Most of the focus of the news coverage has been on what the NRC report means with respect to the current litigation over the existing biological opinions (as well as Congressional attempts to suspend these Endangered Species Act protections). However, the authors of the NRC report specifically wrote that their report was not “a legal judgment” as to the validity of the biological opinions. Instead, this interim report from the NRC, and particularly their final report due next year, are designed to address “how to most effectively incorporate science and adaptive management” into future management efforts in the Delta, including the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Plan and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The NRC’s interim report and their final report will be hugely influential and important in this regard.
Most fundamentally, the National Research Council’s report means that the Delta Plan and BDCP must, at their core, utilize an adaptive management approach that links implementation of conservation measures (and operations of the state and federal water projects) to quantifiable outcomes in terms of the abundance and recovery of salmon, steelhead, and other listed species. Many groups in BDCP have advocated for this approach for several years, as have the BDCP Independent Science Advisors' Report on Adaptive Management and the Delta Science Program's Review of the "Logic Chain" Approach. In contrast, some interests in BDCP have pushed efforts to guarantee water exports based solely on making financial investments in certain conservation measures, regardless of the outcome in terms of whether fish populations continue to decline. The NRC’s report should resolve this heretofore "unresovled issue" and put an end to this debate, helping BDCP move forward in designing a true adaptive management framework that links operations to quantifiable biological objectives and outcomes.
In addition, the NRC’s report includes a significant critique regarding the potential benefits of restoring tidal marsh habitat for delta smelt (in contrast, the NRC’s report found that the benefits of floodplain restoration for salmon had a strong scientific basis). The Department of Water Resources proposed inclusion of restoration of 8,000 acres of tidal marsh habitat in the delta smelt biological opinion, and BDCP is proposing to restore far greater acreage as a central element of the plan. As the report notes, this action has been less controversial because it does not directly affect water users, but the NRC cautions that much more research is required on whether such restoration will benefit, or will actually harm, delta smelt and other pelagic species. Substantial restoration of tidal marsh habitat in BDCP may not benefit the species and may not be a wise investment, particularly given the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise.
Finally, the NRC’s report points out that the effects of other stressors may be large, and it recommends that “a holistic approach to managing the ecology of imperiled fishes in the Delta will be required if species declines are to be reversed.” The Delta Plan and BDCP are both supposed to address the full range of stressors, in order to lead to recovery of listed species (in comparison, the biological opinions are designed to keep the CVP and SWP from driving species to extinction). NRDC could not agree more that both of these planning efforts should address all stressors, and utilize an adaptive management approach to ensure that implementation of conservation measures actually bring about the recovery of listed species.
NRDC has never argued that water exports are the sole cause of the species decline. Indeed, we’ve often argued that measures to address other stressors, like water pollution, should be implemented to complement – but not substitute for – adequate flows in and through the Delta, and effective regulations on exports that harm and kill millions of fish. Moreover, it’s important to recognize that water project operations also exacerbate and contribute to the effects of many of these other stressors, as many of the scientific experts testified at the recent public trust flow hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board. And there is substantial scientific uncertainty over the magnitude of these stressors. For instance, the current focus on striped bass by some interests seems potentially misguided, given that populations of striped bass have been declining along with delta smelt in recent years, and that far larger populations of striped bass historically co-existed with salmon, delta smelt, and other species for more than a century (as the NRC’s report notes, “[d]elta smelt have co-existed with many of these alien fishes for more than 100 years before the recent declines.”). The NRC’s final report, due next year, and ongoing research at the Delta Science Program, should continue to improve our understanding of the effects of these so called “other stressors.”
Ultimately, as we move forward in designing solutions to protect and restore fish and wildlife in the Bay Delta estuary and improve water supply reliability, the National Research Council – and independent science more generally – must play a critical role. Requiring rigorous independent scientific review of BDCP and the Delta Plan, including by the National Research Council and the Delta Science Program, would help ensure that the Delta Plan and BDCP are based on sound science, as intended by last year’s Delta legislation (see Water Code §§ 85280, 85308, 85320(c)). And that’s something that everyone who is concerned with the health of the Bay-Delta estuary, California’s salmon fishery, and the reliability of our water supply, should support.
