Delta Fish Decline '12

[Darian]

An article in todays SacBee reports that 6 species of delta fish (including the Delta Smelt) are in continued decline based on the latest trawl survey by CDF&W. Check it out:

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/08/5098679/counts-drop-for-all-six-imperiled.html

There was no mention of Salmon and Steelhead populations but, since many of the species cited as being in decline are food for them, it's probably only a matter of time before there's another dip in population numbers there as well. Several good points made in the article about the needs for "green water" for Delta Smelt existence. Also, recognition that those "green waters" are pulled into the pumps when operating. (According to an article in the Fish Sniffer, 9 million Splittail were "salvaged" along with over 2 million other species. Linked to the article on Blanton's BB by Jerry in Lodi.)

The SacBee article includes comments by the head of the California Farm Water Coalition that tries to make the case that reduced water diversion has been a failure. The amount of the reduction of water diverted thru the pumps was 660,000 ACF; "....enough to serve more than 1.2 million households." This amounts to approximtely 11% of the amount actually diverted. Which, BTW, amounted to 6,520,000 ACF (an all time annual high). Since about 85% of all the water diverted goes to agricultural use, that seems to leave 978,000 ACF for residential use. This calculation is too narrow (simple?) but you get the idea.

At any rate, all of this is FYI. :(

[Darian]

In an article in todays SacBee, the volume of water diverted from the Delta may be reduced as the number of Delta Smelt killed at da pumps has reached the threshold where something has to be done to prevent further losses. This annual threshold has been reached earlier than anticipated this year and is an indication of just how much water is being diverted. :( Check it out:

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/09/5176899/delta-water-diversions-reduced.html?storylink=lingospot

[Darian]

Interesting observation but it sounds like you're talking about rice growing in the Sacramento Valley where I was referring to figures applied to ag water allocations to the San Joaquin/SoCal water agencies. From what I've personally seen, there's not a lot of rice growing going on down in the San Joaquin Valley. Lots of cotton and all kinds of other crops, tho. Comparing apples to oranges???

I've seen the figure you mention quoted anywhere from 90% down to 75% by different sources. So, there's wiggle room involved. Doesn't really change much of anything since the lions share of water is always allocated to agri-business. Even in drought years growers in the San Joaquin Valley have had enough excess water to sell to downstream users.

BTW, not all of the water on a rice field is returned to the river due to evaporation no matter where it's located and untreated ag runoff almost always contains some level of toxic pollutants when what's left is returned to the river.

[Darian]

Maybe, maybe not.... Since the run-off from a rice field is co-mingled with in-stream water its not identifiable as such and not easily counted. Diversion by downstream users doesn't really constitute re-use as the water's diluted to an unmeasurable extent and, in the case of rice, occurs at various points in time rather than continuous over a year. IMO, the 60% figure doesn't appear to be solid, either. One thing that tilts the haziness towards cities is the development of DeSal (coastal cities), recycling of treated waste water, aquifer re-charge and increased volumes of water for cities from sources other than the fed/state projects in the Delta.

The percentages you cited for allocations are not really descriptive. From everything I've read on this, water is allocated by contract with the fed/state providers. These contracts are for set amounts per acre foot. An initial allocation for each contract is 100%. Any reduction in allocation can be stated as a percentage of that figure. For example, a 75% allocation to growers is a 25% reduction in the contracted amount. The same is true for urban water users. The difference is that the 100% allocation to cities might still be in the neighborhood of 15% of the total available for allocation with 85% available to growers (using the San Joaquin Valley example). In any given year, this relationship could change, up or down, due to the priorities you mention but there's no question that ag water users receive the lions share of available water in any given year.

[tascaso]

Correct! Ag now accounts for about 49% due to the cutbacks on deliveries. For example our ranch out in Patterson only gets 25%-40% of its annual allotment due to cutbacks, depends on snow pack.

I really don't understand when the environmental movement will go after the municipalities, they have been left to plunder water, contaminate with ammonia plumes with little regard or attention?

Just this week Davis and Woodland announced that their ground water is so contaminated they will now pump the Sacramento River for their municipal needs.