San Joaquin and Los Angeles

An LATimes editorial makes a case that Angelinos should be more concerned with the frequent dry times in the San Joaquin River:

As it descends from the Sierra, the river effectively dies for much of the year when it backs up behind Friant Dam north of Fresno. The water is diverted north and south along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley via irrigation canals. About 60 miles of the river go dry. It does pick up some flow from tributaries to the north, but that water is overwhelmed by polluted irrigation runoff. Victims of this shallow, foul stew include the historic salmon run up the San Joaquin. Ultimately, it flows into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and out to San Francisco Bay.

In the delta, the huge pumps of the State Water Project send enough water to Kern County farms and urban users in Southern California to meet the household needs of 2 million families for a year. Pollution in the delta has been a major concern of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which wholesales water to urban districts serving 18 million people from Ventura to San Diego.

A U.S. district judge ruled last year that the federal Bureau of Reclamation had violated a state fish and game law by allowing the river to go dry. A 1937 law requires dam operators to release enough water downstream to maintain the existing fisheries. The case is set for full trial next spring. A major unanswered question is how to find replacement water for the farmers if some of their supply has to remain in the stream.

A solution will take years to work out. But proposed legislation by state Sen. Michael Machado (D-Linden), due for a key committee test today, is one place to start. It would create a "San Joaquin River Fund" with $9 million remaining from a voter-approved state water bond issue. The money would help restore habitat along the river and pay for replacement water.

Polluted beaches, scarce funds

From the LA Times:

A divided Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has voted to continue fighting strict rules on cleaning up storm water runoff, opening a new chapter in the long-running legal battle over beach pollution.

The vote was met with dismay by environmentalists who have backed efforts by California's regional water boards to impose tough requirements on local governments to clean up storm water pollution, the primary cause of beach closures.... The plan requires the county to conduct more rigorous inspections of construction sites and industrial facilities that are likely to produce polluted runoff when it rains. In addition, the new rules hold the county and cities that own and operate storm drains accountable for ensuring that runoff pollution is dramatically reduced.

The issue, of course, is really how much money to spend?

The Los Angeles-area runoff plan requires government agencies and builders to clean up tainted water before it trickles into waterways and makes its way to the ocean. But the county, along with many cities and business groups, has fought the plan, arguing that the rules could prove unreasonably costly.

In some ways, it comes down to ideology.

"It's an outrageous waste of scarce public dollars," said David Beckman, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which had fought the county's suit against the state. "The county is effectively asking for permission to continue to deliver huge quantities of polluted water to local beaches.".... Michael Lauffer, an attorney for the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, acknowledged the costs but said beachgoers deserved cleaner water. "It's going to be a long-term expensive problem to solve," he said. "That said, it's worth it. They are world-class beaches."

California Water Strategy

Having read the LA Times summary of the Cali Water Strategy, I have just begun digging through the document myself, and decided to begin with the Highlights, a tasteful document with more pictures than words.

The document begins with the year 2030 water demand predictions. Instead of true predictions, several scenarios are laid out based on how much water users are willing to conserve and how fast population grows. The demand is broken out by region and by sector. In all three scenarios, for instance, significant water demand increases are forseen for the Sacramento River Area, while significant decreases are expected in the Tulare Lake Area. One question that came to mind was why water demand patterns in these areas are expected to change so much. Here in the South Coast, demand increases significantly in two of the three scenarios. The predictions by sector were equally interesting, with a significant reduction in water demand from Agriculture; the urban demand increases significantly in all three scenarios.

The rest of the document summarizes the Water Plan's recommendations for the next twenty-five years. The goals are organized based on sustainability and reliability.

Toward a more sustainable water supply, three "foundational actions" are laid out:

- Use water efficiently
- Protect water quality
- Manage water in ways that protect and restore the environment

Toward a more reliable water supply, two "initiatives" are suggested, which together look both to top-down solutions such as maintenance of state facilities and bottom-up solutions such as local agencies working together.