]]>It sounds from Doyle’s article that the National Research Council's report confirms that the agencies used the best available science in developing protections for endangered salmon and other fish in the Delta (Doyle writes that the committee concluded that the protections are “scientifically justified" and have a “sound conceptual basis,” and that “The conclusion undercuts a common farmer criticism”).
Scientific reviews are supposed to be critical, and undoubtedly, there is some criticism of the biological opinions in their report. But if Doyle's story is accurate, it appears that the National Research Council has concluded that the pumping restrictions and other protections for salmon, steelhead, and delta smelt are scientifically justified. If that's indeed the case, it would be good news for the fishing communities, tribes, and businesses who depend on the health of the delta and our state's salmon fishery.
We still haven't seen the report itself, which is supposed to be made public tomorrow. But now I really can't wait to read it...
]]>Yet from most press accounts, you wouldn’t know that our salmon – and fishermen and fishing communities -- are disappearing.
Instead, the press is filled with farmers and others demonizing "six minnows."
Instead, every woe in the Central Valley is blamed on the Endangered Species Act. This despite the fact that California had record crops of processing tomatoes and rice last year, despite the fact that the agricultural trade press is reporting that State data shows that less than 1,500 jobs were lost statewide in agriculture, and despite the fact that more than 75% of the water supply impacts last year were due to drought.
Instead, some claim we are putting fish before people. It is not true. Protecting the Delta protects thousands of fishing jobs and the economic livelihood of communities across California and Oregon, as the Chronicle reported today, and as commercial fishermen say here.
The collapse of salmon populations in the Central Valley, and the utter devastation of the fishing industry, is why I do what I do to protect and restore the Delta and our rivers. We are fighting to help ensure that future generations can see a wild Chinook salmon swimming upstream to spawn. To ensure we can take our kids out fishing for salmon or steelhead, and that our children can do so with their children. To ensure that someday, we can once again cook a California salmon on the barbeque and share it with friends and family.
We may not be able to return to the days when the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers ran so thick with salmon that you could practically walk on their backs, or spear them with pitchforks. But this is our heritage at stake. This is why I fight for the Delta.
When we wrote Fish Out of Water, NRDC’s report about how water management threatened the permanent closure of California’s salmon fishery, many people were skeptical. Even I was skeptical at first. Now, Peter Moyle, the State's preeminent fishery biologist, was quoted today saying that listing fall run Chinoook salmon under the ESA "should be seriously considered."
Let's not let fishermen's sacrifice be in vain. We cannot weaken environmental protections in the Delta, or we will lose these fishing jobs, and communities, forever (not to mention driving species to extinction). Instead, let's work together on real solutions that benefi everyone that depends on the Delta, like investing in the Virtual River to meet our water needs.
----------------
For Immediate Release: February 11, 2010
Contact: Zeke Grader, PCFFA, 415-606-5140
Dick Pool, Water4Fish, 925-963-6350
Fishermen Worry About Future of Central Valley Salmon Runs
Record Low 2009 salmon return caused by delta pumping
San Francisco, CA -- The Pacific Fisheries Management Council has just released numbers showing California’s once abundant salmon runs came in at a new all time record low in 2009.
The Council reports “In 2009, a total of 39,530 natural and hatchery SRFC [Sacramento River Fall Chinook] adults were estimated to have returned to the Sacramento River basin for spawning….The 2009 adult escapement estimate is the lowest on record and continues the declining trend in SRFC escapement despite the 2008 and 2009 closures of nearly all ocean Chinook fisheries south of Cape Falcon…”
The Council’s report shows that federally protected runs of winter and spring run chinook both came in at less than 5,000 individuals each. The San Joaquin River is in particularly bad shape with just under 2100 salmon representing perhaps the last of their race there.
“Salmon have been part of California for thousands of years and this report shows we’re losing them,” said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. “If we wipe our salmon out, we’ll also be wiping out generations of fishing families from the central California coast to northern Oregon that have all relied on king salmon from the Sacramento River to make a living. Why are San Joaquin agricultural operators selling their water to southern California developers and then demanding more water from the Delta?”
