President Obama visited California last week appearing in Fresno, California in the heart of California’s agricultural central valley. California produces almost 18 % of all U. S. crops and 7 % of livestock and livestock products (by revenue). In addition, California produces about half of U.S. grown fruits, nuts, and vegetables, several of the crops are currently only grown in California. In the central valley of California three crops a year can be grown and crop production is only limited by the amount of water delivered for irrigation. To make up shortfalls in annual water allocations farmers have for generations pumped groundwater- unsustainably. So much water has been pumped that the land above the aquifer in the central valley has subsided and can never recover. The water level in these aquifers has fallen hundreds of feet in the past few generations. Nonetheless farmers continue to plant almond trees and fruit trees that require year round irrigation in wet years and dry years.
After viewing the impact of the worst drought since the 1970’s on the community the President gave a speech where he called for the creation of a $1 billion climate change fund to research the projected effects of climate change and helping Americans prepare with new technology and infrastructure. That is unlikely to increase rainfall in California which already has the largest water storage and transportation system in the world. With 1,200 miles of canals and nearly 50 reservoirs, in an “average” year the system captures enough water to irrigate about four million acres and provide water to the almost 38 million residents of the state. Even with all this water management California is at the limit of their water resources, and without enough rain and snow in the Sierra Mountains there is simply not enough water.
In the meantime, Governor Jerry Brown has declared a drought emergency and called for voluntarily water conservation, and is using the drought crisis to move forward a proposal to drill two 35 mile, highway-sized water tunnels beneath the California Delta. This project is estimated to cost at least $25 billion (though the Bay Bridge ended up costing multiples of the original estimate) and California has struggled with multibillion dollar budget deficits in recent years, saved by drastic cuts by Governor Brown and a surge in IPO (initial public offering) and technology and other capital gains. The water tunnel plan is opposed by environmentalists who say it will all but destroy Delta estuary and the agricultural community is reported to be divided on the water tunnels.
Environmentalists say the tunnel project would suck more water from the already fragile delta, the hub of the state's water-delivery system. Critics of the proposal say it would further harm the delta's fisheries, increase the cost of water and devastate the agricultural economy by lowering river levels and allowing salt water from the San Francisco Bay to invade. In addition, these tunnels would not sure up the aging infrastructure of the existing water infrastructure.
After three years of below-normal rainfall, California looks to be facing its most severe drought in decades and needs to face some harsh water truths. Neither studying climate, moderating greenhouse gases change or by passing the Delta add more water to California. Something fundamental has to change. To change the fundamental water equation in California where agriculture uses between 75%-80% of water the Pacific Institute who has studied this issue extensively recommends that of 1.3 million acres of impaired lands in the Central Valley be removed from irrigation and agricultural use. This land which is already impaired represents less than 5% of the agricultural land in California, but would save 3.9 million acre-feet of water per year, while also reducing polluted surface water runoff and impacts to groundwater. This water savings represents 9% of the water used in California and is equal to two thirds of the total water used for urban residential use.
Removing these lands from agricultural production is not going to happen without government action and disruption of lives. Something similar has happened in Canada. As reported in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, the fishing industry in Newfoundland has been disappearing for a quarter of a century. In the late 1980s, the industry employed around 13% of the province's workers. Today the fish industry employs only 3% of the province’s workers. Over fishing and poor ecological management caused the fish stocks plummet and the Canadian government put a moratorium on cod fishing about 20 years ago. Despite the moratorium on fishing, the cod population has not recovered and the way of life for those fishing communities is gone. According to the provincial government about 28,000 people relocated between 1954 and 1975 for better jobs and lives.
Sixty years ago, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador began offering its shrinking communities money to close down and move on to eliminate the need to provide utilities and community services to the shrinking and dying towns. After a nearly four-decade lull, the number of communities seeking resettlement has picked up, as the older generation fades and the government has raised the value of its offers. Though ending a way of life, is sad, the cod stocks could no longer support these communities or their way of life, through mismanagement and lack of planning. The water in California can no longer support all the farm communities every year.