- Implement integrated regional water management
- Improve statewide water management systems

These ideas are sketched without many details in the Highlights document, and are supposedly laid out more fully in the "Implementation Plan". I look forward to digging into that soon, as well as investigating why the above-mentioned demand changes are predicted.

A reporter's notes from the Redding public hearing makes me look forward to the Los Angeles one on Wednesday.

Water Noncrisis?

From the LATimes, via Water News,

Having enough water has been a California obsession for nearly a century, pushing the state to build dams, reservoirs and canal systems. Massive quantities of water were shifted from one part of the state to another — primarily from north to south.

But you can't keep building dams forever; eventually you run out of good places to put them, which happened some time ago in California. Built-from-scratch reservoirs that can hold surplus water in wet years for use during dry years are costly and hard to site.

The article then goes on to discuss a list of conservation and management plans that are discussed the proposed California Water Plan. The LA hearing is only a week away! The article concludes:

It would be too much to expect a problem-free future when it comes to water in this thirsty state. But for a change, most of the news is encouraging.

I'm not sure I share this optimism! But I do hope to study the Water Plan and attend the hearing with my friend H-.

Fresno grand jury recommends develpoment moratorium

From the FresnoBee, via B&C:

In a sharply worded report, the Fresno County grand jury is recommending "an immediate moratorium" on development in Fresno County and placement of double water meters in all new developments.

In the report issued last week, grand jurors said "the rapid growth in Fresno County is a potential disaster."

In case you were wondering:

A grand jury can make recommendations to public agencies, but agencies are under no obligation to follow them.

Overdevelopment has been a concern in Fresno, and a current water supply study is in the works:

The county has put $200,000 into a study that is due out in December, and it may recommend halting development in certain areas, [Supervisor Bob Waterston] said.

"I guess I was really disappointed in the fact that they would make any statement about water at all until the county's water study is done," said ... Waterston, whose district covers water-short eastern Fresno County.

Preparation for levee breaks

From Cal Farm Bureau Federation:

Experts say the next big levee break could be right around the corner. So, one year after a Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta levee unexpectedly gave way and caused millions of gallons of water to flood San Joaquin County farmland, people interested in preventing a similar incident gathered in Stockton to find solutions.

A variety of people‎including water agency officials, water district attorneys, farmers, geologists, engineers, ecologists, legislators and others‎gathered at the University of the Pacific in Stockton last week for the "Delta Levees Workshop" to share information and find answers to avoiding future levee breaks.

"If we were to have picked on June 2 of a year ago which levee might fail, no one in this room would have ever picked the levee that failed, which gives us an indication of the risk and uncertainty we are dealing with," said California Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow.

Not surprisingly, a major point of discussion was funding.

...[S]peakers cautioned that there is very little funding available for levee improvements or to prepare for future disasters.

State money to aid the repair of delta levees runs out in a year, and federal money that was approved by Congress has not arrived.

"Getting anything done depends on being able to get a funding stream that isn't subject to the whims of appropriations by either the state or federal legislators. Without the funding, you can't do anything," said Alex Hildebrand, a South Delta farmer in Manteca. "I, in principal, agree that you have to come up with something of the beneficiary-pay point of view so that it doesn't depend on appropriations, but that is extremely difficult to do."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger included some funding for levees in his budget proposal, but it would only put a small dent in a much bigger problem. The Department of Water Resources estimates that fixing all 1,100 miles of levees along delta islands would cost more than $1.3 billion.

The article also provided a quick rundown on last year's levee break:

On the morning of June 3, 2004, a 65-foot breach in a private levee that protects the delta's Upper Jones Tract flooded lower-elevation farmland. The breach expanded to 500 feet and the Middle River, a tributary of the San Joaquin River, flooded an estimated 12,000 acres of farmland. The levee breach caused 160,000 acre-feet of water to flow from farmland of Upper Jones Tract to Lower Jones Tract. Approximately $15 million worth of crops was lost, and the Department of Water Resources reported that the disaster brought an overall price tag of $90 million in damages.