The last three years of salmon returns have each set new record lows and coincide directly with three of the highest years of delta water diversions. Delta pumping kills juvenile salmon migrating through the delta to the sea. It takes three years for surviving salmon to return as adults and to realize the full destruction caused by the pumps.
“We’re watching our salmon disappear in exact concert with a 16 percent increase of delta water diversions over the last decade,” said Dick Pool. “The full throttle pumping of delta waters is wiping out valuable salmon worth over a billion dollars to the commercial and sport fishing sectors.”
All salmon runs and many other fish species in the Delta collapsed in 2007 after a dramatic increase in pumping of water to points south. As a result, regulators closed all ocean fishing of chinook (also known as king) salmon in California and most of Oregon in 2008 and 2009 to save the salmon. The Central Valley stocks typically provide 90 percent of all king salmon harvest off California and 60 percent of all king salmon harvested off Oregon in both sport and commercial fisheries.
Southwick Associates have estimated that the closure has cost an estimated 23,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in the California economy. California has over 2,000 small and medium businesses that derive most or all of their income from the recreational and commercial salmon industry. These businesses include 1,200 commercial boats, 11 manufacturers, seven wholesalers, 904 retailers, 230 guides and charter boats, 74 marinas and hundreds of boat dealers and marine parts and service centers.
Behind those statistics lies enormous suffering by families along one thousand miles of Pacific Coast. Boats are tied up on docks, marina businesses have closed, homes have been lost to foreclosure. West Coast restaurants that once featured locally caught salmon, are increasingly turning to imported fish as local harvests decline.
Agricultural employment in the seven county area impacted by the pumping restrictions was actually up between 2008 and 2009, and the California almond industry had record shipments of 1.39 billion pounds in 2008-2009, up 10 percent over 2007-2008. Over the same period, the Oregon and California salmon industries experienced near total shutdown.
On average, San Joaquin Valley agricultural contractors got 80 percent of their contract allocations last year, although there were some localized shortages primarily due to drought. In comparison, average Westside deliveries in the past two decades has been about 60 percent of full allocations
A key issue has been the wreckless 16 percent increase in delta pumping over the last decade above levels of the 1990’s.
The report of the Pacific Fishery Management Council report is available at: http://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/salsafe09/salsafe09.html
]]>Delta pumping will continue, but the pumps will be turned down a bit to protect migrating salmon, smelt and other species. Even with salmon pumping restrictions in place last week (before the temporary restraining order), the CVP and SWP were pumping about 14,000 acre feet of water each day – enough to cover about 14,000 football fields with water one foot deep. While pumping levels are likely to be reduced somewhat from those levels, there will still be a lot of water moving through the pump; though as I wrote earlier this week, perhaps not as much as if Westlands had never asked the Court to stop all pumping restrictions for endangered salmon and other species.
Today’s ruling is a bit of good news for salmon, salmon fishermen, and the health of the Bay-Delta estuary. After having sacrificed the past two years, they deserve some good news. Ultimately, as fishermen know (and as Mike Hudson, a commercial salmon fisherman, blogs about here) Endangered Species Act protections in the Delta protect fishing jobs and communities as well as the environment.
]]>High pumping levels causes water flowing down the San Joaquin River and past the Delta pumps to run backwards, away from the ocean and towards the pumps. Under the biological opinions, pumping is limited by targets for these reverse flows in Old and Middle River, because as reverse flows in Old and Middle River increase, more salmon, delta smelt and other fish are sucked into the pumps and killed. Of course, the number of fish that are killed at the pumps are a small fraction of those harmed by these high pumping levels and reverse flows (for instance, these reverse flows reduce the likelihood that salmon can successfully migrate out of the Delta even if they don't get sucked into the massive pumps).
As of last week, the Fish and Wildlife Service thought that delta smelt were safely out of the zone of entrainment and this protection would not be required. But increasingly negative Old and Middle River flows expands the zone of entrainment in the Delta and pulls more fish into the pumps, where they are killed.
And after a weekend of increasingly negative OMR flows following the issuance of the TRO, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service notified the Court today that more stringent pumping restrictions are necessary to protect other endangered fish species in the Delta. (Of course, limiting these reverse flows will also provide benefits to salmon and other fish in the Delta, and will benefit fishermen and other jobs and communities that depend on healthy salmon runs).
