A few numbers jump out in this summary of findings. For example, Fresno has the lowest average monthly water bill and the highest per capita water use in the entire survey. Continuing the trend, Salt Lake City has the second lowest average bill and the second highest water use. On the other end of the spectrum, Seattle and Santa Fe have the highest water rates and, not surprisingly, are among the cities with the lowest use of water.
Anyone who has taken Economics 1 can tell you that price influences demand. This lesson, however, is often lost in the water policy debate. As my colleague Ed Osann wrote recently, water in California is not getting cheaper. It’s also not getting more plentiful.
It’s not hard to do the math here. We’ve hit “peak water” in every major California river system. Climate change is likely to reduce our existing supplies. Water rates are already increasing in California. Those prices are certain to face larger increases in the future. There are a couple of obvious lessons here.
Cities like Fresno, which is among the thirstiest cities in the West, should do more to save water and help their agricultural neighbors. Fortunately, state law already requires Fresno and Sacramento, their thirsty neighbor to the North, to install water meters and bill volumetrically. This requirement will send a price signal to customers for the first time – undoubtedly leading to water savings. These cities should plan to install meters as soon as possible.
For Southern Californians, the lesson is a little different. In the coming few years, Southern Californians will be faced with decisions about how to invest billions, and possibly tens of billions, in water system improvements ranging from helping to pay for a Delta Plan to investments in additional supplies. On the latter front, water agencies face a vast array of choices, including desalination, water recycling, agricultural transfers, capturing urban stormwater, urban conservation and groundwater management. Given the dramatic impact that these investments will have on water rates, economics will likely play a major role in this discussion.
I predict that we are entering a period in the California water debate where the economics of water will play an increasingly prominent role. More and more, California water agencies will be asking themselves what their options are, what these options cost, and what benefits they would deliver. Most of the time, the right environmental answer also represents the sound business decision. Realistic water pricing is a good first step.
]]>The Council’s charge is to address the full range of challenges facing the Delta. The BDCP’s charge, on the other hand, is far narrower – focusing solely on water supply reliability and ecosystem health. Specifically, the BDCP is writing a Habitat Conservation Plan and a Natural Communities Conservation Plan to comply with the state and federal Endangered Species Acts and seek permits for a new conveyance facility in the Delta, proposed operations of that facility, a large habitat restoration program, governance and other related activities. Flood management and other issues included in the Council’s charge thus far appear to be beyond the scope of the BDCP. Recently, the state and the Department of the Interior jointly announced that they plan to release a draft BDCP plan this November.
The legislature recognized the need to integrate the BDCP and Council processes. This issue was addressed carefully in SB 7x 1. That bill, which also created the Council, established new, stronger protections for the Delta ecosystem. Many of these requirements are directly related to the BDCP and its potential inclusion in the Delta Plan. For example, the legislation requires:
The legislature also created, in SB 7x 1, a state policy of reducing reliance on Delta diversions by increasing investments in alternative supplies that increase regional self-reliance. It also created a Watermaster at the State Board to ensure compliance with Delta environmental protection requirements. These provisions, of course, have important implications for BDCP as well.
Finally, the legislature gave the Council specific responsibilities regarding the BDCP. It required the BDCP to consult with the Council’s Independent Science Board. It established the Council as a responsible agency in the preparation of the BDCP’s environmental compliance documents. The Council’s oversight authority also provides it with direction to integrate BDCP and Delta flood management efforts. (I’ve written earlier this week about this issue.) And finally, the legislature gave the Council authority to hear appeals of whether BDCP meets the requirements of SB 7x 1. Thus, the Council must provide guidance to the BDCP process, and must be prepared to evaluate it in the future. Suffice it to say that the success or failure of the BDCP has significant implications for the Council’s Delta Plan.
Recently, the legislature held a joint oversight hearing on implementation of the water policy reform package. Much of the discussion focused on BDCP and clearly revealed that that this process has not yet fully incorporated all of the legislature’s requirements - a point that NRDC and other groups also made here. Given the importance of the BDCP and the short timeline for developing a draft plan, we’re pleased to see that the Council appears to be paying particular attention early in its tenure to the BDCP process (see page 82-83 of the attached materials from the April 22-23 Delta Stewardship Council meeting).
]]>Let me give a couple of examples.
The Delta Vision Strategic Plan calls for large scale Delta habitat restoration “on the order of 100,000 acres.” Designing and implementing a restoration program on this scale will be a long-term effort. Given the complexity of the Delta ecosystem, detecting long-term, system-wide improvements in ecosystem health as a result of this restoration will also be a long-term endeavor. The scientific community agrees that habitat restoration is one essential component of an effort to restore the Delta ecosystem. But it won’t happen overnight.
