Saw this in the Sunday SF Chronicle. Write your local congressman
Printable View
Saw this in the Sunday SF Chronicle. Write your local congressman
Never a truer word spoken....It is easy to be on the winning side...All you need to do is move South....
And grow pistachios for exportQuote:
Originally Posted by Frank Alessio
If you are down south, take a look at Pyramid lake next to the 5 freeway. When I drove past a week before Thanksgiving, it was full to the top. And I mean FULL!
Not a drop of rain in the 10 day forecast...Probably not for the rest of 2013....
Global Warming is just a myth right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Alessio
Pyramid and Castaic are the smallest, water storage reservoirs (fed buy the CA aqueduct) so a bit skewed to point them out as full... but make no mistake... I'm all for prevention of the twin tunnels and extremely concerned for the future of our fisheries, the Sacramento/SJ Delta ecosystems and even our domestic water supplies.
Stay educated, vocal, socially and politically active, and conserve water as if your life depended on it.
We need to do a lot of things if we are to secure our water supply and protect our fisheries...in no particular order.
1.80% of water is used by Ag so first we need to overhaul our agriculture policies and subsidies. no more thirsty crops allowed. Its illegal to grow hemp which uses little water but cotton is ok? tomatoes are fine? almonds? oranges? in a desert? We also need to blow up the archaic system of inherited water rights and the practice where taxpayer subsidized water is gifted to millionaire farmers for pennies on the dollar...much of which they sell on at a huge profit!
2. the remaining 20% of water is used by residential and industrial. The savings will be smaller but we all need to do our bit....turn off the sprinklers.
3. It is not a viable or even a humane solution to just say let LA rot in the sand. That will NEVER happen...if you don't believe me just count the number of elected officials in Sacramento from LA County versus the 9 county Bay Area or the number of Congress members ...hint...they outnumber us nearly 2-1. So any workable solution will involve a safe and secure water supply for Southern California whether we like it or not. the hard part is finding that sweet spot.
4. The delta is not working either as a fish habitat or as a water conveyance system. If we get an earthquake in the wring place it will become one huge brackish pond and will serve neither interest. We need to look at ways to make it work better or work around it...neither way is cheap or easy. I don't know if a peripheral conveyance or a completely re engineered Delta is the best overall solution, the bottom line is we need to be smarter with water.
5. We need cast iron laws that clearly prioritize the pecking order for water. Fish and wildlife should always be first. Farming is a gamble with no guarantees...there are wet years and dry years, good harvests and bad, been that way for thousands of years...only CA farmers with this artificial water supply have become hooked on the guaranteed harvest every year. Sorry guys, that's just not right.
6. The current twin tunnel plan is massive. The rationale is that the flows will be strictly monitored and that the capacity will only be fully utilized during peak flood events thereby catching and hopefully storing big runoff during the spring and then turning down the spigot the rest of the year to allow for fish migrations etc. This sounds great on paper but only works in reality if we do point number 5 first. There have been too many fish kills in the recent past because farmers have had their hand on that spigot.
7. The EIR for BDCP is 25,000 pages. Public comment opened at 8am on Friday. By 8:15 DWR had received dozens of comments declaring the document flawed and inadequate....lots of very accomplished speed readers out there! We as a state need to park the angry rhetoric and understand we are all in this pickle together. We have more people than ever and less water. We need to figure what the future looks like and not try to preserve our old ways just because we believe them to be our birthright...yeah I'm calling out the farmers again.
Personally I could find a way to support the BDCP with some big caveats...first among them is the need for more south of the Delta off stream storage....either groundwater recharging or new/expanded reservoirs (I see there are proposals to expand San Luis...I think that's good). If we do not build south of the delta storage the inevitable fall back is the raising of Shasta dam and the flooding of more of the McCloud....I think we can all agree that its better to put the water in a hole in the ground in Fresno or Kern County.
