Archive for the 'Conservation' Category

Response to Governor’s Declaration of a State Drought

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“Unfortunately the Governor’s executive order relies heavily on outdated strategies that have created the very problems we now seek to solve.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.

Notice of Preparation

NBWRA North Bay Water Recycling Program (formerly the North San Pablo Restoration and Reuse Project) Scoping Documents (23 pages with maps)

Project Objectives The Authority wishes to implement “A cooperative program in the San Pablo Bay region that supports sustainability and environmental enhancement by expanding the use of recycled water.” The following project objectives have been developed by the Authority for the North San Pablo Bay Restoration and Reuse Project. The project is proposed to promote the expanded beneficial use of recycled water in the North Bay region to:

  • Offset urban and agricultural demands on potable supplies;
  • Enhance local and regional ecosystems;
  • Improve local and regional water supply reliability;
  • Maintain and protect public health and safety;
  • Promote sustainable practices;
  • Give top priority to local needs for recycled water; and
  • Implement recycled water facilities in an economically viable manner.

Sonoma County Water Coalition’s Comment Regarding Water Plan

Dear Chairman Bingaman and Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
The Sonoma County Water Coalition (SCWC) includes 32 organizations representing more than 25,000 citizens in Sonoma County, California. The unifying momentum behind this coalition is a shared concern for the water resources of Sonoma County.

We urge you to defeat this defective bill (S.1472 North Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2007 Companion Bill, H.R.236) in its present form, and we offer our assistance in rewriting it in the next session to address our concerns.

SCWC has steadfastly worked since 2004 to get public policies in place to protect and restore our beleaguered water resources. This includes both the Russian River and the Eel River, which each provide home to three threatened species of federally listed salmonids, as well as overdrafted and declining groundwater basins throughout the county. Our county’s primary public water provider, the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), has recently been subject to California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) mandatory 15% cutbacks in withdrawals from the Russian River to protect Fall-run Chinook in the Russian River. SWRCB has also asked SCWA to come up with plans that involve no increases in demands for water pumped from the Russian River to supply future growth.

The necessity to plan for the long term future of reliable water supplies in our region, while protecting and restoring our natural public trust resources, has required a shift in public policy. We are working hard with public policy makers, agricultural interests, and commercial and residential ratepayers to reduce demands for potable water, to maximize water efficiencies and conservation (saving energy and greenhouse gas emissions, too), as well as supporting appropriate reuse of highly treated wastewater within the SCWA service areas to displace potable water demands, and eliminate exports of SCWA water to other regions.

We are now seeing water planning that incorporates some of the best thinking in the nation, allowing at least one city (Petaluma) to plan for its next 20 years’ growth with a zero-increment in potable water demand. This example follows the lead of other municipal water suppliers in California (including Los Angeles, East Bay Municipal Utility District and Marin Municipal Water District) which have proven that intelligent use of all water resources is not only feasible, but a requisite tool for the arid West’s future.

Unfortunately, our review of the North Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2007 (”Project”) S.1472 (Feinstein, Boxer) and H.R.236 (Thompson, Woolsey) brings us to strongly oppose this legislation.

The bill fails to set any priority that the recycled water be used to offset and reduce local potable water demands first. Instead, it provides for tens of thousands of acres of new and expanded agricultural irrigation using treated municipal wastewater derived from SCWA customers. While some of this wastewater is currently discharged into San Pablo Bay, reuse of the water to substantially reduce demands on the already overtaxed SCWA water supply system should come first.

The bill fails to set any limits on exporting water, or to mandate addressing the impacts of those withdrawals of water pumped from SCWA sources from the Russian and Eel Rivers and Sonoma county groundwater to regions outside the SCWA service area in both Sonoma and Napa counties, primarily in different watersheds.

The bill fails to provide limits on the quantities of water to be used for expanded agricultural irrigation and environmental restoration in the proposed Project areas.

The bill fails to provide limits on how far the pipelines and pumps may be built.

The bill fails to provide limits on future use of the pipelines, particularly the plumbing that would serve the Napa-Sonoma Marsh Restoration Project at the tail end of the Project pipeline.

