Water Use....

[Darian]

Found an interesting map on SacBee's website. The map is interactive and indicates water "....usage from public water supply, minus use for industry and irrigation."

www.sacbee.com/1098/v-print/story/1431106.html

The map reflects that, in general, people living in coastal counties use less than those in inland counties. No surprise there. However, I was surprised to note the high levels of use by counties such as Humboldt, Del Norte and a couple of others. Interestingly enough, Los Angeles and San Diego Counties are among the low end users.... 8-) 8-)

[Tracy Chimenti]

...Defcon I.

[Darian]

Tracy,.... You may not realize how right your post is....

There's a discussion of water distribution and commitments of up to 200% of available water by DWR based on water rights over on Blanton's BB. The discussion asks how it's possible to commit over 100%?? Then cites what 100% of water thru the Delta amounts to.... :confused: IMHO, the 100% referred to represents surface water thru the delta from release data from reservoirs and in-stream flows. Not sure it reflects ground water pumping from all sources. :confused: Ground water sources are about to be raped, too. :mad:

I've been doing some reading on development in SoCal by the Tejon Ranch Company (the largest private property owner in CA) that illustrates what is happening statewide. Tejon Ranch has two proposals for development of thousands of homes. One in the mountainous area south of Bakersfield and the other at the northern border of L.A. County line in Antelope Valley (from descriptions) near the L.A. Metro Water Distr canal. Both of these developments have identified a permanent water supply (as required by law). The source of this supply is ground water. Does the location of the project (next to the canal) make you a bit suspicious :question: :paranoid: :paranoid:

[Tracy Chimenti]

This looks alot like the current convulsions of our financial system. Is "what is there and yours"... truly yours? Is it right and for whom.

One thing for sure, if we don't get any rain I'll be low-holing on the Sac.

[Tracy Chimenti]

What do you say Bolden. You got a dog in this fight? Whay not take a crack at it!

[Darian]

OK, I'm feeling "it" tonight (....bad weather and all). :rolleyes:

The notion that "'.... what is there is yours.... truly yours??"' has been dealt with by federal/state legislation and courts many times over. Water (surface or ground water) has been treated as personal property by granting "rights" or allowing contracting for water allocations from water distributors. Courts have upheld conflicts about these rights or contracts in favor of water contractors/distributors. Property is tangible and it or rights to it may be purchased from the holder for money or trade.

The only exception I've noticed, recently, is the decision by USDC Judge Wenger to uphold the EPA in favor of endangered species (Delta Smelt, etc.). Most are like the ruling by the USDC in the case of the reduction of water allocated to the Klamath basin farmers favoring increasing water left for Salmon. The USDC ruled the reduction amounted to a "taking" of property requiring monetary reimbursement of the farmers for losses resulting therefrom. :neutral: Altho, I don't particularly like it, it's the current state of the law. Now the EPA is under seige from both state/federal levels.

Altho water contracts/rights have been around for a lengthy period of time, I believe current, increased efforts at acquisition commenced when Steve Peace (a former Assemblyman) convinced this state that de-regulation was a good thing. :\\ That relaxation of regulatory efforts brought about the Kern County Water Agency water bank debacle of the 1990's and the unbridled development visited on California lands. Apparently, well healed developers like Tejon Ranch can find ways to guarantee water for their proposed developments based on speculative analyses and find ways around CEQA requirements by tapping marginal ground water supplies. Oh, BTW, if those supplies don't work out, they'll just hook up to CVP or MWD canals.... ](*,) ](*,)

[Darian]

Here's an additional, interesting bit of info (grist for the mill):

The largest water banker/distributor in Kern County apparently is Semi-Tropic Water Storage and Distribution. Semi-Tropic is the current owner of the Kern County Water Bank and currently has 1.65 million acre foot storage capacity for distribution during dry years. Current amount of banked water is 700,000 acre feet. (one acre foot = 325,851 gallons) The total number of acres in the district are 220,192.00. Irrigated acres total 141,141.37.

A 2007 crop survey indicates the following distribution: Alfalfa = 19.14%, Cotton = 8.44%, Duck Pond = 6.80%, Fruits = 0.70%, Grain/Pasture = 14.10%, Grapes = 3.24%, Nursery = .010%, Nut Crops = 35.98%, vegetables = 4.02%, waste & Misc. = 7.48%.

