Water Allocation System....???

[Darian]

Interesting article in todays SacBee concerning the outdated system of allocating water among users in this state as well as some other related issues:

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article31064874.html

Not sure I agree with every detail but the author sure seems to have a handle on the subject.

[SeanO]

Interesting for sure. I wonder how the author got involved in water?


"We have to respect property rights but also acknowledge that these rights can be taken away with just compensation through eminent domain when warranted by the greater good."

[Darian]

Given who he works for, I'm guessing he's an economist working on economic water issues. Seems like there's almost no part of that subject that doesn't bump into benefit/cost/production/environmental impacts.

Even tho the author doesn't get into the polluted AG run-off or industrial use/waste, it's the first time I've seen an article that tries to address the entire allocation problem at an overall level. I like the piece even tho it'll be branded as heresy and it won't be long before the righteous outrage begins. Ought to make some interesting reading, too. Maybe it's a good idea to have someone from outside AG/government or enviro's take a fresh look at these matters.

ps. "We now need a political system with the courage to do the right thing." Last sentence in the article quoted here.

[SeanO]

Agree with your assessment. Perhaps Cal Trout hired him to represent fish!

Anyway, sounds like fighting words.

[Darian]

I've wondered about this for some time/mentioned it as well. Seems like it's really unnecessary to use potable water, exclusively, for irrigation. I've read of one grower in the Fresno area who captures the polluted run-off from his land, treats and re-uses it. Probably has to supplement it with allocated water but it sure seems like that would help in reducing allocations and result in some amount of cleaner run-off water being released back into our rivers/streams. This would be especially true in the case of water used for flushing out salts before planting.

Another case of wishful thinking. This would be costly for growers but better for everyone/environment in the long run. Plus, it's the right thing to do.

[Darian]

Here's a link to an article by an advocate for construction of "the tunnels" citing some info that's questionable but it's still out there:

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article31330550.html

One of the points made in the article and in the revised EIR/EIS concerns the cost of doing nothing over the 50 year (revised in WaterFix) duration of the project and, once again, the discussion includes concern about the impact on water supplies of failed Delta levees. Also, concern for the cost of developing alternative water sources being too high in relation to water delivered by the CVP/SWP. Clearly, this article was based on documentation taken from the original EIR/EIS for the original BDCP.

If the newly proposed WaterFix plan is not approved, does anyone believe nothing will take it's place. Big AG is doing quite well despite the drought. That circumstance removes the stated urgency of constructing the tunnels and gives us time to implement alternative water sources throughout the area of the Bay/Delta. Finally, simultaneous collapse or all levees in the Bay/Delta due to earthquake isn't very likely (given past history). Not sure but sea level rise is more likely to create problems for Bay/Delta water quality. So, that point appears to be overstated as well.

Finally, the cost of DeSal to produce water cited in the article is taken from material that was made available at least 3 years ago (before Poseidon came on line). Even if the cost of producing DeSal water is high from a single plant, it will decrease over time as more (already on the drawing board) DeSal projects come on line. The cost of producing water thru DeSal is not the same for all projects. Smaller projects are much more cost efficient (as in the case of the Cambria Pines project). Also, if DeSal were adopted by big AG to treat polluted run-off (already used experimentally), that would contribute to reducing demand for water by big AG, overall.

Again, the cost of inaction would be high and unacceptable but to use fear tactics to justify a project so costly that the main players (big AG) are reportedly debating whether the cost justifies the reduced benefit (planned capacity of the tunnels is slightly less, annually, than AG receives under current ops).