It’s quite possible that Westlands’ legal strategy caused the need for even more stringent protections: the increasingly negative reverse flows over the weekend that resulted from their motion apparently resulted in increased numbers of delta smelt, salmon, and other fish being killed at the pumps, which triggered more stringent protections than were required last week.
If Westlands had not moved to enjoin the very reasonable -5,000 cfs Old and Middle River flow restriction, the Fish and Wildlife Service might never have had to impose more stringent protections. The end result of their legal strategy may be less water for farmers and cities, and more dead fish -- an outcome that benefits no one, unless you’re trying to create a crisis.
]]>This article is quite a contrast to some of the recent one sided media coverage of these issues. There’s a lot of good stuff in there, but inevitably, I found a few things to quibble about. For instance, I wish the author would have interviewed some commercial fishermen, and/or fishing businesses, to share their personal stories of how the fishery closure has affected them, to compliment his interviews with Central Valley farmers. And I wish he’d mention the record or near-record levels of tomatoes, rice, and other crops that were grown in California last year, despite the drought, or the other large water districts in the San Joaquin Valley that got 100% of their supplies last year.
But overall, I think it’s a pretty fair look at the complicated issues involved in California water. For those looking for a fair and balanced perspective on these issues (rather than just a slogan), it’s a good read.
]]>The Good:
A lot was accomplished in 2009:
The Bad:
Despite the good news above, 2009 was a pretty painful year. For salmon fishermen, it was another year when boats were tied up on the docks, people lost their jobs and fishing related industries went out of business. For farmers, it was the third consecutive year of drought, resulting in some farmers, particularly those dependent on federal water supplies in the San Joaquin Valley with junior water rights (like Westlands Water District), having to fallow fields and lay off farm workers. For cities and urban customers, it was a year of tightening belts and learning to live with less water. And for environmentally-conscious food consumers, it was another year without local, wild California salmon on our dinner plates.
The Ugly:
The “fish versus people” myth somehow gained some traction, in spite of the facts showing it isn’t true: despite the fact that drought, not endangered species, caused the vast majority of water supply impacts; despite the fact that California saw record or near-record production of tomatoes and rice in 2009, even with the drought and environmental protections, and good years for many other crops; despite the fact that fishing communities, Delta farmers, and others depend on these environmental laws in the Bay-Delta estuary to sustain their livelihoods.
New Year’s Wishes for 2010
While I’ll keep my resolutions private, I do have three wishes for 2010. I won’t know if Santa has delivered on these wishes until later in the year, although the initial outlook isn’t all that good.
First, I hope that we’ll actually get normal (or above normal) snowpack, rainfall, and runoff in 2010, so there’s more water for fishermen, farmers, cities and the environment. We’re already pretty far behind average for this time of year, suggesting we may have a fourth year of drought next year. That’ll make things tough for everyone. So let’s all hope for rain, snow, sleet, and hail (sorry U.S. Postal Service workers!). Today’s snow survey results aren’t all that promising…
Second, I hope enough salmon return so that we get a salmon fishing season this year. After suffering through two consecutive years of the fishery being closed because of record low numbers of returning salmon, fishing businesses and fishermen are going out of business, parents haven’t been able to take their kids out fishing for salmon, and consumers haven’t been able to enjoy local, wild California salmon. Unfortunately, thus far the numbers of returning salmon hasn’t looked too promising, with some hatcheries reporting even fewer fish than last year’s record low levels. Let’s hope we get enough fish coming back to re-open the fishery, and sustain California’s magnificent salmon runs for future generations to enjoy.
Third, I hope that Californians, Congress, and the media will reject (or continue to reject) the "fish versus farmers" myth, and focus on real solutions to California's water issues that benefit all Californians, like the water supply tools in the Virtual River, instead of trying to take away environmental protections that fishermen, Delta farmers, and others depend on for their livelihood.
Best wishes for the Holiday Season, and Happy New Year to all.
]]>The data and conclusions in the report confirms what we’ve been saying all along: endangered fish and fallowed fields are both symptoms, not causes, of California’s drought and our State’s water woes.
