Third parties sue over canal lining project

From ENR.Com:

By the end of May, California’s Imperial Irrigation District will award contracts estimated at $136 million for construction of a 50-ft-deep, 23-mile-long canal to replace parts of a canal built in 1942. It is the largest part of a $219-million program to eliminate seepage in the transport of Colorado River water to Southern California’s Imperial and Coachella valleys. Completion of the program is set for 2008....

Not everyone is excited about the project. A consortium of Mexican and California-based environmental and economic-development groups sued for deprivation of water rights because seepage would no longer recharge the Mexicali Aquifer. Seven of the eight charges were dismissed by U.S. Chief District Judge Philip Pro on Feb. 8 for lack of standing. The judge did not set a date to hear arguments on the validity of the environmental documents.

Construction on the All-American Canal will start in June and should be complete by December 2008. The $83-million Coachella Canal will be complete in April 2007.

Water symptomatic of California crisis

From Scripps Howard News Service, a big picture piece:

California's growth and ever-increasing diversity _ it's already the most complex society in the history of humankind _ dissipate social cohesion and undermine the consensus necessary for political decision-making... California faces any number of long-range political issues that stem from its rapid population growth and equally dramatic social and economic evolution, but those same factors also block responses to those issues.

How does this play out in water?

As with highways and other infrastructure systems, California is living off the decisions that earlier generations of voters and politicians made on water during the two decades that followed World War II. We have one of the planet's most extensive systems for moving water from where it originates _ in the mountains of Northern California, mostly _ to where it's needed and used. The federal government, the state government and local water agencies operate pieces of the system.

It has, for the most part, served us well, but with age, changes in the farm economy (which consumes much of the developed water), population growth and other factors, the system needs expansion and upgrading. A major problem is that the State Water Plan, first written nearly a half-century ago, has never been completed. Most of the water that's being shipped from Northern California to Southern California via the California Aqueduct is still being pulled out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which is suffering much environmental degradation as a result, rather than being routed around the Delta, as the Water Plan envisioned.

The Department of Water Resources has just unveiled a new version of the Water Plan, emphasizing regional cooperation on water-related issues, a more activist approach by the state government (including a big chunk of Schwarzenegger's infrastructure bonds) and a fresh look at the Delta's problems. It's a welcome start after decades of wheel spinning, but water, like government in general, suffers from a lack of broad consensus.

Those who want to develop more water and reservoirs to hold it have been locked in an epic, decades-long battle with those who believe that water development despoils the environment and encourages more population growth. In the 1980s, the clash derailed the Peripheral Canal that was supposed to carry water around the Delta, and later it stalled the much-trumpeted "CalFed process" that was to find cooperative solutions to the Delta's problems without a Peripheral Canal. On those and other water-related issues, the lack of consensus led directly to political stalemate.

DWR director Lester Snow, a veteran of the CalFed wars, is still hopeful that with a carrot-and-stick approach, the state can persuade local and regional water agencies to come together _ but he and Schwarzenegger must first persuade the Legislature to even try to resolve its own conflicts, as well as those of outside interest groups. Water is, indeed, symptomatic of California's larger crisis of governance.

Border canal project backlash

From KPHO Phoenix:

Another rift may be developing between the U-S and Mexico.
The governor of the Mexican state of Baja California accuses the U-S of inaction on a controversial border canal project. He warns of a political backlash in Mexico if this country fails to act.

At issue are plans to line 23 miles of the 80-mile All-American Canal with concrete starting this year.

The canal directs water from the Colorado River to California farms. A lot of water is lost to seepage and the project aims to reclaim that water for American farmers. But Mexican farmers, wetlands and wildlife depend heavily on the water, leading to strong opposition.

New MWD GM

From The Mercury News:

The general counsel of the giant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California was announced Tuesday as its new general manager.

Jeffrey Kightlinger, 46, is the new head of the cooperative of 26 cities and water agencies that serves 18 million people in six Southern California counties.

The MWD imports water from the Colorado River and Northern California to supplement local supplies.

Kightlinger replaces Dennis B. Underwood, who died of cancer in November at age 60.

"Assuming the duties of general manager for Jeff I think is an easy transition, there won't be any learning curve," said John V. Foley, a board director.

Kightlinger told reporters during a conference call that he wanted to focus on the Colorado River and completing a recent seven-state agreement on sharing that resource, especially in times of drought.

