saltier water, which will be much more costly to treat for drinking and ultimately unusable for irrigation, the report says.
Although it would be best for fish populations if California stopped using the Delta as a water source altogether, this would be an extremely costly strategy, according to the report, authored by a multidisciplinary team including Ellen Hanak, PPIC associate director and senior fellow, and Jay Lund, William Fleenor, William Bennett, Richard Howitt, Jeffrey Mount, and Peter Moyle from the University of California, Davis.
The PPIC-UC Davis team concludes that a peripheral canal is not only more promising than the temporary and ultimately unsustainable “dual conveyance” option – which combines the current approach with a canal – but is also the best available strategy to balance two equally important objectives.
“Coupling a peripheral canal – the least expensive option – with investment in the Delta ecosystem can promote both environmental sustainability and a reliable water supply,” Hanak says.
The new report, Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, builds on the findings of a 2007 PPIC study by the same team, which concluded that the need for a new Delta strategy is urgent. The new report was funded in part by Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Among its recommendations:
* Plan to allow some Delta islands to flood permanently. The state should invest in the levees that protect high-value land, ecosystem goals, and critical infrastructure – and allow lower-value islands to return to aquatic habitat.
* Begin the transition from the current Delta management system. The current system is harming the native fish now, as federal court rulings have found. Over time, it will hurt the state’s economy. Natural forces will impose change on the current system, and planning for change now will make Californians less susceptible to the potentially much larger cost of earthquake, floods, or levee failures.
* Develop a new framework for governing and regulating the Delta. With the proper safeguards, a peripheral canal can be economically and environmentally beneficial. It is a more cost-effective strategy than dual conveyance, which, because it relies on continued pumping through the Delta, is an interim solution.“Choosing a water strategy is just the first step,” UC Davis researcher Lund says. “The technical, financial, and regulatory decisions necessary to plan for a new Delta are enormous. The governor and legislature need to be involved in setting up a new framework to manage the challenge.”
ABOUT PPIC
The Public Policy Institute of California is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.
For a short summary of the report, click here. For the full report, click here. To visit the PPIC website, click here.
Lester Snow, head of Department of Water Resources, issues statement on PPIC Report
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 10:00 am
From the Department of Water Resources, this statement from Lester Snow:
Sacramento – The Public Policy Institute of California today released its report identifying a peripheral canal as the most viable solution to Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta woes. It states the canal is the least expensive option and most promising strategy to maintain water supply and improve the Delta ecosystem. Department of Water Resources Director Lester A. Snow responded with this statement:
“Today’s report underscores the need for a long-term solution to fixing our water crisis in the Delta. It is even more clear that we need to resolve the conveyance issue for the betterment of our environment and our economy. The comprehensive water plan offered by Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Feinstein will provide the tools we need not only to invest in Delta sustainability, but also to meet our future water needs with more conservation, new surface and groundwater storage and regional water self sufficiency. With our state facing a severe drought, climate change, federal court restrictions on water deliveries and growing challenges to our environment, economy and water infrastructure, it’s critical that all sides come together around a consensus plan that can be approved by voters in November.”
The Department of Water Resources 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.
Draft versions of regional water reports for California Water Plan update now available online; public comment sought
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 8:53 amEvery five years, the Department of Water Resources updates it’s water plan. From DWR’s Water Plan website:
The California Water Plan provides a framework for water managers, legislators, and the public to consider options and make decisions regarding California’s water future. The Plan, which is updated every five years, presents basic data and information on California’s water resources including water supply evaluations and assessments of agricultural, urban, and environmental water uses to quantify the gap between water supplies and uses. The Plan also identifies and evaluates existing and proposed statewide demand management and water supply augmentation programs and projects to address the State’s water needs.
The water plan is currently being updated for 2009, and the draft regional reports are now available online. Each regional report includes a discussion of the geography & hydrology of the region, key challenges facing it, ongoing programs and data on water supplies and uses.
DWR is seeking public comment which can be submitted online. All written comments will be posted online for review. The deadline for commenting is August 1st.
Click here to check out your regional report. Unfortunately, if you are looking for our region, the South Coast, the working draft is not posted yet. Since the public comment deadline is only about two weeks away, it should be posted soon.
