More Water Stuff....

[Darian]

The Sacramento Bee and other print media reported that a federal court judge in Fresno ruled that the amount of water pumped from the Delta must be reduced. The ruling is verbal for now but must be documented within a specified period. The proposed reduction in pumping will take place during the period when the Delta Smelt is most vulnerable (Late december thru June). This is a partial victory for fish. 8) 8) It was reported that in a normal water year, 6 million acre feet of water is diverted from the Delta. The proposed reduction would be up to 35% of that total. Many officials are unsure of the impact of this decisison, as yet. Of course the state is already claiming this ruling "....will hurt San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California residents alike. Farmers are already saying that they will have to pump ground water to make up the difference and that water well supposedly be of lesser quality than surface water from the Delta. A potential impact of groundwater puming is subsidence of land levels. Some farmers have said that they may have to retire some acreage as a result.

Let's think about this.... I've seen figures reflecting that 85% of all water transported south goes to San Joaquin Valley (westside distributors/growers). If the proposed reduction of up to 35% during the 6 month period stated in the ruling, that leaves a whole bunch of water available during the wet part of any water year.

One of the points raised in the suit by environmentlists/plaintaiffs is that the additional freshwater flows thru the Delta during the period of reduced pumping will allow Delta Smelt to spawn and move to a place where they can survive without saltwater intrusion. On the surface, this position would appear to provide a reason not to construct a peripheral canal which allow more saltwater intrusion but during periods of low water. So.... maybe this one is a wash.

Much of the feeling about this ruling by proponents of pumping revolves around the potential negative impact on family farmers. I believe this to be a "red herring" as most agri-business in the San Joaquin Valley are large, corporate farmers. Also, if the agreements being negotiated by BuRec and Westlands, et. al. are finalized/memorialized, there would be no further requirement to observe the acreage limits imposed for family farm status.

IMHO, if westside acreage is retired, wouldn't that be seen as a good thing.....??? After all, that acreage contains minerals/salts (Selenium and Mercury) that are naturally occuring. Waste irrigation water is what contributed to the Kesterson problem (that still hasn't been resolved) and is returned/dumped into the south Delta by farmers without treatment (previously reported in the SacBee). Reduction in irrigation water usage would result in less waste water returned to the Delta.

There's a bunch more to this than I've attempted to cover here. Anyway, it'll be interesting to watch how all of this plays out in view of the BuRec and Westlands, et. al. agreement in progress.... 8) 8)

[Mike McKenzie]

Darian,

You make way too much sense...Ever since I got involved with the CalFed process back in the late 90's I've maintained that Westlands should be shut down and put away for good! That whole operation borders on fraud and reeks of political corruption... If they were shutdown and the water was kept in the delta there would still be plenty for people, fish and real family farmers. I cannot figure out why when Corporate Ag is exposed for what they are, the real farmers think they are being attack also ..As you know, DiFi one of our illustrious Senators wants to give Westlands control of 1.15 million acre feet of water per year for the next 60 years and forgive their 500+ million dollars debt that they owe us taxpayers...Shear insanity...If this goes through keep your eyes peeled for the next lawsuit...

Mike

[OceanSunfish]

I was in Southern CA when the the judge's decision was printed in the LA Times. The article was much more informative vs. the article in the Bee (actually from a reporter from Fresno).

The LA paper stated that San Diego is already asking people to reduce water consumption by 20 gallons a day. The paper also stated that 60% of the Metro's water comes from the Delta.

What gets me is that the immediate response from the Guvinator's office is "Peripheral Canal" or some other conveyance system that will not threaten the Delta Smelt (or as much).

Isn't this a good time to reevaluate HOW WATER IS USED IN THIS STATE?! Instead, the Guv wants to keep the status quo and continue to pump water southward through another ridiculous system. Yeah, I realize the policitics and BIG AG money game being played out.

