Bond includes additional storage money from Governor’s previous $6B proposal

by Brian Leubitz

It is a rare day in California when our Republicans are pushing for additional debt, but that is exactly what happened in the negotiations surrounding the water bond. The Legislature was pushing up against the deadline to replace the old, larger water bond on the ballot, everybody wanted to put a slimmer package on the ballot, and wanted it to pass. So, huzzah, here we are: a 2/3 majority for a bond package.

A slew of last minute changes wrought during a marathon negotiating session were key to winning support from Republican and Central Valley lawmakers who had threatened to block the bond unless it increased funding for reservoirs as the state struggles through a third devastating year of drought. The bill needed their support to muster the two-thirds majority needed to pass.

*** **** ***

More than a third of the bond — $2.7 billion — is dedicated to construction of dams, reservoirs and other water storage solutions. Projects to protect and restore rivers, lakes and watersheds will get $1.5 billion, or close to 20 percent of the package.

The bond will also allocate $900 million to groundwater cleanup and sustainability, $810 million to drought preparedness, $725 million for water recycling, $520 million to cleanse some small communities’ drinking water supply and $395 million for flood management.(SJ Merc)

This package could certainly be better, and we could do more to encourage conservation, but it has become clear that we need to overhaul our water infrastructure for several years now. And fortunately, this bond is “tunnel neutral” with no mention of the politically charged fight to route water around the Bay Delta.

So, if this passes, expect to see some more dam construction. Hopefully with more modern equipment than in this photo of the construction of Don Pedro Dam in 1924.

State Water Board issues mandatory conservation order

by Brian Leubitz

We all know that the state is in a pretty serious drought. But while most of the state has at least made some headway in conservation efforts, it just hasn’t been enough. I see you, SoCal, grinning sheepishly in the corner.

The new rules, approved by the State Water Resources Control Board on a 4-0 vote, impose new restrictions on outdoor water use starting Aug. 1 that could result in fines of up to $500 per violation.

Gov. Jerry Brown in January asked Californians to slash their water use by 20 percent. But a new state survey released Tuesday showed that water use in May rose by 1 percent this year, compared with a 2011-2013 May average. (Merc News / Paul Rogers)

Now, this isn’t all just household users. Perhaps it would be easier if that were the case, but water usage is a big mess of different parties and factions. Agricultural water use has been slightly decreased, mostly by force, but it still isn’t enough. Commercial use, like pressure washing, needs to be reduced as well. And, we all need to strive to take shorter showers and reduce water in every way that we can at home.

Because enforcement is up to local water authorities, many people won’t really notice any changes. But some are already up in arms. Like, say, the famously powerful lobbying group of BigPressureWashing. I kid, but this law directly impacts these users and their jobs. And here in SF, where local authorities are now taking a data-driven approach to poop on our sidewallks power-washing can be #KindOfABigDeal.

We can all do more to reduce water usage by using common sense, simple water-saving techniques. Maybe El Nino will save us next year, but we have to plan to be in a drought for a while. Better start saving now.

Scenic river faces long dry summer, risks very low flow conditions

by Brian Leubitz

I’ll admit it: I have a love affair with the Russian River. From the moment I laid eyes upon the Jenner mouth, and then driving along River Road to a spot inland, I’ve simply been enamored with the natural beauty. The wildlife, from seals to herons and ospreys to what used to be a thriving fishery. It is stunning, no matter how you look at it.

Yet if you notice near the end of that last paragraph about the fishery, you’ll soon understand the threats that the River faces. Fifty years ago, the Russian River had one of the best salmon runs, and you could catch some pretty amazing fish throughout the river. Today, there are a few decent fishing spots, but the salmon run is weak at best.

Invasive species have grown increasingly rampant. One such invader, ludwigia, a group of mostly tropical water plants, have grown wildly, choking off the river at some points, and generally becoming a nuisance. At various times efforts have been made to eradicate, such as was documented in this USDA/UC-Davis study, but the followup has always been lacking. The invaders always return, usually strengthened by their brush with death.