I agree with most of that but the problem with the last point...
is that Resnick and Westlands Water is 'grandfathered in' to receive X amount of water which the feds are not currently able to allocate. I'm not sure the government can even legally create infrastructure to store water in Kern County and compete with Westlands and its contracts with MWD.Quote:
first among them is the need for more south of the Delta off stream storage....either groundwater recharging or new/expanded reservoirs (I see there are proposals to expand San Luis...I think that's good). If we do not build south of the delta storage the inevitable fall back is the raising of Shasta dam and the flooding of more of the McCloud....I think we can all agree that its better to put the water in a hole in the ground in Fresno or Kern County.
It is the old "Tragedy of the Commons" Garrett Hardin outlined in the 1960's... only worse, as the population is greater, the resources are fewer and the relationships between big money and politicians, more expansive and more deeply entrenched.
I don't understand how the ESA and Public Trust Doctrine legislation have no teeth in the matter... but assume it's because few people (myself included) have the time or resources to thoroughly understand the complexities and how to present solutions to them in a way which favors the sustainability of our natural resources...
We waste thousands of gallons of water watering our lawns and in the process we dump thousands of gallons of water polluted with chemical fertilizers into our streams and waterways. (see the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw
Think globally and act locally.
You can start with killing your lawn and planting a home based farm. Your lawn provides no return on investment. When was the last time you went out and clipped some fresh grass for your lunch or dinner? Most people don't even use their lawns but spend hundreds of dollars every year to keep them green, cut and watered because it looks nice. There was a time when every house had a garden for sustenance (remember Victory Gardens?). It wasn't until after WWII and the push to the suburbs when water was plenty and gas was cheap that this changed. We as a country, a state, a community need to change the way grow our food and use our resources. Cities and towns need to change the rules. You can have a lawn in your front yard but not a vegetable garden?
People talk about "peak oil" and they havoc that could insue without it. We can live without oil, we can't live without water. Water is the real crisis in this state and in this country.
We, as stewards of the rivers, streams and lakes, need to stop this project in it's tracks and explain to our friends and neighbors what the short and long term impacts will be them and to our communities. We also need to look at how we can impact this issue right in our own front and back yards.
Just my $.02
Truer words not spoken...Quote:
We, as stewards of the rivers, streams and lakes, need to stop this project in it's tracks and explain to our friends and neighbors what the short and long term impacts will be them and to our communities. We also need to look at how we can impact this issue right in our own front and back yards.
I remember Victory Gardens and neighborhood co-ops in the 70's whereby once a month, members would exchange home-grown produce. It was awesome in theory and better in practice but somehow never took hold on a grand scale. Likely, not enough land to grow in most backyards and most (like my parents) were too busy working to afford the mortgage on the property they recently acquired.
We as a culture have become overly-reliant on others to lay the ground work for our provisions... It permeates most aspects of life and is why few people are truly independent, self-sustaining and why many shop at Walmart, have no ability nor desire to work on their own cars, think it's disgusting to kill and eat an animal and yet don't bat an eye about ordering a Big Mac...
Sadly, it may take a cataclysmic event to force humankind towards adopting conservation ethics if for no other reason than self-preservation...
For in the end, the majority will fight only for that which directly affects their livelihoods and/or deepest passions.
Most of us here have a head start because our lives are intertwined (through our sport) directly if not deeply with creatures whose fate lies in the balance.
Keeping the discussions going which promote conservation within our circles is important but it is not enough. We need to promote beyond those circles, to those outside the fishing culture who either don't know or don't care about what is unfolding.
I reread the last sentence of the post aboveand something occurred to me...Quote:
We also need to look at how we can impact this issue right in our own front and back yards.
You CAN do something in your front yard... Even if you can't plant a garden... you CAN plant a sign!
SAVE THE DELTA
STOP THE TUNNELS!
I heard there was a link where one can order such signs. When I figure out where Governor Brown hid it, I'll post it on the site~
It's pretty scary to think about the winter drought so far. If we don't get some solid snowpack this winter i can't imagine the state of the Klamath/Trinity and the well being of fall salmon runs. With the artificially enhanced flows during the last two septembers out of Lewiston, and the now extremely low reservoir levels, that could put us in a rough situation in terms of avoiding a fish kill this next year and years to come. Can't help but think that there's just not much water in the "bank" for fish at this point.