He said the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta also was a top priority and called moving water through the delta "a tremendous challenge" for the MWD.

The MWD also must look for growth through better management of regional supplies through conservation and recycling and, in the future, will look toward ocean desalinization, Kightlinger said.

Kightlinger, a La Canada Flintridge resident, becomes the 13th general manager in the agency's 78-year history and he will have an annual base salary of $260,000.

Los Vaqueros controversies

From InsideBayArea:

NESTLED in an hilly area between Brentwood and Livermore that once was home to farmers and ranchers, Los Vaqueros took on an entirely new role when the Contra Costa Water District opened a reservoir there in 1998.

And now, eight years later, Los Vaqueros Reservoir may be poised to take on another new, expanded role — one that is touted as bigger and better.

The reservoir could be expanded by as much as five times its current capacity, potentially becoming a major player for the Bay Area water industry and resource for water needs.

However, the plan is not without its detractors, who say that what now is local water will be shipped elsewhere and that there may be significant impacts to the surrounding area, the environment and recreation opportunities.

Contra Costa County voters authorized the $450 million project in 1988, a massive undertaking that included construction of a 192-foot dam, pumping system, pipelines and renovations and improvementsto Vasco Road, which has entrances to the reservoir.

The district built the reservoir to address seasonal problems that occur when the San Francisco Bay salinity rises and affects the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water quality, as well as to provide for water storage, flood control and recreation.

The catalyst for the expansion discussion arose after CALFED, the joint state-federal cooperation formed in 1994 to address Bay-Delta water issues, pegged the reservoir as one of five potential sites to expand water storage in the state just two years after Los Vaqueros opened.

Botched Delta decision

From RecordNet, via today's BC:

State water officials botched a water rights decision six years ago that granted water exporters the right to use each other's pumps to keep California Delta waters healthy, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.


Plaintiffs in the case, which included several local water agencies and environmental groups, had argued the state water board's decision in 2000 to allow exporters to coordinate their water releases prevented enough water to be sent down the San Joaquin River to support salmon runs and dilute high salt levels in the Delta.

The Bureau of Reclamation and the state Department of Water Resources operate large pumps near Tracy that deliver Delta water to two-thirds of Californians, mostly farmers and residents in the southern part of the state. But Delta farmers say exports contribute to salty water that costs them millions of dollars per year in low crop yields.

The complex ruling involved eight lawsuits grouped together targeting the state Water Resources Control Board, which issued the water rights to the exporters in 2000. The opinion from a three-judge panel in Sacramento on Thursday reverses, in part, a 2003 lower court ruling that found in favor of the water board.

Thursday's ruling puts pressure on the state water board to enforce tighter water quality standards on water exporters, said Dante Nomellini, an attorney for the Central Delta Water Agency, one of the plaintiffs.

Nomellini said the board's water rights decision undermined its earlier water quality control plan, calling it a "back-room deal" favoring exporters.

"They can change their water quality control plan, but they have to have a proper basis for it," he said. "It's a good step toward trying to achieve adequate water supply on the San Joaquin side for both fish and farmers."

State Water Resources Board senior attorney Barbara Leidigh said she was "fairly happy" about the 285-page opinion, written by Appeals Judge Ronald Robie, a former Department of Water Resources director.

Leidigh said the panel disagreed with the trial court on only one issue - that the board's decision prevented enough water from reaching the Delta. Otherwise, she said, "it's generally positive."

The water board has not decided whether to appeal, she said

Budget cuts and California water

From the LA Times:

The budget that President Bush sent to Congress on Monday contains no money to help states pay for jailing illegal immigrants and cuts funds for clean-water projects, both major concerns to California officials.

... Elsewhere in the Bush budget was a proposal to cut $200 million from an $890-million program that reduces pollution discharged into oceans, lakes and rivers. California's share of the clean water fund in fiscal 2005 was about $82 million.

"That's a big cut, and we're concerned about it," said Stephen K. Hall, the executive director of the Assn. of California Water Agencies.

However, the budget provides $38.6 million, a slight increase from this year's funding, for the CalFed Bay-Delta Program, a state-federal attempt to balance the interests of cities, farmers and the environment over the state's major watershed, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Feinstein cheered the nearly $164 million allocated for flood-control projects in the state but expressed disappointment about the lack of funding to strengthen levees in the delta to "prevent a catastrophic flood that would cut off water supply to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California."

