Monthly Archive for August, 2009

Discussion on Water Irrigation Article

Published on August 30, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Environmental Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Waste Discharge and Water Conservation. 0 Comments
Here’s the abstract of the paper Ms. Pace refers to (and supplied the link to).
Jeavons probably does apply, but the study suggests that it’s also related to how natural processes work in arid lands.
Jane
Climate change, water supply limits, and continued population growth have intensified the search for measures to conserve water in irrigated agriculture, the world’s largest water user. Policy measures that encourage adoption of water-conserving irrigation technologies are widely believed to make more water available for cities and the environment. However, little integrated analysis has been conducted to test this hypothesis. This article presents results of an integrated basin-scale analysis linking biophysical, hydrologic, agronomic, economic, policy, and institutional dimensions of the Upper Rio Grande Basin of North America. It analyzes a series of water conservation policies for their effect on water used in irrigation and on water conserved. In contrast to widely-held beliefs, our results show that water conservation subsidies are unlikely to reduce water use under conditions that occur in many river basins. Adoption of more efficient irrigation technologies reduces valuable return flows and limits aquifer recharge. Policies aimed at reducing water applications can actually increase water depletions. Achieving real water savings requires designing institutional, technical, and accounting measures that accurately track and economically reward reduced water depletions. Conservation programs that target reduced water diversions or applications provide no guarantee of saving water.
This is very interesting. Like Zeno, I am curious for an explanation. Is it that the farmers that use water efficiently also use more of it? That after they start using it more efficiently, they then start to use more of it? Seems like this finding would not hold for residential water conservation; am I right? Are these findings likely hold true for high-end viticulture–in the upper Rio Grande I think they are growing alfalfa and cotton? What are the ramifications of this finding for the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan and the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Management Plan?
Caitlin Cornwall Sonoma Ecology Center
On Aug 17, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Zeno Swijtink wrote:
Is this the Jevons Paradox as applied to water use efficiency improvements?
cf The Jevons paradox and the myth of resource efficiency improvements / John M. Polimeni, et al.
http://csul.iii.com/record=b26830393~S0
Zeno
At 12:15 PM -0700 8/17/09, Brock Dolman wrote:
[Attachment(s) from Brock Dolman included below] FYI… Brock

Jeavon’s Paradox probably does apply, but the study suggests that it’s also related to how natural processes work in arid lands.

Jane

Climate change, water supply limits, and continued population growth have intensified the search for measures to conserve water in irrigated agriculture, the world’s largest water user. Policy measures that encourage adoption of water-conserving irrigation technologies are widely believed to make more water available for cities and the environment. However, little integrated analysis has been conducted to test this hypothesis. This article presents results of an integrated basin-scale analysis linking biophysical, hydrologic, agronomic, economic, policy, and institutional dimensions of the Upper Rio Grande Basin of North America. It analyzes a series of water conservation policies for their effect on water used in irrigation and on water conserved. In contrast to widely-held beliefs, our results show that water conservation subsidies are unlikely to reduce water use under conditions that occur in many river basins. Adoption of more efficient irrigation technologies reduces valuable return flows and limits aquifer recharge. Policies aimed at reducing water applications can actually increase water depletions. Achieving real water savings requires designing institutional, technical, and accounting measures that accurately track and economically reward reduced water depletions. Conservation programs that target reduced water diversions or applications provide no guarantee of saving water.

This is very interesting. Like Zeno, I am curious for an explanation. Is it that the farmers that use water efficiently also use more of it? That after they start using it more efficiently, they then start to use more of it? Seems like this finding would not hold for residential water conservation; am I right? Are these findings likely hold true for high-end viticulture–in the upper Rio Grande I think they are growing alfalfa and cotton? What are the ramifications of this finding for the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan and the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Management Plan?

Caitlin Cornwall Sonoma Ecology Center

Is this the Jevons Paradox as applied to water use efficiency improvements?

cf The Jevons paradox and the myth of resource efficiency improvements / John M. Polimeni, et al.

http://csul.iii.com/record=b26830393~S0

Zeno

12th Annual Coho Confab — August 28-30, 2009

Published on August 25, 2009 in Watershed Related. 0 Comments

12th Annual Coho Confab12th Annual Coho Confab August 28-30 on the Big River on the Mendocino Coast SRF, Trees Foundation, the Mendocino Land Trust and Jughandle Farm will host the 12th Annual Coho Confab featuring tours of Caspar Creek fish ladders and road work, underwater fish identification, macro-invertebrate sampling and other habitat restoration tours along the Coast. Please check out the Trees Foundation web site at www.treesfoundation.org for more information or to register for this event.

