To the last drop

Snowpack still low

2007-04-05T12:25:00.000-07:00

From redding.com, via today's BC:

The latest round of snow surveys -- done at the end of March and beginning of April -- shows the Sacramento River Basin at 46 percent of average for this time of year and the Trinity River Basin at 36 percent, according to the state Department of Water Resources. Statewide, the snowpack is at 39 percent of average.

Water, the west, and climate change

2007-04-04T11:20:00.000-07:00

There was a great piece in the NY Times today on water, the west, and climate:

Some $2.5 billion in water projects are planned or under way in four states, the biggest expansion in the West’s quest for water in decades. Among them is a proposed 280-mile pipeline that would direct water to Las Vegas from northern Nevada. A proposed reservoir just north of the California-Mexico border would correct an inefficient water delivery system that allows excess water to pass to Mexico.

In Yuma, Ariz., federal officials have restarted an idled desalination plant, long seen as a white elephant from a bygone era, partly in the hope of purifying salty underground water for neighboring towns.

The scramble for water is driven by the realities of population growth, political pressure and the hard truth that the Colorado River, a 1,400-mile-long silver thread of snowmelt and a lifeline for more than 20 million people in seven states, is providing much less water than it had.

According to some long-term projections, the mountain snows that feed the Colorado River will melt faster and evaporate in greater amounts with rising global temperatures, providing stress to the waterway even without drought. This year, the spring runoff is expected to be about half its long-term average. In only one year of the last seven, 2005, has the runoff been above average.

Everywhere in the West, along the Colorado and other rivers, as officials search for water to fill current and future needs, tempers are flaring among competing water users, old rivalries are hardening and some states are waging legal fights.

The whole thing is certainly worth a read.

One-sided dam?

2006-09-19T11:27:00.000-07:00

There was a piece yesterday with an interesting (though a bit one-sided) history of the Auburn Dam and Peripheral Canal in Rocklin and Roseville Today written by Dan Walters:

Elvis Presley was a young man when bureaucrats and politicians began talking about two large projects to control and use the water that in seasonal rain and snow storms dump on Northern California.

Building a high dam on the American River near Auburn, water engineers reasoned, would hold more of the seasonal flows for later use while protecting the Sacramento area from flooding. A "Peripheral Canal," meanwhile, was touted to divert water from the Sacramento River around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for delivery to San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California homes and industries.

Construction actually began on both. Site clearance and foundation work for the Auburn Dam began in 1967 while the chunks of the 42-mile Peripheral Canal route were dug out in the 1970s to supply materials for constructing Interstate 5 south of Sacramento.

Both projects, however, fell victim to the rapidly expanding power of environmentalism in the 1970s and 1980s. The Jimmy Carter administration halted work on Auburn Dam, ostensibly to study its ability to withstand an earthquake, and while the Peripheral Canal project was pushed through the Legislature by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a referendum sponsored by an odd-bedfellows alliance of environmentalists and San Joaquin Valley farmers led to voter rejection in 1982.

"fell victim to the rapidly expanding power of environmentalism"? Come on, Dan, tell us what you really think! It's sad to me that the author didn't attempt to represent more of the reasons for why the Auburn Dam, for instance, may not be a good idea.

Walters has Auburn axed by Carter decades ago "ostensibly to study its ability to withstand an earthquake". The equally one-sided story told by Friends of the River, for instance, puts it this way:

A multi-purpose Auburn Dam on the American River near Auburn would cost more than two billion dollars, be constructed on several earthquake faults, and flood nearly 50 miles of river canyon visited by more than a half million people a year for outdoor recreation.

In any case, these issues are never simple one-sided things, and it is incredibly frustrating that writers continue to paint them as such. It seems inevitable to lead to the "us versus them" mentality, instead of promoting cooperation between the different factions that instead continue to war over California's water.

2006-08-11T16:44:00.000-07:00

There are some great photos from a Colorado Water delivery to the Coachella Valley in this brief, general piece in The Desert Sun.

