You don’t need to explain the looming water crisis to John Laird (AD-27). For his district, there’s nothing “looming” about it. His home city of Santa Cruz has recently implemented water restrictions due to the dry winter of 2007. Down here in the Monterey Peninsula portion of his district, we’ve been in Stage 1 rationing since 1999 and I am only able to take a shower in the morning or get a glass of water as I sit to write this post because we pump the Carmel River dry.
It’s fitting, then, that Laird has become the Assembly’s point person on water as the special session kicks into high gear this week. A combination of growth, overpumping in the Delta, drought and the specter of climate change has forced California to face its water crisis. And as such, it’s worth taking a bit of time this Sunday afternoon to get everyone up to speed on where things currently stand in Sacramento.
First, the issues. Not only does California face a long-term problem in providing water to residents, but it has been overpumping what resources it already uses – particularly the Delta.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta provides drinking water to over 20 million people, is the basis for California’s agricultural industry – and is in peril. Overpumping has threatened several endangered species, and by reducing the amount of fresh water in the delta, results in an increasing amount of inundation by salt water. This threatens the reliability of Delta water for the millions who depend upon it. Already a federal judge has mandated significant cuts to the amount of water pumped out of the Delta this summer, and cities from San José to San Diego are facing mandatory rationing.
There are two main solutions. Republicans, led by Arnold and in the Legislature by Senator Dave Cogdill (SD-14, Modesto), want to revive the Peripheral Canal, which would take water from rivers like the Sacramento and Mokelumne and divert it around the Delta to the California Aqueduct near Tracy. They would have the state float a $2 billion bond for an “alternate conveyance” system – aka a Peripheral Canal.
This idea has been floated before, in the late 1970s. It deeply divided the state – Northern California was convinced it was a SoCal plot to steal their water – and the idea was soundly rejected in a statewide referendum in 1982.
The problem with the Peripheral Canal, however, is that it will not solve the Delta’s problems. Taking more fresh water out of the Delta would only make the salination problems much worse – it would be sacrificing the Delta once and for all in order to continue allowing California users to overuse what they already have.
As Hannah-Beth Jackson notes, Senator Don Perata’s proposals are much more favorable to the Delta. Groups such as Restore the Delta support Perata’s plan which offers $600 million for levee repair and other improvements to Delta habitat.
In contrast to the canals and dams solution the Republicans offer, John Laird has instead proposed several core principles that must govern the water special session (SacBee Capitol Alert, subscription req’d) that seem to suggest that they would prefer other solutions:
(b) Water agencies and local governments within each region should collaborate to develop, to the extent reasonably possible, regional reliance on water resources within their region, in order to minimize reliance on water resources from other regions.
(d) Water use efficiency, including conservation, recycling, reuse, and stormwater capture, provides one of the least expensive and least resource-intensive methods to enhance water supply reliability.
(e) Safe and reliable drinking water for all communities, including disadvantaged communities, should be among the state’s top water policy objectives.
(i) State and local agencies should consider the effects of a changing climate on the reliable availability of water resources for beneficial needs in the years ahead.
In other words, Laird insists that we look at conservation, at sharing the costs, at ensuring that disadvantaged populations are not made to spend money they don’t have to ensure a reliable water supply, and that climate change is considered in the process.
The plans offered by both Laird and Perata also emphasize local control and local planning. This is itself important in getting Californians to again live within their means. The 20th century solution of simply building a canal to some other watershed and taking that water will no longer work. It has failed the Delta, failed the Klamath Basin, and will soon fail the Sierra itself if we do not shift priorities.
The Planning and Conservation League has weighed in with its own plan that emphasizes conservation programs, watershed restoration, and groundwater retention (in other words, pumping the water back into aquifers to be stored underground, a more environmentally friendly and sustainable solution than dams). If properly funded, they note, several million acre feet of water could be produced through these more sustainable methods. One acre foot typically equals the annual water usage by a family of four. The state’s own water assessment plan shows that conservation can eliminate the “need” for these new dams.
As I explained back in July, California is a very drought-prone climate. Climate change in California is expected to produce a hotter and drier climate, with a reduced snowpack. Precipitation in the Sierra is expected to fall as rain more often than snow, forcing significant shifts in how water is stored.
But the problem isn’t just that the Sierra will see less snow and more rain, but that it will see less water, period. And the problem isn’t limited to the Sierra – as anyone who’s been to the Southwest recently knows, the whole region is suffering from reduced rainfall. Some experts suggest we may be on the verge of a 90 year drought in the US Southwest, and that Lakes Powell and Mead may never return to their previous levels.
Faced with the prospect of prolonged drought, it seems foolish for California to assume it can solve its problem merely through added storage – why build more storage for less rain?
So far in 2007, there has been way too much backsliding on the critical issues that face our society. Congressional Democrats failed to do anything meaningful to end the war in Iraq. Arnold helped force through major cuts to public transportation at a time we should be starting to move California away from dependence on the automobile.
We face a major crossroads in California in this special session, on both health care and water. It’s important to our future that we get it right. We need to ensure that our water solutions are right for our watersheds, right for the Delta, and right for we who rely on water for survival.