Archive for the 'Agriculture Impacts' Category

California’s Groundwater Shrinking because of Agricultural Use

Published on February 3, 2010 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts and Groundwater. 0 Comments

Garance Burke,
Christian Science Monitor,
January 4, 2010

New data from satellites show the vast underground pools feeding faucets and irrigation hoses across California are running low, a worrisome trend federal scientists largely attribute to aggressive agricultural pumping.

California water pumping agricultural use

The photograph above illustrates subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, California. In the photo, USGS scientist, Joe Poland shows subsidence between 1925 and 1977 due to fluid withdrawal and soil consolidation.

The measurements show the amount of water lost in the two main Central Valley river basins within the past six years could almost fill the nation’s largest reservoir, Lake Mead in Nevada.

“All that water has been sucked from these river basins. It’s gone. It’s left the building,” says Jay Famiglietti, an earth science professor at the University of California, Irvine, who led the research collaboration. “The data is telling us that this rate of pumping is not sustainable.”

Hundreds of farmers have been drilling wells to irrigate their crops, as three years of drought and environmental restrictions on water supplies have withered crops, jobs and profits throughout the San Joaquin Valley, where roughly half of the nation’s fruits, nuts, and vegetables are grown.

Developers and cities dependent on the tight supplies also have joined the well-drilling frenzy as the crisis has deepened.

NASA scientists and researchers from UC Irvine presented their findings at a recent conference, showcasing data from twin satellites that pick up changes in the aquifers coursing underneath the state.

The NASA mission represents the first attempt to use space-based technology to measure how much groundwater has been lost in recent years in California and elsewhere in the world.

From October 2003 through March of this year, Mr. Famiglietti and his team tracked how Earth’s gravitational pull on the satellites changed as the amount of water stored in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins dried up.

As river water, snowmelt, soil moisture and aquifer levels declined, the satellites sensed less of a pull to the planet, which allowed scientists to extrapolate over time how much water had disappeared.

More than three-quarters of the loss was due to groundwater pumping in the southern Central Valley, primarily to irrigate crops, researchers found.

If drilling keeps on at the same clip, scientists warned, more wells could start running dry.

“We’ve known about the conditions in California for a while since it’s one of the most pumped aquifers in the United States,” says Michael Watkins, NASA’s Pasadena-based project scientist for the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment mission.

“Hydrologists were just surprised to see that the deep water conditions had dropped so much, since it was more than we had expected,” he says.

Click here for original article

Will Drilling More Wells in California Help or Hurt?

Published on February 3, 2010 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts and Groundwater. 0 Comments

Garance Burke, Christian Science Monitor
January 11, 2010

The government is spending $40 million in federal stimulus funds to pull water from underground aquifers in drought-stricken California, even as evidence is growing that the well-drilling boom could degrade the quality of water delivered to millions of residents.

Farmers, conservationists and engineers are criticizing the Interior Department’s plan to spend taxpayer money on digging more wells, saying the approach risks marring the environment. Canals buckle, aquifers collapse and drinking water turns saltier due to so much pumping, and studies show that the state’s water supplies are dwindling.

“We don’t need any more straws going down there ’cause we’re already doing a pretty good job of sucking it dry,” says farmer Dan Errotabere, who has dug three wells as deep as 1,200 feet to irrigate his tomatoes, almonds, and garlic in recent years. “We’re using this water as a last resort, but pretty soon we’re going to need a policy to protect ourselves from ourselves.”

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says the government is targeting its well-drilling effort to serve remote communities and prop up California’s agricultural economy, a $36 billion industry that grows nearly half the country’s fruits, nuts and vegetables.

“The role of the federal government is to provide a helping hand. But the federal government can’t solve the water problems,” Mr. Salazar says as he sampled sliced cantaloupe with local farmers several weeks ago. “California water issues are a big mess and have been a big mess for a long time.”

Since the drought began in 2006, hundreds of new wells have been drilled and are pumping around the clock in the state, tapping aquifers that date to the days of the dinosaurs.

In the last six years alone, the amount of water that has been lost from the aquifers coursing beneath the parched Central Valley would be nearly enough to fill the nation’s largest reservoir, Nevada’s Lake Mead, NASA researchers says Monday.

Salazar announced in July the department would send emergency drought aid from President Barack Obama’s stimulus package to drill and renovate up to 135 wells. The total number has dropped since then, and authorities are still drawing up plans about how and where to drill.

The money will go to dig up to 50 new wells, retrofit up to 40 old ones and install temporary pipes and pumps to move water to crops and orchards, federal officials says. More than $2 million of the funds will be used for monitoring the real-time ecological impacts of wells in sensitive areas, and proposed new wells will undergo environmental review.

While everyone agrees the state’s aquifers are quickly being drawn down, no California or federal rules govern how much water can be pumped out. Driven by a similar set of concerns, other Western states have set up laws to limit pumping.

Dennis Freeman, who oversees a main canal that irrigates the valley’s farm fields, says even without government-financed wells, it is already costing millions to fix the damage wrought by decades of pumping.

“There’s no doubt about it, the canal is sinking,” he says, gesturing at cracked and buckled concrete panels lining the structure’s edge. “There’s more wells going in, because our growers gotta get water to their crops. But we’re always concerned about the effect that will have.”

Continue reading ‘Will Drilling More Wells in California Help or Hurt?’

State Water Board Begins Process of Regulating Water Diversions That Kill Salmon and Steelhead in Russian River

Published on January 20, 2010 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

SAN FRANCISCO— The California State Water Resources Control Board indicated yesterday that it will move forward over the next year to draft regulations on water diversions for frost protection of vineyards in the Russian River watershed, to protect imperiled coho salmon and steelhead trout. Water Board staff recommended that any diversion of water from the Russian River and its tributaries for frost protection between March 15 and June 1, including pumping of connected groundwater, must be under the auspices of a Board-approved water-demand management program that will ensure cumulative diversions do not de-water salmon streams, and will require monitoring and public reporting of diversions in the Russian River and tributaries. The Board declined to take emergency action to implement regulations for frost pumping this spring.

“In the face of extinction of coho salmon, the state Water Board has finally taken some long-overdue baby steps to address excessive water diversions and pumping from salmon streams in the Russian River watershed, although it will be at least another year before any regulations on pumping are put in place; they may not be in time even for next year’s frost season,” said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Coho salmon need immediate protection to prevent de-watering streams. Another season of fish kills is unacceptable since coho are near extinction in the Russian River, and chinook and steelhead are not far behind.”

Water diversions and pumping from streams for grape growing de-water rivers and creeks where listed fish species spawn, harming imperiled coho salmon, chinook salmon, and steelhead trout. De-watering of streams occurs not only during spring and summer vineyard irrigation, but also due to winter “frost protection” pumping to protect budding grapes from frost. When freezing temperatures hit the North Coast, vineyards pumping water for frost protection can dry up portions of the Russian River and its tributaries, stranding and killing young salmon.

“The Water Board needs to take action to avoid harming the last coho salmon and steelhead trout – that is the bottom line,” said Larry Hanson of Northern California River Watch.

“Effective regulations on Russian River water diversions are long overdue. It’s been 13 years since the Water Board determined frost protection pumping is harming salmon,” said Miller. “The rules being contemplated contain some positive steps, such as regulating connected groundwater, protecting from cumulative pumping effects, and requiring adequate monitoring to determine when pumping is impacting fish. However, these rules are weaker and less protective of fish than the approach the Water Board has already adopted on the Napa River, and unauthorized ponds and diversions are not addressed. Also, success depends heavily on the criteria used by the Board to approve water-demand management programs.”

In spring 2008 and again in 2009 there were widely publicized salmon kills due to excessive water diversions in the main stem of the Russian River at Hopland and in Felta Creek, a tributary. At yesterday’s hearing, Water Board staff estimated that there were likely 20 to 30 separate frost pumping events in 2008 that could have killed salmon in the Russian River watershed, but that state and federal agencies did not have the resources to survey or document stream conditions.

“The Water Board clearly does not have the staff, the funding, or the spine for strong enforcement actions, so any regulations need to be adequately protective of the fish,” said Miller. “The benefit of the doubt should go to species about to go extinct, since Russian River water is already over-appropriated and minimum flows for fish are not being met.”

In November 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity, Northern California River Watch, and Coast Action Group notified the Water Board of their intent to sue the agency for authorizing water diversions for vineyards in Mendocino and Sonoma counties that harm federally protected salmon and steelhead.

Background

There are at least 60,000 acres of vineyards in the Russian River watershed, 70 percent of which are within 300 feet of salmon streams. The Water Board currently permits and authorizes harmful water pumping, diversions, and water storage and continues to issue water-appropriation permits in the over-allocated Russian River watershed, in conflict with public trust values and beneficial uses. In 1997, the Water Board released a report identifying vineyard practices, particularly frost protection activities, that hurt federally listed species of fish struggling to survive in the Russian River basin and its tributaries. The National Marine Fisheries Service requested in the spring of 2009 that the Water Board adopt regulations to protect listed fish species.

The region’s significant fisheries are near extinction. Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) on the central California coast are listed as endangered by both the state and federal governments; chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) along the California coast are federally listed as threatened; and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) on the central California coast and Northern California are federally listed as threatened. Central California coast coho salmon are now at only 1 to 2 percent of their historical abundance. Coho have been eliminated from more than half of their historical streams in California, and in recent years, only 500 to 1,000 wild coho have returned to the entire central coast region to spawn. California coast chinook salmon have declined 97 to 99 percent from historical runs. Northern California coast steelhead have declined by 90 percent, and central California coast steelhead have declined by 80 to 90 percent in the past 50 years.

Salmon and steelhead spawn in freshwater streams and young fish require habitat with sufficient flows; deep pools; adequate food and shelter; and clean, cold water in order to survive long enough to migrate to the sea. The huge amounts of water withdrawn for grape growing dries up spawning beds and kills fish or leaves young salmon and steelhead stranded in hot and crowded shallow pools, where they are exposed to overcrowding and predators.

Grape growers have the option of pursuing permits for off-stream storage of water during high stream flows in winter, so that water is available for frost protection and the need for pumping from streams or groundwater during critical periods for salmon is eliminated. Some vineyards and grape growers have begun organizing to monitor water diversions and stream flow, and to address water pumping. These growers should be commended for trying to solve the problem. Many growers are calling for voluntary measures and self-regulation to deal with frost pumping. However, a Water Board rulemaking is necessary to ensure that the efforts of the leading growers are not thwarted by non-participants and that landowner-led solutions are effective. It is clear that even one or two diversions on a small tributary can have a significant impact on fish habitat. No voluntary plan can ensure full participation, and a strictly voluntary plan would ultimately fail to protect salmon and steelhead. An opt-in plan would also have the unintended effect of forcing the proactive growers to compete against growers that lag behind or refuse to do their fair share.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 255,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

Letter Exposing the Myth of “Feeding the Nation” Ag Article

Published on January 19, 2010 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Pesticide pollution and Water Conservation. 0 Comments
Thanks to whoever sent out the article on the myth being created by agribusiness, media, and politicians to the effect that supplying water to Westlands Water District is important for feeding the nation.  (Was it Brock?)
Sen. Feinstein needs to receive a lot of letters protesting her position on Westlands, and western water subsidies in general.
Jane
Letter emailed to Sen. Dianne Feinstein Jan. 9, 2010
Dear Senator Feinstein,
US Department of Agriculture statistics demonstrate that agricultural production from the Westlands Water District is far from significant, and may actually be negative when the level of taxpayer subsidies to those farmers is added in (that is, subtracted from their net profits). Based on USDA statistics, Westlands’ contribution in gross income to the nation’s food supply (and exports) is about a quarter of a percent. The true net value may be only $30 million to $40 million, once government subsides are considered.
I therefore challenge you to stop supporting the false claim that west side San Joaquin Valley agribusiness “feed the nation,” and that cuts to their water supplies prevent those growers from “feeding the nation.”
We, the U.S. taxpayers, paid for the projects that supply Westlands farmers with water, and for the drains that made it possible for them to continue farming in an area that traps irrigation water in the soils. Those drains created the poisonous slough of Kesterson Reservoir, and taxpayers eventually had to pay to fill in Kesterson’s collection ponds to stop the deformed bird chicks and outright kills of wildlife from the concentration of selenium in the drain water.
Recent tests of alternative drainwater disposal projects have shown that all have the same potential to poison and kill wildlife as did Kesterson. Thus, there should NEVER be a time when Westlands drain waters reach the San Joaquin River!!
It’s time to get real about the level of taxpayer subsidies that allow Westlands agribusiness to survive, when they also create environmental havoc that taxpayers then have to pay to remediate. Why should taxpayers continue supporting agriculture that has to be bailed out of its self-made problems? It’s time to wean Westlands farmers off the public purse, and make them prove that they can prosper in a free market.
More realistically, Westlands demands for taxpayer support — and the environmental destruction — both come from irrigating the land. It’s time to cut out the irrigation. Take Westlands Water District lands out of production!
Jane E. Nielson jenielson@comcast.net
–
Jane E. Nielson, Ph.D. Geologist

Comments on Debunking CA’s Water Myths

Published on January 6, 2010 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs and Water Conservation. 0 Comments
Hi Janus–
I very much disagree with aspects of the PPIC report. Everything it says is correct as far as that goes, then comes a big BUT -
The Webinar that I reported on last meeting emphasized that states which do not recognize the interconnectedness of ground and surface waters tend to overappropriate water supplies.  California is one of those, and its water supplies are, indeed, overappropriated.  CA’s legal framework on water rights actually promotes overappropriation,as does its politics.  Jared Huffman is right that water conservation should be the major focus because it is the cheapest alternative.
All technological “fixes” are extremely expensive in this era of climbing energy costs and GHG emissions. PPIC didn’t even mention the GHG aspect — I wonder why!
Fish need a healthy ecosystem but above all they need streams with water in them and fewer destructive pumps!
Jane

Debunking California’s Water Myths

Monday 21 December 2009

by: Rick Cabral, t r u t h o u t | Report

www.truthout.org/2539B6FC.jpg
(Image: brothergrimm / flickr)

Myths have been surfacing in recent months about California’s water crisis, becoming so serious that the state’s Public Policy Institute (PPIC) was forced to address the issue in a new report, “California Water Myths,” where the agency tackles eight of the most common misperceptions.

Though not as titillating as a Bigfoot sighting, the PPIC report seeks to “rebuild public policy discussions on myth-free foundations” while improving the collection, analysis, synthesis and use of accurate information about the state’s water system. The Public Policy Institute of California is an independent, nonpartisan organization, and the central message of its report is the state must improve the flow of existing information among the key stakeholders.

Topping the myth list is “California is running out of water.” In fact, the PPIC report explains, the Golden State no longer can expect abundantly cheap sources of water and will need to adapt to greater scarcity in the decades ahead.

The report’s other myths (followed by the “realities”) include:

1. [Insert villain here] is responsible for California’s water problems.

There is no true villain in California water policy, but opportunities exist for all sectors to better use and manage water.

2. We can build our way out of California’s water problems.

New infrastructure can contribute to California’s water supply solutions, but it is not a cure-all.

3. We can conserve our way out of California’s water problems.

Water conservation is important, but its effectiveness is often overstated.

4. Healthy aquatic ecosystems conflict with a healthy economy.

Healthy ecosystems provide significant value to the California economy, and many opportunities exist for mutually beneficial water management.

5. More water will lead to healthy fish populations.

Fish need more than water to thrive.

6. California’s water rights laws impede reform and sustainable management.

The legal tools for reform are already present in California’s water rights laws; we just need to start using them.

7. We can find a consensus that will keep all parties happy.

Tough tradeoffs mean that consensus is not achievable on all water issues; higher levels of government will need to assert leadership.

Although the report would appear to point fingers at the California Legislature’s lack of leadership, Ellen Hanak, director of research at PPIC, is quick to credit the state’s governing body for passing its historic legislation. The California Legislature last month passed The Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, which included an $11.14 billion general obligation bond proposal that would provide funding for California’s aging water infrastructure and for projects and programs to address the state’s ecosystem and water supply issues. “It’s a good first start in addressing a wide range of water management problems in California.”

She noted than an early draft of the water legislation included more stringent measures for monitoring groundwater storage levels. “In a modern water system,” Hanak said, “if we’re not able to accurately measure and monitor water use, it puts us in such a difficult position to make the kind of sophisticated judgments and decisions on how we want to manage that use. We’ve got to do better.”

She and her seven co-writers suggested looking at surface storage, underground storage, conservation and recycling as a “combined system” rather than as separate entities.

Assembly member Jared Huffman, chair of the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, and a key figure in the passage of the Delta water legislation, found the PPIC report useful and provocative. But he challenged its criticism of California’s conservation efforts, saying the authors made it appear the effectiveness and potential for conservation was overstated. “I completely disagree with that.”

Huffman points to the multiple benefits of water conservation – reduced energy usage, reduction in waste water discharges and cost savings – as a key tool in the overall water management tool belt. “I think the PPIC was so determined to knock down all the perspectives a few notches they went too far on this one.”

State Sen. Lois Wolk, who represents four of the five counties in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, was harsher in her assessment. “They left out the biggest myth – that the Delta can be fixed without the participation and support of the people who live, work and recreate there. I am hopeful that the federal government will get involved and make certain that the Delta counties will be at the table, and be guaranteed enough water and funding to protect the largest estuary in the Western Hemisphere.” Wolk, who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Delta Stewardship and Sustainability, opposed the series of water bills passed last month.

Hanak said the PPIC report is the first installment in a team project looking at sustainable water management in the 21st century, and sets the stage for what they’re planning down the road.

Two key areas deserve more study, she noted: Ecosystem management and managing flow for fish, and integrating more efficient water management actions.

“It’s good if the broader public policy discourse can move beyond the myth, to a more nuanced discussion of things,” she said.

Added Huffman: “They’ve certainly been trying to push us – the Legislature and the State as a whole – to take on some of these bigger challenges and move beyond our parochial trenches. We do need to take a broader and bigger look at water in California and we need to do it quickly.”

The California Water Myth report was supported with funding from S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, along with several other groups.

Which suggests that if foundations with vast resources wish to debunk a myth, it’s certainly within the realm of possibility.

--
Jane E. Nielson, Ph.D.
Geologist

(707) 829-9393

More on Western US land use, resource depletion, and wastes:
www.theamericanwestatrisk.com

Where does the world’s garbage go? Look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVQTp-m74wA

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

California Losing Groundwater Rapidly

Published on December 29, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts and Groundwater. 0 Comments

December 14, 2009 · Posted By Lauren Sommer · Filed Under Agriculture, Water

Nearly lost amid the three-ring circus of Copenhagen coverage is the annual gathering in San Francisco of the American Geophysical Union. We’re doing our best to staff selected sessions there. Climate Watch contributor Lauren Sommer was there for some grim new research on groundwater in the Central Valley.

California’s Central Valley has lost nearly enough water in the past six years to fill Lake Mead, according to NASA scientists presenting at the American Geophysical Union Conference in San Francisco this week. Nearly two-thirds of that loss 20.3 cubic kilometers of water is from groundwater depletion.

With the recent drought, groundwater has been an important water source for California’s Central Valley agriculture, but getting a picture of that water use hasn’t been easy. Water districts haven’t been required to report groundwater pumping in their areas. That’s something the recent Delta overhaul package of legislation now requires, but according to Jay Famiglietti of UC Irvine, the records to date aren’t very complete. Wells are sparse and the measurements have been sporadic.

The majority of the water loss since 2003 has been focused in the San Joaquin Basin at the southern end of the Central Valley, which is losing 3.5 cubic kilometers of water each year. The bulk of that loss is the result of groundwater depletion.

Famiglietti says this is due to a “triple threat” in California. First came the drought, then decreased water allocation and more groundwater pumping. Finally, with less surface water, the groundwater aquifers have a reduced opportunity to recharge. Famiglietti says it’s clear that California is using groundwater at an unsustainable rate, which “poses significant threats to food production in US and the California economy.”

Groundwater basins in the Central Valley. Image: NASA

This large-scale picture of California’s groundwater comes from NASA’s Grace project. Twin satellites orbiting the Earth detect changes in the gravitational field, caused by the movement of water. Those satellite measurements act like a³scale at the bottom of the ocean weighing how much water is in each of these spots,” according to NASA’s Michael Watkins. They also detect changes in snow, surface water and soil moisture.

The Grace project, though, is becoming a “senior citizen,” according to Watkins and is reaching the end of its technological life. He says quality of their water research, which has included other spots around the globe, speaks to the need for another generation of the project. Famiglietti says, though this data can’t replace ground measurements, he hopes it will be taken into account by state agencies faced with making the tough choices about California’s aquifers.

From: blogs.kqed.org

Boondogle Water Project Will Waste Water, Energy

Published on December 14, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments
I have a copy of the 1-1/2 inch thick Final EIR/EIS that was sent to SCWC. I read it yesterday and concluded that responses to comments are skimpy.
If anyone would like to read it next (to save downloading), you may pick it up from me at 3746 Spring Creek Drive in Santa Rosa. Call first: 544-8109.
Stephen
In a message dated 11/28/2009 10:48:14 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, dkeller@eelriver.org writes:
Got water? Got enough water in the Russian and Eel Rivers? Got treated wastewater to sell to Napa Valley and Sonoma Valley grape growers who’ve overdrafted their local groundwater and surface supplies, and want more cheap water?
The North Bay Water Reuse Authority members – composed of SCWA, Novato Sanitary District, Las Gallinas Sanitary District, Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (Bd. of Supes), and the Napa Sanitary District – apparently haven’t been reading the stories and State and Federal mandates over the past few years about the lack of predictability of expanding future potable water supplies, and how best to use the recyclable treated water for the primary objective of offsetting current and future scarce potable water supplies.
Instead, they’ve they’ve put together a massive Bureau of Reclamation water transfer and pumping project to find new customers for this precious water, now incarnated as treated wastewater.  This federal/local project, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, proposes to ship treated waste water that originated from our Russian and Eel Rivers and Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater that was originally sold and delivered by SCWA to the North Marin Water District (serving Novato), MMWD (serving northern San Rafael), Valley of the Moon and the City of Sonoma. (Napa gets its water from local surface supplies and the State Water Project.) After those contractors’ customers use the water, the wastewater is treated by the members of the NBWRA.  While there is a very valuable use of a small fraction of this water for flushing out the old Cargill Salt Ponds (San Pablo Bay Marsh Restoration Project) to hasten restoration of functioning salt marsh habitat, this is a very small component of this huge water transfer, and doesn’t merit the intentional and unintentional consequences of this massive US Bureau of Reclamation Project. While SCWA has proclaimed that they want to be ‘carbon neutral’ and the most “green” water agency in the state or the country, they’ve not included any significant carbon or GHG offsets for this massive pumping and plumbing project.
Despite several years of talking, pleading, educating and presenting alternatives that would demand local reuse to offset potable water demands on the beleagured Russian and Eel River systems, NBWRA has just released the Final EIR, full steam ahead.
Your review is essential.  Your comments are critical. Do you think that the Russian River System should be used to support overdrafted supplies for grape growers in southern Sonoma and Napa Valleys?  Do we really have water to spare originating from the Russian River and Eel Rivers? Or should SCWA be demanding that its co-participants do a much better job of using this valuable water in concert with NMWD, MMWD, Sonoma and Valley of the Moon Water District to supply their existing customers with treated wastewater and getting more reuse out of their residential, commercial, industrial and institutional customers?  With the NBWRA in place, there will be very little incentive to spend the time and money to implement these strategies necessary for our water futures.  In fact, with NBWRA in place, there will be huge income stream incentives to sell the treated wastewater to new customers instead. Alternative 1 is the closest they’ve allowed to a smaller, more localized program, but even that is huge, and expands water usage to thousands of acres of new agricultural customers.
The timeline for your comments is very short:
SCWA Board of Directors will hold their public hearing on certifying the FEIR on Dec. 8th! Additional participating agencies will hold their hearings between 12/10 and 12/16 (see below). Send your written comments to:
Marc Bautista SCWA PO Box 11628 Santa Rosa 95406-1628 (707) 547-1923 Marc.Bautista@scwa.ca.gov

I have a copy of the 1-1/2 inch thick Final EIR/EIS that was sent to SCWC. I read it yesterday and concluded that responses to comments are skimpy.

If anyone would like to read it next (to save downloading), you may pick it up from me at 3746 Spring Creek Drive in Santa Rosa. Call first: 544-8109.

Stephen

Got water? Got enough water in the Russian and Eel Rivers? Got treated wastewater to sell to Napa Valley and Sonoma Valley grape growers who’ve overdrafted their local groundwater and surface supplies, and want more cheap water?

The North Bay Water Reuse Authority members – composed of SCWA, Novato Sanitary District, Las Gallinas Sanitary District, Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (Bd. of Supes), and the Napa Sanitary District – apparently haven’t been reading the stories and State and Federal mandates over the past few years about the lack of predictability of expanding future potable water supplies, and how best to use the recyclable treated water for the primary objective of offsetting current and future scarce potable water supplies.

Instead, they’ve they’ve put together a massive Bureau of Reclamation water transfer and pumping project to find new customers for this precious water, now incarnated as treated wastewater.

This federal/local project, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, proposes to ship treated waste water that originated from our Russian and Eel Rivers and Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater that was originally sold and delivered by SCWA to the North Marin Water District (serving Novato), MMWD (serving northern San Rafael), Valley of the Moon and the City of Sonoma. (Napa gets its water from local surface supplies and the State Water Project.) After those contractors’ customers use the water, the wastewater is treated by the members of the NBWRA.

While there is a very valuable use of a small fraction of this water for flushing out the old Cargill Salt Ponds (San Pablo Bay Marsh Restoration Project) to hasten restoration of functioning salt marsh habitat, this is a very small component of this huge water transfer, and doesn’t merit the intentional and unintentional consequences of this massive US Bureau of Reclamation Project. While SCWA has proclaimed that they want to be ‘carbon neutral’ and the most “green” water agency in the state or the country, they’ve not included any significant carbon or GHG offsets for this massive pumping and plumbing project.

Despite several years of talking, pleading, educating and presenting alternatives that would demand local reuse to offset potable water demands on the beleagured Russian and Eel River systems, NBWRA has just released the Final EIR, full steam ahead.

Your review is essential.  Your comments are critical. Do you think that the Russian River System should be used to support overdrafted supplies for grape growers in southern Sonoma and Napa Valleys?

Do we really have water to spare originating from the Russian River and Eel Rivers?

Or should SCWA be demanding that its co-participants do a much better job of using this valuable water in concert with NMWD, MMWD, Sonoma and Valley of the Moon Water District to supply their existing customers with treated wastewater and getting more reuse out of their residential, commercial, industrial and institutional customers?

With the NBWRA in place, there will be very little incentive to spend the time and money to implement these strategies necessary for our water futures.  In fact, with NBWRA in place, there will be huge income stream incentives to sell the treated wastewater to new customers instead. Alternative 1 is the closest they’ve allowed to a smaller, more localized program, but even that is huge, and expands water usage to thousands of acres of new agricultural customers.

The timeline for your comments is very short:

SCWA Board of Directors will hold their public hearing on certifying the FEIR on Dec. 8th! Additional participating agencies will hold their hearings between 12/10 and 12/16 (see below). Send your written comments to:

Marc Bautista SCWA PO Box 11628 Santa Rosa 95406-1628 (707) 547-1923 Marc.Bautista@scwa.ca.gov

California Water Rights Primer

Published on December 6, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Environmental Impacts, Groundwater, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Water Conservation. 0 Comments

This came in over the transom from GPCA and seems pretty useful.

~Bernie

California Water Rights Primer
http://www.c-win.org/water-rights-primer.html
To mobilize water for human use, our society grants property rights to use water. No one is allowed to hoard or possess it because of its intrinsic properties and its necessity to all life and economic activity. The rights to use water also carry obligations to other water right holders, particularly not to harm the rights of other water right holders and not to harm the environment.
It is said by water lawyers, that water rights are social policy in times of drought.
In California, these are the more important types of water rights:

Riparian Rights
Appropriative Rights
Prescriptive Rights
Overlying Rights
Search the State Water Board’s EWRIMS database for water right holders in your watershed (NOTE: Does not include groundwater users.)

Useful Water Rights Information from the State Water Board
Area of Origin Rights

The Big Water Projects in California Water Contractors

Through case law (that is, litigation), the California Supreme Court established that  riparian right holders have priority for diverting and using water over most (if not all) appropriative right holders. Appropriators may divert only what is surplus to what riparian right holders divert from a stream. 

Among appropriators in California, those with pre-1914 dates for filing their water claims have earliest priority each year to divert and use water. Their rights are not subject to review by the State Water Board. Appropriators whose rights come after 1914 have permits issued by the State of California that are subject to approval and review by the State Water Board. Actions before the State Water Board most commonly affect these water right holders. Until recently (see our analysis of the Delta water legislation and the 2010 water bond, coming soon!), the State Water Board has little, if any, jurisdiction over the water rights of riparians or pre-1914 appropriators.

In many California watersheds, however, few right holders know exactly what they are entitled to. This can give rise to conflict and litigation between neighbors or large water users seeking water from the same watershed. In some rivers and streams and groundwater basins, conflict has been resolved through “adjudication,” a process by which a judge hears all available evidence and then issues a decision dividing the waters between the water right holders in the watershed or groundwater basin. While usually effective in resolving conflict, adjudication of a water body is expensive and can take many years.

Restoration Project in Dry Creek for Lake Sonoma Water

Published on November 30, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Environmental Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments
nderstood and agreed. The price tag and other opportunity costs should be looked out.
From your disingenuous and aged (assuming disingenuous means fast for an old guy – that is what he meant didn’t he?) friend.
It is safe to say that there are no sure things in most human endeavors, and when one throws in an unruly natural system such as a river, predictability diminishes further. That said, there are a couple of factors that should be kept in mind regarding Dry Creek:
1. It is a regulated river with a relatively predictable flow regime, even including flood control releases, which will greatly reduce the potential for restoration works to be damaged.
2. Another aspect of regulation is that most of the historic sediment supply to Dry Creek lies upstream of the dam, consequently inputs of gravel are significantly reduced, limiting the size and extent of gravel bars that may form in response to high flow events and that in unregulated systems would be expected to be a major source of trouble for restoration works.
3. The balance of risk-reward for coho salmon habitat enhancement in Dry Creek appears very favorable given the volume of cold water habitat available, particularly when combined with conditions 1 & 2.
4. The reduced gravel load could be limiting for spawning habitat, depending on the supplies derived from the remaining tributaries, but there are some brute force solutions for that problem (dump trucks of spawning gravel added to the channel periodically).
Successful habitat enhancement in Dry Creek looks like a pretty good bet, and it is far less ambitious and far less complex than the plans for the Trinity River.
I agree with Alan Levine’s perspective that it may be wiser to improve watershed conditions without intervening too aggressively in stream channels as a strategy for unregulated rivers. Perhaps that is relevant for Dry Creek tributaries below the dam.
Matt O’Connor, PhD CEG O’Connor Environmental, Inc. Healdsburg
—– Original Message—–
From: Alan Levine [mailto:alevine@mcn.org]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 7:36 PM
To: Adina Merenlender; ‘Carolyn Wasem’; ‘Al Cadd’; ‘Al Nelson’; ‘Alea’;
b. andersson@comcast.net; ‘Bill Cox’; ‘Bill Hearn’; ‘Bob Coey’; ‘Bob Klamt’; ‘Brenda Adelman’; ‘Brian Johnson’; ‘Charlette R.R. Epifanio’; ‘Chuck Bonham’; ‘Colleen Fernald’; ‘Darcy Aston’; ‘David Lewis’; ‘David Manning’; ‘David Ripple’; ‘Dick Butler’; ‘Eric Larson’; ‘Fred Euphrat’; ‘Gail Davis’; ‘Glen Wright’; ‘Jake Mackenzie’; ‘Jane Nielson’; jcollins@kjmail.com; ‘Jennifer Barrett’; ‘Jeremy Sarrow’; ‘John Perry’; ‘Joseph Dillon’; ‘Kara Heckert’; ‘Kate Symonds’; ‘katie Rump’; ‘keith woods’; ‘Lex McCorvey’; ‘Lisa Hulette’; ‘Luana Kiger’; ‘Marc Kelley’; ‘Mary Ann King’; ‘Matt’; ‘Matt Deitch’; ‘Michael Bowen’; ‘Michael D. Corrigan’; ‘Michael Dillabough’; ‘mike B’; ‘Mike Ban’; ‘Nick Frey’; pdowns@kjmail.com; ‘Pete Dayton’; ‘Peter Kiel’; ‘Rachel Golden’; ‘Ralph Locke’; ‘Richard Roos Collins’; ‘Roger Foote’; ‘Ron Rolleri’; ‘S Canter’; ‘Scott Wilson’; ‘Stephen’; ‘Susan Gorin’; ‘Thomas Moore’; ‘Tom Eakin’; ‘Valerie Termini’; ‘Walt Ryan’; ‘Zukowski’ Cc: SCWaterCoalition@yahoogroups.com; rrkeeper@sonic.net; jonathan.birdsong@mail.house.gov Subject: Re: restoration outcomes follow up
Salmon Coalition Group
Yes Something to think about.
After be characterized as being disingenuous by the SCWA Rep – for mentioning that restoration in Dry Creek, as proposed, is a bit of a gamble.
I have worked on and with restoration efforts since 1992. Playing with streams has outcomes that are quite surprising – even if done by the best scientists and experts in the filed. Sometimes we humans are not as smart as we think we are.
For now, feel comfortable in the restoration game by staying mostly out of the stream – fixing roads and erosion sources, planting riparian, and throwing a few logs in.
The fact that the discharges into Dry Creek can be somewhat controlled may help – but outcomes are still up for grabs.
Do not forget – it will take big money to run this project. There might be other more reasonable use of these funds.
So after the “disingenuous” comment (the author lacking the true meaning of the word) – I might say that there is a of something floating around here that I can not quite put a name to.
Please pay attention to the Science.
At 05:26 PM 10/30/2009, Adina Merenlender wrote:
Hola mis amigos,
A little follow up to Wednesday’s meeting.. Unfortunately, we know very little about river restoration outcomes due to a general lack of quantitative pre- and post- project assessment and monitoring. This is, however, improving with an increased focus on monitoring and adaptive management. Attached is one of the more comprehensive studies of restoration outcomes in California.
G. M. KONDOLF, S. ANDERSON, R. LAVE, L. PAGANO,
A. MERENLENDER AND E. S. BERNHARDT 2007 Two Decades of River Restoration in California: What Can We Learn? Restoration Ecology
We took a slightly different approach looking at projects in the Russian River Basin in a paper I have also attached from the same journal. CHRISTIAN-SMITH J. and A. M. MERENLENDER 2008 The Disconnect Between Restoration Goals and Practices: A Case Study of Watershed Restoration in the Russian River Basin, California Restoration Ecology
Thank you all for appreciating the importance of science in the work you do as a coalition.
Buen fin de semana, Adina Merenlender
Alan Levine
Salmon Coalition Group
Yes Something to think about.
After be characterized as being disingenuous by the SCWA Rep – for mentioning that restoration in Dry Creek, as proposed, is a bit of a gamble.
I have worked on and with restoration efforts since 1992. Playing with streams has outcomes that are quite surprising – even if done by the best scientists and experts in the filed. Sometimes we humans are not as smart as we think we are.
For now, feel comfortable in the restoration game by staying mostly out of the stream – fixing roads and erosion sources, planting riparian, and throwing a few logs in.
The fact that the discharges into Dry Creek can be somewhat controlled may help – but outcomes are still up for grabs.
Do not forget – it will take big money to run this project. There might be other more reasonable use of these funds.
So after the “disingenuous” comment (the author lacking the true meaning of the word) – I might say that there is a of something floating around here that I can not quite put a name to.
Please pay attention to the Science.
Hola mis amigos,
A little follow up to Wednesday’s meeting.. Unfortunately, we know very little about river restoration outcomes due to a general lack of quantitative pre- and post- project assessment and monitoring. This is, however, improving with an increased focus on monitoring and adaptive management. Attached is one of the more comprehensive studies of restoration outcomes in California.
G. M. KONDOLF, S. ANDERSON, R. LAVE, L. PAGANO,
A. MERENLENDER AND E. S. BERNHARDT 2007 Two Decades of River Restoration in California: What Can We Learn? Restoration Ecology
We took a slightly different approach looking at projects in the Russian River Basin in a paper I have also attached from the same journal. CHRISTIAN-SMITH J. and A. M. MERENLENDER 2008 The Disconnect Between Restoration Goals and Practices: A Case Study of Watershed Restoration in the Russian River Basin, California Restoration Ecology
Thank you all for appreciating the importance of science in the work you do as a coalition.
Buen fin de semana, Adina Merenlender
Alan Levine
Alan,
Understood and agreed. The price tag and other opportunity costs should be looked out.
From your disingenuous and aged (assuming disingenuous means fast for an old guy – that is what he meant didn’t he?) friend.
It is safe to say that there are no sure things in most human endeavors, and when one throws in an unruly natural system such as a river, predictability diminishes further. That said, there are a couple of factors that should be kept in mind regarding Dry Creek:
1. It is a regulated river with a relatively predictable flow regime, even including flood control releases, which will greatly reduce the potential for restoration works to be damaged.
2. Another aspect of regulation is that most of the historic sediment supply to Dry Creek lies upstream of the dam, consequently inputs of gravel are significantly reduced, limiting the size and extent of gravel bars that may form in response to high flow events and that in unregulated systems would be expected to be a major source of trouble for restoration works.
3. The balance of risk-reward for coho salmon habitat enhancement in Dry Creek appears very favorable given the volume of cold water habitat available, particularly when combined with conditions 1 & 2.
4. The reduced gravel load could be limiting for spawning habitat, depending on the supplies derived from the remaining tributaries, but there are some brute force solutions for that problem (dump trucks of spawning gravel added to the channel periodically).
Successful habitat enhancement in Dry Creek looks like a pretty good bet, and it is far less ambitious and far less complex than the plans for the Trinity River.
I agree with Alan Levine’s perspective that it may be wiser to improve watershed conditions without intervening too aggressively in stream channels as a strategy for unregulated rivers. Perhaps that is relevant for Dry Creek tributaries below the dam.
Matt O’Connor, PhD CEG O’Connor Environmental, Inc. Healdsburg

State Water Budget?

Published on November 19, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

Say for instance we had a practical realistic state water budget, would it be prudent to plug in a reasonable metric or estimate of what illegal water users are using in order to get a handle on water usage and projected uses?

For instance if a well capitalized business drills 2 separate but close 24 inch bores 600 feet deep within a declining aquifer in a “race to the bottom” and pumps 200 GPM each for commercial use, this adds up to about 2.3 billion gallons a year.

You can’t even begin to figure this problem out in light of other miss-reported or illegal uses with-in the same complex basin. Since the aquifer is misunderstood and comprised of complex sub-alluvial fan deposits it is unlikely that the true damage of the abusive extraction will ever be quantified or modeled properly. (I am talking about the Rohnert Park Graton Rancheria Casino appendix – Y : water well construction description).

So what’s a understaffed regulatory agency to do? I know that the USGS in Palo Alto wishes it got more love. It seems like the problem needs a lot of positive solutions from a lot of different angles.

Lloyd