All over the West, and especially in the desert, water is a vital element we dare not take for granted. Yet even as California embarks on an endless quest for more water to provide for a rapidly swelling population, in our desert, water flows plentifully - for now.

Most of it is hidden from sight, 350 feet below ground in the Coachella Valley aquifer. But at times it's visible, by the millions of gallons, in a square mile and then some that's home to 18 percolation basins in the Whitewater River flood plain at Windy Point northwest of Palm Springs.

Operated by the Coachella Valley Water District, they make up one of three replenishment points for the giant underground reservoir. Two smaller facilities are in the Oasis and Desert Hot Springs areas.

Our water comes from far away, imported from the Colorado River by way of Lake Havasu, Ariz., in sporadic deliveries. One such delivery came in May, when these photos were taken.

The river water snakes its way through an aqueduct that pierces the mountain ranges north of the valley, then dips below ground and spills out at a rate of 300 cubic feet per second into the Whitewater River channel. (With three other delivery points in the aqueduct, that's half the potential delivery rate.) From there, it rushes south, slides under Interstate 10, turns southeast and empties into 700 acres of percolation ponds. At a rate of 2 acre-feet per acre per day, the water seeps into the aquifer, which feeds dozens of wells for municipalities and golf courses around the valley. The deepest well, 1,800 feet in the Indio area, doesn't reach the bottom of the aquifer.

Hetch-Hetchy restoration "feasible" but fabulously expensive

2006-08-01T18:09:00.000-07:00

From the Fresno Bee, via today's BC news:

Environmentalists heard exactly what they wanted to hear in the Department of Water Resources' study on draining Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park: The project is feasible.

Those opposed to poking a hole in O'Shaughnessy Dam heard exactly what they wanted: The project could cost up to $10 billion, an incredible figure.

In other words, the long-awaited DWR report hardly moved the debate forward. That's not to dismiss the report; it just means that those inclined to debate this daydream now have vaguely better numbers to bolster their arguments.

Those arguments resumed in press releases even before last Wednesday's report was released. A chief proponent of the plan, Environmental Defense, crowed that the Schwarzenegger administration had determined "it is feasible to restore Hetch Hetchy."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has called water from Hetch Hetchy every San Franciscan's birthright, said the study proves that the cost of draining Hetch Hetchy is "indefensible, particularly given the tremendous infrastructure needs facing our state." Hetch Hetchy is hardly a birthright, but Feinstein is correct that draining it would be very costly.

The report's authors made no recommendation, and emphatically pointed out that every aspect of the report suffered from too little concrete information. To get better information, DWR's chief hydrologist, Gary Bardini, estimated a more complete study would cost about $65 million. There was no mention of who would pay.

Colorado flows low again

2006-08-01T18:04:00.000-07:00

From the Las Vegas Sun, via today's BC news:

Water-system managers on the Colorado River had high hopes for high water at the beginning of this year.

Those hopes, like the snow on top the Rocky Mountains, are rapidly evaporating. The critical April-through-July runoff period in the mountains, which provides most of the water going to the river, is more than 25 percent off the average. The disappointing results make this the sixth year of the last seven in which flows were significantly below average.

"We still have a couple of weeks, but it looks like it is going to be a little disappointing," said Colleen Dwyer, a federal Bureau of Reclamation spokeswoman. The bureau is the manager of the lower basin of the Colorado River, including Lake Mead. Las Vegas and suburbs get more than 90 percent of their drinking water from Lake Mead.

Water managers and scientists earlier this year had predicted near-average runoff. Hopes were particularly high because the previous year had spectacular snowfall in some areas that at least temporarily reversed five crushing years of drought.

"Around about April or March, it was looking like another decent year," said Kelly Redmond, regional climatologist with the Desert Research Institute's Western Regional Climate Center in Reno. "Runoff was looking at being close to 100 percent. But we got warmer temperatures and less precipitation, not dramatically so, but still it was considerably drier and warmer than usual. Both those things hastened the demise of the snowpack and sent it up to the atmosphere rather than into the Colorado River."
....
The warmer temperatures could mean that precipitation, when it does come, would come more as rain, less as snow. That's bad news for water-systems dependent on the Colorado River because rain evaporates more quickly and puts less water into the river.

