Future sea water intrusion in Monterrey

If things continue as they are, drinking wells will soon be pumping sea water in Monterrey:

A recent study conducted for the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District concluded that the Seaside Basin aquifer has been drawn down much farther than previously believed. At current pumping rates, the study's authors found, it is only a matter of time before seawater intrudes on drinking-water wells that pump from the aquifer.

The results mean the district and California American Water Co. can rely on the basin less as they search for a water source to replace pumping on the Carmel River. The study also adds more urgency to proposals to build a desalination plant in Moss Landing.

How exactly does sea water intrustion work?

For millions of years, Yates said, offshore flows pushed fresh water under the ocean floor. But increased pumping in the basin has reversed that flow in recent years, sucking fresh water from the ocean floor into the basin. And saltwater is not too far behind.

The only way to prevent the saltwater from intruding on municipal wells, Yates said, is to "balance" the take from the basin by either reducing pumping or injecting more fresh water into the aquifer during wet winter months.

"It's like a checking account," Yates said. "Either you can make more deposits or write fewer checks."

Cal Am and the water district have been operating an aquifer storage and recovery program to refill the underground supply of water with excess winter water from the Carmel River for several years.

Both Cal Am and the water district want to expand that program, and it is an element of Cal Am's proposed Coastal Water Project, which also includes a desalination plant in Moss Landing.

Water transfer on the rocks

From North County Times:

Less than two years after signing a contract to sell billions of gallons of water to San Diego County residents, angry Imperial Valley water leaders say the groundbreaking deal could be in danger because the San Diego County Water Authority is undermining their efforts.

Imperial Irrigation District board members say the Water Authority ---- which opened an office in Imperial Valley earlier this year ---- has:

1) Suggested to valley farmers that the Irrigation District has cheated them by not passing money from the water transfer on to them.

2) Told farmers that the controversial "fallowing" program ---- taking farmland out of production to create water to sell to San Diego County ---- could be "run better."

3) Spread information about how much money it has paid the Irrigation District for water so far to "sway" public opinion to favor a study that says the transfer has "benefited" the valley ---- a study the Irrigation District has challenged. Irrigation District officials say if the study is upheld, the Water Authority wouldn't have to pay the Irrigation District and valley residents millions of dollars in "extra" costs under the deal's terms.

The problem seems to be in a sum of $10 million which will be paid to Imperial only under certain conditions:

the Water Authority agreed to pay the Irrigation District $10 million that would only be spent if an independent group of economists ruled that the deal caused economic harm in the valley.

The group of three economists ---- one chosen by the Water Authority, one chosen by the Irrigation District, and the last chosen by the other two ---- would render judgment once a year. Fallowing would put farmworkers and others who rely upon the farm industry for their livelihood out of work.

This year, two of the three economists ---- the Water Authority representative and the "at large" member ---- ruled that the water transfer has financially benefited the valley.

The Irrigation District is challenging that finding, saying that it knows of at least 100 people who have been harmed by the deal and that it believes the two economists misused information to reach their conclusion.

Meanwhile, the Water Authority has said publicly, and written in "fact sheets," that it has paid the Irrigation District $9.3 million for fallowed water so far and that $2.3 million of that has been paid by the Irrigation District to farmers.

The Water Authority has said that the Irrigation District has "retained" the remaining $7 million, and repeated that assertion in meetings with the Imperial Valley Farm Bureau.

That has enraged the Irrigation District board. Horne said the Water Authority was telling local farmers that the Irrigation District was "gypping them" by pocketing the lion's share of the payments.

Horne said that's not true. He said the district has spent the $7 million to mitigate environmental effects caused by the transfer and to pay off some of the $26 million it had to borrow to make the transfer deal happen.

In addition, Horne said, the Water Authority's suggestion that the Irrigation District is keeping $7 million incorrectly buttresses the independent panel's ruling that the water transfer has actually benefited the valley ---- and that the Irrigation District is simply not sharing the wealth.

Supporting the panel's finding, Horne said, directly benefits the Water Authority.

The future of water supply

Many articles I post on this site I find from California Water News. In today's issue, they had a number of interesting articles on where water will come from in the future.

It looks like desalination is on Congress' mind:

Legislation to increase the federal government’s role in developing desalination plants as part of a solution to America’s growing water supply crisis has been introduced for the first time in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL), it was announced. Identical legislation has been re-introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Representatives Jim Davis (D-FL) and Jim Gibbons (R-NV).

A south bay water district received an award for water recycling:

The El Segundo City Council presented West Basin Municipal Water
District with a proclamation on Tuesday for its commitment to ensuring a safe and reliable water supply for the South Bay through its innovative water recycling program. For the past ten years, the West Basin Water Recycling Facility (WBWRF) in El Segundo has been providing the region with high-quality recycled water to conserve drinking water and diversify the water supply. Since its construction in 1995, the WBWRF has saved more than 91.2 billion gallons of drinking water by using recycled water for non-potable applications.