While in Southern CA, I saw many more homes in areas that were once nothing but coastal and inland desert hillsides and plains. Now, all you see are hills covered with palm trees and landscaping that appears out of place with the rest of the open space. Is this use of water necessary? If you chose to live in the desert then live in the desert and accept the surrounds as they are and don't make it some "oasis", ya know.

[Darian]

Good points.... I'm happy to see that the LA Times acknowledges the percentage (60%) of SoCal water needs comes from the Delta. I had previously read that Socal received 40% of their water from the former Owens Lake area. I suppose that water received from the Colorado River goes to the Imperial Valley/San Diego area.... :? :? :?

To my knowledge, the judge's order hasn't been finalized yet and, apparently, there's still room for negotiation as the SacBee reported that the judge directed the parties involved to draft a proposed, written decision . :? So, we still need to follow this closely. 8)

In an article on Tuesday (9/4/07), the SacBee reports the governor's
committee made up of 41 groups of varying interests appointed bythe Governor have "unveiled a plan they believe will restore the health of the Delta, while maintaining the sensitive ecosystem as a major supplier of water for the south state, and a home to farming and recreation.".... :?
I don't know about you guys but this sounds like the same old promise regurgitated once again. :? :?

Apparently, there are two plans invovled. The first would armor levees and installation of at least two gates to direct the flow of the Sacramento River across the Delta to the pumps at Tracy. :? The theory is that this armored waterway might isolate the rest of the delta from pumping affects and allow meeting the goal of making Sacramento River water reaching the pumps. Huh :?: :?: :?: :?: How does this proposal do anything but remove Sacramento River water from the Delta, directly instead of indirectly :?: :?: :?: Some sinking islands would, apparently, be flooded and others used for water storage facilities. :? :? :?

The second proposal involves creation of a combination of a peripheral canal and an armored waterway, plus gates. The same fate awaits Delta islands as in the first. :? :? Oh yeah!!!.... IMHO, If gaining direct access to Sacramento river water thru the Delta isn't enough, addition of a peripheral canal will gaurantee that pumping at Tracy can/will reach an all time high.... :( :(

Once again, I've sumarized the reporting but after reading the article, I'm convinced that the main portions of the proposals are designed to allow increased pumping (the committee members call it "....flexibility...."). All of the other items proposed (restoration of habitat, etc.) are red herrings to make these proposals more palatable. For example, Restoration of Dutch Slough and Cache Sloughs, and Suisun Marsh could/should be done regardless fo these proposals. 8) 8)

The telling part of this situation is that two of the committee members (Isenberg/McPeake) have "....expressed doubt that the state is truly committed to restoring the delta." This, apparently after a presentation by DWR that proposed numerous ideas for water conveyance but few, if any were offered to improve natural river run-off thru the Delta and out to sea.... 8) 8) There's a lot at stake here. So, I sure hope the light stays on with this committee. :D :D

[OceanSunfish]

For example, Restoration of Dutch Slough and Cache Sloughs, and Suisun Marsh could/should be done regardless fo these proposals. 8) 8)

The telling part of this situation is that two of the committee members (Isenberg/McPeake) have "....expressed doubt that the state is truly committed to restoring the delta." This, apparently after a presentation by DWR that proposed numerous ideas for water conveyance but few, if any were offered to improve natural river run-off thru the Delta and out to sea.... 8) 8) There's a lot at stake here. So, I sure hope the light stays on with this committee. :D :D


The "powers that be" are determined to get the water one way or another with complete disregard for restoring the ecosystem or returning the delta and wetlands back to where they should be for a healthy environment.

Restoration of Suisun Marsh, et al. should happen regardless. Now, it's a bargaining 'chip'. Ridiculous.

It's unbelieveable the attitude of entitlement for water! For what? An artificial "Oasis" at the expense of the environment we chose to live nearby years ago?

Anyone remember the person from San Diego, I believe it was the Mayor, back in the 80's during the drought when she came on TV and asked "what drought?" and turned on her faucet and out came water?! That is the mentality we're dealing with here folks! :shock:

[Digger]

And everytime we come into a lean year precipitation wise, the noise gets louder.
It's 2007 and I think a bit late to expect development ANYWHERE in Ca. or the west for that matter, to look as nature created it. This entire state has become a human manipulated concoction of altered landscaping, and faux paradises that require forced irrigation for decades now.