The BDCP process is evaluating options for a Peripheral Canal, tunnel, or pipeline through, around or under the Delta. Most experienced observers anticipate that it will take 20-25 years to design, permit and construct such a facility – under the best of circumstances. So for the next quarter century, we may be managing the plumbing system we have today, with modest changes.
A Delta-wide flood management effort will not be less time-consuming.
And finally, there’s climate change. This is where you can really see the importance of a realistic planning horizon. Professor Jeffrey Mount of U.C. Davis famously concluded that there is a 2/3 likelihood of large scale failure in the Delta by 2050, as a result of sea level rise driven by climate change and other factors. The Public Policy Institute of California proposed a controversial “do not resuscitate” policy for some Delta islands. After the PPIC report came out, I sat down with a good map, a piece of paper and a Sharpie. When I was done, the paper was nearly blank. I learned that there are few islands we can walk away from today, even if we want to . Most Delta islands have highways, rail lines, towns (or cities), gas storage facilities, aqueducts and other important infrastructure.
There’s a paradox here. It’s hard to see how we can save all Delta islands if sea level reaches three feet or more. But we can’t just walk away from the Delta. The solution here is realistic phasing. Let’s face it. Even if we wanted to, we can’t just abandon Sherman Island. It’s perhaps the most vulnerable Delta island, but it is also bisected by an important highway and is a key to preventing the loss of other islands to the East. For the next several decades, we have little choice but to try to protect Sherman Island. That’s why one of NRDC’s early recommendations for the Council is to work on a management plan for Sherman Island.
After the first 25 years of the implementation of the Delta Plan -- call it Phase 1 - we’ll know more about sea level rise and climate change. We’ll see the effectiveness of our management decisions during Phase 1. As we look forward, Phase 2 may look quite different. And Phase 3 is still looking through a glass darkly. But let’s not kid ourselves – we’re looking at long phases here.
As a people, Americans don’t naturally think in quarter-century increments. We’re not always very good at maintaining focus and patience when realistic solutions require a decade -- or decades. There are important exceptions to this generalization, of course. Think about the decades-long efforts involved in the interstate highway system, the federal reclamation program, cleaning up traditional municipal sewage, or the work of the Corps of Engineers.
In California water, however, patience has not been our strong suit. The Delta Stewardship Council should see this as a growth opportunity.
]]>During the past 15 years, as a result of major investments in science, we’ve made great strides in our understanding of this complex ecosystem. Scientific investigations have increased our understanding of the flood risks from sea level rise and earthquakes. They’ve helped us understand the causes of the decline of Delta fisheries. An enormous amount of scientific work went into drafting the new Delta biological opinions and into the recent NRC review. Improved scientific understanding and monitoring are allowing better real-time water management decisions. Continuing these investments is essential to the Council’s efforts to plan the future of the estuary.
Anyone who wonders how fundamental science has become to the management of the estuary should plan to attend the Bay-Delta Science Conference in September. This is no sleepy academic event. At a conference a couple of years ago, I attended an interesting presentation about the decline of Bay-Delta fish species. It was held in a room with a capacity of several hundred people. By the time I arrived, 10 minutes before it began, the room was already packed. I couldn’t even get inside. That attendance reflected a consensus in the water world that science is the key to improving our management of the estuary.
The Council should strive to maintain a world class science program that is respected by agencies and stakeholders alike. Such a program doesn’t change the existing authority of other agencies. Instead, it creates a resource and a common knowledge base that is useful to all. CALFED was building such a science program. The Council should continue this effort.
A solid, well-respected science program is essential to answering challenging questions like:
This last question is particularly important. Many of us water wonks tend to talk about adaptive management in the short term -- focusing on questions like “Is it safe to increase diversions this week, or are listed fish too close to the pumps?” But adaptive management will also be critical for challenging long-term decisions about strategic changes in direction. As the ecosystem continues to change and as we learn more about the effectiveness of major management decisions, we will need to decide how to adapt management efforts to incorporate this new information. For example, the Council’s adaptive management program should be designed to address such long-term questions as these:
There are similar strategic adaptive management questions for every component of a Delta Plan.
It would be difficult to find an ecosystem that will be more challenging to manage over the coming half-century. Science is key to drafting an effective Delta Plan and adapting that plan over time.