EDIT (above posted Feb 07)

According to CapitalPress, however, there are both good and bad aspects of the budget, at least for California agriculture:

President George Bush’s federal budget, if adopted by Congress as proposed, would be a mixed blessing for California agriculture.

The budget would increase funds for flood control projects, which have become a renewed focus of concern after levee breaks in New Orleans and winter storms this year illustrated how precarious the state’s levees remain.

But that threat is never far from Californians’ minds, as every few years high water and levee breaks cause devastation here.

California’s aging levees are a concern for agriculture and the ever-growing, ever-urbanizing population of the Central Valley and other traditionally rural areas of the state.

The levees are crucial: They provide flood protection, irrigation and drinking water to much of the state.

Unfortunately, the funds allocated in the budget seem geared to protect population centers, not ag economy centers.

For example, the president’s budget would allocate $65 million for flood control projects in the Sacramento area with $47 million of that slated for projects along the American River.

Last year Congress only allocated $39 million to this project, so an increase would be beneficial to the region.

The budget also includes $25 million for the Success Dam on the Tule River just east of Porterville. The 45-year-old earthen flood-control dam does not meet modern earthquake standards and is being replaced by a concrete dam for an estimated $200 million.

Another $54 million is proposed for flood control on the Santa Ana River in the highly urbanized portion of Southern California.

Surprisingly, the president didn’t allocate any funds for levee restoration in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Perhaps he thinks Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s bond proposal is sufficient to care for what is really the federal government’s levee problem in the delta.

The budget also only provides less than a third of the $31 million requested by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, for a flood protection project in Napa County.

This budget allocates $9 million for flood protection in the area that last month suffered more than $100 million in damage in the city of Napa alone due to winter storm flooding.

The floods caused an estimated $33 million in damage to about 200 acres of vineyards and ag equipment in addition to 1,200 homes.

However, the CalFed Bay Delta program did get some increased funding, a $1.6 million bump to $38.6 million, even though the overall Bureau of Reclamation budget has been reduced.

Self-sufficiency?

From SignOnSanDiego:

Five years ago, the Olivenhain Municipal Water District was in the same predicament as some neighboring agencies are now – agencies that have asked their customers to let their lawns and gardens go dry during the current water shortage.

Today, Olivenhain is among districts that provide water to other agencies in a time of need because it built a water-treatment plant and dam over those five years.

Becoming more self-sufficient in water has become a top priority for the San Diego County Water Authority and many water districts, which recall the dire times in the early 1990s when a years-long drought forced across-the-board cuts.

“The path Olivenhain chose – to construct a dam and a treatment plant – is seeing us through,” David McCollom, Olivenhain's general manager, said yesterday.

Olivenhain serves parts of Carlsbad, San Marcos, Encinitas, San Diego and Solana Beach, as well as 4S Ranch, Fairbanks Ranch and Elfin Forest.

McCollom said the district has not had to draw water from the reservoir yet this winter, but it is there if needed. The reservoir, which the district shares with the County Water Authority, gets practically no water from its surroundings and is entirely dependent on a piped-in supply.

The district purchases untreated water from the authority and treats it at its plant in Elfin Forest.

Olivenhain's plant, which opened in 2001, can treat 34 million gallons a day. McCollom said the district is providing about 5 million gallons a day to Carlsbad and the Vallecitos Municipal Water District, which do not have their own plants.

Conflict of interest?

From the LATimes:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's new chief of staff, who is spearheading a $9-billion plan to improve California's water system, was paid $120,000 last year by a Los Angeles developer seeking to build a massive water storage project under the Mojave Desert.

According to interviews and her financial disclosure statement, Susan P. Kennedy earned $10,000 per month in 2005 as a consultant to Cadiz Real Estate, operated by her longtime friend Keith Brackpool.

ADVERTISEMENT
For nearly a decade, the British-born Brackpool has tried unsuccessfully to put together a public-private partnership that would use the aquifers under his San Bernardino property to store water for use during droughts.

As Schwarzenegger's chief of staff, Kennedy is responsible for advancing the governor's proposals to fix the state's crumbling infrastructure through government projects and public-private partnerships. Part of that plan would raise $9 billion in bond money to improve the state's water storage and management system.

Paul S. Ryan, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, D.C., said Californians should be skeptical of "revolving door" arrangements that bring people from the private sector into government positions that could potentially benefit their former industries.