Showing posts with label California Delta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California Delta. Show all posts
Monday, February 17, 2014
Monday, June 21, 2010
Running on Empty III
The winter rains have brought a reprieve from the recent water crisis in California, but this is not a solution. The federal government has upped the water allocation from the federal pipes and canals to the Central Valley to 45% of the “total allocation” from the previous 5%. As politicians who lobbied the Department of the Interior to raise the allocations and boost irrigation supplies take credit for the increase brought by the winter rains in this election year, addressing the underlying problem is pushed down the road. California will issue $11 billon in bond money they do not have to repair the San Joaquin- Sacramento Delta, water projects and build dams to try and magically increase the supply of water. Dams will not solve the problem of not enough water to meet demand, but may add to the growing insolvency of the state. Including interest payments, the bonds will cost $24 billion out of the general fund over 30 years. The general fund has a current deficit of $19 billion this year. If the legislature feels all these provisions are necessary then they should directly raise water rates to pay for the costs.
California local water agencies have invested in water recycling, conservation, groundwater storage and other strategies to stretch supplies, but the demand for cheap water exceeds supply as evidenced by the groundwater usage. Year round agriculture has been made possible by the ample supply of water used for irrigation. The limit to California’s agricultural bounty is water availability. Water available is a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. In 2006 before the beginning of the last drought, California used almost 31 billion gallons of water a day for irrigation. This is 351 gallons of water a day for each agricultural dollar earned each year and represents 80% of the water used in the state each year. Buried in the water bond legislation contains a provision that would require most California communities to reduce their per capita water use 20% by 2020. That is a little like China agreeing to reduce their carbon intensity. The total water used will grow with the population, but there will be no growth in the water supply for the state and if climate projects are at all true, then there will be less water.
While a portion of irrigated water is recharged to groundwater and surface water, some is lost; the real problem is that there is inadequate water flow in the state to support this level of irrigation. Period. When California reduces the irrigation allocations, the agricultural use of groundwater increases. Many agricultural operations do not have adequate ground water flow to make up the shortage, resulting in loss of jobs and crops. The operations with available groundwater utilize it without regard for the recharge rate and ultimate impact on California’s future. When you withdraw the groundwater from fine-grained compressible confining beds of sediments and do not replace it, the land subsides. The incredibly fertile Central Valley was identified by the research efforts of Joseph Poland as the location of maximum subsidence in the United States. Once the land subsides, it looses its water holding capacity and will never recover as an aquifer. Groundwater mining in the Central Valley had slowed in the past few decades, at least until the recent water crisis.
California’s climate is dominated by the Pacific storm track. The mountain ranges cause precipitation to fall mostly on the western slopes. These storms also leave tremendous accumulations of snow in the Sierra Nevada during a wet winter. While the average annual precipitation in California is about 23inches (DWR 1998), the range of annual rainfall varies greatly from more than 140 inches in the northwestern part of the State to less than 4 inches in the southeastern part of the State. Snowmelt and rain fall in the mountains and flow into creeks, streams, and rivers. As these flows make their way into the valleys, much of the water percolates into the ground. The vast majority of California’s accessible groundwater is stored in alluvial groundwater basins. Though the health of the groundwater basins is neither tracked nor known, it is believed that California may be using the groundwater at an unsustainable rate.
California’s water allocations exceed supply in practically every year of recent record. Climatic variability produces both droughts and flooding. California has dealt with the limitations resulting from its natural hydrology by developing an intricate system of reservoirs, canals, and pipelines under federal, State and local projects to essentially move the water from the northwest to the south. However, a significant portion of California’s water supply need is always met by groundwater. Typically, groundwater supplies about 30 percent of California’s urban and agricultural uses. In dry years, groundwater use increases to about 40 percent statewide and 60% or more in some regions. Mining of the groundwater beyond the recharge rate is impairing California’s future. California does not have enough water available annually to keep up this usage level and the largest user of water in the state is agriculture. In order to continue to supply water to the rest of the state, California needs to reduce the agricultural water usage in the state.
California local water agencies have invested in water recycling, conservation, groundwater storage and other strategies to stretch supplies, but the demand for cheap water exceeds supply as evidenced by the groundwater usage. Year round agriculture has been made possible by the ample supply of water used for irrigation. The limit to California’s agricultural bounty is water availability. Water available is a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. In 2006 before the beginning of the last drought, California used almost 31 billion gallons of water a day for irrigation. This is 351 gallons of water a day for each agricultural dollar earned each year and represents 80% of the water used in the state each year. Buried in the water bond legislation contains a provision that would require most California communities to reduce their per capita water use 20% by 2020. That is a little like China agreeing to reduce their carbon intensity. The total water used will grow with the population, but there will be no growth in the water supply for the state and if climate projects are at all true, then there will be less water.