Know your invasive plants: give them an inch and they’ll take an acre
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 8:40 am
From the Santa Barbara Independent:
Next week, July 21-25, is California Invasive Weeds Awareness Week. While no projects to eradicate plants or educate the public are planned in our area, it isn’t because there aren’t any invasive plant species threatening our native ecosystems. According to the California Horticultural Invasives Prevention (Cal-HIP), a coalition of horticulturists, botanists, and nursery people, there are at least 10 plants that have become so noxious that they are recommended to be removed from nurseries and eradicated wherever they are growing. These species have escaped the confines of gardens and are reproducing rampantly in the wild to the detriment of native vegetation.
Invasive plants spread beyond our gardens and out into natural areas, where they can grow so fast, they crowd out native vegetation, block streams and cause flooding, and produce so much biomass that they can create fire hazards. Most of these plants have little or no value as food or habitat for the native birds and species. They can grow so thick that the area becomes impassable, thus restricting or eliminating recreational opportunities.
Many kinds of invasive plants are also incredibly thirsty, such as the tamarisk or salt cedar. A single tamarisk can suck up 73,000 gallons of river water a year. It is very salt tolerant, excreting excess salt from the tips of it’s branches and depositing it on the ground, further intensifying the salinity of the soil. The tamarisk has become the dominant streamside vegetation throughout the southwest, occupying more than a million acres of riparian habitat.
Invasive plants are not ugly; some of them are very attractive, and sought after as additions to gardens, such as red fountaingrass or pampass grass. Home Depot and other nurseries (knowingly or unknowingly) sell invasive plants, and there are no regulations in place or legislation pending at this time. Instead, the California Invasive Plant Society is working with nurseries, gardeners and the public to educate them on invasive plants, encouraging them to use other alternatives.
For a rundown with pictures from the Santa Barbara Independent, click here. For more information on invasive plants, visit the California Invasive Plant Council website at www.cal-ipc.org, or the Plant Right website at www.plantright.org.
How we can save our country’s water: While some are proposing a new national water commission, others have a different idea that is less talk and more action
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 7:39 amFrom AlterNet:
With a new presidential administration and a new Congress taking office in January, advocates from all perspectives are looking at opportunities to translate a mandate for “change” into specific national policy reforms. Watch your step as the avalanche of recommendations begins to cascade toward Washington, D.C., around the end of the year — actions to take in the first 100 days, the first year, and so on.
Among the proposals already in the hopper is a congressional bill that would create a new national water commission or, more precisely, the “21st Century Water Commission.” Introduced by Rep. John Linder (R-GA), H.B. 135 moved out of House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on Water and Environment in May, and has the support of Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who introduced companion legislation in that chamber.
Linder’s bill would establish a nine-person commission with a $9 million budget and a three-year deadline to assess the nation’s water availability and demands, with a focus on the pressure points of the country in which fast-growing populations are encountering drought and other supply constraints. The legislation explicitly would not create new national water policy, but would provide data, financial incentives, and strategies for stronger and farther-looking state policies.
Comparing the initiative to the interstate highway system of the last century, Rep. Linder proclaimed this bill a first step toward “a roadmap that states can use to form their water policy.” The national glove box is already crammed full of road maps for our waterways. As Steve Malloch of the National Wildlife Federation remarked at a water policy meeting in New Mexico in May, “We’re long on good policy; we’re short on good politics.”
What we need is movement on key state and federal policy reforms to combat the most important factors affecting our nation’s water resources — rapid growth in dry regions and global warming. Since the last National Water Commission completed its work, culminating in a well-researched and prescient report published in 1973, “Water Policies for the Future,” subsequent gatherings of experts — many focused on the arid West — have produced library shelves full of reports and white papers reaching remarkably consistent conclusions.
For a summary of these policy recommendations and an analysis of the most promising areas for reform today, see the Western Progress report, “A New Western Water Agenda.”
Read more from AlterNet by clicking here.
A river runs through it: Even with increased water on the Colorado, southern reservoirs at below normal levels
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 7:33 amFrom Lake Havasu’s Today’s News-Herald:
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is projecting that, for the first time in seven years, more water is flowing through the Colorado River. June run-off down the river from snow pack is running about 117 percent above normal, and the projected run-off from April to July is expected to be about 111 percent of normal.