Click here for a complete schedule of events in pdf format

Water Conservation in Irrigation Can Increase Water Use

Published on August 25, 2009 in Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Frank A. Warda,
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM

Manuel Pulido-Velazquez,
Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering–Institute of Water and Environmental Engineering, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Cami de Vera s/n 46120 Valencia, Spain

Edited by Partha Sarathi Dasgupta,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and approved September 23, 2008

Abstract

Climate change, water supply limits, and continued population growth have intensified the search for measures to conserve water in irrigated agriculture, the world’s largest water user. Policy measures that encourage adoption of water-conserving irrigation technologies are widely believed to make more water available for cities and the environment. However, little integrated analysis has been conducted to test this hypothesis. This article presents results of an integrated basin-scale analysis linking biophysical, hydrologic, agronomic, economic, policy, and institutional dimensions of the Upper Rio Grande Basin of North America. It analyzes a series of water conservation policies for their effect on water used in irrigation and on water conserved. In contrast to widely-held beliefs, our results show that water conservation subsidies are unlikely to reduce water use under conditions that occur in many river basins. Adoption of more efficient irrigation technologies reduces valuable return flows and limits aquifer recharge. Policies aimed at reducing water applications can actually increase water depletions. Achieving real water savings requires designing institutional, technical, and accounting measures that accurately track and economically reward reduced water depletions. Conservation programs that target reduced water diversions or applications provide no guarantee of saving water.

Click here to view abstract at PNAS

Klamath Letter

Published on August 25, 2009 in Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Klamath Watershed folks,

I want to call you attention to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science which looked at whether investments in irrigation system efficiency actually save water. They looked at the entire Upper Rio Grand Basin and concluded that:

“In contrast to widely-held beliefs, our results show that water conservation subsidies are unlikely to reduce water use under conditions that occur in many river basins…Conservation programs that target reduced water diversions or applications provide no guarantee of saving water.”

This is exactly what I’ve found in my investigations of Klamath EQIP and what I documented was facilitated by language changes in the 2008 Farm Bill. Certain environmental and fishing organizations supported the language change in a “compromise” with Dan Keppen and the Family Farm Coalition.

The same sort of boondoggle is now going on in Westlands/San Joaquin now using stimulus money!

Those in the environmental, fishing and restoration communities should stop supporting these projects in the Scott and elsewhere, which just give cover for continuing dewatering, and insist that conservation funds are not spent on projects that do not result in conservation. Language in a USDA appropriations bill is needed to correct the mistake environmental and fishing groups accepted in the 2008 Farm Bill.

Felice Pace

Reports of Paulin Creek Going Dry

Published on August 24, 2009 in Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

To  All,

“Brenda makes a good point. How many of our urban creeks have flow in the summer only because of runoff from suburban over-irrigation of lawns and gardens?” 

Brian

Friends,

“Here’s a theory about why Paulin Creek has dried up. Maybe it usually had water this late in the season because of irrigation of lawns and gardens. Because of the strong thrust for conservation and higher water rates, and the City is claiming a 32% decrease in water use, perhaps there is no more runoff to feed the streams.”

Brenda



I live near Sonia Taylor, so I too started checking Paulin Creek.

My guess is that “runoff from suburban over-irrigation of lawns and gardens” has little or nothing to do with the summer flow of Santa Rosa’s creeks–especially Paulin Creek above Chanate Road.

“SCWA maintains an (over-constructed) flood control dam and reservoir on the Paulin Creek Open Space Preserve located on Chanate across from the hospital. The reservoir, called Piner (Creek) Reservoir on topo maps (I recall from memory), has a few overflow inlets that would allow overflow from the reservoir to Paulin Creek below the dam.

From the several years that I visited Paulin Creek Preserve frequently, I never saw Paulin Creek go dry below the dam or at the crossing on Chanate Road. I would suggest going to the open space preserve and seeing what is going on at the reservoir and check to see if any water is overflowing the inlets or coming out at the base of the dam. Maybe there is maintenance going on, as SCWA did indicate at one time that the reservoir was silting in and would need to be dredged and cleaned at some point.