Such appointments, although common, "create the appearance of impropriety," he said. "It would be wise for such an individual to recuse himself or herself from any dealings that would add to the public's cynicism about the government."

A representative for Cadiz did not return calls seeking comment. Margita Thompson, a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, said Kennedy has no conflict of interest.

"If something on the project were to come up, she would recuse herself," Thompson said. "But under no current scenario would the project come up during state business, because it's a private project."

Cadiz came close in 2002 to finalizing a deal with the Metropolitan Water District to store Colorado River water for the agency during wet years that it would sell back in dry years. The proposal was defeated in a close vote of the MWD board over concerns about Cadiz's finances and about the environmental impact of the project.

Seven state Colorado River plan

From SignOnSanDiego:

California may soon be able to store a vast emergency pool of water that could help carry the San Diego region through prolonged dry spells – without building an expensive new reservoir or damming a river.

Seven Western states have sent U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton a plan listing a range of unprecedented strategies to stretch Colorado River supplies, including banking more California water in Lake Mead behind Hoover Dam in Nevada.

“It significantly reduces the possibilities of shortages,” Jim Taylor, an attorney for the San Diego County Water Authority, said yesterday.

The Colorado management plan also would extend a deadline that requires California to quit siphoning more than its share of the river by 2015. Instead, the tentative agreement would allow the state to take more water through 2025 if it's available.

Other components of the plan include: cloud seeding to encourage snow; desalination to make seawater drinkable; idling farmland; water trading between states; a schedule of water-delivery cuts if levels at lakes Mead and Powell drop; and a modest-sized new reservoir in the Imperial Valley that would be financed by Nevada.

If Norton accepts the proposal, as expected, California would be allowed to keep reserves of up to 1.5 million acre-feet in Lake Mead, or enough to serve 3 million households a year. The San Diego County Water Authority, supplied by the Los Angeles-based Metropolitan Water District, receives about 60 percent of its water from the Colorado and serves slightly more than 1 million households.

Cardoza pushes Delta improvement program

From the American Chronicle, by Congressman Dennis Cardoza:

California is facing a critical challenge: Our state needs a safe and reliable water supply for our farms, cities and businesses that will keep pace with our surging population and trillion-dollar economy. We need a vision for our state's future, and must expand our water storage capacity by building and expanding reservoirs and investing in innovative groundwater storage projects. However, because of regulatory hurdles, we must recognize that it will take years for these projects to come to fruition.

Therefore, we must have an effective strategy for the near-term. As we pursue these critical new water projects, we must also look at ways to better utilize our existing water resources and infrastructure. Two-thirds of California receives its water from the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Given its importance, we need better ways to manage the Delta's water delivery system, as well as the water itself. In essence, we need to make every drop count. That's why the South Delta Improvements Program (SDIP), a major component of the CALFED program authorized by the Congress in 2004, is so important.

The California Department of Water Resource's South Delta Improvements Program is a responsible and balanced approach to integrating our existing water management infrastructure in the Delta. It will improve our state's water supply reliability and quality. It will also improve the overall health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem, and benefit the Westside. The program will construct seasonal tidal gates to protect fish and improve water circulation and quality in the Delta, dredge select Delta channels to improve water deliveries for local farmers, and allow modest increases to the State Water Project deliveries.

Currently, the state is constrained in its ability to use surplus water supplies. We have the infrastructure to move the water, but until SDIP is approved, the state's water managers cannot fully or responsibly use the existing system. Significantly, SDIP will provide the flexibility to shift the timing of water deliveries when surplus is available and when it is environmentally safe. SDIP will help protect important Delta environmental resources. Specifically, it will help protect fish species in the Delta channels. At the same time, by providing the state greater flexibility in how and when SDIP operates its system of pumps, fish are granted greater protections.

SDIP is supported by a statewide, broad coalition of water, agriculture, business, planning organizations, and local government officials, including the San Luis-Delta Mentoda Water Authority, Agricultural Council of California, Association of California Water Agencies, California Chamber of Commerce and Western Growers Association.

Water plan discussed

A piece in today's Mercury Register presents several of the myriad opinions concerning DWR's California Water Plan released last month. Two environmentalists (one the former Deputy Director of the California DWR) and the manager of an irrigation district are interviewed give their responses to the plan.

