This sums it all up

[Darian]

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.

[ycflyfisher]

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...

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?

[ycflyfisher]

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.

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.

[ycflyfisher]

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.

X2 your concerns.

[BillB]

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.

[Darian]

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....

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....

[BillB]

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.

[Darian]

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.

[ycflyfisher]

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.

Bill,

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.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

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.