This argument/discussion all about water has been had for decades and the current mentality of an endless supply of H2O at the turn of a spigot cannot be blamed on any persons of any portion of this state, south, north or in between. It is what we are conditioned to expect. Water at the turn of a handle, lights at the flick of a switch. I live here and see endless wasting of these scarce resources. The economic answer for scarce resources is RAISE THE PRICE.

Today was the 1st time I'd heard of delta smelt issues on the radio here in So. Ca. and for the VOLUNTARY reduction in water use.
So. Ca. typically imports ~80% of its water from 3 sources; eastern sierra, colorado river, and the delta.
2/3 of imported water is usually from the E.Sierra via owens River and LA aqueduct. The balance split between the other two sources.

Regardless, Ca agri-biz sucks up ~75% of all water, 5% to industry and balance to residents. So, if you wanted to change something, doesn't it make sense to target the most bang for the buck?

[Darian]

Digger,.... Can't disagree with your observations. I do blame people in the form of spineless politicians, governmental agencies, developers and agri-business (growers) for the current state of affairs. As you've correctly stated, development is already out of control and continues unabated. Your suggestion to raise prices is one aspect of an economic solution. Another would be to solve the problem of local governmental entities needing to raise revenues thru user fees, State Sales and local Property Tax laws. A portion of Sales Taxes are (by law) allocated to local governmental entities as are all of property taxes. The need (imagined or real) for revenues drives approval of development (commercial/residential).

The uneven assessment of property taxes has created some problems and an increased reliance on revenues from Sales Taxes. Reconsideration of how those revenues are allocated by the State (who collects/allocates them) could be used to slow the incentive for approval of undisciplined development. Of course, either of these alternatives require sopmeone to stand up as a leader. Not likely in this state. :? :? :?

[Mike McKenzie]

You guys might want to take a look here:

http://deltavision.ca.gov/DeltaVisionMeetingMaterials.shtml

lots of "interesting" stuff here...

Notice the meetings under the "Blue Ribbon Task Force" on July 19-20 and Aug.30-31..
look under "Handouts" and click on "meeting materials" there are several delta map pdf files that are interesting. Especially the evolution of the plans from July to August...

Of particular interest is the "Resilient Adaptive Delta” map..

Note the gates and the blue dotted lines...
It looks like an option to "separate" the east and west delta. The west delta will become a tidal bay estuary and the east delta will ship the Sacramento south..Who knows how it'll end up..

[Darian]

Thanks for the info Mike. 8) 8) After scanning the materials and reading the maps, I'm amazed that so much effort has already been expended on making the vision a reality. :shock: Now, Im concerned that the proposed armored waterway (a thru Delta water conveyance facility) and the proposed peripheral canal could, both, be built. If adopted, the state will have effectively cut the Delta in half and one of the all time big water projects in history will become a fact.

I'm probably being a bit overractive here but the more I read about this the more I'm reminded of the debate over mitigation for loss of spawning habitat for Salmon/Steelhead during construction of the State Water Project during the 50's. Hatcheries were the solution chosen to mitigate losses. :? :? If viewed from that perspective, it's readily apparent that everything in these proposals (outside of the conveyance facilities) are mitigation for anticipated losses. It now seems that effort to save the Delta Smelt may compete with efforts to save other desirable species using Delta waters at the latters expense. :( :(

As if on qeue, the SacBee reported on this again today. The committee is using the ruling in Federal Court to push for "....Delta redesign...." As a part of the article, it was reported that the governor supports construction of more dams as one of the components of his plan. :? :? :? it would interesting to find out where the proposed dams will be constructed.

Either of the proposals will cause retiring of Delta farm acreage with limited access instead of retiring potentially contaminating acreage/waste water from the west side of San Joaquin Valley growers. Those farmers/growers have already said that if their current allotment of surface water is not delivered, they will instead pump from ground water. So pollution will continue unabated while the state increases pumping capacity (mainly for agri-business). Anybody think they won't use that capacity if available???