But one common thread runs through all the dangers facing the Wine Country’s largest river: low water flow. Water is diverted from the Russian River for agricultural and consumer use in Napa and Sonoma counties. The levels are also highly dependent upon whether the mouth of the river is open or closed to the ocean at Jenner. Over the past two years, flow has been about 125 cubic feet per second (cfs), a pretty sustainable level. But what will happen when it dips? We need only look back to 2009, when water flows were about 50 cfs. The Russian River Water Protection Committee (RRWPC) put together a very thorough photo collection of what happened then. Click here to see their 2009 photo PDF.

So what are we looking at this year? Estimates for water flow for this summer go down as low as 35 cfs. Even in better conditions, algae blooms would be common across the river (with the risk of toxic blooms). Ludwigia would reappear across the river, possibly choking clear passage. The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) has indicated that there would be no mandatory restrictions for purposes of conservation.  But, prioritization of water resources still seems tilted away from the river in favor of agriculture and consumer use.

To be clear, there are simply no easy answers on these issues. As temperatures rise, invasive species will get worse. Water flow will decrease as snow pack becomes decreasingly effective for water storage. Conservation procedures will eventually become standard operating procedure throughout the state, but perhaps we are a few years away from that finally dawning on our elected leaders. The sooner we start making great efforts at conservation, the less harsh the restrictions will have to be when the more severe droughts hit us.

If you want to learn more about these issues and the health of the river generall, there is a May 16 (6pm) SCWA meeting at the Monte Rio Community Center. The issues regarding the low water flows aren’t currently on the agenda, but seem likely to come up. You can also contact Supervisor Efren Carillo, who represents West Sonoma County or SCWA management and ask them to put it on the agenda. You can also learn more at the RRWPC website.

Deputy Natural Resources Secretary Wades in too deep

by Brian Leubitz

Anytime you say anything “isn’t worth saving” you know you are going to have a problem in an environmentally sensitive state like California. When it is about the San Francisco Bay Delta, you know trouble is ahead.

And that’s why the recent quote from Deputy Natural Resources Secretary Jerry Meral have been getting so much attention.

Advocates Tom Stokely and Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla said Meral’s comments were made during a casual conversation with Stokely at an April 15 event.

According to Barrigan-Parrilla, head of Stockton-based Restore the Delta, Meral said that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is not about saving the Delta, and that the Delta cannot be saved. She said Friday that she was standing a short distance away when she heard the comments, and wrote them down. Stokely said Friday that her account is correct. …

“We did not put the statement out for publicity gain or just to try to embarrass somebody,” Barrigan-Parrilla said Friday. “The reason we let this statement out was to show the true intent” of the tunnels project, which she believes to be increasing the amount of water shipped to southland farms and cities.(Stockton Record / HuffPo)

Water has always been one of the deepest divisions between the North and South of the state. After Southern California figured out, despite the so-called California Water Wars that there just wasn’t enough water to support the level of development that they were anticipating, eyes in LA and surrounding communities turned north. The seeming abundance of water, especially in the 19th century, was simply too attractive to ignore. And the Delta has always been the focal point of the environmental leaders opposing the mass water transportation projects.

State law already calls for Delta conservation, and Natural Resources Secretary said the comments do not comport with Administration position:

Wolk and other senators grilled top Brown Administration members at a committee hearing Tuesday.  Meral’s boss, Natural Resources Secretary John Laird, said that comment doesn’t reflect the Administration’s position.

Laird says some Delta lawmakers could never agree to any project that takes water from the Delta, so the challenge is “how can we listen to them closely and move as close as we can to their position – even if they can’t agree.” (Capital Radio)

That is a very tough balance to strike. The Delta is the lifeblood of the Pacific Flyway and brings bountiful life and ecological diversity to our state. Giving up on it simply isn’t an option, but agricultural interests are still eyeing the water that flows into the Delta. Mass diversion will probably increase with changing climate conditions, but if we completely let the Delta go, we are losing just as precious of a resource as any we could seek to gain through the water transportation.

Capital Public radio has an interesting quick piece on the controversy. Find it here or over the fold.

$11B bond package to lose storage money

by Brian Leubitz

California’s water issues have never been easy. North vs South. Environmentalists vs Developers vs Agriculture. And more. There’s never enough to satisfy everybody.  And, oh yeah, we spend some big bucks on procuring it.