A similar reuse plan could benefit cities a few miles up the coast:

Morro Bay and Cayucos could save millions of gallons of water if the communities' shared sewer plant boosted treatment levels and recycled the wastewater, according to the county grand jury's latest report. Such an undertaking would take about 10 years and $15 million to fulfill, according to the plant's manager. It would cost ratepayers up to $265 a year. They pay about $160 annually now. The plant discharges more than 1 million gallons of treated wastewater into the ocean every day.

The city of Santa Monica is urging conservation:

Despite this year’s near-record rainfall in the southwestern U.S., it turns out that the rain fell in the wrong place. All the watersheds relied upon by several major metropolitan areas -- Los Angeles , San Diego , Las Vegas and Phoenix -- experienced significantly lower than normal levels of rainfall and snow pack. The Colorado River is below its average, and northern California water supplies -- Santa Monica ’s primary source -- are also lower than normal this year. The entire region is under increasing pressure to promote water-efficiency and conservation measures. Despite the City of Santa Monica ’s goal to cut water waste 20 percent by the year 2010, local usage is up. Daily water use is more than 13 million gallons per day, significantly higher than expected for a city that is just 8.3 square miles. Reaching the 20 percent target will require cutting that use to 10 million gallons per day.
In an effort to reach the goal, the city is offering residents and businesses several incentive programs, including rebates for water-efficient fixtures that range from $50 to $2,000.

User fees, water transport and electricity

From Capital Press' Agriculture Weekly:

User fees could very well be part of any plan to expand and improve the state’s water delivery infrastructure, state Secretary of Resources Mike Chrisman said.

The government may be unable to rely solely on general obligation bonds and will have to borrow for what may be billion-dollar investments, Chrisman told an agricultural group.

“We are going to have to develop new ways of paying for these things,” said Chrisman, who was appointed in 2003 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to head an agency that has 15,000 employees and annual budget of more than $4 billion.

Chrisman pointed out a tremendous potential benefit of desalination plants, related to an absolutely astounding figure:

Desalination plants conceivably could free more water, or at least allow the agriculture industry to retain some of its current uses.

There would be another benefit, too, he said.

“Forty percent of the cost of electricity (in the state) is spent on pumping water to Southern California,” said Chrisman.

The question of the social, economic and environmental costs of shipping so much water around the state – and what fees should be assessed for that – is being asked more and more.

Groundwater storage rules

New rules for underground water storage were voted on yesterday. From the Whittier Daily News:

The Water Replenishment District of Southern California on Wednesday -- on a 4-1 vote -- adopted rules for storing water in natural underground aquifers to ensure there's enough water to meet demands during the next drought.

But officials from area cities and other water utilities are objecting to the rules the WRD adopted.

Jim Glancy, president of the Central Basin Water Association that represents water producers in the Southeast area of Los Angeles County, said the rules favor the larger water users -- such as Long Beach, Los Angeles and Metropolitan Water District over smaller cities such as Downey, Pico Rivera and Santa Fe Springs.

The rules call for applications to be made to the replenishment district followed by another review by the Project Review Committee for feasibility, impact on the basin and benefit to the region. The committee would then make a recommendation to the WRD board.

This committee would be divided equally between the Central and West basin water associations, which represent the smaller cities and water utilities and Metropolitan Water District members, including the two municipal water districts, Long Beach and Los Angeles.

Cal Am

California American Water was acquired about 18 months ago by the international conglomerate RWE-Thames Water, reported to be the third-largest water provider in the world.

In yesterday's Monterey Herald, it is reported that Cal Am is under investigation for its proposed hike in public water rates for the communities it serves to help offset its expenses in attempting to dissolve the water district that regulates Cal Am.

Consumer advocates at the California Public Utilities Commission have asked California American Water to explain its activities surrounding state legislation to dissolve the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Cal Am's only local regulator.

The request comes in the wake of a Herald report detailing Cal Am's payments of more than $1 million to public relations and lobbying firms to promote its proposed Moss Landing desalination project. Among other things, Armanasco Public Relations and water lobbyist Meg Catzen-Brown billed for meetings and phone calls regarding Senate Bill 149, unsuccessful legislation by former Sen. Bruce McPherson that eventually morphed into an unsuccessful bill to dissolve the district.

The charges are among more than $4 million in Coastal Water Project expenses that it wants to pass on to its Peninsula customers in a rate increase application now before the Public Utilities Commission.

The commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates, charged with protecting the state's consumers, is examining the application to determine if the various charges should be borne by the customers. Analyst Diana Brooks has questioned the company's expenditures on "public outreach."