I acknowledge that something must be done to help the Delta and that along the way things must change but cutting the Delta in half and taking water directly from the Sacramento River cross and/or around the Delta appears to leave us with a smaller area and less water in the long run. Is that an acceptable trade-off :?: :?: :?:

[Digger]

Digger,.... Can't disagree with your observations. I do blame people in the form of spineless politicians, governmental agencies, developers and agri-business (growers) for the current state of affairs. As you've correctly stated, development is already out of control and continues unabated. Your suggestion to raise prices is one aspect of an economic solution. Another would be to solve the problem of local governmental entities needing to raise revenues thru user fees, State Sales and local Property Tax laws. A portion of Sales Taxes are (by law) allocated to local governmental entities as are all of property taxes. The need (imagined or real) for revenues drives approval of development (commercial/residential).

The uneven assessment of property taxes has created some problems and an increased reliance on revenues from Sales Taxes. Reconsideration of how those revenues are allocated by the State (who collects/allocates them) could be used to slow the incentive for approval of undisciplined development. Of course, either of these alternatives require sopmeone to stand up as a leader. Not likely in this state. :? :? :?

you know that I'm being overly simplistic about this.
But the fact is, to change people's behavior, they have to feel some pain 1st. Make it painful in the wallet and behavioral modification ensues.

When you say 'uneven assesment', your no doubt talking more than Prop 13 effects(?)
As far as property taxes, what no one has mentioned is the impending loss of revenues when a good number of homeowners start walking away from mortagages and taxes they no longer can afford.

[Darian]

Of course,.... Behavioral modification is what is required to resolve many of societal issues (including this one) an increasing the cost of a scarce commodity is supposed to bring that about. The problem is that in practice, the change may not occur.

Established habits are more difficult to change than we think. For example, the increase in gasoline prices hasn't had a major impact on the sales of gasoline. We do value our mobility and will continue to pay ever higher prices.... 8) 8)

Another example is that of the cattle ranchers in the valley/foothills. All of them say they need to be able to graze cattle on public lands (causing negative impacts) and use water at low cost in order to survive. These ranchers uniformly say that if they are unable to do these things, they will be forced to sell their cattle and their land to developers.... The threat being enough to allow BuRec, Forest service and others to sell their scarce resources at below market prices. Will any of this change??? Not in my lifetime.

In the proposed Delta redesign, it is more likely that the proposal will be adopted and construction begun than any chnages in attitude about water consumption by enough people/governments/agri-business, etc., to make a difference. I don't know if this proposal is open to public comment/influence but am going to find out. 8) 8) 8)

[Digger]

Have to disagree, fuel costs have NOT risen to any point that would cause most people to alter driving behavior. $3/gal is nothing, it's just keeping with inflation, get it to $5, $6, or more and I'll guarantee changes will happen.

Quadruple a consummers water bill and conservation will take place. The free market place will establish an equilibrium with scarce resources, always has.

[Darian]

Hmmmm,.... Thanks Digger. This has been a very good exchange.

I guess I'm seeing things thru cynical eyes. Can't disagree with the principals of a free market. Given an opportunity, those principals will work. I'm just thinking that we're not in a free market with all of the subsidy's, etc.... Unfortunately, change doesn't appear to be in the cards. :? :?

[Mike McKenzie]

The problem is (with respect to agriculture) that there is no "free market" in place, as far as Corporate Ag. is concerned. They get the water at considerably below actual cost, they pump the water with below market priced power and they raise crops whose prices are propped up with price supports.. All this courtesy of us American sheep that allow our own fleecing.

How can the family farmers compete with corporate ag.? They can't! Farm families have been leaving their farms for the last 60 years. If entities like Westlands Irrigation District were put out of business, there would be enough water for people, industry AND our fisheries.