While a portion of irrigated water is recharged to groundwater and surface water, some is lost; the real problem is that there is inadequate water flow in the state to support this level of irrigation. Period. When California reduces the irrigation allocations, the agricultural use of groundwater increases. Many agricultural operations do not have adequate ground water flow to make up the shortage, resulting in loss of jobs and crops. The operations with available groundwater utilize it without regard for the recharge rate and ultimate impact on California’s future. When you withdraw the groundwater from fine-grained compressible confining beds of sediments and do not replace it, the land subsides. The incredibly fertile Central Valley was identified by the research efforts of Joseph Poland as the location of maximum subsidence in the United States. Once the land subsides, it looses its water holding capacity and will never recover as an aquifer. Groundwater mining in the Central Valley had slowed in the past few decades, at least until the recent water crisis.
California’s climate is dominated by the Pacific storm track. The mountain ranges cause precipitation to fall mostly on the western slopes. These storms also leave tremendous accumulations of snow in the Sierra Nevada during a wet winter. While the average annual precipitation in California is about 23inches (DWR 1998), the range of annual rainfall varies greatly from more than 140 inches in the northwestern part of the State to less than 4 inches in the southeastern part of the State. Snowmelt and rain fall in the mountains and flow into creeks, streams, and rivers. As these flows make their way into the valleys, much of the water percolates into the ground. The vast majority of California’s accessible groundwater is stored in alluvial groundwater basins. Though the health of the groundwater basins is neither tracked nor known, it is believed that California may be using the groundwater at an unsustainable rate.
California’s water allocations exceed supply in practically every year of recent record. Climatic variability produces both droughts and flooding. California has dealt with the limitations resulting from its natural hydrology by developing an intricate system of reservoirs, canals, and pipelines under federal, State and local projects to essentially move the water from the northwest to the south. However, a significant portion of California’s water supply need is always met by groundwater. Typically, groundwater supplies about 30 percent of California’s urban and agricultural uses. In dry years, groundwater use increases to about 40 percent statewide and 60% or more in some regions. Mining of the groundwater beyond the recharge rate is impairing California’s future. California does not have enough water available annually to keep up this usage level and the largest user of water in the state is agriculture. In order to continue to supply water to the rest of the state, California needs to reduce the agricultural water usage in the state.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Running on Empty in California
Attached to a fast-tracked Senate jobs bill is a piece of legislation from California Senator Dianne Feinstein disguised as an employment program for California's Central Valley. California's Democratic Senator Feinstein has proposed legislation that would divert a large portion of California's public water supply to Southern California agribusinesses to allow the farms to plant. This is the beginning of the end. The short sighted measures to solve the loudest problem. Senator Feinstein has abandoned her environmental principals to try and help the agribusinesses that depend on reliable water deliveries by increasing the agricultural water allocation four fold in the next two years. However, this will not solve what is the fundamental problem. There is not enough water.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) is a natural estuary of more than 738,000 acres, the Delta is the key pathway linking the water transfers from northern to southern California. This is how more than 25 million people and 2.5 million acres of productive farmland receive their water. The Delta is a patchwork of nearly 60 islands and tracts surrounded by natural and man-made channels much of which is below sea level. The Delta relies on more than a 1,000 miles of levees to protect land and key infrastructure from floods and daily high tides. Delta levees prevent salty water from San Francisco Bay from intruding into the Delta and contaminating the fresh water that supplies communities and farms. The Delta waterways convey water from Northern California rivers to pumping facilities in the southern Delta.