Continue reading ‘Sonoma County Water Coalition’s Comment Regarding Water Plan’

Scoping Meeting on North Bay Water Reuse, Petaluma

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

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

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

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

Water Scarcity: The Real Food Crisis

By Fred Pearce, Yale Environment, June 2008.

In the discussion of the global food emergency, one underlying factor is barely mentioned: The world is running out of freshwater.

After decades in the doldrums, food prices have been soaring this year, causing more misery for the world’s poor than any credit crunch. The geopolitical shockwaves have spread round the world, with food riots in Haiti, strikes over rice shortages in Bangladesh, tortilla wars in Mexico, and protests over bread prices in Egypt.

The immediate cause is declining grain stocks, which have encouraged speculators, hoarders, and panic-buyers. But what are the underlying trends that have sown the seeds for this perfect food storm?

Biofuels are part of it, clearly. A quarter of U.S. corn is now converted to ethanol, powering vehicles rather than filling stomachs or fattening livestock. And the rising oil prices that encouraged the biofuels boom are also raising food prices by making fertilizer, pesticides, and transport more expensive.

But there is something else going on that has hardly been mentioned, and that some believe is the great slow-burning, and hopelessly underreported, resource crisis of the 21st century: water.

Climate change, overconsumption and the alarmingly inefficient use of this most basic raw material are all to blame. I wrote a book three years ago titled When The Rivers Run Dry. It probed why the Yellow River in China, the Rio Grande and Colorado in the United States, the Nile in Egypt, the Indus in Pakistan, the Amu Darya in Central Asia, and many others are all running on empty. The confident blue lines in a million atlases simply do not tell the truth about rivers sucked dry, for the most part, to irrigate food crops.

We are using these rivers to death. And we are also pumping out underground water reserves almost everywhere in the world. With two-thirds of the water abstracted from nature going to irrigate crops — a figure that rises above 90 percent in many arid countries — water shortages equal food shortages.

Consider the two underlying causes of the current crisis over world food prices: falling supplies from some of the major agricultural regions that supply world markets, and rising demand in booming economies like China and India.

Why falling supplies? Farm yields per hectare have been stagnating in many countries for a while now. The green revolution that caused yields to soar 20 years ago may be faltering. But the immediate trigger, according to most analysts, has been droughts, particularly in Australia, one of the world’s largest grain exporters, but also in some other major suppliers, like Ukraine. Australia’s wheat exports were 60 percent down last year; its rice exports were 90 percent down.

Why rising demand? China has received most of the blame here — its growing wealth is certainly raising demand, especially as richer citizens eat more meat. But China traditionally has always fed itself — what’s different now is that the world’s most populous country is no longer able to produce all its own food.

A few years ago, the American agronomist and environmentalist Lester Brown wrote a book called Who Will Feed China?: Wake Up Call for a Small Planet. It predicted just this. China can no longer feed itself largely because demand is rising sharply at a time when every last drop of water in the north of the country, its major breadbasket, is already taken. The Yellow River, which drains most of the region, now rarely reaches the sea, except for the short monsoon season.

Some press reports have recently suggested that China is being sucked dry to provide water for the Beijing Olympics. Would that it were so simple. The Olympics will require only trivial amounts of water. China’s water shortages are deep-seated, escalating, and tied to agriculture. Even hugely expensive plans to bring water from the wetter south to the arid north will only provide marginal relief.

The same is true of India, the world’s second most populous country. Forty years ago, India was a basket case. Millions died in famines. The green revolution then turned India into a food exporter. Its neighbor Bangladesh came to rely on India for rice. But Indian food production has stagnated recently, even as demand from richer residents has soared. And the main reason is water.

With river water fully used, Indian farmers have been trying to increase supplies by tapping underground reserves. In the last 15 years, they have bought a staggering 20 million Yamaha pumps to suck water from beneath their fields. Tushaar Shah, director of the International Water Management Institute’s groundwater research station in Gujarat, estimates those farmers are pumping annually to the surface 100 cubic kilometers more water than the monsoon rains replace. Water tables are plunging, and in many places water supplies are giving out.