Met announces spending plan

From BusinessWire:

Expanding water conservation and recycling programs as well as improvements in the vast water delivery system serving Southern California are fundamental elements of a $1.69 billion spending plan approved today by Metropolitan Water District's Board of Directors.

"This budget reflects our commitment to improve the reliability and quality of the Southland's water supplies and delivery capabilities to ensure that the region's water needs are met," said Metropolitan board Chairman Wes Bannister.

What will the money be spent on?

Metropolitan's key system improvements will include the construction of the Inland Feeder and two other new major imported water lines; expansion of a water treatment plant serving southwest Riverside and San Diego counties; and the addition of ozone treatment facilities at two district filtration plants, which are needed to meet increasingly rigorous water quality regulations.

LADWP Groundwater Pumping Plan

From the Inyo Register:

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has announced it plans to pump 90,000 acre-feet of groundwater from Inyo County in 2005-06.

The final pumping figure is 5,000 a.f. less than LADWP first proposed earlier this month. That that figure is still a far cry from the "minimal pumping" of 60,325 a.f., suggested by the Inyo County Water Department, which would help depleted aquifers soak up a good charge of recharge water.

The Water Department reasoned that the above-average runoff coming off the Sierra this year would enable LADWP to reduce its groundwater pumping to the minimal levels and still send plenty of water south in the L.A. Aqueduct.

The big winter snowfall has created a financial windfall for LADWP. With runoff expected to hit 128 percent of average in the Owens Valley and produce 527,200 a.f. of surface water, twice as much water will travel to L.A. in the aqueduct this year than last. For 2005-06, LADWP predicts that the aqueduct will deliver just under 400,000 a.f. of water to Los Angeles, which is about twice as much water as was sent to the city from the Owens Valley last year.

With the cost of buying an acre-foot of water from the Metro Water District running about $400 per a.f., LADWP stands to reap a savings of close to $8 million in 2004-05, thanks to not having to buy 200,000 a.f. of water from the Metro District.

The article reflects an understandably frustrated view of LADWP:

[Inyo county water department] called on LADWP to use the "conservative pumping" mandate in the Drought Recovery Policy to lower the amount of groundwater it will pump in the coming year.

However, the final "Annual Owens Valley Operations Plan for Runoff Year 2005-06" states the LADWP operations and pumping program was developed "based on the goals and principles of the" the Inyo-L.A. Long Term Water Agreement.

The Drought Recovery Policy is not mentioned in the Operations Plan. At a recent Inyo-L.A. Technical Group Meeting, Gene Coufal, manager of LADWP's aqueduct business group, made it clear that LADWP does not consider the Drought Recovery Policy to be in effect, thus it would not base its pumping and operations plan on the policy's goal to achieve "substantial recovery" of of soil moisture conditions and underground aquifers.

Alameda Creek Request

From InsideBayArea.Com:

Environmental groups are warning that plans to restore steelhead trout to Alameda Creek could end up high and dry without firm guarantees for water releases from two East Bay reservoirs.

Members of 65 environmental groups have asked the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to commit to releasing enough water from Calaveras and San Antonio reservoirs to support runs of ocean-going steelhead by 2007.

Alameda Creek has recently undergone some environmentally-motivated improvements:

The San Francisco PUC and other local water agencies are making progress in identifying and removing man-made barriers to fish migration in Alameda Creek and its tributaries, said Jeff Miller of the Alameda Creek Alliance.

As barriers such as check dams and culverts are removed, the dream of restoring historic steelhead runs is closer to reality. That increases the urgency of getting local agencies to agree on exactly how much water will be required to sustain fish runs, Miller said.

I suppose what everyone wants is security or at least legal guarantees that there will be enough water in the future...