Her queries grew more pointed this week.

"Please explain Cal Am's efforts with regard to SB 149 (McPherson)," she wrote.

Apparently, Cal Am has pushed for dissolving the water district for some time.

Cal Am has long advocated for the dissolution of the water district. In 2002, after the district rejected Cal Am's proposed dam on the Carmel River, the company donated $10,000 towards an advisory ballot measure to dissolve the district.

Another Kesterton?

From the Mercury News:

A federal plan to drain mineral-laden irrigation water from farms includes a proposal similar to one that caused an environmental disaster more than two decades ago, leading to bird deformities and deaths.

Environmentalists fear that leaving the tainted water to accumulate in evaporation ponds, even if it's treated to reduce most of the toxic minerals, could lead to problems similar to what happened in the Kesterson Wildlife Refuge in the 1980s, when entire colonies of birds died and many were born with missing limbs.

What actually happened at Kesterton?

Few realized selenium was toxic when agricultural water was first pumped into Kesterson, which is part of the 26,609-acre San Luis National Wildlife Refuge, about 80 miles northwest of Fresno.

As the water evaporated, the selenium reached 350 parts per billion - enough to turn what had been a vibrant wildlife refuge into a foul-smelling bog where thousands of birds died, said Gary Zahm, a retired federal wildlife biologist who managed the refuge at the time.

"The birds were feeding their young insects that had hatched in the reservoir," Zahm said, remembering baby birds born with three eyes, no legs, or crooked beaks. "It was like feeding them poison pills."

What is the purpose of pumping the water in this way?

What to do with the water is one of the most vexing dilemmas in the Central Valley. Farming here depends on irrigation, but the clay underlying much of the farmland in the west side of the valley keeps excess water from draining away. The leftover water, heavy with salts and minerals, damages crops and eventually renders land infertile if left in the fields. As it drains, the water also picks up pesticides and other chemicals - but it's selenium, and its effects on bird reproduction, that worry most biologists.

The cost of pollution

From newswise.com:

Analyzing data from two popular Orange County beaches, Newport and Huntington, a team that includes professors from UC Irvine and UC Riverside estimates that swimming in these coastal waters costs the public $3.3 million per year in health-related expenses.

The calculation is based on lost wages and medical care to treat more than 74,000 incidents of stomach illness, respiratory disease and eye, ear and skin infections caused by exposure to the polluted waters in a typical year.

“This estimate helps us begin to understand the bigger picture of the economic burden imposed on society from polluting our coastal recreational waters,” explained UC Riverside economist Linda Fernandez, co-author of the study.

Groundwater storage

From the Latimes:

Since Southern California was settled, communities have lived and died on their access to water, fighting mercilessly for their rights to pump it. Now, the focus has shifted as cities see the depleted underground aquifers as a potentially valuable resource.

A group of cities in southeast Los Angeles County, including Downey and Lakewood, are asserting their rights over the vast aquifers and hope to eventually use the porous sediments to store portions of their water supply. They believe they can save money by pumping imported water into the ground rather than pay for expensive water storage facilities and pipelines.

During wet years, water can be stored away underground... and the storage facility is already built!

Water storage can be expensive: The Metropolitan Water District, the region's main water wholesaler, spent $2 billion completing Diamond Valley Lake, a reservoir that holds 800,000 acre-feet of water and required flooding a valley in Riverside County. An acre-foot is enough water to supply two average families for a year.

But who do the aquifers belong to?

[E]xactly who controls the valuable aquifers is a matter of dispute. The Water Replenishment District of Southern California also claims authority over what happens in the aquifers. The district was formed in 1959 because local agencies had drawn out so much water that the aquifers were dangerously low. It was charged with refilling the aquifers so that agencies with rights to the water could continue pumping.

Water district officials fear that cities or other groups with water rights, such as private water companies, want to use the fragile water system to generate revenue. They worry about the aquifers being leased out to the highest bidder or agencies that will distribute the water elsewhere. That, they said, could result in misuse of the system.

A Long Beach Press-Telegram article explains:

Currently, water from sources such as rain, recycling and purchases from Metropolitan Water District, is used to recharge the basin. A similar amount is pumped out each year. But the underground basins could hold more water twice as much as they now hold, water officials agree. The basins are 420 square miles in area, from the Los Angeles International Airport to the Orange County border and from the Whittier hills to the coastline.

Klamath wars, cont.

From Redding.com:

The continuing battle in the Klamath Basin between farmers who need scarce water for their crops and activists who believe it should be used to preserve threatened and endangered fish has moved to a new front.

Environmentalists, salmon fishermen and the Hoopa and Yurok tribes, who champion more water for fish, have turned their focus on the price of electricity that pumps the water through miles of canals on the Klamath Reclamation Project and into individual irrigation systems.