There're several, interesting banking partners too:

L.A. MWD = 350,000 acre feet
Santa Clara Valley Water Distr. = 150,000 acre feet
Alameda County Water Distr. = 55,000 acre feet
Vidler Water Co. = 30,000 acre feet
Zone 7 Water Agency = 65,000 acre feet
Available to all = 200,000 acre feet
New Unit = 450,000 acre feet

This is but one of many water interests operating in the south end of the great valley. Some of them operate statewide.... :neutral:

[Darian]

While doing some reading about water use, I stumbled onto some interesting info about cost. Not sure I was fully aware of the actual costs of obtaining water from distributors. I'm pretty sure that Traci is as he has an interest in farming. The figures I've seen floating around range from $28.00 per acre foot to $100.00. That's very low but is based on long term contracts for water rights issued by/from suppliers. This should give us a perspective on why agri-business pursues their goals with such vigor.

Water rights contracts are sold again by water distributors (districts) to ranchers/growers. Frequently, a water district receives water from other water districts in the form of transfers. Much of that info is difficult to access/view. However, I found a record of a legal action to recover delinquent fees by the Berenda Mesa Water District. :cool:

During dry years of the 1990's, growers on the Berenda Mesa (Kern County) abandoned farming land due to the high cost of water. In abandoning the land, these growers became delinquent in their water fees and, after a period of time, their "permanent water entitlements" (allocations) were sold to recover the costs to the water district, Berenda Mesa Water. The sale price was $1 million dollars per acre foot. :eek: WOW!!!! talk about a mark-up.... :rolleyes: Unused, excess water is always "banked" or transfered.

Some periodic costs from the distributor are:

Water Tolls -

Base water tolls = $94.66 per acre foot

Incremental Water Tolls
Power Costs = $25.00 to $35.00 per acre foot

State Water Variable Costs -
$10.00 per acre foot @ the Calif. Acqueduct
$30.00 per acre foot @ the Coastal Acqueduct turnouts

Ad Valorem Tax = $6.00 per $100.00 assessed value

Now, remember, this is for one water district and not one of the largest. This is BIG MONEY stuff.... I shoulda been a farmer.... ;-)

[Darian]

OK,.... let's try to put some of this together (summarize) and match up with the point in the first post about water usage. :)

First, water usage is still heaviest in the southern San Joaquin Valley where a number of very large, corporate growers are located. Surprisingly (to me, at least) cotton does not take up as much acreage as other crops (fruits, nuts and other row crops). It's still a heavyweight, tho. ;)

Second, development, in the main, continues on the northern border of L.A. and southern Kern Counties. Developments those will be provided "ground water" from water banks in east and south Kern County. The water in those banks will be taken from state acqueducts and canals that originate in the delta, are banked in south Kern and transfered via the canals. A similar process is true for agri-business activities in South Kern. Excess (unused) water is either transfered to other districts or used to recharge acquifers (Banks). Given the value of water, I would guess that excess water is rarely available. 8)

Supposedly, water banks were created for the purpose of re-charging depleted acquifers during wet years and pumping during dry years; not regular agri-business and development activities, as is currently done. Water banks have become transfer facilities for Delta water. There is no long term banking/storage involved. Water is traded as a commodity (....which it is). 8)

This process clouds the real demand/use of Delta water to the benefit gigantic corporate farmers (like Paramount Farms) and developers (like Tejon Ranch) and contributes to the detriment of the Delta. :( Given the amounts of money involved, there's little concern with the plight of the Delta or incentive to change anything. :neutral:

[Gregg]

Darian-

I will never question your research abilities, nor will I ever dispute you in technical water management. But I do have to know, what do you do all day? Please tell me this isn't all retained knowledge!?!

Tracy-

"Change operational status to...Defcon 1!" may have to become my new signature. Hahaha!

[Darian]

Since I've been retired for the last 8 :Dyears, I do whatever I want to every day. :thumbsup:

[metalhead]

Interesting discussion, but if you would like to read the applied theory of California Water Law in all its terrible beauty read: "Water War in the Klamath Basin: Macho Law, Combat Biology and Dirty Politics" by Holly Doremus and A. Dan Tarlock. It appears to me that our central valley water war, which is just beginning, will probably fall within the model described by this book. Meanwhile, fish while you can, when you can.

[huntindog]

Another must read for anyone interested in the history of water wars in California is Cadilac Dessert.

[lee s.]

Well Darian,
Cheep water and then Govt subsidies.....and then split the farm between all the kids for "by the head" subsidies. Yep, there is a website for seeing where those funds go too.
Sure wish I had learned to put my money in the bank like Mom said. Now Uncle Sam is going to do it for me......take my money and put it in the bank.
You're right "D", should'a been a banker or a farmer.
.....lee s.