The SWP was constructed in the 1960s and early 1970s by the Department of Water Resources. Construction of the CVP began in 1935 and various facilities were added in subsequent decades. Except for the construction of the SWP’s Coastal Aqueduct in the 1990s, no significant improvements have been made to either system in nearly 30 years. Modern day California exists because of massive water diversions and the water infrastructure built in the past. Although 75% of precipitation falls in the northern portion of the state, more than 75% of the demand for water is in the southern portion of the state. California’s elaborate network of water storage and delivery systems has allowed the state to meet it diverse and ever growing water needs year-round by storing and moving water when and where it is needed and mining irreplaceable groundwater supplies. Water demand has continued to grow
Only in drought years is the true stress on the system obvious. Precipitation varies widely from year to year. Multi-year droughts have occurred throughout the state’s history, as have devastating floods. In California varied climate it’s possible to have both floods and drought in the same year. California’s water system was developed over decades to address that variability and provide more reliable water supplies year-round. The original intent to smooth the variations in annual precipitation was corrupted to divert water to the most powerful. California has a long history of water wars over water rights and diversions. State officials recently projected that California’s population will reach 50 million by 2032 and 60 million by 2050. There simply is not enough water. California local water agencies have invested in water recycling, conservation, groundwater storage and other strategies to stretch supplies, but the demand has outstripped supply for over 50 years as evidenced by the groundwater usage in the central valley.
The truth is that California has been using more water than is renewably available to support the population, businesses and agriculture of the state and the majority of water, almost 80% goes to agriculture. For more than a half a century the Central Valley of California has been one of the most productive agriculture regions of the world. This has been made possible by the ample supply of water used for irrigation. The limit to California’s agricultural is water availability. Water available is a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. Approximately one sixth of the irrigated land in the United States is in the Central Valley (Bureau of Reclamation, 1994) and approximately one eighth of all groundwater pumped in the United States is pumped in the Central Valley. California uses almost 31 billion gallons of water a day for irrigation. Agriculture uses 80% of the water to produce 2% of the revenue. Either food in America is grossly underpriced, or California is misallocating their resources. This is 351 gallons of water a day for each agricultural dollar earned each year. While a portion of irrigated water is recharged to groundwater, some is lost and California does not have enough water available annually to keep up this usage level. It is too much demand for water and cannot continue. This is a misallocation of our water resources and to add an $11 billion bond to build more water infrastructure to try to squeeze a little more water out of the system will not change the fact that there is not enough water for this to continue, thought maintenance of the existing infrastructure is essential for continued life in southern California. The wealth of the giant agricultural ranches in California is based on the cheap water for irrigation and these agribusiness will fight to keep their wealth and the majority of the annual water flow of the state.
Water allocations in the state exceed the entire water budget available. The time has come for California to determine how much of it’s water can be allocated to agriculture in good years and bad and limit agriculture to the size that can be supported by allocated water.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) is a natural estuary of more than 738,000 acres, the Delta is the key pathway linking the water transfers from northern to southern California. This is how more than 25 million people and 2.5 million acres of productive farmland receive their water. The Delta is a patchwork of nearly 60 islands and tracts surrounded by natural and man-made channels much of which is below sea level. The Delta relies on more than a 1,000 miles of levees to protect land and key infrastructure from floods and daily high tides. Delta levees prevent salty water from San Francisco Bay from intruding into the Delta and contaminating the fresh water that supplies communities and farms. The Delta waterways convey water from Northern California rivers to pumping facilities in the southern Delta.
The SWP was constructed in the 1960s and early 1970s by the Department of Water Resources. Construction of the CVP began in 1935 and various facilities were added in subsequent decades. Except for the construction of the SWP’s Coastal Aqueduct in the 1990s, no significant improvements have been made to either system in nearly 30 years. Modern day California exists because of massive water diversions and the water infrastructure built in the past. Although 75% of precipitation falls in the northern portion of the state, more than 75% of the demand for water is in the southern portion of the state. California’s elaborate network of water storage and delivery systems has allowed the state to meet it diverse and ever growing water needs year-round by storing and moving water when and where it is needed and mining irreplaceable groundwater supplies. Water demand has continued to grow
Only in drought years is the true stress on the system obvious. Precipitation varies widely from year to year. Multi-year droughts have occurred throughout the state’s history, as have devastating floods. In California varied climate it’s possible to have both floods and drought in the same year. California’s water system was developed over decades to address that variability and provide more reliable water supplies year-round. The original intent to smooth the variations in annual precipitation was corrupted to divert water to the most powerful. California has a long history of water wars over water rights and diversions. State officials recently projected that California’s population will reach 50 million by 2032 and 60 million by 2050. There simply is not enough water. California local water agencies have invested in water recycling, conservation, groundwater storage and other strategies to stretch supplies, but the demand has outstripped supply for over 50 years as evidenced by the groundwater usage in the central valley.