As proponents of conservation and sustainable fisheries there is no surer way to guarantee a huge tunnel project with weak oversight tan to stick our heads in the sand and yell SAVE THE DELTA, NO TUNNELS! We have to offer either constructive criticisms of and reasonable changes to bdcp or offer up a viable alternative. Yelling NO feels good but it is counterproductive because a lot more people are yelling YES and they are more powerful and influential than we are.
If we are to get the best deal possible for fish we should be working with DWR and DFW to craft something because something will happen, just a matter of when and how big.
I've been avoiding this discussion but I find that I agree with Bob Loblaw's last point. We need to make a concerted effort to stop or at least modify the BDCP. To a certain extent, that effort can be based on emotional argument in the form of votes for candidates who do not support the BDCP. However, public comment should be informed and objective.
Start getting involved. i realize everyone doesn't have a lot of time to invest in this but you don't have to read the entire package of the draft BDCP documents (34,000 pages) but you can read executive summaries or read what's reported in the media, read documents produced by knowledgable, respected academics, etc. (pro & con), and discuss the subject with informed people. Keep in touch with related NGO's and/or CSPA. Get an idea of what's really involved at a high level. As an example of media info, in yesterdays SacBee it was reported that there's no evidence that restoration efforts in the BDCP will benefit any of the listed fishes in the Delta. Couple that info with the fact that funding for Delta restoration is dependent on voters approving a $14 billion bond issue and you get an idea of how precarious the restoration effort really is.
Funding, costs and re-payment of debt are major issues that have been deliberately (IMO) been glossed over in all of the DWR documents I've seen. Yet, these issues raise great concern, even among the major players, as to the economic viability of the project and my personal target of choice.
Lots to get involved in. Please do so, or get ready to kiss the Delta as we know it good by.... :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darian
The Media is influenced by the same lobbyists who make the decisions with Govt officials in back rooms before and in spite of popular public desires. The people who fight this are systematically marginalized, they simply don't have enough money to compete.
I will be a realist. The best thing we can do for the planet is to wipe ourselves out. It wont be too long now at this rate. You can read about annual temperature change and its impact on flowering grain plants. We are heading to a future with no grains. Good luck out there.
My engine is idling needlessly....
Walter,.... I aimed that post at those who probably aren't going to have a lot of time to go get the info, direct, or read it all on there own.
So, what's your point??? Are you saying nobody should read or listen to any media because they're compromised??? If that's it, I can't agree. Some types of media may be, as you say, compromised but certainly not all. Even among different news media outlets there're variances in the quality and quantity of info reported. :confused:
I try to stay low profile on some of these issues since I'm a SOCal resident. FYI - We did get 1/4" rain today
in San Diego. I see de-sal as the obvious for coastal CA. Sure it's expensive. But, what are the costs of shipping
water south? The politicians are pathetic. In response to a proposed de-sal plant in the Huntington Beach region,
its mayor said "Who would buy their water?" See the Kiene post under the Conservation threads. Fishing advocates
need to bombard the media with actual dollar figures for fish and fishing. Merry Christmas to you all.
Best,
Larry S
True that. JUST saying, "NO" offers no answers nor alternatives. I really meant it as a symbolic reference or at least a launching point for involvement. I don't think it would be counter productive to physically state a position against the tunnels if that is the best/only way a person can get involved.Quote:
As proponents of conservation and sustainable fisheries there is no surer way to guarantee a huge tunnel project with weak oversight tan to stick our heads in the sand and yell SAVE THE DELTA, NO TUNNELS! We have to offer either constructive criticisms of and reasonable changes to bdcp or offer up a viable alternative. Yelling NO feels good but it is counterproductive because a lot more people are yelling YES and they are more powerful and influential than we are.
Look at the Southern Cal lake levels. Pyramid lake is 94% full and Lake Castaic is 77% full. There is NO Water shortage in S Cal. Only where they stole all the water from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darian
The media cannot articulate all of this. They only have time for ads. All of us consumers and the people who are too busy to do anything because of their kids that are overpopulating the planet get what they deserve. A terrible living situation for those children.
Darian, you are absolutely correct on how to fight the good fight. But unless you have money like Ted Turner, good luck at doing anything.