Interesting...

Unsuccessful in winning a federal buyout of irrigated farmlands, they are taking a page from conservatives and pushing for the free market to reduce irrigation.

They support the utility PacifiCorp's moves to raise electric rates for 1,300 customers on the Klamath Reclamation Project and neighboring lands as much as 1,000 percent to market rates when the 50-year contract expires next April.

Can you imagine a 1000% electricity bill increase?

Water Recycling in Inland Empire

From the DailyBulletin.com:

For the second time in two years, the House gave a unanimous thumbs up to a $30 million water-recycling initiative in the Inland Empire...

"We're thrilled that it passed the House," said Richard Atwater, general manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. "We're very hopeful that it will be approved by the Senate so it can be enacted into law."

The bill authorizes a 10 percent federal match to state and local funding for two new water recycling projects in the Inland Empire expected to produce 100,000 acre-feet of water annually.

You can read about water recycling basics from the EPA; I assume that Inland will be using the water for watering lawns, etc. I have been trying to find a copy of the report about these plants online... you can find last year's bill here. I wonder how cost effective the plant really is?

Desalination effects on the environment

What to do with the concentrated brine is a key issue to be dealt with in desal. But the draft of an EIR for a Carlsbad plant says that the salt could be safely returned to the ocean. From SignOnSanDiego.com:

A proposed desalination plant would not irreparably damage the environment or harm marine life where the plant discharges concentrated salt water into the ocean, says a draft environmental impact report on the project released yesterday.

Poseidon Resources proposes to build a $270 million plant on the grounds of the ocean-front Encina Power Plant, where it would desalinate 50 million gallons a day of seawater to pipe to Carlsbad and neighboring communities.

It would be the first desalination plant in the county since a small Navy plant was built in Point Loma in 1960 and moved to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 1964.

It would be also one of the first large-scale plants in California, where desalination is attracting attention as a future source of drinking water in a parched state.

One does have to wonder, however, whether or not there are some farther reaching environemtnal effects that will not be discovered until after these expensive plants are implemented...

Cal Am wants to triple rates

Desalination is no inexpensive venture, as Cal Am has spent over a million dollars just promoting its desalination project. From the Monterey County Herald:

California American Water has paid more than $1.1 million to public relations and lobbying firms to promote its proposed desalination project and wants to be reimbursed by its Monterey Peninsula customers.

The expenditures represent more than 25 percent of the $4.2 million that Cal Am had spent on preconstruction costs as of December 2004.

Cal Am wants to pass the full cost on to its local customers as part of a giant rate increase it is seeking from the state Public Utilities Commission, largely to pay for the proposed desalination plant in Moss Landing and expanded underground water storage in the Seaside Basin.

If the application is approved, Cal Am's rates would more than double over the next three years.

Trinity fish habitat to be restored

The Trinity River is now able to flow freely again. From the LA Times:

As a gate lifted on the small concrete Lewiston Dam, about an hour's winding drive west of Redding, water spilled down an apron into the Trinity. Federal dam managers, who have spent the last 40 years sucking water from the river and sending most of its flow to the farm fields of the Central Valley, were letting the Trinity go.

The river ran frothy and aqua-green, knocking down willow trees along its banks, muscling over its sandy shoulders and roaring under bridges. It was fast. It was rambunctious. For four days, it was its old self.

The Trinity River had been extensively tapped for Bay Area water use:

Up until now, 75% of the Trinity's water — and at times as much as 90% — has been piped through a mountain tunnel to the Sacramento River, which carries it south to the Delta and a federal aqueduct that feeds the Central Valley.

These dams severely impacted the river wildlife:

steelhead, chinook and coho salmon populations... have plunged to roughly one-fifth of what they were before the Trinity and Lewiston dams were completed in 1963, capturing the river's frigid headwaters.

The bureau of rec hopes that the fish will return if their habitat is restored:

By letting the Trinity keep more of its water, and releasing it in ways that mimic nature's cycle of high spring flows, scientists hope to restore conditions that will help the fish spawn and grow healthy and plump for their journey downriver to the sea.

"We're basing it on the premise that if we build the habitat, the fish will find it," said Nina Hemphill, a restoration program fisheries biologist.

New desalination technology

From the Ventura Countar Star:

The sea has been a source of recreation and food supply for ages.

Now, the ocean is becoming a promising, abundant new source of fresh water at a time when there are serious shortages of water, especially in California.

Improvements in technology are making desalination more attractive to water suppliers. This state-of-the-art technology is on display at the Naval Base Ventura County at Port Hueneme.

Wednesday, several officials, Naval officers and others attended the dedication and startup of what is being billed as "the most energy efficient" seawater desalination demonstration facility in California.