But even with the increased water, two of the four major storage reservoirs along the lower Colorado River remain significantly below normal. According to the July 14 Lower Colorado River Water Supply report, Lake Powell is 37 percent below capacity while Lake Mead is 54 percent below full.
In April, the Bureau of Reclamation announced that high snow pack, about 122 percent of average, resulted in increased releases from Lake Powell to Lake Mead. An additional 653,000 acre-feet of water was released, elevating Mead by about six feet.
However, Lake Havasu is at 94% capacity:
The Lake Havasu reservoir is the withdrawal point on the river for both the Metropolitan Water District, which serves Los Angeles and San Diego, and the Central Arizona Project, which serves Phoenix and Tucson.
Lake Havasu’s maximum elevation is 450 feet, minimum 445. The Bureau of Reclamation showed the current elevation, as of Tuesday, at 447.74 feet.
Now that’s precision! Also included in this article is an update on the Drop 2 Reservoir project, scheduled to begin construction next month:
According to the project description, the 8,000 acre-foot Drop 2 Storage Reservoir “would store Colorado River water that has been released from Parker Dam to meet downstream water orders but cannot be delivered for various reasons, such as changed weather conditions, high run-off into the river, or a number of other factors. This water typically is not put to beneficial use within the United States due to the lack of sufficient storage capacity below Parker Dam.”
In the past, that ‘non-storable’ water would have flowed to Mexico. Read more from Today’s News-Herald by clicking here.
Schwarzenegger and Feinstein offer up another round of water bond talks, legislature responds with timely water package
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 7:03 amFrom the California Progress Report:
Last Wednesday Governor Schwarzenegger and California Senator Diane Feinstein unveiled yet another iteration of a multi-billion dollar water bond, and urged the legislature to take action to place the water bond on the November 2008 ballot.
This new $9.2 billion proposal was presented as a “compromise.” Indeed, their proposal is $2.6 billion less than the Governor’s last proposal. However, this latest proposal still contains many of the most controversial elements of previous failed attempts to put together a water bond.
Most notably, the measure includes provisions that would limit future legislative oversight for water storage projects and projects affecting the Bay Delta, including the unprecedented continuous appropriation of $3 billion for water storage projects. If approved, the water bond would bypass the legislature and grant allocation authority to the defunct California Water Commission (which is a commission entirely appointed by the Governor and which currently has no appointed members).
The proposal also includes confusing language that seems to limit the Legislature’s ability to engage in a solution to fix the Delta by requiring a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to change or amend any portion of the proposal’s directives regarding the Delta.
Read more from the California Progress Report by clicking here.
Power plants and water treatment facility clogged by debris in upper Kern
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 7:00 amFrom Bakersfield Now:
Thunderstorms have hit areas recently burned by wildfires north of Kernville, and that run-off has ended up in the upper Kern River. The river was running a dark brown through Kernville on Wednesday afternoon. It looked like liquid mud where Patrick McCaughey was fishing in the park. He’d never seen the water like this on this part of the river. “Not with so much silt and all in it,” he told Eyewitness News.
Some of the river water is pulled out for treatment at the California Water Service plant in Kernville. The plant was making some water Wednesday afternoon, but only about one-third of their usual supply.
Technicians say the dirt-filled water clogs the plant in-takes from the river. Cal Water said the plant usually produces 1,000 gallons of water a minute. But as of Wednesday, it was down to about 33 gallons a minute.
Cal Water put out the word, they want people in Kernville and Wofford Heights to cut back water-use as much as possible. “I think it’s a good idea,” Riverkern resident Shelby Eller said. “We don’t need to use that much water, anyway.”
Not only has the dirt & silt caused problems for the city’s water treatment plant, but also for local power plants as well:
.. the dirty water in the upper Kern River has also forced the closure of the hydro-electric power plant just north of Kernville. Southern California Edison says that plant was shut down on Tuesday, the first day of bad water on the upper Kern.
“It gets into the tunnels and it just mucks everything up.” SCE spokeswoman Deborah Hess told Eyewitness News. “You’ve got to worry about all the mechanics, so you’ve got large logs and such that can get in and wreak havoc.”
The power plant above Kernville usually makes 36 megawatts of electricity. Hess says it was down to 15 megawatts just before the bad water. She says a megawatt can supply enough power for about 650 homes. Hess says SCE hopes to get that plant back on line soon.