You can meet with high level bureaucrats but in the end their staff analysts who look over the writing you give them will either supercede your idea with those of lobbyists, or the political horsetrading nullifies the effective ideas and actions.
Californias and Americans deserve the leaders they put in power.
If you want something to change, find a way to get rid of Brown and Feinstein. But what other garbage in a suit is there to replace them with?
Sorry if I sound cynical.
Here is a thought...All Politicians serve no more than 6 years... Their Retirement will be Social Security... Their Health Care will be Medicare... Any Politician caught talking to a Lobbyist would be sent to prison.... That way people would not be in Office long after they were brain Dead.....That would be Change that might give US some Hope.......
OK!!! I understand the point and nobody here is any bigger cynic on politics or politicians than I am but this is about getting involved in the process of participating in the public comment period on the EIR/EIS for the BDCP. I don't want to discourage people from that meeting that challenge. There's too much at stake to not try. :cool:
I think the CESA and the FESA both have teeth. I think most would agree that the FESA is the most powerful piece of legislation in the world in regards to protecting and preserving ecosystems listed species are dependent on. I guess the question I have is what makes you think what you stated is true regarding the BDCP?Quote:
Originally Posted by STEELIES/26c3
Just out of curiosity, where do those numbers come from? I can't say I know much about CA water management but those numbers sound extremely dated (~35-40 years back to the era where DWR and USBR used to only include "ecconomic" water in the division) to me. For instance by your numbers, there is no allocation (0%) left for ecosystems. When you factor in the water allocated to ecosystems by my account, those other two numbers have to drop. And if the numbers you provided are indeed from 30-40 years ago, hasn't the ag use actually dropped since then while municipal use water and ecosystem allocations have both gone up sigificantly? I'm asking because I don't know for certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw
X2 your concerns.Quote:
Originally Posted by KobeStopper
I too am curious about the 80%-20% water usage data. Can someone elaborate and point me to that data. I am a bit skeptical that 9 million people in a metro area use less (that much less) than agricultural interest.
I've got to admit, I've cited those figures several times to support points I was making but do believe they're outdated. I recall seeing them in some info from an NGO that I can't name as I can't remember it. I still believe that agriculture users use the greatest amount (volume). Maybe the figures represent agriculture/industrial usage combined.... :confused:
At any rate, the authors of the EIR/EIS cite the figures as 30% ag and 70% by everyone else (not something I accept). But, who knows, maybe that's closer to reality considering the last 3 years of low water/drought (5% initial allocation to ag this water year). Ag has shifted to heavy reliance on groundwater pumping for irrigation. Water availability is not a static situation.
If this keeps up, the San Joaquin might subside enough to crack the canals and re-create Tulare Lake.... ;)
I can see the 70/30 much easier than the 20/80 ratio Darian. I live in the orange belt and where trees are watered with micro spray irrigation. One flush of the toilet and you have likely watered a tree! I like your Tulare Lake comment. Someone referred to the valley as a desert, which it seems to be now. Historically it was anything but.
Yep!!! Irrigation has become increasingly more efficient but I'm still on the side of ag activities using larger quantities of water. Just don't know what the actual figures are. Your observation about the valley historically not being a desert (even now) is spot on. I've seen some historical photo's where the valley was completely flooded from one end to the other.
Yet, efficient irrigation technology/practices don't solve the problem of the need to use water to flush the salts out of ag land and the resulting untreated ag run-off. To be fair, there are and have been projects testing treatment alternatives and collection/recycling of water run-off. Most of them I've read about have been successful but not adopted as the cost was higher than just allowing the water to drain thru tile drainage systems. According the the "Water Facts" bulletin, even the collection of recycling systems apparently won't handle the volume of ag water drainage. So, the excess run-off water for the northern San Joaquin valley is allowed to run-off into the San Joaquin River, untreated. The Southern San Joaquin is where there is little natural slope for drainage. So, it tends to settle and elevate the salts in the soil requiring more water for flushing salts. Maybe that's where successful treatment will be implemented first.
Lots of good info explaining the water situation in the Valley in the "Water Facts" bulletin.