Ken Albright, resource director of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, water wholesaler for most of Clark County, said there is some good news in this water year, which officially ends Sept. 30.

"Upper basin reservoirs are in many instances now full," he said of the lakes high in the mountains. "That is a good sign for us."

Climate Change and California

2006-08-01T17:57:00.000-07:00

From the San Francisco Chronicle, via today's BC News:

California will become significantly hotter and drier by the end of the century, causing severe air pollution, a drop in the water supply, melting of 90 percent of the Sierra snowpack and up to six times more heat-related deaths in major urban centers, according to a sweeping study compiled with help from respected scientists from around the country.

The weather -- up to 10.5 degrees warmer by 2100 -- would make last month's heat wave look average. If industrial and vehicle emissions continue unabated, there could be up to 100 more days a year when temperatures hit 90 degrees or above in Los Angeles and 95 degrees or above in Sacramento. Both cities have about 20 days of such extreme heat now.

The good news: If emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are significantly curtailed, according to the report released Tuesday, the number of extremely hot days might only increase by half that amount.

The report, released by the California Environmental Protection Agency, comes from the California Climate Change Center, established three years ago by the California Energy Commission. Scripps Institution of Oceanography and UC Berkeley are responsible for the core research and about 75 scientists from universities, government agencies and nonprofit groups contributed to the report, which has been billed as a layperson's guide to technical documents prepared in support of initiatives to address global warming by Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislators.

Judge declines to block All American Canal proposal

2006-07-06T11:05:00.000-07:00

From the San Diego Union Tribune, via B&C:

In a case with implications across the arid West and into Mexico, a federal judge has refused to block a controversial water conservation plan aimed at providing San Diego with a vast new supply from the Imperial Valley.

The ruling this week by Nevada federal Judge Philip Pro lifts a potential legal hurdle to the $251 million project that involves building a lined 23-mile section of the All-American Canal near the Mexicali border. The project could save 56,000 acre feet of water – enough for about 112,000 households – from seeping into the ground every year. But, in doing so, Mexican farmers will lose that groundwater they have counted on for decades.

“This is a battle for the future of our city, of our region – and today's ruling only strengthens our resolve to halt the canal project,” said Juan Ignacio Guajardo, a member of a business group called Consejo de Desarollo Económico de Mexicali.

Describing many of the claims of damage as “speculative,” Pro's order denies a petition by two U.S. environmental organizations and the Mexicali business group to block the project.

More canal lining projects proposed

2006-04-28T08:04:00.000-07:00

From the NC Times, via today's BC Water News:

Saying the water it would bring to San Diego County over the next century was too cheap to pass up, regional water leaders voted Thursday to spend an additional $38.3 million on a long-discussed project to line a canal in Imperial Valley.

Four North County water agencies opposed the expenditure, saying it wasn't quite as cheap as it looked.

San Diego County Water Authority board members also voted to spend $4 million more on a similar lining project in Coachella Valley.

The two actions mean the Water Authority, and county water ratepayers, will spend at least $134.3 million ---- on top of the $219.3 million the state is giving the Water Authority for the projects ---- to complete the projects for a total of $353.6 million.

Officials say the water that the canal-lining projects will bring to county residents will be the cheapest, most reliable portion of the county's water supply for most of the next 110 years.

"It is dirt-cheap water," Halla Razak, the Water Authority's Colorado River program manager, said during a break in Thursday's meeting. "I mean, trying to find new sources of water right now is like ---- not possible."