Here are a handful of the Report’s key conclusions and findings:
Despite the past three years of drought and the Endangered Species Act, Californians (and the rest of the world) have enjoyed the bounty that our farms are famous for, but there’s one food item that has been missing from our dinner plates: wild, California salmon. If corporate agribusiness interests convince Congress to suspend the Endangered Species Act protections for salmon and other fish in order to allow ever more water to be exported from the Delta, and if we don’t restore the health of this magnificent estuary and the rivers that feed it, we may lose the salmon fishery – and the thousands of jobs its supports – forever.
I hope that this report helps sway some Members of Congress away from narrow efforts to suspend or waive these environmental protections, which could be the final nail in the coffin for the Delta and for California’s (not to mention much of Oregon’s) salmon fishery. Fishermen and fishing businesses (over 230 signed this letter), Delta farmers, conservation groups, the State of California, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California are all on record opposing efforts to weaken or suspend the Endangered Species Act.
Instead of waiving environmental laws, Congress should follow the lead of the State of California, which recently enacted new legislation to strengthen environmental protections in the Delta, to reduce our reliance on water exports from the estuary, and to invest in the Virtual River of smart water resources like water efficiency, water recycling, groundwater cleanup and banking, and low impact development. Complementing this effort by investing in Delta restoration and alternative water supplies would benefit all Californians, not just a select few in the San Joaquin Valley.
After all, real solutions to California’s water woes may be harder to accomplish than simple demagoguery, but no one grows crops on heated rhetoric alone.
]]>It’s a pretty remarkable accomplishment, and it demonstrates that each of our individual actions and choices really do make a difference. But there's much more we all can be doing to save water and use it more efficiently.
While LA sometimes gets a bad rap on water use, their past conservation efforts really have been impressive, and the City has adopted plans to meet the water needs of its growing population entirely from the Virtual River of water supply tools, including water conservation and recycling. Even with LA's successful water conservation efforts in the past 15 or so years, LA's Virtual River will be creating more new water for residents and businesses for years to come.
I don't often root for Los Angeles (especially not the Lakers!), but I'm certainly rooting for LA to blow past the 20 percent water conservation requirement in the recently enacted State water policy reform legislation. So congratulations (and thank you!) to the leaders at Los Angeles DWP, and to the residents of LA, for this impressive accomplishment.
But with the drought far from over, keep up the good work!
]]>By and large, as DWR acknowledges, these low allocations are caused by the past three years of drought, which has resulted in low rainfall, low runoff and thus low storage in the State's reservoirs. If this year turns out to be a normal year (average amount of rainfall and runoff in terms of hydrology), the director of DWR estimated that the final allocation this year may be in the range of 20-40 percent. That'd be a lot better than 5 percent.
Today's announcement is a stark reminder that California's drought isn't over - and could get much, much worse. As Peter Gleick has reminded people, Australia is in the midst of a decade long year drought, which has been far, far worse than what California has experienced thus far. The drought in Australia destroyed that country's rice industry; in contrast, despite the drought, California was expected to have the second highest rice crop on record in 2009. And water use per capita in Australia is a small fraction of use in California, as Peter Gleick has pointed out, demonstrating that we still can make a lot of water available for cities and farms through improved water use efficiency and conservation.
So today's announcement is also a reminder that we all need to use water wisely this year, and conserve as much as we can. Whether you're harvesting gray water, planting drought tolerant landscapes, installing drip irrigation, installing low flow toilets, turning off the tap while brushing your teeth, or taking shorter showers, everyone can contribute to conserving water this year. All of these steps are part of the "Virtual River" of water supply solutions that NRDC has promoted. Taking simple steps to conserve water such as these will help us meet the State's recently enacted law on water conservation and efficiency, and should help us prepare for future droughts. Because while we all hope this year won't be another dry year, we have to be prepared for the drought to continue.
]]>Many fishermen and environmentalists are nervous about the co-equal goals, and what they mean for California's environmental laws. When I first heard the Delta Vision Task Force discussing the co-equal goals, I was pretty anxious myself: would this require the Endangered Species Act or other environmental laws to be "balanced" against water exports? Would the co-equal goals require more water be pumped out of the Delta?