The first response was from environmentalist Jonas Minton, senior project manager for the Planning and Conservation League and former Deputy Director of DWR, who hopes the state will push for conserving water, not building new storage structures:

[Minton]said his group is hopeful that the governor will embrace [the parts of the plan calling for conservation and recycling] and make them a priority. Before joining the PCL, Minton was deputy director of the California Department of Water Resources.

"This state water plan is a marked departure from all of the previous updates," Minton said. "For the first time they looked at three different alternative futures, which they call scenarios."

"One of the scenarios, if current conservation trends continue, the actual total demand in the state of California could be less than today, even with 12 million more Californians," Minton said.

This latter opinion was discussed at length in Argus last week. But the DWR isn't exactly bent on refusing to build new storage facilities, at least not based on Lester Snow's presentation to California Congress near the end of last month; the controversial Sites Reservoir plan is one example.

Steve Evans, Conservation Director for Friends of the River, agrees that new storage projects are not the way to go.

He said the water efficiency chapter of the plan shows different levels of investment in urban water use efficiency programs. The figures show that spending money to save water is a better investment than investing in new storage, he said.

Evans said he thinks politicians who support new storage aren't distinguishing the difference between storage and yield. While a project could store a large amount of water, how much could be used in any given year is minute compared with the costs, he said.

Evans also thinks the state's approach to charge increased water fees unfairly focuses on urban water users, when agriculture should be paying more of its fair share, Evans said.

Not everyone agrees with the assumption that conservation is the entire solution, however.

Van Tenney, Water Manager of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District is referred to as saying that the vast majority of water used to irrigate is recoverable, in that the 90% or so of water applied to the crops is not absorbed by the plant roos, but eventually seeps into underlying aquifers.

"That's why we call that kind of seepage a recoverable loss," Tenney said.

Except in coastal areas where fresh water applied to farms could end up mixing with salt water. In the Sacramento valley, "80-90 percent of it is a recoverable loss," he said.

"Water is used over and over and over again before it exits the system."

"There is no cost benefit to recovering or installing conservation measures to prevent recoverable losses," Tenney said.

Regarding the Update 2005, because it provides so many possible scenarios, it shows the state leaders "are scared to death to lead," Tenney said.

Arizona's perspective on the agreement

From the AZ Republic:

Call it the most significant Colorado River agreement since the 1922 compact that set specific water allocations for Arizona and six other western states.

Pressured by a six-year-long drought and Interior Secretary Gale Norton, the seven states crafted a thoughtful and reasonable plan last week on how the river should be managed in times of drought.

This was no easy task.

Western water wars are legendary, and the fact that Arizona, California and Nevada in the Lower Basin and Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming in the Upper Basin could avoid protracted and costly litigation is a testament to their desire to work through differences.

"It truly merits the term historic to get all seven states on the same page endorsing concepts to deal with some really tough issues," said George Renner, a member of the board that oversees the Central Arizona Project.

From Arizona's standpoint, the toughest challenge in achieving an agreement has been its junior status.

Junior status was the price Arizona paid in 1968 for congressional approval of the CAP: in times of shortage, the CAP's annual supply of 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water would take the first hit.

The pact doesn't change that. But it does try to ensure that any shortage declaration will have, in Renner's term, a "soft landing" and Arizona will have sufficient advance warning.

What cuts does Arizona actually take?

This measure of protection is achieved by establishing guidelines pegged to water elevation levels at Lake Mead, which stand at 1,140 feet above sea level. If the lake dips to 1,075 feet, water deliveries would drop by 400,000 acre-feet.

If the levels were to fall to 1,025 feet, the hit would be 600,000 acre-feet, the amount that about 1.5 million people use in a year. Any drop below that floor would trigger discussions with the secretary of the Interior to find more common ground.

Arizona would bear the brunt of the shortage, about 70 percent, with Nevada and Mexico shouldering the rest. It's important to keep in mind that drought modeling puts the probability of any shortage over the next 20 years at only 5 percent.

Water rights sold

From the Appeal-Democrat.Com, via today's BC:

Natomas Central Mutual Water Co., which supplies water to agricultural customers in Sacramento and Sutter counties, will sell the rights to 5,000 acre-feet of water from the Sacramento River.

The deal was announced Friday by buyer San Dimas-based American States Water Co., parent company of Golden State Water Co. Natomas and Golden State are working together to supply water to the planned Measure M development in south Sutter County.