"Wring some use from every drop of water"

From Redding.com, via today's Water News:

Californians would be wise to wring some use from every drop of water, stretching supplies to meet an expected population surge in the next 25 years.

That's the message in a state Department of Water Resources report that will be the subject of a public workshop in Redding on Monday.

I know I have some friends who are frustrated at the timing of these workshops, since they won't be able to get time off to attend. I'm lucky that a good friend has agreed to come to the Los Angeles workshop on my birthday a couple weeks from now. A bit of background on the report:

Water needs have changed since [the first California water report in 1957], officials said. The idea now is to develop a road map for meeting water demands in 2030, when the population in the Sacramento River watershed alone is expected to have jumped to about 4.5 million people -- up from 2.5 million in 2000.

The report is a collaborative effort involving a 65-member advisory committee and 2,000 citizens, said water resources Director Lester Snow. It includes "the very best" ideas for meeting water challenges, he said.

More Colorado River Talks

From RockyMountainNews:

Arizona's top water officials are planning a diplomatic mission to Colorado next month, taking another shot at water diplomacy in what's been a rough year for the two states.

Herb Guenther, director of Arizona's Department of Water Resources, said he plans a series of meetings with Colorado's water utilities to see if the two states can achieve at least a higher comfort level with one another. Both states depend heavily on the Colorado River.

Under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, the river's supplies are divided between the Upper Basin - Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico - and the Lower Basin - Arizona, Nevada and California.

But the regions have routinely warred over how to interpret the historic compact. The recent past is no exception.

You can check out that the text of that agreement here. The fateful Article III indicates that both upper basin and lower basin states are entitled to 7.5 million acre-feet. As this article from Arizona's Ag department points out, there is rarely 15 million acre-feet to be divided up:

Data from three centuries indicate an average flow of about 13.5 maf. Also, flows are highly erratic, ranging from 4.4 maf to over 22 maf.

A bit more from RockyMountain:

For much of the past 12 months, Upper and Lower Basin states - particularly Colorado and Arizona - have battled over how to set up a drought plan that would allow the states to share the river's supplies equitably even in times of shortage.

In April, the two basins failed to reach agreement, which means U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and the Bureau of Reclamation will create a federal drought plan for the states - a two-year process that is to be finished by December 2007.

In the meantime - because both regions face water shortages - officials on each side hope they can break the impasse that has developed in recent months.

Guenther said if Arizona and Colorado could resolve their differences, it would help move all seven states closer to a drought-plan consensus.

Colorado, for example, has been sharply critical of Arizona's underground storage of Colorado River water during the drought. And Arizona, along with California and Nevada, successfully fought Colorado's request to hold more water in Lake Powell this year so it could begin refilling faster.

Tomales Bay Water Quality Ruling

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board is considering lowering some stringent requirements on farmers whose cattle contribute to the fecal coliform problem in the Bay. From Marin Independent Journal:

Ranchers concerned that water quality rules for Tomales Bay could wipe out their businesses will get a short reprieve pending more research on the issue.

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board was set to approve new water quality standards for Tomales Bay next week, but the final decision will not come until July, officials said yesterday.

"We have researchers at UC Berkeley and I have asked them to rerun a model simulation of the bay," said Dyan Whyte, engineering geologist with the water board, who spoke to the county Board of Supervisors yesterday. "What we are doing with that model simulation is trying to justify some higher numbers that are more feasible and achievable (for ranchers)."

Tomales Bay is described as "a coastal estuary located on the central California coast approximately 40 miles northwest of San Francisco". According to Marin Independent:

Tomales Bay has been plagued by high fecal coliform counts - which may indicate the presence of pathogens that can make humans sick - and force closure of bay oyster-harvesting operations.

In March, the water board issued a 10-year plan on how to remedy the problem: require a probable fecal coliform count of no more than 43 per 100 milliliters for both the bay and its tributaries over a 30-day period. While the 43 count will likely remain for the bay, the number for the tributaries could be massaged up to 200 as more research is now done.