]]>The Council’s plan is likely to be extraordinarily expensive. The back-of-the-envelope estimate kicking around the halls of the water world is that the plan could cost a total of $40 billion over several decades. That estimate is certainly wrong, but clearly, paying for this plan will be a major challenge. Financing the Delta Plan is another key to the success of the Delta Stewardship Council.
Unfortunately, we have some recent history to learn from here. Despite consistent pressure from the legislature, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program failed to produce a credible finance plan. Its original plan assumed large contributions from the state and the federal budgets. These funds failed to appear in the generous quantities anticipated. Water users didn’t fill the gap. Eventually, it became clear that much of the CALFED plan would not be implemented and the program lost credibility. The failure to write a credible financing plan was one of the reasons the legislature eliminated the CALFED program and created the Council.
The CALFED failure taught us the danger of relying on public funds. It also taught us that funding from beneficiaries – although broadly supported in concept – takes careful work to turn into cold hard cash.
No matter what happens to the water bond this November, budget pressures and the state’s bonding capacity will limit the availability of bond funds in the future. The state Legislative Analyst has written a thoughtful memo about the challenges facing future water bonds. The federal budget is similarly constrained. For example, the President’s budget proposal includes just over a billion dollars for the Bureau of Reclamation for the coming fiscal year. Given this level of funding, projected budget deficits and congressional paygo rules, it’s hard to imagine that federal funding will be the cornerstone of a Delta financing plan.
This leaves two sets of interests. The first consists of those whose ongoing activities contribute to the degradation of the Delta. It’s perfectly reasonable to ask these folks to contribute to restoring the Delta’s health. The second category includes those who would benefit from a Delta plan. For example, the bill that created the Council, SB 7x 1, requires water users who would benefit from a new Delta conveyance facility to pay for the costs of its “environmental review, planning, design, construction and mitigation.” This is what has become known as “beneficiary pays” financing.
That provision settles who would pay for a canal (or pipeline, or tunnel), but where would the funding come from to complete an ecosystem restoration program, an ambitious flood management program, or address water quality issues? Personally, I have felt for years that the single most irrational thing about California water is that the water exporters, who are completely dependent on Delta levees for their export supply, don’t pay a penny to maintain Delta levees. Those exporters are well aware of the risks to Delta levees, but somehow we haven’t succeeded in persuading them to help finance their maintenance and improvement. I’ve written about this issue here.
In a beneficiary pays financing plan, these exporters (along with others) would contribute to maintain the system from which they benefit. The Legislative Analyst’s Office has written this useful memo discussing issues related to financing water infrastructure. The LAO supports a beneficiary pays approach to financing. CALFED supported this approach. Stakeholders support it. In principle. The challenge is to make this principle real.
Assemblyman Huffman has introduced AB 2092 to direct the Delta Stewardship Council to prepare a beneficiary pays based financing plan for the Delta Plan. NRDC’s letter of support (link to letter), includes recommendations to flesh out this proposal and ensure that the plan is realistic and implementable. I’ll just mention two of our recommendations.
First, we recommend the creation of targeted fee proposals, rather than a single “all purpose” fee. Targeted fees should be linked to specific activities in the Delta Plan (e.g. conveyance, restoration, flood management, water quality.) Several years ago, the state proposed a Resource Investment Fund (RIF) – a simple, all purpose, per capita fee that would have created a stream of income that the legislature could have spent on a wide range of water activities – with a great deal of discretion. Not surprisingly, water agencies objected – concerned that their fees would be used to pay for projects that would benefit someone else. The RIF proposal died a quick death. Targeted fees, on the other hand, would be clearly linked to impacts on the estuary or benefits from specific investments. Such fees would be more clearly justifiable and, I hope, would be more politically viable.
Second, a “beneficiary pays” based financing plan should include mechanisms to protect revenue from being diverted to address the “giant sucking sound” that is the state deficit. Water users will never agree to pay fees if they have a realistic fear that these funds will simply vanish into the state’s structural deficit.
There’s a great deal of work involved in writing a workable financing plan. The Council should start this task early. This work should not wait until the end of the planning process. The reason for this is simple. Figuring out who will pay for the Delta Plan will shape what goes into that plan. Business leaders know this. Home owners know this. (OK, I’ll fess up. If state bond funds would pay for my next house, it would play a major role in the house we picked.) Starting the conversation about financing now will help encourage a cost-effective, realistic plan with real benefits.
A Delta Plan without a credible, beneficiary pays financing plan would be little more than a wish list. We learned a painful lesson here in the CALFED program. We must learn from that lesson. We may not get another chance.
