California (Delta) Water

 

A Quick Primer on California Water Law:

 Water Issue Overview 

Existing water policy in California has largely involved exporting water that flows into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (SF Bay Delta or Delta) in Northern California south to Central and Southern California via the huge federal (Central Valley Project) and state (State Water Project) pumping operations.  But this policy of exporting water from the Delta has run into natural barriers, and cannot expand to meet growing needs for water.  At various times in the year, the flows through the Delta to the San Francisco Bay are quite literally reversed, with salt water pulled eastward into the delta, and the majority of freshwater heading south toward the pumps.  It is this dynamic that is largely to blame for the wholesale collapse of the SF Bay-Delta estuary ecosystem, with impacts as far north as the Washington State’s San Juan Islands (Killer Whales).  

In fact, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) just released on June 4th a fully updated biological opinion that includes sweeping new rules on Delta water deliveries to prevent the rendering extinct several salmon runs, steelhead, green sturgeon and a Pacific Northwest population of killer whales.  The report decisively concludes that increased water exports out of the Delta have been devastating to the Delta watershed ecosystem. 

 More facts: 

• The baseline amount of water that had been “reportedly safely” exported from the Delta was about 4 million to 4.5 million acre-feet per year.  But as is discussed in the “About Those Fish” section, exports got up to over 6 million acre feet between 2003 and 2007. The latest of which from NMFS on June 4 called for 20% reductions from peak for Smelt, and a further 5-7% to ensure Salmon, Steelhead and other species survival.  Generating over 10 million acre-feet will more than compensate for reducing diversions from 6 million to 4-4.5 million acre-feet per year (see solutions section)!!!
• Los Angeles water planning officials have fully acknowledged the superiority of the “virtual river” projects over more traditional water projects.  A recent study produced by the LA County Economic Development Corporation concludes that urban water conservation and enhancement of ground water storage capacity would save approximately 2.5 million acre feet of water, and that such measures involve minimal cost and can be fully implemented within 3 to 5 years (but with a significant amount of such savings within 1 year).
• This same study concludes that conservation would be the least costly water supply alternative for Southern California at $210 per acre-foot of treated water, and with ground water storage second most favorable at $580 per acre-foot of treated water. Conversely, current bond measures supported by Governor Schwarzenegger are recommending surface storage options, including proposals such as the Sites Reservoir in Northern California and the Temperance Flat dam near Fresno – that would cost $760 to $1,400 per acre-foot, and surface storage would take well over 10 years to fully implement.  So why is it that the superior water policy has received so little attention?
• The impact of global warming in future years must be considered in our water policy decisions. It is no surprise to learn that most exports believe that surface storage and river diversions will be less feasible as a result of global warming.  We need to store new water sources underground!
• Westlands Water District’s land (see illustration), which comprises roughly 650,000 acres in the west side of the San Joaquin valley, is considered by the united state geological survey and regional and state water quality control boards to qualify as “drainage impacted” land.  Roughly half of this land has been recommended by federal agencies to be permanently retired from active farming because irrigation of this land causes runnoff that is toxic with selenium, boron and other harmful chemicals.  Retirement of this land would free up approximately 400,000 to 500,000 acre-feet of water, if not more. 

• Westlands and other San Joaquin Valley irrigators make $millions$ by gaming a system repleat with water subsidies, which create disincentives to conserve water. 
• And Westlands Water District, the largest irrigation district in the U.S., who’s water rights are the most junior of all in question, is hell bent to claim water rights from up north.  => Why did Westlands buy the famed McCloud River Bollibakka Club – the first 7 miles of river to Lake Shasta?  The answer: a) to put the McLoud under water from raising lake Shasta, and b) to try to claim superior water rights.  Don’t believe it?  Look here http://www.redding.com/news/2007/feb/19/flood-concerns/  and here http://troutunderground.com/2007/03/21/westlands-reveals-real-reason-for-buying-bollibokka-they-want-shasta-dam-raised-200-feet/ .  And let’s not forgot to mention that they paid $5 million over the next highest bidder.  
• California law regulates water under the doctrines of reasonable use and public trust. The state Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has the duty and the authority to apply these laws to all water users in California. The SWRCB has been identified by the Delta Vision Task Force as being negligent in this capacity and lack of enforcement of these and other laws (state and Federal Endangered Species Act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act and the Clean Water Act) has contributed to the present decline in the Delta ecosystem.