It's too bad that the idiots that report the "news" do not have enough common sense or brain power to report the situation in the delta accurately. If the public was more informed they might make better decisions about who they elect to office.

I guess the bottom line is that people vs. fish makes better fodder than people vs. Corporate Ag. in the media mindset.

Mike

[Darian]

Both print and TV media are owned by corporate interests. Either direct or indirect. Mny of those corporate owners are, also, associated with agri-business. For example, the Times-Mirror Company (once and still[ :?: ] owner of the LA Times) was one of ther largest growers of lettuce in the Imperial Valley of CA. :) :) Most of the media owners are conglomerates, havig interests in many fields/products. :? :?

Not difficult to understand how this sort of thing occurs with mergers and outright acquisitions.... There're definite conflicts of interest involved but, let's face it, they're not doing anything illegal. Just doesn't seem right, tho. 8) 8)

[Digger]

Hmmmm,.... Thanks Digger. This has been a very good exchange.

I guess I'm seeing things thru cynical eyes. Can't disagree with the principals of a free market. Given an opportunity, those principals will work. I'm just thinking that we're not in a free market with all of the subsidy's, etc.... Unfortunately, change doesn't appear to be in the cards. :? :?

with all the protectionism in place, free market (theory) cannot function as intended, so you're cynicism is well placed and you're absolutely right. I was thinking more theoretical.

[Darian]

Well,.... As if to prove points made in other posts, the SacBee reported, today, that the Governor made his proposal for fixing the water problems of this state by making a proposal that is a "....decidedly different approach...." than that of his own, appointed blue ribbon water panel.

Before the Governor made his approach public, the estimated cost of the proposed projects was reported as $5.4 to $5.9 Billion. The estimated cost of the Governors proposal is $10 BILLION. It was, also, reported that the Governor proposes to fund his project thru a bond issue to be voted on by the public if he can qualify the initiative for the ballot by February 25, 2008. The SacBee reported that under the Governors proposal, local governments will be required to contribute to payment of costs.

Aside from the need to make changes in the way the Delta is managed and all of the environmental issues involved in these proposals, actual costs are going to be substantial and the impact will be felt at all levels of government in this state. Realistically, the estimated cost will not approach what actual costs will be in the end (if past experience in government contracting is any indication. Can you say cost overruns). That, the expansion of what is included in the governors project and the publics perceived distrust of the peripheral canal concept, may spell doom for the proposal.

But, let's assume that the proposed project is adopted.... Some problems for local governmental entities might be:

Locals rely heavily on property and local sales taxes for funding. Those sources of revenue may not be increased without consent (by vote of the public). How about a local bond issue or special assessment district??? Not likely to be approved. Water user fees, then. Not as difficult to sell but since they would apply to everyone, user fees could be seen as a tax requiring a vote for approval. Without approval of an increase in tax revenues or user fees, bonds would be one of the only aternatives remaining. Increasing bonded indebtedness. Elections cost money, too. Impacts on local budgets are not readily quantifiable but obviously, they would be significant.

The same circumstance would be true for the state. However, here we can quantify one impact in general terms. Currently, this state spends close to 50% of it's annual revenues on servicing bonded indebtedness, each year. Distribution of remaining revenues is governed by mandates (initiatives: prop. 98 for educational funding) that require priority payment. After all that, it's estimated that approximately 10% of annual revenues are available for discretionary funding. With that in mind, regardless of the amount of money raised by issuance of bonds, a portion would be required to be given to these mandated programs (e.g. education). If the cost of the Governors proposal is actually $10 BILLION, imagine how many bonds will have to be sold to reach that amount and honor other mandates. Deficit spending is no longer the exclusive arena for democrats/liberals. It is becoming very apparent that bond issuances are no longer the silver bullet to funding of projects.

Of course, everything that I've written here is a two edge sword. However, I'm still of the belief that government should act responsibly
and be held accountable when it doesn't. Redesign of the Delta should not be taken lightly and is certainly going to cost a large amount of dollars. However, grandiose proposals based on political agendas are not an answer for me....