Borrowing water

From the Monterey Herald.com:

Monterey County will "borrow" water from the Fort Ord Reuse Agency to help secure new development on the old military installation.

The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday agreed to accept 150 acre-feet of water per year offered by the reuse agency for five years. The water is supposed to tide the county over until the Marina Coast Water District can start providing 2,400 acre-feet per year it expects to generate from a new project during the next seven years.

An acre-foot can provide four average Peninsula homes enough water for a year.

At the moment, the county has been given 560 acre-feet of water from the agency for various projects it is planning for the section of Fort Ord within the county's jurisdiction. The county has already committed 524 acre-feet for various projects, most of it going to a major subdivision in East Garrison.

The needs of the few

From Southern Oregon's Mail Tribune:

When Medford Water Commission board member Lou Hannum found out a state representative had drafted a bill that would require the agency to deliver water to a rural subdivision, he said it didn’t make sense.

"What possible statewide interest is there?" asked the former Medford mayor and League of Oregon Cities president.

The commission during its Wednesday meeting asked Medford city staff to voice their displeasure over the bill to Rep. Sal Esquivel, R-Medford, who has vowed to oppose it.

"This violates the Oregon Constitution," John Huttl, interim city attorney, told the board.

Introduced by Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, the bill would require the Water Commission to make its water treatment, transmission and distribution infrastructure available to residents of Westwood Subdivision, located off Ross Lane between Medford and Central Point — outside both cities’ urban growth boundary. The move came after urging from Trent Nistler, president of the Westwood Subdivision Water District, because some of the wells of the 1950s homes are drying up.

It's never simple...

From AZcentral.com:

TUCSON - Some environmental groups are asking Tucson voters to reject the city's $142 million in proposed water bonds.

Rob Kulakofsky of the Center for Environmental Connections said the vague wording of the city ballot gives the city too much latitude in how it spends the money.

"That means a lot of it can be earmarked for urban sprawl" and other uses, "including processing sewer water into drinking water," Kulakofsky said.

Water issues are always more complicated when there's more money involved...

Trying to keep it clean...

Everyone knows that the heavy Sierra snowfall this year has provided the state with considerably more water resources than usual. But just because the snow is on the ground doesn't mean that it will successfully be captured behind a dam to be drunk by consumers. From the San Bernadino County Sun:

The deep, dense snowpack has raised cautious hopes for millions of dollars worth of useful runoff as well as concerns about avalanches. Water vendors are counting on the keepers of the dam, coupled with efforts by Southern California Edison, to save the runoff from being contaminated by a muck-filled debris pool contained behind the dam.

If not, local water districts will be forced to use a high-priced alternative from Northern California and increase customers' rates.

"If we can get it right through the dam to us, we're probably going to be OK,' said Robert Martin, general manager of the East Valley Water District, which serves customers in Highland and parts of San Bernardino. "That's the caveat they've had a lot of problems this year.'

The 10-year-old dam situated east of Highland is intended to protect thousands of lives and billions of dollars in property in San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange counties.

Unofficially, the dam serves another purpose as water travels first through it to the water districts below the $460 million structure and then to Orange County and the Pacific Ocean. The dam's duty could be augmented later this year. Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, wants the Army Corps of Engineers to add water conservation as a secondary use.

The muck behind the dam - a thick batter of water, sediment and vegetation - has already contaminated millions of dollars of runoff this year. Dam officials had hoped to reduce much of the wasted 42,000 acre-feet of water being stored in mid-March, but a testing of the dam's gates caused a 7-inch thick, 30-foot-by-30-foot gouge of concrete to break free from its tunnel.

The Army Corps shut down the gate and employees have been investigating the tunnel, which initially was damaged years ago during the dam's construction. Samples of the bonding used to hold the concrete together weren't "what we expected them to be,' said Greg Fuderer, an Army Corps spokesman.

In about a month, the tunnel floor will be torn out, new concrete will be poured and metal bars will be added to increase strength. The demolition will take 30 days. Repairs may begin as late as November, but Fuderer acknowledged a hope to get the work done sooner because that is the start of the rainy season.

In the meantime, there is another alternative to keep the fresh runoff out of the debris pool.

The key for the local water districts, Martin said, is to have Southern California Edison get its hydroelectric plants running again. The plants operate with water taken before it hits the debris pool. The water is then routed around the dam, saving it from contamination.

Desalination: the way of the future?

More money pouring into desal... from an NSCC press release:

The California Department of Water Resources and State Water Resources Control Board have recommended that seven member agencies of the Northern California Salinity Coalition receive nearly $7.8 million for desalination and recycled water projects....