]]>The work of the Council will be in the spotlight soon enough. After all, most of the state has a great deal at stake in the Council’s efforts to restore the health of the ecosystem, address Delta stability issues and improve dysfunctional agency programs. But during this brief period, the Council has a little breathing room to identify issues that will be central to their long-term success. Those of us who worked so hard to create the Council, through the Delta Vision process and the legislature, should do the same. In the coming week, I’ll suggest a few keys to success for the Council.
The first such key is credibility and support in the Delta. The legislation that created the Council was opposed by most interests in the Delta – quite vigorously. This should be a critical consideration for the Council. After all, the Council is writing a Delta plan. No one has more at stake than the 400,000 residents of this region. From a practical standpoint, support in the Delta is important for another reason. Under California law, local governments and landowners have tremendous authority. A collaborative approach with Delta interests can facilitate the implementation of a Delta Plan. If, on the other hand, the Council does not build support in the Delta community, implementation of a Delta Plan may prove to be impossible, or take many years longer than planned. I’ve written about this issue here.
Fortunately, in developing the Delta Plan, the Council has broad authority to address issues critical to the Delta community, including ecosystem and fishery restoration, agricultural land preservation, economic development, recreation and especially flood management. This latter issue is particularly important.
Shockingly, despite the fact that the Delta faces greater flood risks than almost anywhere else in the nation, and despite the enormous potential consequences of a large scale flood in the Delta, California has no flood management plan for the Central Valley and the Delta. As a result of SB 5, which was passed in 2007, the state is currently preparing a State Plan of Flood Control. Delta communities will pay close attention to this plan. They know how important it is to their future.
But this plan is important for other reasons. Whatever the Bay-Delta Conservation Planning process and the Council conclude is the right long-term solution to improve the reliability of Delta supplies, everyone agrees that the CVP and SWP will be dependent on Delta levees for many decades. The simple truth is that the Delta projects cannot export from the Delta for much of the year without maintaining many of the islands in the Central and Western Delta. Nothing is likely to change that for a long time.
In addition, significant habitat restoration is needed to restore the health of the Delta. Species like the Valley’s four runs of Chinook salmon and the Sacramento splittail, which is currently the subject of a status review by the Fish and Wildlife Service, can benefit significantly from the restoration of flood plain habitat. You can immediately see why it’s so important that the ecosystem restoration efforts in the BDCP and the state’s flood planning work in the Delta be integrated.
So there it is. Flood management is central to reducing the risk of a Katrina-like event in the Delta. It’s critical for Delta residents, as well as for those who rely on exported Delta water, for salmon fishermen and for the Delta ecosystem. Thus, flood management is a key to developing a Delta plan with multiple winners and broad support.
The Council should focus on integrating the work of BDCP and the State Plan of Flood Control to take advantage of the synergies described above and to develop support for the Delta Plan within the Delta. If, on the other hand, these plans move in different and incompatible directions….well, that’s the road to wasted money, conflict, lost time and gridlock. We’ve been down that road.
]]>Las Vegas has been one of the nation’s fastest growing cities over the past decade. In the wake of the nation’s financial crisis, it is now one of the communities most plagued by vacancies, foreclosures and under-water mortgages. According to the Sonoran Institute, the rampant growth of the past decade is neither economically or environmentally sustainable. So far, this is not a surprise – environmentalists don’t tend to embrace runaway growth. But, here’s where the story gets interesting. Clark County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani offered the following comments expressing openness to the report’s findings:
“I don’t think there’s much resistance to at least having the conversation about what’s the next step for the recovery of the valley,” she says. “Now we should be stepping back and asking, ‘Is that what we want? Is it a product that’s going to attract people here and keep people here?’ Now we can ask, ‘What do we want the valley to look like?’ We didn’t have time before because of the growth boom.”
This really is a new world. Unbridled growth has been the next thing to a religion in Las Vegas. Gambling on the future of the housing market was far more important to the local economy than the slots and poker tables on the Strip. But this story suggests that a far more honest and frank discussion about water and growth may be beginning in one of the West’s iconic cities. It’s about time.
The financial crisis has forced many to confront painful truths that were long ignored. This crisis is changing the way people think about the economic future of their communities. This is, as Martha Stewart would say, a good thing.
Likewise, the sober truths about water supplies in the West are starting to force some new conversations. Today, we capture the entire Colorado River to serve seven states in the Southwest. Climatologists predict that the river will provide less water in the future.