But, river water is also still bad in the lower Kern River — and that’s forced the closure of an SCE plant in the canyon.
That’s KR-1, and it’s being clogged by run-off from the “Piute Fire” — the same run-off that caused problems in the community of Lake Isabella. Hess says KR-1 usually produces about 25 megawatts of power.
Read more from Bakersfield Now by clicking here.
Rep. Miller says he may sell his investment in toll roads
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 6:53 amIn response to this article from the OC Register yesterday, Representative Gary Miller now says he will sell his bonds if the toll road gets built:
Rep. Gary Miller says he will sell his investment in the Foothill/Eastern tollway if the Transportation Corridor Agency is ever successful in building the southern extension to the road. Miller was responding to a story published Tuesday on ocregister.com that revealed the congressman had steered taxpayer money to and lobbied for the controversial southern extension of the 241 tollway while holding $20,000 in bonds which are repaid by tolls on the Foothill/Eastern, a connected tollway.
Miller’s congressional spokesman, Scott Toussaint, said in an emailed statement that Miller wants to “make clear that he is committed to upholding the ethical responsibilities of his office.”
“If TCA ever completes Foothill-South, I will sell my bonds before completion of the project to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest,” Miller said in the statement.
But Miller’s response did not mollify critics. “The bad behaviour has already occurred,” said Mark Rauscher, assistant environmental director of Surfrider, an environmental group that opposes the southern extension because it would cut through San Onofre Beach park. “Miller knew that he owned the bonds and he already took the action to push for the Foothill South. Selling the bonds if the road gets built means absolutely nothing…he’s already made his money.”
Read the full text of this story from the O.C. Register by clicking here.
Study finds Great Lakes invaders wreak $200 million damages per year
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 6:49 amFrom Reuters News:
Invasive species that have hitched rides into the Great Lakes since they were connected to the sea nearly 50 years ago are causing $200 million a year in damages, according to a study published on Wednesday.
The figure is conservative and does not include damage done to the Canadian economy or other parts of the United States where some of the invaders have traveled by water, said the report from the Center for Aquatic Conservation at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.
Since the St. Lawrence Seaway opened in 1959, 57 species have been carried in via oceangoing vessels, usually in ballast water, the report said.
But if the parade of organisms, which includes the zebra mussel and round goby, stopped tomorrow, the costs “would unfortunately continue” because the damage estimates are based on what has already happened, said David Lodge, an ecologist who directs the Notre Dame center.
The report said that as of 2006 the losses to sport and commercial fishing and tourism and impacts on water treatment and supplies was at least $200 million per year. Lodge said the study did not go beyond 2006 but it could be assumed the costs were continuing.
“Considering that new invasive species are being discovered every year, and species already present are spreading, it is likely that the losses experienced in 2006 will increase in following years,” the study said.
Water use facilities suffered $27 million in damages, but the biggest losses occurred from the loss in recreational fishing. Read more from Reuter’s News by clicking here.
Not just drops of water, but whole lakes, rivers evident on Mars
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 6:37 amFrom the San Francisco Chronicle:
A spacecraft flying high above Mars has found evidence that water flowed on the planet in such abundance billions of years ago that lakes and rivers existed all over its surface, scientists reported today. Images sent back to Earth from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter show vast quantities of water-bearing clays on Mars’ surface, particularly in the planet’s highlands.
So it was water, water everywhere in Mars’ earliest days, between 4.6 and 3.8 billion years ago, said planetary geologists John F. Mustard at Brown University and Scott L. Murchie at Johns Hopkins. And that watery environment, they said, must have meant the planet was habitable long ago - a possibly suitable place for life.
Mustard and Murchie, along with a team of three dozen colleagues at other space research institutions, published a full report on the new signs of water in the journal Nature today.
Murchie told The Chronicle today that he and his colleagues now have “a high degree of confidence” that they have seen evidence for the existence of water in widespread clay mineral rocks that could only have been formed by flowing water and probably large lakes early in the planet’s history.
“The water was not only there, but it was there abundantly and remained long enough to affect the mineralogy of the planet,” he said. He added it could also have been there at a time comparable to Earth’s early days “when the first living organisms emerged and left their fossils that we find today.”
Read more from the San Francisco Chronicle by clicking here.