Golden State raised its profile in Sutter County in November by donating 450 turkeys to charity.

Natomas will sell to American States Utility Services Inc., a subsidiary of American States Water Co., the right to divert 5,000 acre-feet of water per year in perpetuity.

Natomas Central is a private, not-for-profit corporation representing the interests of its 280 member/shareholders. For more than 80 years, it has provided irrigation water, at cost, to its shareholders for agricultural use.

DWR and Rec must solve Delta salt problem

From Record:

The governor's office is pressuring state water officials to resolve a dispute with water exporters over high salt levels in the Delta.

New salt standards were to have gone into effect April 1, 2005, but the two agencies responsible for exporting Delta water to Southern California customers say they can't meet those standards without help.

With threats of legal action being tossed about, Dan Skopec, deputy Cabinet secretary in the Schwarzenegger administration, called Tam Doduc, chairwoman of the State Water Resources Control Board, and suggested last month that the board settle the matter, Doduc said.

But the board did not act Wednesday when it met with officials from the Department of Water Resources and the Bureau of Reclamation, which operate large water pumps near Tracy. The water exporters have been negotiating with the state water control board for more time to meet the new standard.

The board was expected to crack down on the two agencies for not doing enough to solve the salt problem. Both deliver Delta water to two-thirds of California's population for drinking or irrigating crops.

What causes the saltiness?

Dams on San Joaquin River tributaries create high salt levels by preventing fresh water from diluting the Delta. State water projects that send Delta water south make the problem worse.

Delta farmers argue salty water costs them millions of dollars in lower crop yields every year. They want state officials to impose sanctions on the two agencies and warn they may sue if they don't.

Steve Verigin, an official with the Department of Water Resources, hinted his agency is pondering court action, too.

"We're continuing to work collaboratively with (water board) staff ... to avoid a litigious approach to trying to solve this problem," Verigin said.

More city, less ag, status quo water?

From Argus, via today's BC:

California will add 12 million people in 25 years but will not need to increase its water supplies to match, according to a new state analysis.

That feat will happen not through any sort of magical technology or conservation but because the growth will pave over a considerable chunk of farmland, reducing irrigation demands.

"Urban users are going to need more water, and agriculture is going to need less," said Paul Dabbs, a supervising engineer in the State Department of Water Resources who worked on the study. "You come up with about the same amount of water, but we're using it differently."

The California Water Plan released Tuesday found that farmers, who currently use about 80 percent of the state's "developed water," will use less as new development reduces the amount of irrigated farmland by about 10 percent. Irrigation systems also are expected to become more efficient.

The analysis, the state's main planning tool for water use, does not consider extra water needed during emergencies such as droughts and earthquakes, said Steve Hall, who heads the Association of California Water Agencies.

The projected growth is the rough equivalent of a new Oakland — with all its shops, roads, homes and infrastructure — sprouting somewhere in California every year until 2030.

Water-efficient products and technology — such as low-flow toilets, modern shower heads and timed lawn-watering systems — have helped growing metropolitan areas use roughly the same amount of water today as they did 20 years ago, the plan showed.

Irrigation district concerned about Governor's plan

From the Chico Enterprise Record, via today's BC:

The leaders of the Paradise Irrigation District voiced grave concerns about Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to sell $9 billion in bonds for flood protection and drinking water improvements.

Board Vice President Bill Kellogg said Wednesday the district's customers would see few benefits and high costs under the proposal. He said the plan is catered to Southern California and its residents.

"It's certainly not to our benefit in any way I can see," Kellogg said.

The board unanimously directed District Manager George Barber to draft a letter for its consideration.

Under the governor's proposal, the district and its customers would have to pay $400,000 in new state fees every year to pay for the bonds. Directors were dismayed by the fees, which Kellogg called a tax.

The $9 billion in bonds are part of Schwarzenegger's $35 billion plan to improve water management, the levee system and flood protection. In addition to bonds, the plan calls for $5 billion apiece from both state and federal funds, according to an overview of the governor's strategic plan. Local agencies are expected to pony up $16 billion for water supply projects.

If approved by the Legislature and voters, the state would issue $3 billion in bonds in 2006 and $6 billion in 2010.

For the first phase of the program, one-third of the $3 billion bond would go toward regional water management grants. Directors noted nearly $500 million would be earmarked for water districts in Southern California while $81 million would be set aside for the Sacramento River region.