Water Solutions for California

So what water policy should be pursued by California?  =>  Californians against the Canal’s premise: We cannot create more rain, so all water policy strategies and proposals must better harness what Mother Nature gives us.  Destroying the largest estuary on the west coast (the “Everglades of the West”) to deliver more water to Central Valley corporate agribusinesses (who use 80% of all exported water) is NOT sound water policy in light of known, superior alternatives!!!

21st Century Water Solutions:

Most sound science involving future water solutions for California involve Regional Self Sufficiency, where each region makes significant investments in water efficiency and conservation (urban and agricultural), stormwater recapture, wastewater recycling and improved groundwater management.  Why little has been done to promote these alternatives by the California Department of Water Resources is just baffling.

These 21st century water policy proposals make use of the latest technology, and will produce more water than has ever been exported from Northern California.  Per the Natural Resource Defense Council, in excess of 7 million acre-feet of water per year can be generated from these measures alone.  One might ask: what about making the agriculture industry more efficient?  The Pacific Institute advocates that the state’s agriculture industry can save up to an additional 5.6 million acre-feet of water by adopting from four strategies: modest crop shifting; smart irrigation scheduling; advanced irrigation management; and efficient irrigation technology.  These proposals are far less expensive, more efficient, and are net helpful to the environment.    Additionally, the state can free up an addition 2 to 3 million acre-feet of water by retiring a large swath of arid land along I-5 between Kettlemen City, Mendota and I-5@ Hwy 180 that has been deemed drainage impacted and worthy of partial or complete retirement from agricultural use by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Draft Water Policy Recommendations:

Californians against the Canal does not represent itself to be a water policy making authority. We simply seek to amplify water policy recommendations from reputable scientists and other experts on water policy.  These experts include, Barry Nelson and Doug Obegi at the Natural Resource Defense Council, Thomas Zuckerman at the Central Delta Water Agency, Dante Nomellini, and former CA Senator Michael Machado, and Bill Jennings and Michael Jackson of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and California Water Impact Network, among others.

The following five priority water management tools will substantially increase California’s water supplies, creating a "virtual river" per the NRDC and form the core of what we as a state must pursue.  These tools include:

1. Urban and agricultural water use conservation efficiency,
2. Wastewater recycling,
3. Groundwater clean up and ground water basin expansion and management and,
4. Urban stormwater capture.
5. Agriculture irrigation modernization techniques (see below)

The following actions are what we consider to be the most relevant to attaining a truly 21^st century water policy: 

o        Immediately direct available federal stimulus funds towards shovel ready or near shovel ready projects involving urban water conservation, agricultural efficiency enhancements, storm and flood water recapture and ground water basin expansion. And expedite planning and implementation of such projects that are not yet shovel ready.
• Immediately produce a Central Valley flood management plan, including the provisions of SB 5 (Michael Machado), which addresses current and future water scenarios considering the impacts from global warming (which means more floods need to be mitigated). Once completed, the state can plan infrastructure needed to contain and harness flood water and to direct it to where it can be stored efficiently and/or released safely.
o        Modify contracts between private entities and the state and federal government to remove conflicts of interest, and opportunities to earn windfall profits from the export, sale or use of public water resources (see further discussion below).
o        The state of California must acquire the Kern Water Bank from its private ownership, and all such critical water storage operations should remain in state or federal ownership and control. 
o        Immediately regulate ground water mining and over drafting…
• Restore the Urban Preference, which was given up by the LA MET in the Monterey agreement negotiations. There is no reason LA (or Santa Clara County) should not stand on its own in negotiating with the state regarding water deliveries from the Delta. 
 