A count of 14 is considered safe for shellfish harvesting, 200 is safe for swimming and 2,000 is safe for recreation on the bay, such as boating.

Cattle have been identified as a main source of the problem, as rain forces feces into creeks. Ranchers worry they could be forced out of business if they have to spend thousands of dollars to remedy the problem by building fences and taking other steps to keep cattle away from waterways.

Though I've done little with water quality modeling myself, I am quite curious what models the Berekely guys are using. I wonder how precise these models are and whether they have been used as decision making tools in the past, and if so, what their track record is?

Brown and Caldwell Newsletters

Yesterday I was very surprised to get an email from Richard Hellman, editor of Brown and Caldwell's Water News, who told me that they are featuring this blog in their newsletters today. This was very exciting to me, as I regularly read their California Water News. In any case, thanks to Richard for choosing to feature the blog, and thanks to Matt Clark at Urban Water Institute for reading and for recommending the blog.

As you may know, one of the more interesting facets of blogging is the ability to interact through comments on any of the blog entries. So, please feel free to add a comment to any of the entries; I would love to get some good discussion on current water issues.

MD

Disappearing Arctic Lakes

From a ScienceDaily news release:

Continued arctic warming may be causing a decrease in the number and size of Arctic lakes. The issue is the subject of a paper published in the June 3 issue of the journal "Science." The paper, titled, "Disappearing Arctic Lakes" is the result of a comparison of satellite data taken of Siberia in the early 1970s to data from 1997-2004. Researchers, including Larry Hinzman with the Water and Environmental Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, tracked changes of more than 10,000 large lakes over 200,000 square miles.

The full Science article, which has my old remote sensing professor Larry Smith as the lead author, is available here. This article suggests that the lakes are actually draining, not evaporating. From the abstract:

The spatial pattern of lake disappearance suggests ... that thaw and "breaching" of permafrost is driving the observed losses, by enabling rapid lake draining into the subsurface...

The original news release points to possible changes resulting from the decreased lake surface area:

"The changing lakes are a consistent, measurable indication of the overall changes to hydrology in the Arctic," said Hinzman. "The loss of surface water will inevitably impact local ecosystems, which will have a cascading effect. Changes could include loss of migratory bird habitat resulting in an effect on subsistence activities as well as changes to local and regional atmospheric conditions, including more localized wind and more frequent and more severe wildland fires."

Seventeen years of discord

From Appeal-Democrat.Com:

The proposed Lower Yuba River Accord was supposed to end 17 years of controversy, but the battle isn't over for the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.

CSPA's lawyer said Wednesday his group opposes the accord, announced in April, and wants to continue the legal fight in court.

"We just don't see that the accord, which has been ballyhooed all over everywhere as fixing everything, including my wife's dishwasher, will necessarily be the end-all and be-all that improves things," said attorney Michael Jackson.

In 1988, Jackson, representing CSPA, filed a complaint with the State Water Resources Control Board, alleging the Yuba River fishery was in bad shape.

The complaint spawned years of hearings before the board, which ultimately directed higher flows in the river. That order sparked a court battle.

The parties, including the Yuba County Water Agency, environmental groups and state and federal agencies, eventually negotiated the accord, which increases rivers flows while assuring the Water Agency a steady flow of income - at least $35 million - for water sold through 2015.

Desert water meeting

From the Hidsert Star:

Water supplies being so comparatively limited in the desert, and yet ever more people arriving all the time to claim a share in them, it's helpful for the water managers now and again to meet with the public for delivery of a state-of-the-water address.

May 28's Morongo Basin Water Symposium was just such an occasion. Executives from state, regional and local water interests appeared, each with a statement to make about water from his or her agency's perspective. Yet, for all the fire power they represented, and the insights they must have into SoCal's water issues, most of the speakers limited their presentations to a very superficial excursus on the need for every agency to have a plan, and the promise to everyone present that their agency did, indeed, have one, or even many.