Or possibly it is just too dry and the water is not making it to the creek downstream of the dam.

Jo, of Friends of Paulin Creek”

Whole Foods: Anti-Union and Anti-Universal Health Care

Published on August 22, 2009 in Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Whole Foods: Anti-Union and Anti-Universal Health Care

• EFCA

• health care

• Labor

• Whole Foods
I frequently shop at Whole Foods. It is the closest grocery store to my house. They have excellent cookies, good produce, etc. They employ or have employed a bunch of my friends, and seem to pay them fairly well, even if they do not always treat them as kind as their image would suggest. And, after reading any Michael Pollan book, it is pretty hard to totally buy into Whole Food’s take on organics. But still, despite all that, and that it creates a (w)hole in my wallet (badda boom!), I end up going there a lot.

But that said, it is worth remembering a few things for when you have a choice of where to shop. First, in an industry that is largely unionized, Whole Foods stands out as being anti-labor. This is a comment from their CEO:

The union is like having herpes. It doesn’t kill you, but it’s unpleasant and inconvenient, and it stops a lot of people from becoming your lover.

Well that is just so sweet of him. As the quote would suggest, Whole Foods has been working to kill Employee Free Choice, a hugely important reform for working families.

And now, the same whack-job is lobbying against true universal healthcare:

John Mackey, chief executive of Whole Foods, said that while his company offers coverage, he worries that an employer mandate would lead to more stringent federal rules on what employer plans must include.

He said that would drive up the cost of employer benefits, motivating companies to end their benefits and instead let employees sign up for the public insurance option, figuring that paying a penalty would be less costly. This would result in eventual domination by the public insurance plan — something Mackey suspects is reformers’ secret hope.

“It’s a Trojan horse,” he said.

As Jake McIntyre notes, if you take an employee mandate and a public option out of health care reform, you are basically left with nothing except a huge payout to insurance companies, with millions upon millions of people still uninsured.

Submitted by Dan

Sample Letter Regarding Russian River Low Flows

Published on August 20, 2009 in Environmental Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Hi folks:

I’m sending this out before tonight’s meeting, but I’m so late, I don’t
expect any group action tonight.  I just want you to see this attached
letter.  When this issue heats up, I hope SCWC will write a letter also.
(Sorry I didn’t get this to Stephen in a more timely email.)  I will bring
some hard copies to the meeting tonight.

The revision process for Decision 1610 is about to commence soon and we are
very concerned about how this will play out.  We produced this letter for
our supporters, but we are hopeful that many of you will ask your groups to
sign on.  It would be even better if you would use it as a template for your
own letter on your own letterhead.

I feel strongly that this issue should be a topic by itself for a “tech”
meeting sometime in the not too distant future, once SCWA has released their
proposal this fall.  Perhap we should think about having Grant, Don Seymour,
and/or Jay Jasperse attend a meeting (They seem to be in the lead on this at
this time.)

Brenda

Ms. Vicky Whitney, Deputy Director
Mr. Steve Herrera, Permitting Section
Division of Water Rights
1001  I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Whitney and Mr. Herrera:
Re: Order WR 2009-0034-EXEC

I am a supporter of tourism and recreational use of the lower Russian River
and an advocate of strong Russian River water quality policies. I request
that you add my name and address to your list of concerned citizens
regarding future changes to Decision 1610. I wish to receive notices of
future meetings and availability of documents on any future proposed flow
changes to the lower Russian River. Also, please inform your Board of my
concern.

I am very concerned about the Conditional Temporary Urgency Change in Sonoma
County Water Agency’s (SCWA) Permits #12947A, 12949, 12950, and 16596,
approved May 28, 2009, allowing SCWA to lower flows to 35 cfs from the Dry
Creek confluence to the mouth of the river at Jenner.  For the following
reasons, we ask you to consider rescinding this Order.

·      There have been numerous bacteriological excursions over the last
month and popular beaches have been posted as risky for swimming on several
occasions.  This was during normal flows. The problem will be exacerbated as
flows decrease.

·      Whether or not the monitoring identifies water quality problems, we
have seen a proliferation of invasive plants such as Ludwegia and large
amounts of nasty algae that is only bound to get worse as flows diminish.