Western water policy is littered with the hydraulic equivalent of sub-prime mortgages – CVP contracts that promise more water than the project can deliver. A Colorado River Compact that divided up more water than the river provides. Groundwater mining masquerading as sustainable yield. These fictions perpetuate unsustainable policies and allow some to ignore the fact that we are hitting “peak water” in many parts of the West today and that climate change will shrink those supplies tomorrow.
The outlook is not entirely bleak. There are available water supply options – a package of solutions that we call the “virtual river”. But some of these tools aren’t as promising for Las Vegas, which has little urban runoff to capture, and which already recycles its wastewater. And, of course, unlike California, Las Vegas doesn’t have an ocean to tap into if it must. Around the West, we need a far more serious effort to tap into these solutions, to move away from unworkable solutions, and to recognize honestly where Mother Nature has imposed real limits.
Let’s hope this is one conversation that doesn’t stay in Vegas.
]]>Make no mistake. Some farmers at the bottom of the water rights seniority system have suffered during the past three dry years. Overall, however, California agriculture remains a strong industry. Even water short farmers have many options to adapt: investing in more efficient irrigation; moving to higher value crops; exploring solar farming; and purchasing supplies from water rich neighbors.
It’s a good thing that agricultural in the Valley remains strong. In the water policy world, environmentalists and agriculture are often at odds. But it’s important to acknowledge that keeping land in agricultural production helps reduce sprawl and greenhouse gas emissions from our cities. Farms can help sequester carbon. And some crops, like rice, and some agricultural areas, like the Delta, provide important wildlife habitat. Frankly, environmentalists don’t express their support for a strong, sustainable agricultural economy often enough. This is one of the reasons NRDC created the Growing Green Awards.
We can maintain a healthy agricultural economy without sacrificing the health of our rivers and our fisheries. To do that, however, we need to separate the wheat from the chaff. This article helps.
]]>It’s not easy to visualize a 15,000 cfs Delta facility. The numbers help a little – a canal with this capacity would be approximately a quarter-mile wide – including the canal’s levees. A tunnel project with this capacity could consist of twin tunnels, each more than thirty feet in diameter.
The Freeport Regional Water Project, which held a dedication ceremony yesterday, provides a more tangible way to get a sense of the scale of a large Delta facility. The Freeport facility, which will serve Sacramento County and the East Bay Municipal Utility District, is quite imposing, with large fish screens along the river, a massive pump building, a buried pipeline 7 feet in diameter, along with sedimentation basins, surge tanks and a power substation – all on a six acre site. A portion of the water pumped here will run east to the Folsom South Canal, and then south until it joins the EBMUD aqueduct from the Mokelumne River to the Bay Area. (Yes, this means that EBMUD just built a “peripheral pipeline”.)
Here’s what struck me as remarkable about the Freeport project. This impressive piece of engineering is all for a facility that diverts less than 300 cfs. That’s a lot of water, but it’s just two percent of the capacity of a large Delta facility. As the Sacramento Bee points out here a canal or pipeline could require five intakes along the river, each with ten times the capacity of the Freeport Project. Wow.
The Freeport project provides another important perspective for the BDCP and the Delta Stewardship Council, as they plan for the future of the Delta. EBMUD started trying to take water from the American River in 1971. They faced decades of withering opposition and gridlock. After a quarter century, EBMUD decided to consider alternatives to their project and ways to build partnerships. Eventually, EBMUD and the Sacramento County Water Agency accomplished what is thought by many to be impossible – they built a large water project in the Delta with broad support.
This lesson shows the value of flexibility, alternatives and partnerships. The final Freeport project looks nothing like the project EBMUD initially envisioned. The final result has more benefits, broader support and is better for the environment. This lesson was not lost on the Delta Vision Task Force or on the State legislature. The former recommended, and the latter required, state agencies to consider a full range of alternative sizes and designs in evaluating conveyance options in the Delta.
A few weeks ago, State agencies said, in a joint Senate and Assembly oversight hearing, that they would evaluate alternatives to a large canal in the EIR/EIS that will be prepared for the BDCP. That’s the wrong approach. A broad range of alternatives must be evaluated carefully in developing the BDCP, not just in evaluating the final proposed project.
A visit to the Freeport Project is quite thought provoking. The facility itself is not open to the public, but fortunately, it’s right along the public levee trail in Freeport. It’s on the southern edge of Sacramento and the northern edge of the Delta. Go take a look.
