|
Thursday, 17 July 2008 |
|
Today’s release of the Public Policy Institute’s research
brief, “Navigating the Delta: Comparing Futures, Choosing Options,” concludes
once and for all that the Peripheral Canal is the best option that will provide
both a reliable water supply and protection for the Delta’s ecosystem.
The report evaluates four scenarios: the existing system of
through-delta exports, a dual facility that includes some of the current system
with a small peripheral canal, an isolated system that moves export water
around the Delta and a “no export” alternative.
Of the four, the Peripheral
Canal is the most
economically sensible alternative. The
“no export” alternative is best for fish but costs to the economy are as much
as 10 times as high as the PC. Through-delta
pumping, as we use today, according to the report, is unsustainable.
Prepare now for environmental backlash. I expect strong disagreement from the
marginal groups that oppose anything that helps stabilize California’s water supply. The old stories about taking MORE water out
of the system and harming fish will undoubtedly surface in the next day or so but the PPIC
report clearly states, “…at this point some form of a peripheral canal is
likely to aid in rehabilitating the Delta.”
It will be important for any new Delta water management strategies to include protections for valuable agricultural land in the Delta region.
California’s
leadership must now focus on implementing the solution and not get caught up in
the rhetoric of yesterday’s nattering naysayers.
|
|
|
Water conservation - carrot or stick? |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 25 June 2008 |
|
The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee on Tuesday asked
Assembly Member John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) to consider significant amendments to
AB 2175, a bill mandating agricultural and urban water conservation activities.
During committee discussion following testimony, Committee
Chairman Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Sen. Mike Machado (D-Linden)
raised questions about the “top down” approach undertaken by the bill as well
as secondary impacts generated by mandatory agricultural water conservation
measures.
Steinberg asked Laird initially to strike references in the
bill to a proposed target of 500,000 acre-feet of agricultural water
conservation and then later retracted his request and instead asked that the
number be left in as a “placeholder,” citing potential similarities with urban
industrial uses that could not be addressed during a short time period at the
committee meeting. Steinberg also asked
whether a “water management plan” approach to water conservation activities is
a better solution than mandated activities and thought it needed to “cook”
longer before being approved.
In his comments on the bill, Machado expressed serious
concern for the changes in crop mix that would likely result from the mandated
approach. Citing the loss of 14 of the
16 tomato processors once based in Stockton,
Machado blamed regulations and the inability of the City of Stockton to handle the processors’ wastewater
as a reason for the closure of the plants.
As a result, he said, jobs were lost and the farming community was
forced to change because of the loss of infrastructure.
Committee Vice-chair Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Temecula) also
raised questions about the secondary impacts the bill would have on the
Quantification Settlement Agreement between Imperial Irrigation District and San Diego. Increased water conservation pressure on IID
to conserve water could lead to more fallowing, jeopardizing the long term QSA.
On a motion that required the bill to return to the
committee for review before proceeding to the Senate Fiscal Committee and
Senate floor, the bill received four aye votes and was on-call pending an
additional vote to move it out of committee.
|
|
|
Another drought for California |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 04 June 2008 |
|
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced at a press conference this morning that California is officially in a drought. An extremely dry spring coupled with restrictions on Delta exports have led to water rationing in parts of the San Joaquin Valleys' west side. The Governor, followed by Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow, made it clear that measures must be taken to get water to farmers during the summer growing season. "Farmers don't need water in September," said Snow, "They need it in June."
I agree completely with the Governor and support his call for the legislature to get with the program and push through comprehensive water supply legislation this year. We're in another drought but this time the tools we used previously are broken and there is no relief on the horizon.
|
|
|
ESA means less food/more unemployment |
|
|
|
|
Friday, 30 May 2008 |
|
Farmers in the Westlands Water District heard yesterday how
little water they will be receiving under a rationing plan that will run until
the end of August. Because of diminished
storage at San Luis Reservoir, those farmers will receive only .47 acre-feet of
water per acre until around August 31.
That’s less than half an acre foot which is hardly enough water for most
crops to make it through the summer. The
result is that hundreds of thousands of acres will go unplanted, such as fall
vegetable crops like broccoli and lettuce, or existing crops will be abandoned
so that the scant water supply will be used on much less acreage.
A combination of factors led to the water short year. Those factors include last year’s drier than
normal conditions, court-ordered pumping restrictions in the Delta, and
essentially zero precipitation this year in March, April and May.
We can’t do anything about the rain. It’s the environmental regulations that are
so maddening. Between the State Water
Project and federal Central Valley Project, a total of 670,000 acre-feet of
water that could have been pumped and put to use this year was lost to the
ocean. The timing was such that it had
little or no environmental benefit in the Delta either. All that was accomplished by that huge
release of drinking water was to move a small school of Delta Smelt
a few miles further away from the pumps that science has shown to have an
insignificant effect on the smelt's population levels.
Why then are we going through this exercise? Because the Endangered Species Act is
inflexible and it is being applied in a manner that harms an economy that’s
under strain already it’s putting people out of work, plain and simple.
Is that what the ESA’s authors intended?
I don’t think so.
|
|
|
Wednesday, 21 May 2008 |
|
Everyone agrees that the Delta is broken. It doesn’t
work for water users or environmental needs and it’s at risk of permanent
damage if the earthquake that scientists predict hits anytime soon.
The proposed fix titled “Key Elements of a Strategic Plan to
Implement the Delta Vision," prepared by a number of environmental
organizations for the Governor’s Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force,
recommends dedicating huge amounts of additional water for the Delta’s
ecosystem while leaving water users holding the bag with a LESS reliable water
supply and HIGHER costs.
Proposals include new or higher fees for water users that
exercise their water rights, a reduction in the amount of water that can be
reliably exported from the Delta to serve millions of acres of farmland and 25 million
Californians and a salinity plan that would essentially empty upstream
reservoirs in the spring leaving little or no water in the summer for
irrigation or other uses. This is in spite of the fact that cold water
releases from upstream reservoirs in the summer are extremely important to
maintaining the Delta’s ecosystem health. What in the world are they
thinking?
Let’s hope the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force is more
interested in a balanced solution that benefits ALL Californians and
not one designed by a few special interest groups.
|
|
|
|