SoCal paper pushes peripheral canal

2006-04-25T09:08:00.000-07:00

An LA Times piece on Simitian's resurrection of the Peripheral Canal proposal does it's best to plug the proposed "facility", painting the Senator as courageously ready to bring the crusade for the canal back to the main stream:

Simitian is doing what no one else in California has dared in the last 20 years: reviving the debate over a more direct and secure way of getting Northern California water through or around the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.... Simitian says he's in a position to lead such a crusade: He's a northerner with a 100% pro-environment voting record and no prior involvement in the state's water wars, thus, no axes to grind. No one else seems to want the job. And somebody has to do it.

The Times pushes the reasons for the canal, and paints environmentalists who are supporting the canal as the more "thoughtful" ones:

But since 1982, the need for a transfer facility has become far more necessary and justifiable — though some have called for a much smaller pipeline than the Peripheral Canal. It's now recognized that a massive failure of delta levees, by flooding or earthquake, could shut off the supply of water to Southern California for months or longer. The transfer facility also would give the south better quality water. In the longer range, climate change could force flows of salty ocean water to back up into the delta and the pumps, contaminating the south's drinking water. "We are one dramatic event away from disaster," says Simitian — a view now shared by many, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

More thoughtful environmentalists are coming around to the need for a facility. Even without a canal, and after spending hundreds of millions of dollars for environmental restoration, the delta is a mess. Fish life suddenly is plummeting, and no one knows why. Simitian's bill would impose a modest surcharge on delta water use to pay for conservation programs, which could lead to a reduction in the amount of water that has to be shipped south.

Looking for a balanced piece on the peripheral canal is like looking for a needle in a haystack. I suppose the best one can do is to read Southern and Northern papers on this brewing water war over a proposed massive civil engineering work with a nasty history.

EDIT

Two reader responses in today's LA Times illustrate the way this debate seems to take place; with both parties talking past each other. One response says:

The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta's decline has been accelerating; it started when water deliveries to the south commenced and has dropped with each increase.

Another reader comes a bit closer to the point, but reverts to rhetoric and pie-in-the-sky:

The Sacramento levees must be repaired to spare the people living in the area a terrible disaster; as for who gets the water, Los Angeles needs to stop stealing from its neighbors and begin a major overhaul of its own system.

We need a system that doesn't funnel most of our rainwater into the Los Angeles River and doesn't depend on a few reservoirs that lose water to evaporation. We need to let the river run wild where we can safely do so, and rededicate green spaces and wetlands, allowing water to settle into underground aquifers.

Part of the point of the original Times piece was that most (two-thirds) of California's population get some of their water from the Delta. This critical statewide water resource is indeed in danger from levee collapse.

Unfortunately, the way Bill Stall penned the original Times piece, it was full of typical SoCal-centric thinking, which is bound to simply move the debate to what I've come to expect from California water politics; people yelling past each other and no one listening.

Potential third parties fight new transfer rules

2006-04-23T09:52:00.000-07:00

From the ChicoER, some from Sacramento Valley Environmental Caucus are questioning proposed efforts to make water transfers easier:

A regional plan for Northern California water is on the drawing board with a fast-paced schedule in hope to garner funding as soon as next year.

The plan looks to increase water supply reliability and availability, protect surface water and groundwater aquifers, make water available for transfers, improve the environment and improve the quantity and timing of flows to the Delta.

About 25 people gathered last week in Colusa to discuss the work ahead. Local environmentalists said they were there to make sure their concerns are heard.

The meeting was led by Northern California Water Association, a group that represents many agricultural irrigation districts.

Some environmentalists, most pointedly the Sacramento Valley Environmental Watershed Caucus, have been critical of the process, fearing that plans in the works to manage water are meant to benefit agriculture and speed up water transfers without proper attention to the needs of the environment.

...

Jim Brobeck, of the environmental caucus, said in order to be credible, the plan needs to take into consideration the suggestions by the caucus.

One issue at the top of the caucus' list is water transfers discussed in the plan.

Brobeck and others in the group, aren't comfortable with the idea of water being sold outside the county to benefit those who have water rights, as opposed to the community as a whole.

The caucus "is concerned about impacts and will insist that the best available scientific inquiry into the hydrodynamics of the aquifer system be an integral component" of the plan, Brobeck said.