]]>Much of the past year has been consumed with a fundamentally backward-looking debate about the biological opinions (BOs) protecting Bay-Delta salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and smelt. Water users have filed a dozen lawsuits challenging the BO’s. Next week, NRDC will devote its limited resources to helping defend those new BOs during several days of evidentiary hearings where water users will rehash many of the same arguments that have been heard and rejected time and again. This one will involve dozens of attorneys from high-priced lawfirms and a number of out-of-state “experts” who are being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to show that the pumps should be allowed to continue killing thousands of fish a week. The water users continue to pursue these arguments despite the National Research Council’s confirmation that the protections in the BOs are “scientifically justified.”
NRDC and our allies have also had to spend far too much time defending against the attempts of a few to push for federal legislation in the Senate and the House to block Endangered Species Act protections – a misguided effort that would do little to relieve the effects of three years of drought on the State’s water supplies and much to further imperil the continuing existence of California’s 150-year salmon fishing industry.
It’s time to stop arguing over the past and focus on sustainable solutions for the future. Far too much time and effort has been spent over the past year looking backwards – at the BOs – rather than looking forward to work on solutions. This opportunity should not be missed.
California has never been more in need of an emphasis on solutions. We need to implement California’s new policy of reducing water use 20 percent by 2020 – and develop more effective agricultural conservation programs. We need to implement new policies to help capture urban stormwater, to reduce pollution and generate water supplies. The state must implement new groundwater monitoring requirements. The State Water Resources Control Board must determine the flows needed to restore a healthy Bay-Delta ecosystem. The Delta Stewardship Council is about to begin work on a comprehensive Delta Plan. And a great deal of work is required by the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan process to tackle key unresolved issues in the Delta.
Together, this list represents a remarkable opportunity to develop practical, comprehensive water solutions. However, the more time water leaders spend looking backwards, the less time they can spend working hard to ensure that forward-looking efforts to design solutions are successful.
]]>Three examples from around the world provide some valuable perspective.
First, world wide, more than one billion people do not have access to safe drinking water, and more than two billion people do not have access to sanitation. These twin problems represent the world’s leading cause of illness, according to UNICEF, leading to the deaths of 4,500 children each day.
There are communities in California that lack access to safe drinking water. These are not, however, the water issues about which one hears the most in the media. They’re not the communities about which one hears the most in the halls of Congress or Sacramento. Here’s a shameful problem that California should solve – residents whose tap water isn’t safe to drink.
Fortunately, California is a leader in groundwater clean-up. In Southern California’s Chino Basin, for example, NRDC has worked for years to require the clean-up of groundwater contaminated by dairy waste. In response, the water users in this area have built groundwater desalters – literally desalinating tainted groundwater – to produce 14 millions gallons a day of new water supply. That same technology, and other approaches, should be applied to ensure that all Californians have access to safe drinking water.
Australia provides another case study. Like California, most of Australia has a dry climate. After an extended drought during the past decade, the residents of the Australian state of Queensland reduced per capita water use to 34 gallons per capita per day. (That’s 129 liters, for the metrically inclined.) By contrast, here’s a map of per capita water use in California, prepared two years ago by the Sacramento Bee.
Note that the most water efficient community in California – San Francisco – uses more than 100 gallons per capita per day. That’s three times the water use in Queensland. The thirsty residents of Mono County, in the parched Eastern Sierra, consumed just over 470 gallons per person per day – more than a dozen times average Queensland water use.
I don’t offer this to shame Californians. Quite the contrary. The consumption rate in Australia has been produced by real sacrifice in the face of a dramatic drought. And California has made significant progress in water conservation. (For example, Los Angles has met the water needs of a quarter century of growth through conservation, rather than importing more water.) Rather, I offer this as an indication of the extraordinary potential water supply we can gain through efficiency.
Last November, by enacting a bill co-sponsored by NRDC, California established a goal of reducing per capita water use 20 percent by 2020. The Australian experience shows that this is a realistic, modest goal – if we get serious about tapping into efficiency as a water supply.
My final example comes from the World Commission on Dams, which has estimated that, around the world, there are 40-80 million refugees from water projects – mostly poor people displaced by dam construction. Most of those people have been uprooted without needed compensation, leaving a legacy of injustice and hardship. Tragically, California has its own experience with Native Americans displaced by dam construction. The construction of Shasta Dam flooded the homeland of the Winnimem Wintu tribe, also without compensation. Here’s a story over the weekend in the New York Times about the tribe and here’s a background story from NRDC’s magazine. Surely World Water Day is a good time to reflect on how California can be a leader in addressing this wrong.