The truth is that California has been using more water than is renewably available to support the population, businesses and agriculture of the state and the majority of water, almost 80% goes to agriculture. For more than a half a century the Central Valley of California has been one of the most productive agriculture regions of the world. This has been made possible by the ample supply of water used for irrigation. The limit to California’s agricultural is water availability. Water available is a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. Approximately one sixth of the irrigated land in the United States is in the Central Valley (Bureau of Reclamation, 1994) and approximately one eighth of all groundwater pumped in the United States is pumped in the Central Valley. California uses almost 31 billion gallons of water a day for irrigation. Agriculture uses 80% of the water to produce 2% of the revenue. Either food in America is grossly underpriced, or California is misallocating their resources. This is 351 gallons of water a day for each agricultural dollar earned each year. While a portion of irrigated water is recharged to groundwater, some is lost and California does not have enough water available annually to keep up this usage level. It is too much demand for water and cannot continue. This is a misallocation of our water resources and to add an $11 billion bond to build more water infrastructure to try to squeeze a little more water out of the system will not change the fact that there is not enough water for this to continue, thought maintenance of the existing infrastructure is essential for continued life in southern California. The wealth of the giant agricultural ranches in California is based on the cheap water for irrigation and these agribusiness will fight to keep their wealth and the majority of the annual water flow of the state.
Water allocations in the state exceed the entire water budget available. The time has come for California to determine how much of it’s water can be allocated to agriculture in good years and bad and limit agriculture to the size that can be supported by allocated water.
Monday, October 12, 2009
California Wants to Build Dams
California has the largest water storage and transportation system in the world. With 1,200 miles of canals and nearly 50 reservoirs, the system captures enough water to irrigate about four million acres and provide water to 23 million people. Without this extensive management system California’s limited water resources could not supply as much of the demand as they do today. However, there are limits to the water supply; California has been diverting large quantities of water to supply the ever growing demand of cities and farmers and the demand from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "biological opinion" imposing water reductions to protect an endangered species. Californian are facing the failure their water- network, due to age, changes in population and demand, unsustainable use of the groundwater, unsustainable diversions of water, the current drought and the potentially far-reaching effects of climate change.
As a potential solution to this crisis, the farmers in the Central Valley and the Governor are supporting the expansion of the dam and reservoir system, though there appears to be no way that an expansion of dams will correct the water use imbalance and certainly will not improve the state’s budget problems. In the Central Valley many farmers are convinced that new, man-made lakes will help offset dry spells and ease the Fish and Wildlife Service ordered reductions to the water pumped through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The California Farm Bureau and others support three big projects they believe would not inflict the environmental harm of past dams and provide relief to the drought problems. The projects are: The expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County, the Temperance Flat dam on the San Joaquin River above Friant Dam, and Sites Reservoir, which would flood the Antelope Valley in Colusa County.
The Sites project alone is estimated to cost $3.8 billion and proposes that a dam create an off-stream reservoir that does not obstruct the Sacramento River. Through canals connected to the Sacramento River, water would be pumped into the lake where it would be used to supplement flows into the delta or allow deeper, colder reservoirs to hold back water for critical salmon runs. There are major unanswered questions of the impact of diversion on groundwater recharge and how much additional supply of water will result from this expenditure. Dams do not create water they just control flow and have a long history of supplying less water than promised and costing more than projected. Why would there be such support for dam construction? Reducing water use through conservation efficiencies and recycling will increase available water at significantly less cost than constructing new storage dams and reservoirs according to Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.
The Pacific Institute in Oakland points out Farmers in the Central Valley have been the poster children for water diversions, but, official data shows that the major Central Valley districts will use at least 75% of their average water use by depleting stored groundwater reserves, participating in water transfers, etc. By combining resources the Westland’s Water District will irrigate with at least 86% of their “normal” water supply. The San Joaquin Valley wildlife refuges will get 75% of its promised water, less than many of the agricultural districts once the groundwater use is taken into account. Some farmers get less than others in dry years because of their junior water rights which have allocated water in California and the western states in an archaic and out dated fashion since the 19th century.