State funding will come from Proposition 50 desalination, water recycling, and local ground water assistance funding. Funding for desalination projects is available through Proposition 50, the Water Quality, Supply and Safe Drinking Water Projects, Coastal Wetlands Purchase and Protection Act passed by California voters in 2002. Proposition 50 authorized the sale of $3.4 billion in general obligation bonds for a variety of water projects including coastal protection, the CALFED Bay Delta Program and integrated regional water management, among others.

Water tunnel?

From NCTimes.com:

In a move that could significantly boost the odds of commuters getting a new highway to Orange County, the board of Southern California's heavyweight water provider voted unanimously Tuesday to team up with two regional transportation agencies on a study of the potential for a tunnel.

How long would this tunnel be?

"We're talking about an 11- or 12-mile tunnel that would effectively eliminate the need for putting in a pipeline of about 80 miles," Bannister said, referring to a long, circuitous route around the Santa Anas that would follow Highway 91 into Orange County.

What would be the origin and destination of the water?

"... [the tunnel would] bring water directly from Lake Mathews and Diamond Valley Lake into Orange County, Long Beach and San Diego."

And what would the cost of this tunnel be? That's the real kicker; unfortunately it is not addressed in this article...

Happy water awareness month

Apparently, May is water awareness month in sunny California. From Businesswire.com:

California's traditional May observance of Water Awareness Month this year serves as a prelude to public hearings in June on the newest California Water Plan Update.

The 2005 Update is an expert, comprehensive water planning document prepared by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to help Californians gauge supply and demand, and plan intelligently to meet future water needs.

Some of the festivities include a field trip:

On Thursday, May 12, some 200 fourth grade students from schools in Arvin, Bakersfield, Frazier Park and Metler will enjoy a special Water Awareness Day at the Edmonston Pumping Plant, south of Bakersfield, just east of Interstate 5.

Located at the base of the Tehachapi Mountains, Edmonston Pumping Plant lifts SWP water nearly 2000 feet up and over the mountain range for use in Southern California.

If you're curious how much energy it takes to move that much water that high, buy Cadillac Desert... Reisner wrote (quite bitterly) about the course of events that led to the construction of the Edmonston plant.

The LA River

From the LA Times:

In 1938, with no other choice, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began channeling the Los Angeles River to prevent flooding. This ultimately resulted in the 51-mile-long, mostly concrete-lined storm sewer that exists today. Although the river controlled flooding during this winter's near record-breaking rainfall, it failed the region in three critical ways.

It wastefully flushed billions of gallons of water down its channel and into the ocean in an arid region that imports most of its water. It is a scar across the face of the city. And, most seriously, with increasing population and expanding development that paves over more land, the river probably will not be able to convey major storm waters in coming years unless its capacity is increased and/or the storm water is dealt with otherwise.

The first recommendation: capture rainfall before it runs into the ocean:

...we must capture more storm water before it reaches the Los Angeles River. That means addressing the river's watershed — the entire geographic area that drains into the river — and its ability to collect and absorb storm water. Unfortunately, much of the river's watershed has been paved over.

So we must find creative ways to capture storm water in the watershed and recharge the groundwater. Our heavily developed metropolitan area doesn't have adequate open space to allow for construction of regional storm water detention basins, which are used by some other cities, such as Houston. The key is, therefore, to make every square foot of existing open space more porous. We can also harvest rainwater from rooftops and design new buildings with green (landscaped) roofs that will absorb water. We also should continue to plant trees throughout the watershed to slow, intercept and absorb storm water.

Easier said than done, of course. The second suggestion:

We must also revitalize the Los Angeles River itself. In February, the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering issued a "master plan request for proposals" to do just that. What can that accomplish? Its cohesive framework would protect the river's flood-control capabilities, create opportunities for adding vegetation and possibly for establishing fish and wildlife habitat, and provide a place for people to enjoy where vibrant, new development could occur with time.

I liked Fleming's perspective in her conclusion:

Los Angeles is still a young city. With the proposed revitalization of the Los Angeles River, we have the opportunity to transform the city for a better future. Such opportunities come along, at most, once in a generation. In the 1850s, New York City purchased the land to create Central Park when many naysayers said it was a waste of money. In the 1990s, on the heels of a natural disaster, San Francisco rebuilt its Embarcadero waterline, creating one of the world's great promenades and jump-starting development along its long-derelict edge.

I want to believe her, and I hope this amounts to more than wishful thinking. And there may be some evidence to point to that conclusion... the Friends of the LA River, for instance, have an annual cleanup called La Gran Limpieza.

Klamath River Issues

From NPR:

The battle over water continues in the Klamath River Basin on the Oregon-California border. Another year of drought has been declared, which may spell more trouble for the region.

A century ago, the Bureau of Reclamation drained huge marshes in the region, exposing fertile soil. For a long time it seemed like a good situation for all involved. Then species of wildlife which had depended on the marshes began to suffer.