California has the world’s most complex plumbing system. Shasta Dam, and Hoover Dam (which serves California) are two of the world’s first large dams. The Golden State was a world leader in water solutions in the 20th century. We should not, however, take that leadership for granted. We can build on our experience in conservation, groundwater clean up, water recycling, and urban stormwater capture.
California has always been an innovative place. On World Water Day, it’s appropriate to take note of the remarkable opportunity we have to develop water solutions for the 21st century. If we lead in water innovations in the new century, we have the ability not only to meet our future needs – but also to export some of those solutions around the world.
]]>As the article points out, some Central Valley growers are quite enthusiastic about the proposed $3.3 billion Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River. That's no surprise - the federal water reclamation program has been very generous to its agricultural beneficiaries. As Bettina Boxall points out, after a 60 year interest-free loan provided by federal taxpayers, Central Valley Project growers have repaid only 19 percent of the 1.2 billion dollars they owe the federal government for the construction of the existing project. (That amounts to a 300 year interest-free loan. Imagine what your mortgage payment might be if you could get those terms!) If these farmers could get that kind of financing deal on Temperance Flat Dam, of course they would jump at the opportunity. But even a casual look at the numbers raises real questions about such an investment.
As grower Harvey Bailey admits in the piece, farmers couldn't pay $1,500 per acre for water from the proposed dam. At around 3 acre-feet applied per acre of land, that amounts to a per acre-foot cost of about $500. In reality, the real cost of water from the dam would certainly be far higher. The Bureau’s estimate of $850 per acre foot is also certainly too low. In 1994, the Bureau estimated that raising Friant Dam – a very similar storage project – would produce water costing nearly $3,000 per acre-foot. A realistic low estimate of the true cost of water from Temperance Flat is perhaps $1,000 to $1,500 per acre-foot. That’s more than 20 times what farmers in the area pay the Bureau of Reclamation for water today. As Mr. Bailey admits, such a project would only be viable if subsidized by urban taxpayers or water users. The problem is that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, quoted in the article, seems less than enthusiastic about the proposal. The reasons for this reluctance are many - and persuasive.
First, there’s just not much water there. For most of the past half century, 60 miles of the San Joaquin River have been literally dry – with every drop of water captured by the existing Friant Dam. (Today, thanks to an agreement reached by NRDC, the Friant water users and the federal government, restoration flows have begun in the river. As a result, in most years, Temperance Flat Dam would not produce a drop of water. In very wet years, some water would be captured; however, on average, this yield is tiny. It’s hard to justify building a new multi-billion dollar dam when there’s just not much water left to squeeze out of the river.
Second, the alternatives are far cheaper. At perhaps $1,500 per acre-foot, just about everything would be cheaper than water from Temperance Flat - conservation, water recycling, groundwater clean up and storage, water purchased on the open market, even desalination could cost less. And the proposed urban subsidy for agricultural water from this project – contemplated by the growers in the Times story – would further raise the cost of water for urban dwellers.
Third, the water from this dam would go to agriculture, not urban water users. The Bureau of Reclamation owns the current dam on the San Joaquin River. It holds the water rights and is studying Temperance Flat. Existing Central Valley Project agricultural contractors would expect the lion's share of water from any project. Even if MWD wanted a piece of the project, getting water from Temperance Flat to Southern California would be a long uphill struggle.
Fourth, with every new groundwater project built in this part of the Central Valley, the tiny amount of water left to capture in the San Joaquin River would shrink. Even optimists admit that it would likely be 20 years before Temperance Flat could be completed. By that time, two decades of groundwater development would reduce the already small potential yield of the dam to a trickle.
Fifth, climate change is likely to further shrink the yield of Temperance Flat. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program has projected that California could be 5-10 percent drier by the middle of the next century. Clearly, water planners should be careful when considering a potential multi-billion dollar investment to capture the last 5 percent of water on the San Joaquin or any California river. That water simply might not be there in the future.
It’s not a surprise that agricultural interests are interested in building more old-fashioned dams in the Central Valley. This technology served them well in the past. However, given the issues above, it’s also not a surprise that business leaders, urban water agencies and environmentalists agree that the virtual river is a far better investment.
The only thing the LA Times got wrong in this story was the title – “Another Water Project Could Divide the State.” When it comes to expensive projects like Temperance Flat Dam, most of the state is united.
]]>DOI’s announcement today confirms what all water users know, that water allocations are driven primarily by weather. Interior announced that, coming out of three dry years, if the rainfall this year remains on the current track, we will end up in a below normal year, with the most junior water users in the CVP system receiving 30 percent of their maximum allocation. Most other CVP farmers in the San Joaquin Valley will receive 100 percent of their total allocations. On balance, the Bureau projected that “should precipitation continue so that a median forecast is realized, Reclamation expects to deliver 5.7 million acre-feet, representing 96 percent of deliveries over the past 5 years.” That five year period extends back before the current dry period and before the issuance of the new Biological Opinions issued pursuant to the ESA.