The answer to both those questions is an emphatic no. Rather than undermining or weakening existing environmental laws, these two intertwined policies in the State legislation should help California protect its fisheries and the Delta environment. Indeed, two of the most important things about the co-equal goals in this state legislation are what they do not do.
First and foremost, the co-equal goals do not override existing environmental laws, like the California Endangered Species Act, the Porter-Cologne water quality law, or the Public Trust doctrine. (See Section 85032). In essence, the co-equal goals mean that environmental concerns are no longer an afterthought or something to be mitigated after the fact, but must be at the heart of all decisions about the Delta, not just those that affect endangered species, but also other native fish (such as salmon runs that aren't listed under the ESA). It requires the water projects to not only meet the requirements of the ESA and CESA, but also to prevent things from getting so out of balance that our endangered species laws have to be implemented.
Second, the co-equal goals do not require greater water exports from the Delta. The goal is "improving water supply reliability," not increasing water supply from the Delta, or greater water exports, or full contract deliveries. Quite the opposite: this legislation establishes state policy to achieve water supply reliability by reducing reliance on water exports from the Delta, and to meet our State's future water needs by sustainable, alternative supplies: the Virtual River.
These changes in policy are the foundation of a 21st Century water policy for California. But to understand the magnitude of this change in policy, we have to consider the policies in place when the State and federal water projects were first constructed.
For decades, California's water policy focused solely on extracting more water from the Delta and moving it to arid parts of the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. Historically, the purpose of the federal Central Valley Project was to regulate and protect against floods, provide water for irrigation and domestic use, and generate power. Over the years, the state and federal water projects increased water exports from the estuary, rising to record levels in the early part of this decade (five of the six highest export years occurred in the past decade). The water projects proved very successful at expanding agriculture and urban development in these arid lands.
But those water exports also came at a huge cost: the collapse of California's once mighty salmon fishery, loss of wetlands and wildlife habitat, rivers dammed and dried up, and numerous fish and wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered as a result of the declining health of the Delta and our rivers. Sometimes mitigation was required, in the form of fish hatcheries or other measures, but it was usually an afterthought, and never came close to fully mitigating those impacts.
However, in the early 1990s, the environmental consciousness that had taken hold in the 1970s resulted in Congress enacting major legislative changes to the federal Central Valley Project. Passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) in 1992 changed the declared purposes of the federal project, making ecosystem protection and fishery restoration co-equal project purposes with water supply. In addition, in the early 1990s several salmon runs and other fish in the Delta were listed under the federal Endangered Species Acts (ESA). Passage of the CVPIA, legal protections for salmon under the ESA, and the end of the drought resulted in reduced exports from the Delta, habitat restoration, and other changes to water project operations. And with more water remaining in the rivers and delta, and technological changes and habitat restoration being implemented, salmon runs rebounded from the very low levels seen in the early 1990s.
Unfortunately, the federal protections embodied in the ESA and CVPIA were cut short when the Bush Administration determined to subvert science and the law in order to maximize water exports far beyond sustainable levels. Water exports soon increased again, with combined exports of the state and federal water projects achieving record levels (five of the six highest levels of water exports from the Delta occurred in the past decade). And our salmon runs, and populations of other native fish in the Delta, collapsed.
Ultimately, reducing water exports from the Delta, and increasing investment in alternative water supplies, is the foundation of a 21st Century water policy for California that will sustain farmers, fishermen, cities and the environment. California has adopted bipartisan legislation to strengthen environmental protections in the Delta, rebutting those who argue we must waive environmental laws to meet our water supply needs. But as the past decade shows, the real measure of a law isn't what it says, it's how it's implemented and enforced. So advocates will have to ensure that this State legislation achieves its desired goals, especially in terms of sustainably managing the state and federal water projects.
]]>Water efficiency is the quickest, cheapest, and most environmentally sustainable way to create new water for California's farms, businesses, residences, and the environment. The State estimates that water efficiency holds the potential to create more new water than any other water supply tool, at a fraction of the cost of other supply strategies. For instance, the Bureau of Reclamation announced $5.6M in grants for water use efficiency, estimating the programs and projects funded by these grants would generate thousands of acre feet of new water each year.