Farmers and their supporters in the region protested four years ago when the federal government shut off irrigation water to help endangered fish. And while farmers and the government say they're doing a lot more to protect endangered species now, environmentalists say the core issue is being ignored: There just isn't enough water to meet all needs.

What will Arnold do?

According to the Sacramento Business Journal, the Association of California Water Agencies has begun to urge our Governor to develop some sort of plan to address the state's water future.

Key Recommendations Include:

o Improving the existing water conveyance system in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta;
o Evaluating long-term threats to Delta levees and pursuing actions to reduce risks to the state's water supply and the environment;
o Developing additional groundwater and surface water storage; and
o Supporting and funding local efforts to expand recycled water use, water use efficiency and desalination of sea water and brackish groundwater.

Water Wars: Las Vegas Versus Utah

Without doubt, one of the fastest growing areas in the Western US is Las Vegas. The US Census shows a growth from around 200,000 in the 60s to 1,600,000 in recent years. With all the new people and businesses arriving, the need for water has significantly grown. So what are their plans to get water for all these people? A "$2 billion ... pipe [to bring] groundwater [to Vegas] from as far north as Ely"... 250 miles away by car, 350 miles of pipe.

The plans are currently under review... From the reviewjournal.com:

Southern Nevada must control growth and look for other sources of water before it spends almost $2 billion to pipe groundwater here from as far north as Ely.

That was the consensus Wednesday during a public meeting in Las Vegas that will shape a federal study of the pipeline project proposed by the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

Many of those who spoke said any study of the water authority's plans should include an honest look at growth controls, increased water conservation, new deals for Colorado River water and the desalination of Pacific Ocean water.

How much water would Vegas get out of the pipeline?

Water authority officials say the pipeline project could be finished by 2015 and supply the Las Vegas Valley with as much as 200,000 acre-feet of water a year. That amounts to roughly two-thirds of the state's annual share of the Colorado River, which provides Southern Nevada with about 90 percent of its drinking water.

One farmer resorted to sarcasm in fighting the project...

Utah rancher Cecil Garland, who wore denim overalls and a baseball cap to Wednesday's meeting, tried to make his point by turning the tables on the water authority.

"I've come down here to take your water," he said. "What we'll do is sell a bunch of government land and use the money to build a pipeline down to here so we can continue to grow ... our crops and cattle."

An article published this week in the Salt Lake City Tribune makes much the same point:

An old-fashioned water fight could soon be brewing between Nevada and Utah over a proposal by southern Nevada officials to tap groundwater in the eastern part of that state to quench the rapidly growing thirst of Las Vegas.

The problem: The aquifers in question also run under Utah's west desert. And ranchers, environmentalists and political leaders on this side of the border are raising red flags about the potential impacts of such a project.

Which aquifer is it? I couldn't find a name for it; the closest I could find was in an LA Times article published about a year ago, and archived on waterconserve.info:

The Las Vegas pumping would draw at least in part from a vast underground aquifer known as the carbonate aquifer, after the type of rock it occupies. It extends from beneath western Utah through eastern and southern Nevada to Death Valley in eastern California. Several miles thick, it holds an enormous amount of water, much of it stored for thousands of years after falling as rain or snow during much wetter eras.

"It's a huge aquifer system," acknowledged Dan McGlothlin, supervisory hydrologist for the National Park Service's water rights branch. "But the recharge in relation to the storage is so small, and if you look at it as a bathtub with water spilling over — if you draw water down so you no longer have flow over the top of the bathtub, you have essentially dried up the springs."

How quickly and by what amounts the aquifer is recharged is a pivotal point in the pumping debate. "The real issue for water development is the current rate of recharge, and the major area of contention in science is determining that," said Kimball Goddard, who runs the U.S. Geological Survey's Nevada water program. If significantly more water is withdrawn from the aquifer than is annually replenished through rain and snow, the aquifer level will drop.

New Desal Study

From a West Basin Municipal Water District press release for a new desalination test facility:

West Basin Municipal Water District, along with several other industry-leading manufacturers and government agencies, will participate in the Affordable Desalination Collaboration’s ribbon cutting ceremony for the Seawater Desalination Test Facility
at the Port Hueneme US Naval Base on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

According to the article, the amount of energy required to remove salts from seawater or brackish water will be decreased by promising new technologies:

Recent technologies have been developed that could lower the amount of energy needed during the desalination process to levels comparable to conventional water sources such as the State Water Project and Colorado River Aqueduct, resulting in a lower overall cost for desalinated water. The Affordable Desalination Demonstration Project will test the latest generation of these new technologies.

I'm still skeptical...

ACWA pushes for better plan

From the Chico Enterprise Record:

A coalition of public water agencies in California wants legislators to become more active in planning for the state's future water needs.