The announcements today also show an encouraging broadening of horizons within the water community. The CVP and SWP are enormous water projects, but together, they still provide a minority of California’s water supply. Water users have many tools in their toolbox to meet their needs. Last year, the Westlands Water District used those tools to reach a supply equal to 80% of their maximum allocation of CVP water. This year, thanks to discussions over the past few weeks, they will have more tools at their disposal.
Ultimately, crops will grow when they get water – and it doesn’t matter whether that water is from the CVP or from another source. The bottom line is that the junior water users in an overallocated system will always need to work to secure supplemental supplies. Senator Feinstein, the Department of Interior, water users and a great many others (including NRDC) have been working hard to identify those potential supplies – supplies that can be obtained without harming other water users or the environment.
Here’s NRDC’s list of candidate options. Most of these options have been developed by other water users. It’s particularly interesting that the restoration of the San Joaquin River creates opportunities to operate the CVP systems on the East and West sides of the Valley together in a way that can benefit junior water users without interfering with the restoration of the river. The newly restored flows in that river provide the aquatic artery that has reconnected these two systems.
The tools in the Westlands toolbox fall into five categories:
We’re confident that, working together, Senator Feinstein, the Department of Interior and various other interests can get the most from those tools – largely by persuading neighbors in the Valley to help junior water users.
Today has been an eventful day in the water world. But the bottom line is simple. Salmon and other fish don’t have a choice. They swim in the water we leave in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. If we don’t leave enough, they won’t survive. Water users, however, have lots of choices. We just need to use all of the tools in the box.
]]>Green Infrastructure was originally conceived as a way to reduce pollution from urban stormwater runoff. However, by capturing and using this water, green infrastructure is also augmenting Southern California’s water supply, reducing its vulnerability to climate change impacts, and reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, in comparison with imported water supplies.
The water that can be generated by green infrastructure isn’t even considered in Peter Gleick’s recommendations to develop rapidly one million acre-feet of new water supply through urban and agricultural water conservation.
All around California, one can find quiet solutions like this. They aren’t as dramatic as fights over Delta protections and don’t receive as much attention, but these solutions represent California’s water supply future.
]]>Instead of growing traditional, federally-subsidized acala cotton with heavily subsidized water, some farmers are planting premium quality Pima--a variety that attracts a higher price but is ineligible for subsidies.
Pima can draw as much as 25 cents more per pound than generic acala. According to the Union-Tribune, in 2008, California farmers planted 151,000 acres of Pima at a value of $227 million, versus 127,000 acres of acala which only brought in $100 million.
But the most impressive trend is away from cotton altogether. Overall acreage planted in cotton is down dramatically in the past decade, as growers turn to higher value crops like processing tomatoes. The drought is one reason for this change. However, several simultaneous developments show that a new way of thinking is emerging in the agricultural community.
First, the drought is forcing some farmers to buy water on the open market from their water rich neighbors) – at unsubsidized prices. Second, these higher water prices are leading to a significant investment in water use efficiency among agricultural water users south of the Delta. And third, in order to afford to purchase water and invest in efficiency, farmers are moving toward higher value crops.
What these farmers are doing in their fields illustrates what water wonks like me have been saying for years: when you reduce subsidies and let the price of water more closely reflects true costs, growers have a powerful incentive to plant higher value crops and to use water more efficiently.
In other words, the market rewards efficiency: Farmers who use less water can make more money.
Considering that California has hit peak water, and that agriculture consumes 80 percent of our water supply, this is big news.
But this big news has happened quietly.
Some Californians might be surprised to discover cotton farmers setting this example. Cotton has been the traditional bad boy of California’s crops. It has long been one of the top four water consumers, along with rice, alfalfa, and pasture.
But unlike the other three, cotton has no habitat value. Cotton is also chemically intensive, and is grown mostly south of the Delta, which means it uses some of the most high-impact water available. Federal subsidies for cotton and for much of the water used to grow it have helped exacerbate California’s water challenges.
Now the story is changing. The way these farmers are adapting proves that when you eliminate or reduce subsidies--which can act as incentives to waste water--California farmers adapt. These sophisticated businesspeople know that when they have to pay market rates for water, it makes sense to invest in efficiency.
]]>