Bill,Quote:
Originally Posted by BillB
Doing some searching, from Managing California's Water, 2011 (Hanak, Lund, et. al.) provides the following totals for an 8 year period (1998-2005):
Ag: 33MAF
Muni: 8.7MAF
Ecosystems: 41MAF
By the percentages that breaks down to 39% ag, 11% muni, and 50% for ecosystems for all CA surface water.
According to the document, if you purposely exclude all the water from what they deem to be "hydraulically isolated" watersheds from the equation, those percentages shift to ag 52%, 14% muni and 33% ecosystems. That doesn't add up to 100% but it's what it says.
"Hydraulically isolated" watersheds are defined as watersheds where there is no interconnections to delta diversions.
If you specifically look at watersheds tied to delta export the percentages shift to 62% ag, 16% muni and 22% ecosystems.
At one time I heard that the water use in CA was 80% AG and industry and 20% residential? Did not mention Eco.
My wife and I come from farming backgrounds so we see both sides.
YC,Quote:
Originally Posted by ycflyfisher
Thanks for digging that info up. I like to at least have a very rough idea where all the water goes in this state, and the more I learn the more convoluted and complex it starts getting. I'm very curious about one thing: when they mention "ecosystems", I'm envisioning things like minimum streamflows and such? If so I'd have a hard time including that in any water consumption percentages; allowing water to flow down streambeds and into the delta hardly seems like consumption to me. If you take that out, it puts the old numbers not so far off the mark after all.
Jb
This discussion is getting interesting. In doing some more searching, it's becoming obvious to me that my definition of ag activities has been too narrow. Maybe the definition of ag activities in reporting contributes to that confusion. Of course, you guys who are/were growers and grew up in ag areas of this state already know this stuff.
One report of ag activities in CA for 2010-2011/2011-2012 (US Dept of Food/Ag) shows all of the standard crops and, also, includes dairies, livestock (cows, calves. hogs, sheep, lambs and aquaculture), feed lots, poultry & eggs, production of honey plus a lot more in the form of farm services; all of which use some water. As you could expect, some crops and other activities use more water than others. So, it's easy to see that efficient irrigation practices work for specific row/tree crops but some activities are just not efficient. For example, composting, dairies, feed lots that set up sprinkler systems to water cows/cow crap 24 hours a day, flood irrigation practices for certain types of crops, etc., and Flushing of salts from soils to create a "....salt balance...." making mineralized land usable for farming.
Indeed! Jeez, I forgot about dairies. They use copious amounts of water, likely more than any commodity. In our area there is little flood irrigation anymore, outside of corn/silage. Growing corn to produce ethanol will, in my opinion, will be a negative offset. I am supposing the payoff of water v ethanol just won't get it. At least the way I see it, which could be in left field!
Jason,
If I understand what you’re saying, I think you’re correct that the ratios of how diversion breaks down (roughly a 4:1 ratio of ag: muni) hasn’t changed much over time. The real issue as I see it is the numbers are extremely dated and don’t paint an accurate picture because they paint it as an exclusively two way division when it isn’t. It wasn’t until ~15 years ago that the DWR and USBR started including environmental/ecosystem water into the breakdown. And when no one is acknowledging that there is water specifically allocated for the preservation of ecosystems it not only detracts from the discussion but actually changes the nature of the discussion. IMO, the focus here shouldn’t be Ag vs. muni, it should be water allocated for the preservation of ecosystems vs total diversion, and the fact that short of Fed court action, water allocated for ecosystems can’t be reduced. I think there’s also lots of grey area between ag and muni. For instance, a lot of the ag allocation is sold under beneficial use to municipalities but I don’t think the percentages account for that.
".... I think there’s also lots of grey area between ag and muni. For instance, a lot of the ag allocation is sold under beneficial use to municipalities but I don’t think the percentages account for that." ycflyfisher.
That's an interesting point. I'm not sure that sales for beneficial use are required to be reported beyond accounting for them internally by buyers/sellers (water contractors). But, one such sale by Westlands to MWD was reported in the news media a couple of years ago. :confused:
ps. does anyone know how agencies count ecosystem/environmental water??? Probably right under my nose but I haven't seen it yet. It would sure help in understanding the overall picture.