Third parties unite to fight canal lining

2006-04-22T10:45:00.000-07:00

In their 1992 study entitled Water Transfers in the West, a National Research Council states that

[t]he impacts of transfers and the parties affected are many, diverse, and potentially substantial... [t]hird parties ... can include other water rights holders, agriculture, environment, urban interests, ethnic communities, rural communities, and federal tax payers.

The Council goes on to consider a number of case studies, ending with the 1989 Imperial Irrigation District transfer to MWD, which it hails as a win-win arrangement.

Apparently, a similar transfer between Imperial and the San Diego County Water Authority is far from a win-win situation, and is hitting road block after road block erected by irate third parties. The plan includes the lining of 23 miles of the All American Canal, to prevent the loss of an estimated 70,000 acre-feet per year.

Thursday, San Diego Union Tribune reports that:

With construction just weeks away, opponents of a plan to line the All-American Canal in Imperial County filed suit Tuesday to stop the project, alleging its design presents a peril to humans and animals.

The lawsuit in Imperial County Superior Court opens a legal front against the multimillion-dollar project, which involves replacing a leaky 23-mile stretch of the canal and transferring the saved water to San Diego County.

As the North County Times reports, this is hardly the first setback:

[R]ecently opened bids submitted by construction companies that are competing to build the largest portion of the project came in up to $40 million higher than expected.

Meanwhile, a Superior Court judge is scheduled to hold a hearing Monday on another lawsuit ---- filed last July ---- that also hopes to derail the canal lining. Officials said it could take several weeks for the court to issue a ruling in that suit.

Among the many concerns are those of Mexican farmers, who have grown to rely on water seeping out of the aqueduct; environmentalists are also concerned that the seeping water supports Mexican wetlands.

Governor to exercise more control of CALFED?

2006-04-21T21:53:00.000-07:00

From RecordNet.Com:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes to wield more influence over a coalition criticized for coming up short of nearly everyone's expectations in its mission to balance the Delta's health with the state's water needs.

Under a 10-year plan announced Thursday, the group of state and federal agencies known as CALFED will be placed under state Secretary of Resources Michael Chrisman, while its advisory board will be replaced by a group of appointees handpicked by the governor.

As with anything involving CALFED, the move is controversial and contested by someone, as the RecordNet piece continues:

Sen. Michael Machado, a Linden Democrat who chairs a Senate subcommittee on Delta resources, was "quite disappointed" with the restructuring plan, his spokeswoman said.

"Today's announcement was just a reintroduction of old ideas using old data that are not accepted and probably will not be accepted by the Legislature," Jody Fuji said.

Dante Nomellini, an attorney for the Central Delta Water Agency, said he didn't like the idea of getting rid of CALFED's public authority, which included legislative appointees representing members of the public and environmental groups.

"It sounds to me like they're going to throw it back to the back room, out of the public eye," Nomellini said.

One of authority's 24 board members, Marc Holmes, also criticized the move. With the new structure, "we get a single perspective, the state's perspective," he said.

But Holmes, who is also a restoration manager for the San Francisco Bay Institute, an environmental group concerned about the Delta, agreed that accountability should improve under the governor's plans.

Holmes was also optimistic that the legislation for restructuring CALFED would be carried by Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, who is generally supported by environmental groups.

"I'm hopeful she will institute ... some meaningful reforms that will actually improve it rather than consolidate power under the governor's office," he said.

Canal proposal and backlash

2006-04-21T20:00:00.000-07:00

According to the ContraCostaTimes last week, State Senator Joe Simitian has brought the peripheral canal issue back to the public eye:

The Delta has degraded so badly that it is time to consider building a highly controversial canal to protect water supplies, a Bay Area legislator says.

State Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, has offered legislation that for the first time in more than 20 years asks state lawmakers to consider a version of the Peripheral Canal.

"It's the Peripheral Canal. It's the death knell for the Delta. It's just a water grab," said Dante John Nomellini Sr., manager and counsel for the Central Delta Water Agency.