According to the Pacific Institute, the unemployment problem in the Central Valley is a result of a global and national recession. Unemployment increased more in non-farm industries than in farm workers. In Fresno County, unemployment today is substantially lower than it was just five and ten years ago and during that period farm employment grew; non-farm employment shrunk. In some of the hardest hit areas, unemployment is and has always been much higher. As has appeared in several newspapers, unemployment rates in Mendota are above 30%. What is not often published is that nine years ago, unemployment in Mendota was 30%. Six years ago, it was 36%. The problem in Mendota isn't just the current drought. Employment or rather unemployment has been a long term problem of the Central Valley. Is it possible that the dam’s projects are thinly disguised employment projects?
It appears unlikely that the dam projects are the answer to any of the problems facing California. However, it is time to spend money on determining what the sustainable water supply in California actually is and in readdressing the archaic water right and allocation that have developed in California over time. California is on an unsustainable path they need to plot a new one. This is a dangerous thing to suggest in the west where water rights have been fiercely guarded and fought over since the 19th century, but the method and logic of the allocation of water in California will determine its future viability.
As a potential solution to this crisis, the farmers in the Central Valley and the Governor are supporting the expansion of the dam and reservoir system, though there appears to be no way that an expansion of dams will correct the water use imbalance and certainly will not improve the state’s budget problems. In the Central Valley many farmers are convinced that new, man-made lakes will help offset dry spells and ease the Fish and Wildlife Service ordered reductions to the water pumped through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The California Farm Bureau and others support three big projects they believe would not inflict the environmental harm of past dams and provide relief to the drought problems. The projects are: The expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County, the Temperance Flat dam on the San Joaquin River above Friant Dam, and Sites Reservoir, which would flood the Antelope Valley in Colusa County.
The Sites project alone is estimated to cost $3.8 billion and proposes that a dam create an off-stream reservoir that does not obstruct the Sacramento River. Through canals connected to the Sacramento River, water would be pumped into the lake where it would be used to supplement flows into the delta or allow deeper, colder reservoirs to hold back water for critical salmon runs. There are major unanswered questions of the impact of diversion on groundwater recharge and how much additional supply of water will result from this expenditure. Dams do not create water they just control flow and have a long history of supplying less water than promised and costing more than projected. Why would there be such support for dam construction? Reducing water use through conservation efficiencies and recycling will increase available water at significantly less cost than constructing new storage dams and reservoirs according to Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.
The Pacific Institute in Oakland points out Farmers in the Central Valley have been the poster children for water diversions, but, official data shows that the major Central Valley districts will use at least 75% of their average water use by depleting stored groundwater reserves, participating in water transfers, etc. By combining resources the Westland’s Water District will irrigate with at least 86% of their “normal” water supply. The San Joaquin Valley wildlife refuges will get 75% of its promised water, less than many of the agricultural districts once the groundwater use is taken into account. Some farmers get less than others in dry years because of their junior water rights which have allocated water in California and the western states in an archaic and out dated fashion since the 19th century.
According to the Pacific Institute, the unemployment problem in the Central Valley is a result of a global and national recession. Unemployment increased more in non-farm industries than in farm workers. In Fresno County, unemployment today is substantially lower than it was just five and ten years ago and during that period farm employment grew; non-farm employment shrunk. In some of the hardest hit areas, unemployment is and has always been much higher. As has appeared in several newspapers, unemployment rates in Mendota are above 30%. What is not often published is that nine years ago, unemployment in Mendota was 30%. Six years ago, it was 36%. The problem in Mendota isn't just the current drought. Employment or rather unemployment has been a long term problem of the Central Valley. Is it possible that the dam’s projects are thinly disguised employment projects?
It appears unlikely that the dam projects are the answer to any of the problems facing California. However, it is time to spend money on determining what the sustainable water supply in California actually is and in readdressing the archaic water right and allocation that have developed in California over time. California is on an unsustainable path they need to plot a new one. This is a dangerous thing to suggest in the west where water rights have been fiercely guarded and fought over since the 19th century, but the method and logic of the allocation of water in California will determine its future viability.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Quit Dreaming of Water
In 1995, the Pacific Institute published a report that summarized the condition of the water supply in California:
“California’s current water use is unsustainable. In many areas, ground water is being used at a rate that exceeds the rate of natural replenishment. This is causing land to subside and threatening some aquifers with possible collapse. The use of ground water is almost entirely unmonitored and uncontrolled, hindering rational management. Urban water use is inefficient and poorly managed. Agricultural policies encourage the production of water-intensive, low-valued crops. Environmental water needs are poorly understood and rarely met. Fish and wildlife species are being driven toward extinction and habitats are being destroyed by withdrawal of water, as well as by development.”