Not only can businesses, schools, and residences save water by improving water use efficiency, but they will often save money in the process. From replacing old toilets to fixing leaky sinks, from efficient landscaping to high efficiency clothes washers, saving water saves money on water and wastewater bills. In the commercial, industrial, and institutional sector alone, NRDC estimates that cost-effective improvements to water use efficiency could enough water to fill 350,000 to 650,000 Olympic sized swimming pools. Water efficiency projects for commercial, industrial and institutional users typically pay for themselves in one to four years, which is why many leading companies have already started making significant investments in water use efficiency.
In addition, thanks to major investments in water conservation and efficiency, the City of Los Angeles uses the same or less water today than it did 30 years ago, despite adding more than a million people to the population, a nearly 25% increase in population -- and the City plans to meet its future water needs through further investments in water conservation and water recycling. The proven track record in Los Angeles, at many leading companies, and in other cities in Southern California and the Bay Area prove that water conservation and efficiency are an essential part of California's water supply future. The legislation signed into law today will provide credit for past investments in conservation and translate these successful efforts statewide.
At the same time, many commentators have noted that urban water use accounts for only approximately 20% of the State's water use, with agriculture accounting for about 80%. This legislation requires most agricultural water users to adopt some pretty basic best management practices, which are already required for agricultural water users that get their water from the federal Central Valley Project. But there's a lot more room for improvement in agricultural efficiency, as our friends at the Pacific Institute recently found.
Some districts are very efficient with water use, and others, not so much. We want to see continued improvement in agricultural water efficiency, but there simply wasn't the political will to include stronger measures to improve agricultural water use efficiency in this bill. However, this bill sets the stage for future agricultural water efficiency legislation by requiring DWR to convene a task force to establish a methodology for determining agricultural water use efficiency by December 31, 2011 (see Section 10608.64). That process should give advocates useful information for follow up legislation to improve agricultural water efficiency.
Improving water efficiency is a continuous process, and it is an essential tool in achieving the State policy of reducing reliance on water exports from the Delta and meeting our water supply needs through investments in the Virtual River of alternative water supplies. The legislation signed today is a major step forward, but it's not the last step we'll take. And now that we've done the hard part of passing this into law, we all have to implement it. If we all do our part, we can exceed the targets in this law, and California's economy and environment will be better off. So let's get to work saving water (and money).
]]>Never mind that the State's Senior Meteorologist says that past three years will likely be among the top-10 driest three year stretches in the past 100 years.
Never mind, as Spreck Rosekrans at Environmental Defense Fund correctly points out in an excellent blog post, that many farmers in the Valley are getting 100 percent of their supplies, despite the past three years of drought, or that California will likely see record tomato crops in 2009.
Never mind that unemployment in the Valley is a result of the foreclosure crisis that has halted home construction, the recession and financial crisis, the drop in dairy prices, the drought, and other massive economic factors, with environmental protections playing only a small role.
Never mind that the State announced today that statewide agricultural employment is down 0.4 percent statewide over the past year, compared to a 5 percent decline in nonfarm employment, with an 18.5 percent decline in construction employment.
Never mind that the federal pumps have been running at full capacity since July 1, and that they weren't "turned off" this winter and spring, but were instead turned down when fish were nearby.
Never mind that the Consumer Price Index shows that food prices have risen 0.4 percent in the last twelve months, after actually dropping in price or showing no increase from February through July.
Never mind that the federal government has lavished billions of dollars in subsidies on farmers in the Central Valley, by exempting them from having to pay interest on the costs of constructing the federal water project, and that without this government program and subsidies, these farms likely could not have existed in such a dry environment in the first place.
Never mind that thousands of sport and commercial fishermen have suffered through the closure of the salmon fishing season the past two years, resulting in thousands of people losing their jobs, business and individuals losing hundreds of millions of dollars, and devastating entire coastal communities. Never mind that fishermen, delta farmers, hotels, tackle manufacturers, Tribes, and many others support protecting and revitalizing the Delta, because these environmental laws protect their jobs and livelihoods.
Instead, in Hannity's upside down world where facts are forgotten, we get to hear a member of Congress complain how environmentalists are "radical" for requiring the state and federal water projects to comply with the law, and how they are "without question" "tied closely to the communist party."