Director John Heinke said the bill would facilitate drawing water southward from Northern California. He pointed out the district could easily make its own improvements on the Magalia Dam if it collected $400,000 more each year.

Colorado River snowpack variability

From the MountainMail.Com:

Mike Gillespie has been measuring snowpack in Colorado since 1984 and has never seen as much variability within the Arkansas River basin as there is this season.

Snowpacks at the north end of the basin are as high as 172 percent of average and to the south and east they dip as low as 25 percent, Natural Resources Conservation Service records showed Tuesday.

“It’s common to see the Arkansas behave differently in the south and north be-cause the basin gets its weather from two different sources,” Gillespie, snow survey supervisor for the conservation service, said.

“This year, especially, the Arkansas is getting two ex-tremes.

“I don’t recall a year that’s been this extreme… . If this pat-tern continues, that would definitely be a first for me.”

The Arkansas River basin stretches from Fremont Pass north of Leadville to the Apishapa River headwaters near Trinidad. As a whole, snowpack in the basin is at 99 percent of the historical average.

Supreme Court sides with State Water Board

From YubaNet:

The California Supreme Court today upheld the authority of the State Water Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards to require timber companies to monitor water quality in streams or rivers that could be adversely affected by logging. The California Supreme Court's decision follows two appeals court decisions last week in San Diego and Riverside, recognizing and upholding the important role of the State and Regional Water Boards in protecting California's water quality.

The Supreme Court Case, Pacific Lumber v. California State Water Resources Control Board arose out of a challenge by Pacific Lumber Company to a State Water Board order that required monitoring of the effects of logging on water quality in the South Fork Elk River in Humboldt County. Pacific Lumber's past logging practices and associated road construction have involved logging large portions of a watershed within a few years resulting in increased erosion, landslides, and increased sediment in streams. Excess sediment can fill in streams, cause flooding and increase water temperature leading to a loss of salmon and their habitat. The North Coast Water Board ordered Pacific Lumber Company to conduct detailed monitoring of water quality in the Headwaters Forest Preserve area. Pacific Lumber appealed that order to the State Water Board contending that the California Department of Forestry had exclusive authority to regulate timber harvesting.

Colorado River agreement reached

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

The Department of Interior will go ahead with an environmental study that will include the plan to allocate Colorado River Basin water in times of drought. Utah plans to pursue a pipeline to carry Lake Powell water to the St. George area.
The seven Colorado River Basin states Tuesday apparently overcame a final intramural feud and will send a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton this week indicating that they have reached a basic agreement on how the river will be managed under drought conditions.
Some details remain to be worked out. But Upper Basin states Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico, and California, Arizona and Nevada in the Lower Basin agreed to forward a document to Norton that will allow the Bureau of Reclamation to proceed with an ongoing environmental study of how future water shortages on the river will be dealt with. Norton had given the states a Feb. 1 deadline to have their proposal included in the study.
The seven states have been meeting regularly since December 2004 to try to reach an agreement. The absence of a deal, all sides agree, probably would lead to expensive and prolonged litigation that could endanger future water projects, such as Utah's proposed Lake Powell pipeline.

Update 2005 Released

The final version of the update to the California Water Plan was released yesterday. According to the ContraCosta Times:

California faces major difficulties in supplying water to a growing population while maintaining a vibrant agricultural economy and a healthy environment.

But the latest state water plan says it can be done.

The plan, three years overdue, was released Tuesday by the California Department of Water Resources and represents a major shift from previous efforts to forecast how much water a growing population will need -- mapping out ways to increase water supplies to meet that demand.

The new plan relies less on building new reservoirs and emphasizes more environmentally friendly -- and often less expensive -- alternatives such as more efficient use of water, underground water storage, recycling and desalination.

Also for the first time, the water plan, which forecasts conditions through 2030, says global warming could have a major impact on California's water supplies.

"We have enough water to meet our needs through 2030, but it's going to require good investment decisions," said Kamyar Guivetchi, statewide water planning manager for the Department of Water Resources.

"It's not doom and gloom. We have the resources we need," he added.

The water plan is expected to serve as a blueprint for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's $11.5 billion water bond proposal, the first phase of which could face voters this year. If the bond package is approved, it could be used to finance many of the measures suggested in the plan.