Though the report gained much publicity the public was not engaged and life continued as usual for most. The conclusions of that report are still true today only the need for action is more urgent. Planning for the future was pushed off. In their 2005 the Pacific Institute published another report. Pointing out that water demand and use exceeds sustainable supply. Mining of groundwater unconstrained by environmental or ecological limits will doom California. “The costs to the state of such a future will include:
• lost industrial competitiveness and revenue;
• destroyed natural resources;
• continuing uncertainty about long-term water supplies; and
• Further ill will among urban, agricultural, and environmental interests.”
The day of reckoning is nearer. Water wars are erupting in the state. The Pacific Institute is cursed as Cassandra. Right but never believed.
The State of California has routinely prepared water scenarios and projections as part of long-term water planning. The California Water Plan, a regular analysis published by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is the major guide book for water planning within the state. The latest version of the Plan was released for public review in January 2009 and stated:
“We must adapt and evolve California’s water systems more quickly and effectively to keep pace with ever changing conditions now and in the future. Population is growing while available water supplies are static and even decreasing. Climate change, as evidenced by changes in snowpack, river flows, and sea levels, is profoundly impacting our water resources. The Delta and other watersheds and ecosystems continue to decline. The state’s current water and flood management systems are increasingly challenged by legal remedies and regulatory protections, with economic and societal consequences. The entire system—water and flood management, watersheds, and ecosystems—has lost its resilience and is changing in undesirable ways.”
In August 2009 the Environmental Water Caucus published California Water Solutions Now under a grant from the Goldman Institute pulling together a unified view and list of recommendations from a diverse group of stakeholders. The report points out that California’s state water agencies cannot report on how much water is actually being used, where it is being used, where it is being diverted to, how much is being diverted, or how many diversions are illegal. Where it does have such data, the State Water Board estimates that the number of illegal diversions may be over 40 percent of the number of active permits and licenses, which also fails to comply with the law in many cases. Enforcement authority and resources are extremely limited, and violations rarely if ever receive a meaningful state response. Water rights enforcement must increase if we are to police the illegal use of California’s waters and ensure its beneficial use, in accordance with the state Constitution.
The state needs transparent and independent accounting assessing the sustainable water supply and water use in California. This will have to include monitoring groundwater use throughout the state. Sustainable use of water resources cannot be a voluntary program. The current water rights systems needs to be reformed. The SWP has never been able to consistently deliver all the water supplies on which its contracts were based. The main input to the Delta, the Sacramento River does not provide sufficient water for all the present claimants. The system cannot provide full delivery of water to the most junior holders in most years without even taking into account the recent court-ordered restrictions that protect endangered fish species.
Many of the conclusions drawn by the Environmental Water Caucus are difficult and painful, but the reality is water resources are limited. The report points out that 37% of all years since 1960 are drought years in California and in response local politicians, the Governor and Senator Feinstein want to build more major dams and canals to store and more water at a time when changing climate will most likely make less water available. Publicly subsidized farm water has created and insatiable appetite for more irrigation water. The true cost of water must be paid for and the mining groundwater to cover the water shortfall needs to stop.
Subsidized water has resulted in the unsustainable practices in the western San Joaquin Valley, which is an ancient ocean bed. Selenium, boron, molybdenum, mercury, arsenic and various other salts and minerals are highly concentrated in these soils. Irrigation of this land with water from the Delta adds enormous amounts of salts to the soils in the western San Joaquin Valley and requires the water wasteful “pre-irrigation” of the land to push down the salt level before planting. Only subsidized water could produce this behavior. These lands need to be taken out of agricultural production. There is no more water. Both urban and suburban water conservation must take place as well as agricultural water conservation, since agriculture uses more than three-quarters of the state’s developed water supplies, unsustainable use of water begins here. Reducing water use through conservation efficiencies and recycling will increase available water at significantly less cost than constructing new storage dams and reservoirs according to Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.