The water bond scheduled for 2014 is not without its share of controversy, and some have called for a slimmed down package. And now Sen. Steinberg is saying that he expects some of the money set out for surface storage to be removed before it gets to the ballot.

“I think there will continue to be a chapter for storage,” said Steinberg. “I don’t think there will be nearly the same amount of money in that chapter as there was in the original bond. And I think there will be de-emphasis, frankly – or at least, on the same surface storage projects.”(KPBS)

There is still a long time before the final version needs to be determined, and there will likely be several other changes.

While the water bond may come off the ballot, the peripheral canal still has many supporters of its own

by Brian Leubitz

California has always been fractuous, coastal versus inland, north versus south. But many of the issues tend to be about water. Where it is (NorCal), where it isn’t (SoCal), who has a guaranteed supply(SF and its Hetch Hetchy reserve, etc) and who is chronically looking for more (LA and agrobusiness). Yet nothing really draws ire (and desire) like the Peripheral Canal.

In 1982, the California voters strongly rejected Prop 9, which would have secured the Canal by a vote of nearly 63%. The vote was, unsurprisingly, heavily tilted towards a NorCal v SoCal dispute. However, moving water out of Northern California for human and agricultural use and moving toward the more arid Southern California was just one reason.

It is just as true today that the consequences of moving the vast quantities of water south that the Canal designers envision would create unknown and possibly disastrous environmental consequences. Beyond the possible (if not likely) extinction of the Delta smelt, other fish and fisheries would be severely impacted. Given the likelihood that the Sierra snowpack will be in continual decline as we continue to see the signs of climate change, the health of the estuary would be even more threatened by a massive Canal today than it would have been 30 years ago.

But in reality, this is all about lobbying and the power of the diffuse interest of the many in the environment, and the power of the few moneyed interests of Southern California’s agrobusiness. In reality, Southern California was never a very good place to grow crops. Historically it has been very dry, with a small exception over a particularly wet 20th century. But that will not continue (and has not recently) and more and more irrigation is required in what is essentially semi-arid desert. That is not to say that agriculture is completely impossible there, but to continue to farm like water is abundant is short-sighted at best.

The Canal is frequently portrayed as something that will help the entire Southern California population, but as Restore the Delta’s Bill Jennings points out, the Canal is first and foremost a tool for the Westlands Water Districts and their powerful allies:

[The Canal] serves few. Two-thirds of delta exports serve corporate agriculture on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, which accounts for less than 0.5 percent of California’s economy and population. Only a third goes to urban areas that make up half the state’s population and economy. The water will be too expensive for farmers. And urban ratepayers will revolt if asked to subsidize corporate farmers.

Yesterday, a coalition of environmentalists, sportsmen, fishermen and other assorted organizations came together to write a letter to the Dept. of Interior to delay any green light for a Canal plan:

Twelve Members of the California Congressional Delegation requested that you not proceed at this time.  They are right.  Californians deserve a more forthcoming Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce.   Full disclosure – and “policy before plumbing” should be provided to all Californians and every taxpayer.  Absent responsible policy firmly in place, this proposal looms as a giant unfunded Federal mandate and a recipe for a boondoggle, not one for reliable water service. (Joint letter)

Those twelve members, well perhaps as is to be expected, consist mainly of the Bay Area’s delegation, but their words are nonetheless powerful:

The twelve California Democrats warned that the plan – as described in a recent briefing in Washington and public meeting in Sacramento – “raises far more questions than it answers, and appears to turn the maxim of ‘policy before plumbing’ on its head.” The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) proposal recently developed by state and federal officials would allow for the construction of massive tunnels – capable of draining the Sacramento River at a rate of 15,000 cubic feet per second – but delay any decisions about the uses of the project for as many as fifteen years. The members of Congress wrote that a poorly designed plan for the Bay Delta “could increase water exports from the Bay-Delta estuary – while failing to restore the Bay-Delta ecosystem and rebuild salmon and other California fisheries as required by law.” (Press Release)

The Canal wasn’t ready in 1982, and it isn’t ready now. It is a poorly considered and underfunded project that threatens one of America’s greatest natural resources, the San Francisco Bay.