·      Even during cool weather and normal flows, water temperatures have
been exceptionally warm.  This is detrimental to the threatened species for
whom this program is being implemented.  Lowering flows will only worsen the
problem.

·      Every weekend, hundreds of canoes and kayaks can be seen wending
their way down the Russian River.  They will not be able to float when flows
go below 85 cfs.  These lower flows will effectively eliminate most
recreational use of the lower Russian River.  I am opposed!

·       Finally, while urban users have been ordered to conserve 25%, that
is based on 2004 use.  Because extensive conservation has already been
accomplished, this means that only 3-4% of new conservation is required.
Thus far, cities have not produced reports on what they are going to save
and how they will do it.  We believe that mandatory conservation should be
put in place, especially for turf irrigation.

Sincerely,

_______________________________________________________________________

(Signature)        (Date)

Response to Frost Protection and Other Vineyard Impacts

Published on August 19, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

I have watched the changes in agriculture from apples  and timber to grapes over the years. I have also watched the increase in local flash flooding events in Atascadero Creek and other areas in the county. Vineyards are the obvious culprit responsible for the flash flooding, hot dry creek beds, and the loss of endangered species. Unfortunately wine is the bulwark of out economy and so its culpability will be myopically overlooked and the obviously malevolent mismanagement practices taking place in vineyards will continue. Instead of controlling and regulating these impacts on water and endangered species, the agencies charged with environmental protection appear to be focusing on the sport fishermen and tourists who might be witnesses to the demise  while they study the extinction process as it unfolds. With what we all know, how could anyone charged with protecting endangered species consider allowing something like Preservation Ranch to go forward or for that matter any timber conversion to grapes or gravel extraction. The fish seem to be suffering the same plight as the Russian River Watershed Council.

Bob Rawson

“California Water Solutions Now”

Published on August 19, 2009 in Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Water Conservation. 0 Comments

Report: Goals And Principles for Reliable Water Supply and Fish Restoration

The Environmental Water Caucus (EWC), a California-based coalition of many groups advocating for sustainable and equitable water use in the state which includes PCFFA, has released a new report unveiling a vision for the future of California water. The report is based on the following 10 principles, developed to guide policy reform:

  1. California must respect and adjust to meet the natural limits of its waters and waterways, including the limits imposed by climate change.
  2. Every Californian has a right to safe, sufficient, affordable and accessible drinking water.
  3. California’s ecosystems and the life they support have a right to clean water and to exist and thrive, for their own benefit and the benefit of future generations.
  4. California must maximize environmentally sustainable local water self sufficiency in all areas of the State, especially in the face of climate change.
  5. The quality and health of California’s water must be protected and enhanced through full implementation and enforcement of existing water quality, environmental, and land use regulations and other actions and through new or more rigorous regulations and actions as needed.
  6. All Californians must have immediate and ready access to information and the decision-making processes for water.
  7. California must institute sustainable and equitable funding to ensure cost-effective water reliability and water quality solutions for the state where “cost-effective” includes environmental and social costs.
  8. Groundwater and surface water management must be integrated, and water health and protection must be addressed on a watershed basis.
  9. California’s actions on water must respect the needs and interests of California Tribes, including those unrecognized Tribes in the State.
  10. California must overhaul its existing, piecemeal water rights policies, which already over-allocate existing water and distribute rights without regard to equity.

10 Strategic Goals Toward Reliable Water Supplies and Habitat Recovery

Published on August 19, 2009 in Groundwater, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Water Conservation. 0 Comments
  1. Implement ecologically sustainable and cost effective water supply efficiency targets that reduce demand or increase supply.
  2. Reduce exports from the SF Bay Delta, minimize reverse flows in the Delta, and increase Delta outflow.
  3. Restore instream flows, volumes and patterns for aquatic ecosystems.
  4. Provide fish passage above and below dams for all at-risk salmonid species.
  5. Retain cold water for fish in reservoirs for later downstream release.
  6. Integrate floodplains with rivers and streams.
  7. Eliminate State and Federal water deliveries to irrigate drainage-impaired lands in the western San Joaquin Valley.
  8. Restore surface and groundwater quality.
  9. Maximize regional water self-sufficiency to include water for the environment.
  10. Fund sustainable environmental agencies, watershed restoration and science with end-user fees.

To read the entire California Water Solutions Now report, click here.