A report titled "No Time to Waste: A Blueprint for California Water," was presented Wednesday during Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) annual spring conference in San Jose.

The report has many similarities to the California Water Plan update 2005, released by the Department of Water Resources recently, and up for review through June.

The summaries of both documents touch on similar needs, like addressing new storage options, solving environmental concerns in the Bay Area Delta, flood control and regional water management.

The ACWA suggests that the governor should make this one of his priorities.

"The governor, in particular, needs to take this on as one of his legacy initiatives to move forward," [said ACWA executive director Steve Hall].

"The governor has not spoken that much publicly about water," Hall said. "We are told that within his cabinet it is a priority," and that the governor has the state water director Lester Snow working on it.

The problem with new water projects is deciding who pays for them:

Typically when discussion on new projects occurs, the state has a concept of "beneficiary pays." The problem, Hall noted, is figuring out what is a fair share.

"No one is willing to step out and say we'll pay X amount," Hall said. "They're afraid other people won't match them and they'll be stuck with the bill."

Asked if the public should expect the cost of water to rise after all is said and done, Hall said maybe, but not by much.

"Lester Snow has an idea that is intriguing," Hall said. "If every household pays $2 a month with their water bill, that would raise up to $0.5 billion ($500 million) a year."

Colorado River Editorial

Apparently, the Secretary of the Interior's decision not to cut releases from Lake Powell in the upper Colorado River basin has the upper basin states up in arms. This editorial from the Denver Post has a bit more on why they felt the releases should have been cut:

Lake Powell is the region's insurance against economic disruption and political conflict during droughts. The states upstream on the Colorado River (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico) are legally obligated to deliver a certain amount of water to three lower basin states (California, Nevada and Arizona). When Powell is nearly full, Interior can open the spigots to send water downstream to meet the lower basin's needs, without requiring water use cutbacks in upstream states. If Powell gets too low, there's no easy way to deal with drought.

Norton missed a chance to pressure all seven states develop long-term plans to share the pain of prolonged droughts. Norton would have gotten everyone's attention if she had curbed Powell's water releases even by a few thousand acre-feet.

Impending water crisis in Cali?

From the California Farm Bureau's Ag Alert:

With California still not out of the dark from the energy crisis of 2000, which sent electricity rates soaring and many small businesses packing, another impending crisis is looming over the Golden State--water. The Association of California Water Agencies predicts California will face chronic water shortages by 2010. The Department of Water Resources tags the shortfall at about 2.4 million acre-feet a year by 2020, with the estimated shortage jumping to 6.2 million acre-feet if there is a drought.
Until now, the state's main approach to the supply crunch has been to encourage water efficiency. Yet even with aggressive water conservation, California will still be dangerously short of water if we do not act immediately to increase storage.

So what has changed to spark this concern?

The majority of California's reservoirs were built in the late 1960s, designed to provide water for 20 million Californians. Since then, the population has grown to 35 million residents. If growth trends continue, California will be home to nearly 50 million people by 2020. Despite this boom, only two storage facilities have been built in the last two decades.

What are some proposed solutions?

It is no longer realistic to assume that conservation efforts alone will make up the shortfall. When a young couple looks to grow their family, they do not attempt to provide for their children's future by merely conserving some of their current wealth. Rather, if they are wise, they add to their financial reserves by storing some of their income every month in a savings account. So what stops California from exhibiting similar responsibility in planning for our growing water needs?

Water storage facilities are not built for the same reason that new power plants are not built--unnecessary environmental obstacles. Attacks on existing storage facilities such as Friant Dam, and on newly proposed projects, like Temperance Flat or Sites Reservoir, are examples of the short-sightedness that got California into our current water debacle.

These facilities alone could add over 2 million acre-feet of water storage. Despite clear need, these projects, and many others like them, sit buried under a mountain of endless environmental studies and costly court challenges.

Lake Powell releases won't be cut

The big news yesterday was that the upper Colorado River basin states weren't able to persuade the secretary of the interior to make an unusual reduction in Lake Powell releaeses this year. From the San Diego Union Tribune:

The federal government will not cut releases of Colorado River water this year from drought-depleted Lake Powell, Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced Monday.

In letters to governors and water officials in the seven Colorado River basin states, Norton said melting snow is projected to be slightly above average for the rest of the year and more water is stored in reservoirs now than had been projected last year.

"We have concluded that an adjustment to the release amount from Lake Powell during the next five months is not warranted," she said.

The two sides of the argument are succinctly expressed thus:

Upper-basin states Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico argue that heavy winter rains raised Lake Mead downstream enough to justify an unprecedented reduction in water released from Lake Powell, now 34 percent capacity.

Lower-basin states California, Arizona and Nevada maintain that holding water back at Lake Powell would threaten their ability to draw water and power from Lake Mead, which was at 62 percent capacity.