Delta water exports have been far higher in drier times of the year than in wetter times.   For instance, these exports have been less in very wet years (like when over 50 million acre-feet flowed into the delta) than in dry years (where inflow has been as low as just 14 million acre-feet)! This is simply bad management.
• => So we need to direct some of the surplus water flow in wet years (and during more optimal seasons) via the CVP and SWP to new and expanded ground water storage basins in the Central Valley! Surface storage options for these excess inflows are far too costly, and the impacts of global warming such as evaporation make them environmentally problematic. 
• Retire much (if not all) of the Westlands Water District drainage impact lands, thus freeing a substantial amount of water that otherwise goes towards irrigating non-sustainable crops
• Stimulate investment in the states agriculture sector in agriculture efficiency. 
 
=> Per the Pacific Institute’s report “More With Less: Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency in California,” four scenarios for improving the efficiency of agricultural water use in regions supplied by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta combine to produce up to a whopping 5.6 million acre-feet of water. And note that a gallon of water saved is the same as a gallon produced. These four recommendations are:
 
1.       Modest Crop Shifting – shifting a small percentage of lower-value, water-intensive crops to higher-value, water-efficient crops
2.       Smart Irrigation Scheduling – using irrigation scheduling information that helps farmers more precisely irrigate to meet crop water needs and boost production
3.       Advanced Irrigation Management – applying advanced management methods that save water, such as regulated deficit irrigation
4.       Efficient Irrigation Technology – shifting a fraction of the crops irrigated using flood irrigation to sprinkler and drip systems
 
• Reform BOR water supply contracts to improve reliability and rationalize expectations. 
=> This is a specific recommendation by the NRDC to new Dept of Interior secretary Ken Salazar. Much of the conflict over California’s limited water resources is exacerbated by the Bureau’s 25-and 40-year contracts with water users that promise to deliver unrealistic amounts of water. These contracts can and should be reformed to allow water users to plan and invest according to a realistic set of expectations, and to reduce the pressure on water agencies to sacrifice ecosystem health for short-term gain.
 
Given the final biological opinions by the National Marine Fisheries Service, among other bad news about excessive water exports, water diversions from the Delta are unlikely to return to the record levels of the early years of this decade. Unrealistic contract quantities increase conflict and economic impacts. So the Bureau should be forthright with these water contractors, and exercise its right to reduce deliveries under the terms of these contracts. But to achieve lasting reform and better align the interests of all stakeholders of the state’s Public Trust, the following reforms should be implemented:
 
1.       Reduce existing and pending water contract quantities to comply under the terms of the new NMFS delta smelt, salmon, and steelhead biological opinions (and also to comply with the CVPIA Fisheries Program recommendations)
2.       Emphasize water conservation by all CVP water users, with reward systems if necessary, and
3.       Reform contract pricing and repayment terms to increase the incentive for increased efficiency
 
Conclusion
These tools represent by far the largest source of "new" water to meet human and environmental needs. These tools also offer dramatic water quality benefits, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and reduced vulnerability to drought and the likely impacts of climate change on our water supply systems. Business leaders and urban water agencies agree that these tools are the keys to providing water for California's future.
In the above recommendations, we identified what amounts to between 10 and 15 million acre-feet of additional water for Californians: 7 million from the first 4 projects specific to non-agricultural water use, up to 5.6 million from improvements in agricultural irrigation, and up to 3 million from retiring drainage impacted lands of the Central Valley west side. The NRDC often quotes a figure of just above 10 million acre-feet (which includes 3 million of the Pacific Institute’s 5.6m estimate). This excludes the 3 million that might be “freed” from controversial land retirement.
While the Central Valley corporate agribusinesses are already bearing the brunt of policy decisions concluded by the NMFS and others, immediate adoption of the above water policies and projects would benefit the Central Valley tremendously. It would be receiving a huge share of stimulus money for flood management, infrastructure investments to expand ground water basins and to direct flood water to them, among other things.
Many of these projects can be funded with stimulus money that is targeted to California already. The costs are far less than those that would be incurred building a Peripheral Canal and two dams, as advocated by the Governor. And the state can plan appropriately to deal with any risk of earthquake damage to the existing delta levy system, as well as make modest improvements to these levies. One final consideration might be to invest in an emergency delta levy repair response team, complete with all the supplies and equipment needed to respond to a major earthquake or other event that could trigger a series of Delta levy failures.