If Simitian succeeds, there will be nothing to prevent water quality in the Delta from worsening, Nomellini said.

Simitian's canal bill would place more control in the hands of Northern Californians, biologists and environmentalists than the original canal plan.

Nevertheless, it appears bound to resurrect the bitterly divisive fight that ended when overwhelming opposition in Northern California defeated the canal in 1982.

An editorial today in the Contra Costa Times reflected some of the expected backlash in the form of polarizing rhetoric:

Sen. Joe Simitian, Democrat, of Santa Clara County, as reported by the Times, has introduced legislation promoting construction of the Peripheral Canal.

Similar legislation was defeated in the statewide referendum of 1982 by Santa Clara and 49 of the other counties of California.

The canal, sponsored by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the water export contractors of the Central Valley, has only one purpose -- to remove more and higher quality water directly from the central Delta for delivery to the export pumps.

....

If necessary, we must be prepared again to establish the foundation for a referendum to set aside any legislation promoting a peripheral canal.

First time for everything

2006-04-19T14:06:00.000-07:00

From the Central Valley Business Times:

The State Water Project now says that it will supply 100 percent of the water requested by its customers for the first time ever.

LA Weekly on Owens River dust

2006-03-22T15:43:00.000-08:00

There's a nice (though lengthy) narrative in the LA Weekly on the LA - Owens River saga... great pictures and lots of dust mitigation coverage, too.

Beyond the arid vacancy of the Mojave Desert, U.S. 395 enters the austere majesty of the Owens Valley. To the east are the reddish peaks of the Cosos. The snow-covered Sierra Nevada rise along the western side. For miles ahead, the view seems endless, except for the Inyo-White range, which curls around the northeast edge of the valley. This is one of the good days, when the air is clear and crisp.

Midway up the valley, near the town of Olancha, lie the remains of Owens Lake. Back in 1904, immigrant water baron William Mulholland arrived here with Frederick Eaton, the retired L.A. mayor and water hound. They had ambitions to solve a drought and expand the city into the San Fernando Valley. In seizing their prize they could not have pictured the destruction they would cause by diverting water to Los Angeles.

Concrete lining far from silver for Mexicans

2006-03-17T09:11:00.000-08:00

From Capital Press:

Despite its name, the All-American Canal has been leaking water to the Mexican side of the desert border for more than 60 years, nourishing alfalfa, onion and cotton crops that might otherwise wither.

Now the U.S. government is preparing to line the earthen channel with concrete. Mexican farmers’ loss will be California’s gain: Scarce water that will no longer be able to seep away instead will help flush toilets and water lawns more than 100 miles west in San Diego.

And that would affect thousands of families whose fields cover thousands of acres around Mexicali, an industrial city of 800,000 that is gobbling up farmland on its outskirts. That’s because the lining would prevent the replenishment of about 100 rural wells they use, according to critics of the project.

Nazario Ortiz, who farms 100 acres about three miles inside Mexico, worries that his hardscrabble community won’t survive.

“Everything comes from the canal, so everything is going to be ruined,” said Ortiz, 46, who lives in a village where old pickup trucks and unleashed dogs share dirt roads. “How are people going to make a living?”

It will be hard, Ortiz says, to stop his sons – ages 22, 18 and 16 – from illegally crossing the border to join relatives in Los Angeles.

...

The project to line 23 miles of the canal is slated to begin this summer and be completed in 2008. Project managers expect that the refit canal will capture enough water for 135,000 new homes, mostly in San Diego and its suburbs.

It seems that legally, Mexico has indeed been using water, so one could imagine the prior appropriation law coming into play... though of course Californians would claim that the water was never actually ever appropriated to Mexicans.

It is certainly true that water transfers are all about third party impacts.

Third parties sue over canal lining project

2006-02-21T17:10:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-18T09:22:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-16T16:26:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-14T17:27:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-13T11:59:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-10T11:14:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-10T09:55:00.000-08:00

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?

2006-02-10T09:42:00.000-08:00

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.