Water push

[Mark Kranhold]

Should california spend 4 billion gallons of water to save a few fish?

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/california-spend-4-billion-gallons-water-fish/

[John Sv]

I wonder about this...
Don't have an opinion because I don't know enough, but I wonder if our conservation efforts should be spent on making the Klamath, Smith, Eel, Russian waaaaaay better vs. having marginal steelhead pops in some of the S Central Valley. I understand it is kinda non-sequitur as the way the laws work they are two very different places and steelhead pops are distinct genetically, but in the court of public opinion, saving steelies in the S Central Valley might be viewed as radical environmentalism over human needs. YEs? No? Like I said, just spitballing here.

[JayDubP]

Should california spend 4 billion gallons of water to save a few fish?

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/california-spend-4-billion-gallons-water-fish/

I'd feel more for these "water districts" if they were not re-selling a lot of their water for huge profits.

CA Water Resources Board tried to get all water wholesalers and water districts to voluntarily report how much water they used and how it was used... but only around 60% replied.. and very few provided any data on how much water they just re-sold.


Since most of the water wholesalers are for profit, they do not have to disclose how much profit they are making on water sales.

I think there is a bill in front of (or just passed) California Legislature to require all water wholesalers and water districts to report their use and resale to the CA Water Resources Board..... but bet it will not take affect for several years..

[Darian]

Interesting article. The SacBee reported a proposed similar release for the San Joaquin River, recently. Seems like we're reaching a critical mass on decisions behind potential uses for water. Of course, all of it pointed at providing water to Ag, industrial, municipal contractors/users south of the Delta.

In making the decision to order the pulse release of 12,000 acf of water, BuRec must've received direction from one of the federal fisheries agencies and are trying to follow that direction. By refusing to comply, the So. San Joaquin Irrigation District is setting up for another effort to amend the EPA thru potential litigation, since they've been unsuccessful thru legislation, so far. I'll bet there's a number of legal issues involved.

All that aside, Mark's original question was, "Should california spend 4 billion gallons of water to save a few fish?"

There're are a few legal mandates (state/federal) for the practice of expending water to support fish/wildlife/ecosystems on the books. Also, large amounts of money are already being spent on protecting certain fish/wildlife species from further reduction in numbers through federal/local/state hatchery programs and refuges. So, there's ample precedent for the practice. That would seem to indicate that we have already answered the question up to now. But, none of that addresses the current question/situation.

Answering the original question is tough as it's very broad in scope. By addressing the question to whether or not to expend water on a small number of fish, we need to settle on what is a small number, 6, 12, 60 or 100 or 1000??? What is a reasonable number of survivors to provide a sustainable population thru adding more water to the equation and just how much water??? IMO, there should be limits on how much of any resource should be expended on barely marginal causes but I have no idea what that amount should be. Of course, water agencies/districts would say that since they've contracted/paid for delivery of of water and their customers depend on their ability to deliver, they feel that beyond a certain volume and purpose, BuRec should deliver it to them (not an unreasonable position). Don't forget that the SSJID already agreed to prior pulse releases, this year. I'm not conflicted on expending water for restoration of runs on the San Joaquin River during a drought year as parts of the lower San Joaquin have been dry for years. The Stanislaus River is a tough one for me. What happens when the same question arises for the Mokelumne, American and Rivers?? You know it probably will if the drought continues....

If we keep this up we'll be getting into the larger, philosophical question of what purpose should water be expended for and then, whether water should be expended on any number of fish???

[JasonB]

I had seen that article a while back, and I think it's worth actually following the link to the Manteca Bulletin article that this is based off:
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/1/article/122566/

Call me cynical, but I find myself questioning the validity of the numbers. I could well be wrong, and perhaps the numbers are all correct, but the article in the Manteca Bulletin had the kind of tone that triggers a lot of my "BS alerts". When the question is framed as it is, I am sure a lot of folks (myself included) would have trouble justifying such actions. I'm afraid I don't know enough actual data about the runs of the central valley salmon and steelhead to say for sure just how these releases have affected them, and whether or not they are really justified/sustainable. It's probably a discussion that should happen, and we're likely to have a lot of tough choices in the coming years as far as how we use our water.

The thing that absolutely fries me though is the language that is used which essentially changes the whole context of the discussion; the way that some people look at it pretty much every river corridor is/should be a "bypass canal" and allowing any water to flow down it is "wasted water". For one thing, I would bet that while that release was taking place the "extra" water heading down the Stan would have allowed for other reservoirs to hold more water back than they otherwise would have. It's such an enormously complex web of waterworks, but between power demands, delivery of water for agriculture, recreation, environmental minimal standards, salinity levels in the Delta, etc, etc, etc, pretty much ALL water that is released is essentially being used (and abused) by multiple sources.

Part of the problem, imo, is the very mindset that has been perpetuated that water is a commodity to be stored in reservoirs, then battled over and sold to the highest bidder. I think that the issues at stake here are real and complex, and should be discussed and debated; however the way that the article frames the question, essentially skews the entire discussion with an enormous bias. The same topics could also be approached and discussed by asking questions such as: "how many of our rivers are we willing to sacrifice by damming and dewatering them" or "should we raise our standards for efficient use, and challenge wasteful misuse before we allow another species to go extinct" and "if we continue on current trends of population growth, and water usage patterns, what will our state look like in 50-100 years" etc etc.

To me, California is pretty amazing in many ways, one of them is just how many miles of our rivers have been damed and or dewatered. When you couple that with how much gross waste and misuse of this water it's a real tragedy. Living, thriving river systems are the lifeblood of the planet, and I really don't think that we have accurately assessed their "value" in this state.
JB

[chicowildcat]

Well said Jason!

[Darian]

One of the problems I've noticed in trying to evaluate figures associated with water releases is the inconsistent use of measures used to describe a particular amount of water. In this article the measurement used to describe the pulse release is acre feet. In another, the release might be expressed in total gallons and in others, cubic feet per second. All of these units of measurement are valid for specific purposes but I've seen them used in the same article in the SacBee. Whether to use the larger or smaller unit seems to be based on which point you're trying to make as in this case where a 12,000 ACF pulse flow should be used for "six fish" by a water district. Good use of fear tactics to make a point. This instance is not the only one where that's done.

That said, I agree that an open debate of the value of all of these water actions should be undertaken. However, I don't think there'll be a real debate, given the influence/position of the Governor/state agencies/water contractors on water issues. During the last two days, KCRA TV news reported that the Governor has asked the legislature to draft a bill that includes, among other things, fines for over use/waste of water amounting to $10,000.00 per violation. Under his proposal, these fines would fall largely on residential violations. Still no imposition of restrictions on AG/Industrial activities. At this point, I'm losing empathy/understanding of the lack of water for use by AG/Ind. IMO, there're are more constructive methods available to solve this rather than punishing home-owners with un-reasonable fines (market pricing comes to mind). These draconian measures are due to the actions of the SWRCB which are responsible for the over-commitment of available/developed water by many times (recently confirmed by audit, Legislative Audit Office).

As if to underscore the above, the latest iteration to the BDCP (now under a new name) proposes to reduce the amount of acreage to be "restored" in the Delta from 100,000 to 30,000. The Governor said that this change is in response to comments made on the EIR/EIS. What do you bet those comments were made by big AG?? I've read many of the comments on-line and none of them advocated reducing the acreage to be restored. Haven't read all of it yet but I'd bet there's not much change to the tunnels portion of it.

Enough by me.... I need to go fishing and get this crap off my mind. :mad: