Archive for the 'Agriculture Impacts' Category

Response to Governor’s Declaration of a State Drought

Published
by
Larry
on August 15, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Conservation, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

To dam or not to dam?

Sorry, Arnold, that’s not even the question.

We have to manage our water resources and watersheds as if we had to drink from them for at least the next 150 years.

Minimizing our water demands, protecting our water’s quality, restoring fish and wildlife habitat and populations, increasing efficiencies and creating regionally working solutions are essential to our future.

The governor’s plan won’t do this.

Let the governor and your legislators know that we need to do better. We can’t afford not to.

Thank you,
David Keller
Bay Area Director, Friends of the Eel River

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mindy McIntyre, 916 541-8825
June 4, 2008

Planning and Conservation League Issues Statement on Governor’s Declaration of a State Drought

(SACRAMENTO) - The Planning and Conservation League, a leading statewide conservation advocacy coalition, today issued the following statement from Executive Director Traci Sheehan Van Thull regarding Governor Schwarzenegger’s drought proclamation:

“Governor Schwarzenegger’s drought proclamation offers up a challenge - and an opportunity - for all Californians to conserve water and to work together to find new solutions to solve our water problems.

“Unfortunately the Governor’s executive order relies heavily on outdated strategies that have created the very problems we now seek to solve. We encourage the Governor to embrace measures that will allow California to grow without increasing demand on already over-allocated water sources. We need strong policies that can decrease water demand, provide climate-resilient water supplies, and truly provide relief for the communities, fisherman, businesses and ecosystems that are suffering from lack of reliable water.

“More and more residents and businesses are facing severe water rationing in California, while water demands and communities continue to grow. While the Governor’s proclamation references the need to provide water for our growth, his executive order relies heavily on the same sources of water that are now in decline.”

“Measures such as Assembly Member Krekorian’s Water Efficiency Security Act, co-sponsored by the Planning and Conservation League, would help prevent rationing by ensuring growing California communities have the water they need without further increasing water demand on over-burdened water resources. However, despite a groundswell of support from local water agencies, to city councils, community groups and conservation organizations, this pivotal measure failed to gain traction in the State Assembly.

“Ensuring that new growth in California will not lead to increased rationing and exacerbate the pending water crisis is a critical step to solving California’s water crisis. The Planning and Conservation League has a 43-year history of working toward ensuring there is enough water for all Californians, and we pledge to work with Governor Schwarzenegger to ensure that California’s water supply meets the needs for all communities, businesses and the environment - for today and the future.”

###

The Planning and Conservation League, www.pcl.org, partners with hundreds of California environmental organizations to provide a voice in Sacramento for sound planning and responsible environmental policy.

North Bay Water Recycling Program

Published
by
Larry
on August 13, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Dear friends -

The North Bay Water Reuse Authority has gone ahead and just released their Notice of Preparation for the North Bay Water Recycling Program, the subject of HR236 and S1472. They are expediting public meetings next week to solicit comments on the scope of the project, and what should be covered in the Draft EIR. All scoping comments are due by Aug. 25th.

All of our negotiations to get a more meaningful and comprehensive list of Project Objectives were ultimately weakened significantly when SCWA’s and Napa Sanitary District’s representatives to the NBWRA decided in late May that the objectives we had negotiated since January were too detailed and restrictive for them to use in the NOP. The NBWRA’s final Project Objectives list is below.

Marc Holmes (The Bay Institute) urged them and the EIR consultants (Environmental Science Associates, Petaluma) to give us the opportunity for a more detailed discussion of scoping comments, in a special meeting with them. They have agreed to do that, to try to capture our thoughts, critiques, and more detailed objectives.

Our Scoping Meeting with them will be held next week, very likely in Petaluma. The proposed date and time is: Wednesday 8/6, 10 - 11.30 am, Petaluma (location to be determined)
Please confirm your availability a.s.a.p. - email me at my address above, so I’ll know how large a room we need. (if you have a better location central to all of us, please let us know)

This is our next real opportunity to try to shape this project to protect our source waters of the Russian & Eel Rivers and S.R. Plain groundwaters. Please let me know asap of your availability. In part they are using this meeting to gauge our fortitude and the breadth and depth of concern beyond my own presentations to them, so a good turnout with strong comments is very important. This is our chance to tell them what should be included in the Draft EIR. (and get it on the record).

Absent your ability to attend this small group meeting, you will need to get your written comments to SCWA by Aug. 25.

FYI, the Senate bill S1472 (Feinstein) is currently on hold, pending the Bureau of Reclamation’s review of the engineering and financial feasibility, and their recommendation for this project’s eligibility on the Title XVI Water Recycling list of projects. USBR has until 12/23/08 to make that recommendation, but could act earlier (as is being urged by SCWA and other supporters).

As we’ve noted in earlier comments on this project:• This Project would send some 22-30,000 acre feet of recycled water, originally taken from the Eel and Russian Rivers and Santa Rosa Plain groundwater by SCWA and used by its contractor cities, then treated and pumped through a massive pipeline project mostly to benefit grape growers who have overdrafted their local water supplies in southern Sonoma and Napa Valleys and Solano county. We strongly believe that the highest priority for reuse of treated wastewater is to use it locally by cities to greatly reduce current and future urban demands for water from our North Coast rivers, not to create new vineyard customers. This Project dis-incentivizes local reuse by paying dischargers to pump it elsewhere.
• This SCWA-Bureau of Reclamation Project would use 5-11,000 new horsepower for pumps, but deliver only 1400-1459AF/Yr of recycled water to displace potable water demands in Novato and Sonoma. There is no proposal to offset or reduce the GHG generated by this pumping.
• The Project cost is estimated at $311-512M in capital costs, with $10-12M/yr operating costs.
• Support current and future urban reuse needs, instead of relying on new water supplies pumped from the rivers and wells. Displacing potable water now used for irrigating parks, playfields, medians, landscaping, etc, for industrial heating and cooling processes, for instance, as well as for ‘purple plumbing’ for toilets and urinals, should be the first priority for the recycled water.

• As SCWA’s own literature states: “Less is More, any time of the year. Using less water means more water in Lake Mendocino, Lake Sonoma, and the Russian River. We rely on these sources for drinking water, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities.”

The NBay Water Reuse Authority is now also claiming that as wastewater treatment agencies, they have no control over trying to reduce water consumption by the water supplying agencies/contractors, so much of our concern about reducing impacts on source waters is beyond their control. “Not my problem…” Yet, the biggest fish in this pond is SCWA itself, which is the largest water purveyor on the North Coast. We will need to puncture this defensive and myopic institutional view of water resources and restoration.

Thank you for your continued support and hard work to try to make this project a showcase for reuse, instead of a 1950’s style ‘pump and pipe’ project to serve new customers.

David Keller

Scoping Meeting on North Bay Water Reuse, Petaluma

Published
by
Larry
on August 5, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Conservation, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

The special scoping session for our comments on the Notice of Preparation for the North Bay Water Reuse Program will be tomorrow:

Wednesday, 8/6, 10am - 11.30am

ESA Consultants Office  (preparers of the EIR/EIS)
1425 N. McDowell Blvd, Suite 105 (Redwood Business Park)
Petaluma, 94954
Phone: 707/ 795-0900

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=%221425+n.+mcdowell,+petaluma%22&ie=UTF8&ll=38.277203,-122.666345&spn=0.016104,0.026608&t=h&z=15

To All,

This is our opportunity to provide comments on what we believe should be included in the scope of review in the Draft EIR/EIS.

For instance:

- What alternatives should be included in their documentation, beyond their current 3 project options, “big, bigger and biggest”?
- What impacts, primary and secondary, should be examined?
- Are there better uses for this treated wastewater?
- How important is it for the Draft EIR/EIS to address impacts on the source waters (Russian R, Eel R, groundwater basins)?
- Should NWBRA member sanitary districts (and SCWA) be working to reduce through-put of water/wastewater before trying to build a system to recycle and use as much as possible, in Marin, Sonoma, Napa and Solano Counties?  Are there incentives to reduce potable water demands in the first place, or is this a vehicle to find long-term, new customers for more water usage?
- Who should pay for storage and distribution costs?
- Should this EIR/EIS be addressing ways to reach zero carbon footprint?  reduced GHG emissions?  lessened horsepower for pumping?

Please take the time to come to this important scoping session - if it’s not suggested, don’t expect SCWA and NBWRA to include your ideas.

See you tomorrow morning.  Thanks again for all your help and interest.

Sincerely,
David Keller

Want Fish? Workshop on Instream Flows–AB 2121

Published
by
Larry
on August 4, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Conservation, Gravel Mining Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Want Fish?

The State Water Resources Control Board next workshops on maintaining instream flows, draft policies for implementing AB2121 are here.

Do not let this SWRCB public workshop on minimum instream flow draft policies (AB2121) be dominated by a massive turnout by the Farm Bureau, large water sellers, and Real Estate developers, as in the last few workshops. SWRCB Board Members and staff need to hear from the rest of our communities: fisheries, environmental, water quality, good government, land use, greenbelt and open space, conscientious farmers and land stewards, hydrologists, groundwater, and taxpayers who want protection of our public trust resources for the next 10 generations.

*SWRCB workshop on AB2121 Instream Flow draft policies*

Tues 8/5, 1-5pm, Ukiah Valley Conf. Center Wed. 8/6, 1-5pm, Merlo Theater, Wells Fargo Center, Santa Rosa

The comment letters are available for viewing on the State Water NOTE: THE REGIONAL BOARD, CAG, PATRICK HIGGINS AND SONOMA COUNTY WATER COALITION HAVE GOOD Board’s website at:/ COMMENTS ON FILE

http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/HTML/instreamflow_nccs_publiccomment.html
.

Please tell them:- Talking Points Streams are in terrible shape - lower rainfall and unlawful diversion are the problem - the salmon fishery is on the ropes

Legal Framework (AB 2121 - State Water Code ) - puts responsibility on the State Water Board to solve the problem

The State Board must develop policy to support minimum by-pass flows to support fish survival

No new instream diversion should be permitted that would diminish adequate flows for fish survival

Existing illegal diversions and instream impoundments should be curtailed/removed

RECOMMENDATIONS - SHORT LIST

Apart from suggestions and discussion from above, the following summarized suggestions are made:

Proposed policy needs to be reworked to make it more understandable and enforceable

Adhering to the original Joint CDFG/NMFS Guidelines might simplify policy and related implications.

All origins of water use should be considered in Watershed Analysis and setting diversion limitations.

Watershed Analysis and condition setting for permits and license shall be consistent with all State Code (including CEQA, Water Code, and CDFG 1600 permitting) - this includes group actions.

All unauthorized onstream dams and storage facilities that block fish habitat shall be considered for removal on a prioritized basis.

Season of Diversion should be no greater than January through March.

Funding to support permitting and monitoring programs shall be developed through permit fee schedules.

A functional enforcement system shall be developed and employed.

Alan Levine

Water Board’s Workshops on Instream Flows–AB 2121

Published
by
Larry
on August 2, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Conservation, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Want Fish?

The State Water Resources Control Board next workshops on maintaining instream flows, draft policies for implementing AB2121 are here.

Do not let this SWRCB public workshop on minimum instream flow draft policies (AB2121) be dominated by a massive turnout by the Farm Bureau, large water sellers, and Real Estate developers, as in the last few workshops. SWRCB Board Members and staff need to hear from the rest of our communities: fisheries, environmental, water quality, good government, land use, greenbelt and open space, conscientious farmers and land stewards, hydrologists, groundwater, and taxpayers who want protection of our public trust resources for the next 10 generations.

Be there, or be ignored.

SWRCB workshop on AB2121 Instream Flow draft policies

Tues 8/6, 1-5pm, Ukiah Valley Conf. Center
Wed. 8/7, 1-5pm, Merlo Theater, Wells Fargo Center, Santa Rosa

The final date for submittal of written comments on the draft policy and its associated environmental document and scientific report was May 1, 2008.
The comment letters are available for viewing on the State Water Board’s website at:

http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/HTML/instreamflow_nccs_publiccomment.html.

See you there.
David Keller

Scoping Meeting for North Bay Reuse, Aug. 6, 10-11:30

Published
by
Larry
on August 1, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Conservation, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Dear friends -

The North Bay Water Reuse Authority has gone ahead and just released their Notice of Preparation for the NBay Water Recycling Program, the subject of HR236 and S1472.  They are expediting public meetings next week to solicit comments on the scope of the project, and what should be covered in the Draft EIR. All scoping comments are due by Aug. 25th.

All of our negotiations to get a more meaningful and comprehensive list of Project Objectives were ultimately weakened significantly when SCWA’s and Napa Sanitary District’s representatives to the NBWRA decided in late May that the objectives we had negotiated since January were too detailed and restrictive for them to use in the NOP.  The NBWRA’s final Project Objectives list is below.

Marc Holmes (The Bay Institute) urged them and the EIR consultants (Environmental Science Associates, Petaluma) to give us the opportunity for a more detailed discussion of scoping comments, in a special meeting with them.  They have agreed to do that, to try to capture our thoughts, critiques, and more detailed objectives.

Our Scoping Meeting with them will be held next week, very likely in Petaluma.  The proposed date and time is:
Wednesday 8/6, 10 - 11.30 am, Petaluma (location to be determined) Please confirm your availability a.s.a.p. - email me at my address above, so I’ll know how large a room we need. (if you have a better location central to all of us, please let us know)

This is our next real opportunity to try to shape this project to protect our source waters of the Russian & Eel Rivers and S.R. Plain groundwaters. Please let me know asap of your availability.  In part they are using this meeting to gauge our fortitude and the breadth and depth of concern beyond my own presentations to them, so a good turnout with strong comments is very important.  This is our chance to tell them what should be included in the Draft EIR. (and get it on the record).

Absent your ability to attend this small group meeting, you will need to get your written comments to SCWA by Aug. 25.

FYI, the Senate bill S1472 (Feinstein) is currently on hold, pending the Bureau of Reclamation’s review of the engineering and financial feasibility, and their recommendation for this project’s eligibility on the Title XVI Water Recycling list of projects.  USBR has until 12/23/08 to make that recommendation, but could act earlier (as is being urged by SCWA and other supporters).

As we’ve noted in earlier comments on this project:
This Project would send some 22-30,000 acre feet of recycled water, originally taken from the Eel and Russian Rivers and Santa Rosa Plain groundwater by SCWA and used by its contractor cities, then treated and pumped through a massive pipeline project mostly to benefit grape growers who have overdrafted their local water supplies in southern Sonoma and Napa Valleys and Solano county.  We strongly believe that the highest priority for reuse of treated wastewater is to use it locally by cities to greatly reduce current and future urban demands for water from our North Coast rivers, not to create new vineyard customers. This Project dis-incentivizes local reuse by paying dischargers to pump it elsewhere. This SCWA-Bureau of Reclamation Project would use 5-11,000 new horsepower for pumps, but deliver only 1400-1459AF/Yr of recycled water to displace potable water demands in Novato and Sonoma. There is no proposal to offset or reduce the GHG generated by this pumping. The Project cost is estimated at $311-512M in capital costs, with $10-12M/yr operating costs. Support current and future urban reuse needs, instead of relying on new water supplies pumped from the rivers and wells. Displacing potable water now used for irrigating parks, playfields, medians, landscaping, etc, for industrial heating and cooling processes, for instance, as well as for ‘purple plumbing’ for toilets and urinals, should be the first priority for the recycled water.

As SCWA’s own literature states: “Less is More, any time of the year. Using less water means more water in Lake Mendocino, Lake Sonoma, and the Russian River. We rely on these sources for drinking water, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities.”

The NBay Water Reuse Authority is now also claiming that as wastewater treatment agencies, they have no control over trying to reduce water consumption by the water supplying agencies/contractors, so much of our concern about reducing impacts on source waters is beyond their control. “Not my problem…” Yet, the biggest fish in this pond is SCWA itself, which is the largest water purveyor on the North Coast.  We will need to puncture this defensive and myopic institutional view of water resources and restoration.

Thank you for your continued support and hard work to try to make this project a showcase for reuse, instead of a 1950’s style ‘pump and pipe’ project to serve new customers.

David Keller

3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium

Published
by
Larry
on July 8, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Gravel Mining Impacts, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Hello,
SRF has two exciting events this summer: the 3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium and the 11th Annual Coho Confab. I have pasted our event announcements below. Please feel free - even encouraged! - to share these PSAs with your co-workers, constituents, list-serves, Events calendars, or other organizations you think might find these events useful and enjoyable.

Thank you for your help in spreading the word!

3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium
July 10-12, Nevada City, CA

The Salmonid Restoration Federation’s 3rd Annual Spring-run Chinook Symposium will be held in Nevada City on July 10 followed by field tours on the Yuba River and Butte Creek on July 11 & 12. Symposium speakers include UC Davis Fisheries Professor Peter Moyle who will address Ecological Perspectives on Spring-run Chinook salmon. Session topics will highlight status of populations and specific recovery opportunities for Central Valley Rivers, and recovery challenges including FERC relicensing, climate change, and resurrecting the Klamath run. Afternoon panels will representatives from DFG, NOAA Fisheries, SYRCL, State Water Board and Conservation Groups will discuss recovery through habitat expansion, water supply, and water quality improvements. Field tours will include a Yuba River float, site visits to the Bear-River Feather Set-back Project by way of the Lower Yuba, a Restoration thru Relicensing Driving Tour, Snorkeling Investigations of the South Yuba River, and a Butte Creek tour of Spring-run Fish Populations. Symposium and field tour costs are $105-135 depending on advanced registration which closes on June 15. To access the registration form, please go to: http://calsalmon.org/pdf/RegForm_8X11_050808_hi%20res.pdf

11th Annual Coho Confab
September 26-28 on the Smith River

SRF, Trees Foundation, Smith River Advisory Council, and the Smith River Alliance will host the 11th Annual Coho Confab featuring tours of Mill Creek restoration projects, erosion control and fish passage projects, underwater fish identification, macro-invertebrate sampling, networking, great music and food. Fee $100-125 includes all food and lodging. Limited scholarships and work trade positions are available.

For more info, please call 707 923-7501 or visit the SRF web site.

I hope you are having a great Spring!
Heather Reese
Project Coordinator
Salmonid Restoration Federation
PO Box 784
Redway, California 95560
(707) 923-7501
heather@calsalmon.org

Sonoma County Water and Lake Sonoma

Published
by
Larry
on July 2, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Conservation, Groundwater, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

It was envisioned and built to support and encourage regional growth.

And 25 years later, there’s plenty of water in Lake Sonoma.

The problem is getting it to the Russian River, near Wohler Bridge; taking it out again; and distributing it.

A 6/22 PD story said,

“The dam created a lake that when filled covers 3,600 acres and has a 73-mile shoreline. Its Dry Creek arm is nine miles long and its Warm Springs arm four miles. It holds a water supply of 212,000 acre-feet and a flood pool of 130,000 acre-feet.”

“The Sonoma County Water Agency has rights to 75,000 acre-feet each year for the 600,000 residents it serves in the major cities and districts from Windsor to San Rafael. The problem, however, is how to get that water to the Russian River, where the Water Agency has its pumps and ponds.

It now depends on the flow down Dry Creek, which is too fast for the steelhead and salmon that populate the creek, said Dave Manning, the Water Agency’s senior environmental specialist.
While the agency, state and federal agencies study what the optimum flow should be, the Water Agency has already begun a study to build a pipeline down Dry Creek or West Dry Creek roads to the agency’s ponds near Wohler Bridge.”

–http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080622/NEWS/806220379

The SC Supes are also the directors of the SC Water Agency; and in a PD Close To Home piece yesterday, Supes Mike Kerns and Mike Reilly wrote:

“While there is plenty of water in the lake to meet our needs, there are new challenges in getting that water to local residents and businesses.” “If communities grow as planned, more water will be needed. With increased conservation, there should be plenty in Lake Sonoma to meet demands. Again, the problem is getting it out of the lake and into faucets. At the behest of the six cities and two water districts that are its customers, the Water Agency has developed a draft plan to meet these needs. On Tuesday, the Water Agency board voted to consider releasing the plan to the public in October, after the county general plan is complete and the biological opinion has been released.”

–http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080627/OPINION05/806270329

Kerns and Reilly said:

“If communities grow as planned, more water will be needed.”

And the Supes voted to “consider” telling us how they plan to provide that water–but not until October, “after the county general plan is complete”. They make it sound easy; and they don’t mention the huge expense of building a new Dry Creek aqueduct. But more important, I don’t see how the Supes can adopt a Sonoma County General Plan consistent with state law, unless it either:

1) demonstrates that the County can and will provide Lake Sonoma water, so its communities can grow as they plan;
or,
2) makes clear that the County can’t guarantee to accomodate the water requirements of that growth.
And if the County tells the nine cities it can’t provide the water for their growth, they’ll have three choices:

1) find more water somewhere else, maybe ground water;
2) adopt extreme conservation measures;
and/or,
3) reduce the planned growth in their own general plans.

Geoff

Comments and Article on Governor’s Drought Plan

Published
by
Larry
on June 24, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Conservation, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related
. 0 Comments

Since Ag is 80% of total water useage in the State, and domestic use is less than 10%:
Out of 100 acre feet supply:
A 10% savings on domestic use would yield a one acre foot saving A 20% savings on domestic use would yield a two acre foot saving

Where with Ag use:
A 10% savings on Ag use would yield a 8 acre foot saving A 20% savings on Ag use would yield a 16 acre foot saving

A 10% savings on Ag use would double the supply available for domestic use

Do you thing there is at least 10% waste in Ag use - maybe 20% waste?

To dam or not to dam? Sorry, Arnold, that’s not even the question. We have to manage our water resources and watersheds as if we had to drink from them for at least the next 150 years. Minimizing our water demands, protecting our water’s quality, restoring fish and wildlife habitat and populations, increasing efficiencies and creating regionally working solutions are essential to our future. The governor’s plan won’t do this.

Let the governor and your legislators know that we need to do better. We can’t afford not to.

Thank you,
David Keller /Bay Area Director, Friends of the Eel River/

The Planning and Conservation League

*NEWS RELEASE*

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mindy McIntyre, 916 541-8825 June 4, 2008
* *

*Planning and Conservation League Issues Statement on Governor’s Declaration of a State Drought*

(SACRAMENTO) - The Planning and Conservation League, a leading statewide conservation advocacy coalition, today issued the following statement from Executive Director Traci Sheehan Van Thull regarding Governor Schwarzenegger’s drought proclamation:
“Governor Schwarzenegger’s drought proclamation offers up a challenge - and an opportunity - for all Californians to conserve water and to work together to find new solutions to solve our water problems.

“Unfortunately the Governor’s executive order relies heavily on outdated strategies that have created the very problems we now seek to solve. We encourage the Governor to embrace measures that will allow California to grow without increasing demand on already over-allocated water sources. We need strong policies that can decrease water demand, provide climate-resilient water supplies, and truly provide relief for the communities, fisherman, businesses and ecosystems that are suffering from lack of reliable water.

“More and more residents and businesses are facing severe water rationing in California, while water demands and communities continue to grow. While the Governor’s proclamation references the need to provide water for our growth, his executive order relies heavily on the same sources of water that are now in decline.”

“Measures such as Assembly Member Krekorian’s /Water Efficiency Security Act/, co-sponsored by the Planning and Conservation League, would help prevent rationing by ensuring growing California communities have the water they need without further increasing water demand on over-burdened water resources. However, despite a groundswell of support from local water agencies, to city councils, community groups and conservation organizations, this pivotal measure failed to gain traction in the State Assembly.

“Ensuring that new growth in California will not lead to increased rationing and exacerbate the pending water crisis is a critical step to solving California’s water crisis. The Planning and Conservation League has a 43-year history of working toward ensuring there is enough water for all Californians, and we pledge to work with Governor Schwarzenegger to ensure that California’s water supply meets the needs for all communities, businesses and the environment - for today and the future.”

Comments on the Governor’s Water Plan

Published
by
Larry
on June 17, 2008
in Agriculture Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts and Streams and Wetlands
. 0 Comments

Since Ag is 80% of total water usage in the State, and domestic use is less than 10%:

Out of 100 acre feet supply:  A 10% savings on domestic use would yield a one acre foot saving.  A 20% savings on domestic use would yield a two acre foot saving.

Where with Ag use:  A 10% savings on Ag use would yield a 8 acre foot saving.  A 20% savings on Ag use would yield a 16 acre foot saving

A 10% savings on Ag use would double the supply available for domestic use

Do you think there is at least 10% waste in Ag use - maybe 20% waste?

Alan

To dam or not to dam?  Sorry, Arnold, that’s not even the question. We have to manage our water resources and watersheds as if we had to drink from them for at least the next 150 years. Minimizing our water demands, protecting our water’s quality, restoring fish and wildlife habitat and populations, increasing efficiencies and creating regionally working solutions are essential to our future. The governor’s plan won’t do this.

Let the governor and your legislators know that we need to do better. We can’t afford not to.

Thank you,
David Keller /Bay Area Director, Friends of the Eel River

The Planning and Conservation League

*NEWS RELEASE*

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mindy McIntyre, 916 541-8825 June 4, 2008

*Planning and Conservation League Issues Statement on Governor’s Declaration of a State Drought*

(SACRAMENTO) - The Planning and Conservation League, a leading statewide conservation advocacy coalition, today issued the following statement from Executive Director Traci Sheehan Van Thull regarding Governor Schwarzenegger’s drought proclamation:
“Governor Schwarzenegger’s drought proclamation offers up a challenge - and an opportunity - for all Californians to conserve water and to work together to find new solutions to solve our water problems.

“Unfortunately the Governor’s executive order relies heavily on outdated strategies that have created the very problems we now seek to solve. We encourage the Governor to embrace measures that will allow California to grow without increasing demand on already over-allocated water sources. We need strong policies that can decrease water demand, provide climate-resilient water supplies, and truly provide relief for the communities, fisherman, businesses and ecosystems that are suffering from lack of reliable water.

“More and more residents and businesses are facing severe water rationing in California, while water demands and communities continue to grow. While the Governor’s proclamation references the need to provide water for our growth, his executive order relies heavily on the same sources of water that are now in decline.”

“Measures such as Assembly Member Krekorian’s /Water Efficiency Security Act/, co-sponsored by the Planning and Conservation League, would help prevent rationing by ensuring growing California communities have the water they need without further increasing water demand on over-burdened water resources. However, despite a groundswell of support from local water agencies, to city councils, community groups and conservation organizations, this pivotal measure failed to gain traction in the State Assembly.

“Ensuring that new growth in California will not lead to increased rationing and exacerbate the pending water crisis is a critical step to solving California’s water crisis. The Planning and Conservation League has a 43-year history of working toward ensuring there is enough water for all Californians, and we pledge to work with Governor Schwarzenegger to ensure that California’s water supply meets the needs for all communities, businesses and the environment - for today and the future.”