The water bond included:
- $1.495 billion for ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration- repair and restore streams, wetlands and fish habitats.
- $ 810 million for projects to improve regional water self-reliance, security and adapt to the effects on water supply from climate change.
- $725 million for grants or loans for water recycling for sewage and installation of advanced treatment technology projects for sewage treatment plants.
- $900 million for projects to restore or protect groundwater that serves as or has served as a drinking water supply.
- $2.7 billion for water storage projects that improve the operation of the state water system, are cost effective, and provide a net improvement in ecosystem and water quality conditions as determined by the California Water Commission.
There were several proposals for water storage projects, including Sites reservoir, an off-stream reservoir in the hills west of the Sacramento Valley; a new dam on the upper San Joaquin River at Temperance Flat; and raising Shasta Dam. Collectively, these projects were projected to store an additional 3.6 million acre feet of water under optimum (i.e., very wet) scenarios at a cost of almost $8 billion. However, it appears unlikely that any of these water storage projects will be built.
Even as southern California has fallen into drought, with two years of strong rains having filled the reservoirs and the Sierra Nevada mountains with a snow pack of 6 feet, the California Water Commission has determined that 11 of the water storage projects would not provide public benefit as defined by the law as improvements in the ecosystem, water quality, flood control, emergency response and recreation.
Water storage for the state to survive a much longer drought was not a consideration. All 11 projects identified to receive Investment Program money were predicted to receive less money than they requested, according to those initial reviews. Three of these projects were predicted to receive nothing. Based on comments to the Water Commission and protests in Sacramento, it appears that much of the resistance to the water project funding is the general resistance of Californian environmental groups to damns.
Meanwhile, the California State Water Resource Control Board another regulatory agency, recently proposed permanent restrictions on water use in the state. The proposal still under consideration would make California's drought water restrictions permanent under the state Constitution's prohibition on the "waste or unreasonable use" of water. This could allow the state to chip away at long-held water rights in an unprecedented grab of power and wealth in a state where water is money.
The water use restrictions will be punishable by a $500 fine for the first offense and include prohibitions on watering lawns, using a hose to wash down sidewalks or using a hose without an automatic shut-off nozzle to wash cars. Water officials expect neighbors to be responsible for detecting and reporting most of the wasteful water use, just like a Stasi police state. Holders of priority water rights are concerned that the expansion of the state Constitution's prohibition on the "waste or unreasonable use" of water would create a slippery slope, allowing the Water Resource Control Board to chip away at California's historic protection of water rights for landowners or invalidate them completely when the time was right.
Rather it is time for California to purchase or allow the sale of water rights and permanently retire some marginal farm land from production. Reducing irrigated land and instituting water saving irrigation technology are the biggest water savings that the state can adopt. That alone would allow California to reduce their annual use of water by more than 2 million acre feet just for retiring the marginal lands. A U.S. Department of Agriculture study in 2002 determined that about 5 million acres of the 9 million acres of the San Joaquin Valley in agricultural production are drainage-impaired land or otherwise marginal.
A 2015 study by the Environmental Water Caucus based on data collected from recent state water plans, the Pacific Institute and the Planning and Conservation League, concluded that 2 million acre feet of water a year could be saved by retiring impaired agricultural lands. Other measures, including improving agricultural and urban use efficiency and recycling, could increase that up to 13 million acre feet. Agriculture uses about 80% of the water in California. You need to reduce and improve the agricultural irrigation to extend the water supply they have available.
Even as southern California has fallen into drought, with two years of strong rains having filled the reservoirs and the Sierra Nevada mountains with a snow pack of 6 feet, the California Water Commission has determined that 11 of the water storage projects would not provide public benefit as defined by the law as improvements in the ecosystem, water quality, flood control, emergency response and recreation.
Water storage for the state to survive a much longer drought was not a consideration. All 11 projects identified to receive Investment Program money were predicted to receive less money than they requested, according to those initial reviews. Three of these projects were predicted to receive nothing. Based on comments to the Water Commission and protests in Sacramento, it appears that much of the resistance to the water project funding is the general resistance of Californian environmental groups to damns.
Meanwhile, the California State Water Resource Control Board another regulatory agency, recently proposed permanent restrictions on water use in the state. The proposal still under consideration would make California's drought water restrictions permanent under the state Constitution's prohibition on the "waste or unreasonable use" of water. This could allow the state to chip away at long-held water rights in an unprecedented grab of power and wealth in a state where water is money.
The water use restrictions will be punishable by a $500 fine for the first offense and include prohibitions on watering lawns, using a hose to wash down sidewalks or using a hose without an automatic shut-off nozzle to wash cars. Water officials expect neighbors to be responsible for detecting and reporting most of the wasteful water use, just like a Stasi police state. Holders of priority water rights are concerned that the expansion of the state Constitution's prohibition on the "waste or unreasonable use" of water would create a slippery slope, allowing the Water Resource Control Board to chip away at California's historic protection of water rights for landowners or invalidate them completely when the time was right.
Rather it is time for California to purchase or allow the sale of water rights and permanently retire some marginal farm land from production. Reducing irrigated land and instituting water saving irrigation technology are the biggest water savings that the state can adopt. That alone would allow California to reduce their annual use of water by more than 2 million acre feet just for retiring the marginal lands. A U.S. Department of Agriculture study in 2002 determined that about 5 million acres of the 9 million acres of the San Joaquin Valley in agricultural production are drainage-impaired land or otherwise marginal.
A 2015 study by the Environmental Water Caucus based on data collected from recent state water plans, the Pacific Institute and the Planning and Conservation League, concluded that 2 million acre feet of water a year could be saved by retiring impaired agricultural lands. Other measures, including improving agricultural and urban use efficiency and recycling, could increase that up to 13 million acre feet. Agriculture uses about 80% of the water in California. You need to reduce and improve the agricultural irrigation to extend the water supply they have available.
No comments:
Post a Comment