Instead, we get to hear actor/former mayor Alan Autry say that President Obama is supporting acts of "domestic terror" by reducing water pumping to protect the Delta estuary, the jobs of fishermen and delta farmers, and the Delta's fish and wildlife.
Instead, we get to hear the Governor of California blame activist judges for following the law, rather than taking responsibility for the State's role in the massive pumping increases over the past decade that have now threatened the health of the Delta estuary and the survival of the State's salmon fishery.
In reality -- a place far removed from Hannity's program -- fishermen and farm workers are both suffering from the drought and California's unsustainable water system. There's a limited amount of water to go around, and that's why NRDC has worked for years to restore balance to the water equation and to ensure wiser use of our scarce water resources and investment in a "Virtual River" of alternative, drought proof, water supplies like water recycling and groundwater banking. These real solutions represent an untapped source of new water supply for California that far exceeds the amount of water exported from the Delta and that will sustain California's cities, farms, and fishermen over the long term.
But the heated rhetoric of subsidized farmers and some elected officials calling environmentalists and fishermen communists and terrorists does nothing to advance solutions to California's real water woes. It's insulting and un-American, and part of a right wing campaign to intimidate us from speaking up in support of environmental protection or the public good. They may spend millions of dollars on impressive media campaigns and only tell one side of the story, but they won't stop us from exercising our First Amendment rights and from protecting the environment and fishing and farming jobs that depend on environmental laws.
The finger-pointing and blame games only distract from the real problem, and instead, we should be discussing real solutions to make sure there is water for everyone - water for our homes, our farms, our fisherman, and our environment, both now and well into the future.
]]>But those communities that have a diverse portfolio of water sources, including alternative water supplies, have done the best job of weathering the past few dry years, and they will be best positioned to deal with the effects of climate change. Ultimately, reducing reliance on the Delta for water supply, and developing regional water solutions that invest in alternative water supplies like water recycling and the other water supply tools in the "Virtual River," is the best solution to meet the water needs of farmers, businesses, residents, fishermen, and the environment, as the Governor's Delta Vision Strategic Plan recommends.
Fallowed fields, closed fisheries, and the collapse of native fish populations like salmon are all symptoms of California's water woes. California can choose to reduce reliance on the Delta and invest in alternative water supplies so that we can restore and sustain salmon and try to restore a healthy Delta estuary for future generations, or we can throw away our natural heritage, fishing jobs, and the Delta farmers and fishermen that depend on these protections -- and end up having to make these same investments in alternative water supplies a couple of years later, having squandered our environmental legacy.
California needs water solutions that benefit all Californians and protect our shared environmental heritage -- not more rhetoric.
]]>The San Francisco Chronicle ran several good op-eds last Sunday from fishermen, conservationists, and restaurant suppliers explaining how protecting the Bay-Delta estuary and its endangered fish species protects their livelihoods and helps ensure fresh, local salmon for California's consumers (something we haven't had for 2 years now). Yesterday, several hundred Delta farmers, fishermen, and local government officials held a rally in favor of protecting the Delta and their interests at the State Capitol. And today's Sacramento Bee includes a great editorial that exposes three of the more pervasive myths about protecting endangered fish species and the Delta estuary.
Ultimately, NRDC wants to see a sustainable Delta, and a 21st Century water policy for California that sustains agriculture, urban communities, the fishing industry and the environment. Unlike the unprecedented, and unsustainable, record levels of water exports during the Bush Administration, nearly all experts - from the Governor's Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, to the federal fishery agencies, to the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) - believe that sustaining the Delta and balancing the needs of fish and people will require, as the PPIC states in its recent summary, taking "less water from the Delta, at least until endangered fish populations recover."
But taking less water from the Delta, as compared to the historic, unsustainable levels of the early part of this decade, doesn't mean an end to agriculture or business in California. Instead, as the Bee noted, California can meet its water needs and sustain the environment by investing in alternative water supplies, like:
Ultimately, these tools can yield more new water for California than has ever been exported from the Delta estuary. And that's good news for fishermen, farmers, businesses and urban residents. Not to mention fish.
]]>