“California’s current water use is unsustainable. In many areas, ground water is being used at a rate that exceeds the rate of natural replenishment. This is causing land to subside and threatening some aquifers with possible collapse. The use of ground water is almost entirely unmonitored and uncontrolled, hindering rational management. Urban water use is inefficient and poorly managed. Agricultural policies encourage the production of water-intensive, low-valued crops. Environmental water needs are poorly understood and rarely met. Fish and wildlife species are being driven toward extinction and habitats are being destroyed by withdrawal of water, as well as by development.”
Though the report gained much publicity the public was not engaged and life continued as usual for most. The conclusions of that report are still true today only the need for action is more urgent. Planning for the future was pushed off. In their 2005 the Pacific Institute published another report. Pointing out that water demand and use exceeds sustainable supply. Mining of groundwater unconstrained by environmental or ecological limits will doom California. “The costs to the state of such a future will include:
• lost industrial competitiveness and revenue;
• destroyed natural resources;
• continuing uncertainty about long-term water supplies; and
• Further ill will among urban, agricultural, and environmental interests.”
The day of reckoning is nearer. Water wars are erupting in the state. The Pacific Institute is cursed as Cassandra. Right but never believed.
The State of California has routinely prepared water scenarios and projections as part of long-term water planning. The California Water Plan, a regular analysis published by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is the major guide book for water planning within the state. The latest version of the Plan was released for public review in January 2009 and stated:
“We must adapt and evolve California’s water systems more quickly and effectively to keep pace with ever changing conditions now and in the future. Population is growing while available water supplies are static and even decreasing. Climate change, as evidenced by changes in snowpack, river flows, and sea levels, is profoundly impacting our water resources. The Delta and other watersheds and ecosystems continue to decline. The state’s current water and flood management systems are increasingly challenged by legal remedies and regulatory protections, with economic and societal consequences. The entire system—water and flood management, watersheds, and ecosystems—has lost its resilience and is changing in undesirable ways.”
In August 2009 the Environmental Water Caucus published California Water Solutions Now under a grant from the Goldman Institute pulling together a unified view and list of recommendations from a diverse group of stakeholders. The report points out that California’s state water agencies cannot report on how much water is actually being used, where it is being used, where it is being diverted to, how much is being diverted, or how many diversions are illegal. Where it does have such data, the State Water Board estimates that the number of illegal diversions may be over 40 percent of the number of active permits and licenses, which also fails to comply with the law in many cases. Enforcement authority and resources are extremely limited, and violations rarely if ever receive a meaningful state response. Water rights enforcement must increase if we are to police the illegal use of California’s waters and ensure its beneficial use, in accordance with the state Constitution.
The state needs transparent and independent accounting assessing the sustainable water supply and water use in California. This will have to include monitoring groundwater use throughout the state. Sustainable use of water resources cannot be a voluntary program. The current water rights systems needs to be reformed. The SWP has never been able to consistently deliver all the water supplies on which its contracts were based. The main input to the Delta, the Sacramento River does not provide sufficient water for all the present claimants. The system cannot provide full delivery of water to the most junior holders in most years without even taking into account the recent court-ordered restrictions that protect endangered fish species.
Many of the conclusions drawn by the Environmental Water Caucus are difficult and painful, but the reality is water resources are limited. The report points out that 37% of all years since 1960 are drought years in California and in response local politicians, the Governor and Senator Feinstein want to build more major dams and canals to store and more water at a time when changing climate will most likely make less water available. Publicly subsidized farm water has created and insatiable appetite for more irrigation water. The true cost of water must be paid for and the mining groundwater to cover the water shortfall needs to stop.
Subsidized water has resulted in the unsustainable practices in the western San Joaquin Valley, which is an ancient ocean bed. Selenium, boron, molybdenum, mercury, arsenic and various other salts and minerals are highly concentrated in these soils. Irrigation of this land with water from the Delta adds enormous amounts of salts to the soils in the western San Joaquin Valley and requires the water wasteful “pre-irrigation” of the land to push down the salt level before planting. Only subsidized water could produce this behavior. These lands need to be taken out of agricultural production. There is no more water. Both urban and suburban water conservation must take place as well as agricultural water conservation, since agriculture uses more than three-quarters of the state’s developed water supplies, unsustainable use of water begins here. Reducing water use through conservation efficiencies and recycling will increase available water at significantly less cost than constructing new storage dams and reservoirs according to Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)