“We are living hand-to-mouth,” says D.P. Singh, president of the All India Grain Exporters Association, who blames water shortages for faltering grain production. Last year India began to import rice, notably from Australia. This year, it stopped supplying its densely populated neighbor Bangladesh, triggering a crisis there too.

More and more countries are up against the limits of food production because they are up against the limits of water supply. Most of the Middle East reached this point years ago. In Egypt, where bread riots occurred this spring, the Nile River no longer reaches the sea because all its water is taken for irrigation.

A map of world food trade increasingly looks like a map of the water haves and have-nots, because in recent years the global food trade has become almost a proxy trade in water — or rather, the water needed to grow food. “Virtual water,” some economists call it. The trade has kept the hungry in dry lands fed. But now that system is breaking down, because there are too many buyers and not enough sellers.

According to estimates by UNESCO’s hydrology institute, the world’s largest net supplier of virtual water until recently was Australia. It exported a staggering 70 cubic kilometers of water a year in the form of crops, mainly food. With the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’s main farming zone, virtually dry for the past two years, that figure has been cut in half.

The largest gross exporter of virtual water is the United States, but its exports have also slumped as corn is diverted to domestic biofuels, and because of continuing drought in the American West.

The current water shortages should not mark an absolute limit to food production around the world. But it should do three things. It should encourage a rethinking of biofuels, which are themselves major water guzzlers. It should prompt an expanding trade in food exported from countries that remain in water surplus, such as Brazil. And it should trigger much greater efforts everywhere to use water more efficiently.

On a trip to Australia in the midst of the 2006 drought, I was staggered to see that farmers even in the most arid areas still irrigate their fields mostly by flooding them. Until the water runs out, that is. Few have adopted much more efficient drip irrigation systems, where water is delivered down pipes and discharged close to roots. And, while many farmers are expert at collecting any rain that falls on their land, they sometimes allow half of that water to evaporate from the surfaces of their farm reservoirs.

For too long, we have seen water as a cheap and unlimited resource. Those days are coming to an end — not just in dry places, but everywhere. For if the current world food crisis shows anything, it is that in an era of global trade in “virtual water,” local water shortages can reverberate throughout the world — creating higher food prices and food shortages everywhere.

Fred Pearce is a freelance author and journalist based in the UK. He is an environment consultant for New Scientist magazine and author of recent books “When The Rivers Run Dry” and “With Speed and Violence” (Beacon Press).

Life, Liberty, Water

Maude Barlow, YES! Magazine, June 2008

As climate change and worldwide shortages loom, will people fight over water or join together to protect it? A global water justice movement is demanding a change in international law to ensure the universal right to clean water for all.

It’s a colossal failure of political foresight that water has not emerged as an important issue in the U.S. Presidential campaign. The links between oil, war, and U.S. foreign policy are well known. But water - whether we treat it as a public good or as a commodity that can be bought and sold - will in large part determine whether our future is peaceful or perilous.

Americans use water even more wastefully than oil. The U.S relies on non-renewable groundwater for 50 percent of its daily use, and 36 states now face serious water shortages, some verging on crisis.

Meanwhile, dwindling freshwater supplies around the world, inequitable access to water, and corporate control of water, together with impending climate change from fossil fuel emissions, have created a life-or-death situation across the planet.

Both Democrats and Republicans have emphasized loosening U.S. dependence on nonrenewable energy resources in their platforms, but neither party gives significant air time to the threats posed by water shortages.

This is not to say that no one is paying attention. In fact, water has become a key strategic security and foreign policy priority for the United States government.

Cut Deals, Carry Water

Corporate interests have pursued schemes to privatize, commodify, and export water for decades. We have seen how this plays out in Canada. For instance, in the late 1990s, Sun Belt Water, Inc., sued the Canadian government under NAFTA because British Columbia banned water exports, preventing a deal that would have sent B.C. water to California. Corporations have also made attempts to ship Canadian water as far as Asia and the Middle East, proposals that fizzled after fierce opposition from public citizens who were beginning to understand the dangers of permanently removing water from local ecosystems and placing it under corporate control.

Now the Pentagon, as well as various U.S. security think tanks, have decided that water supplies, like energy supplies, must be secured if the United States is to maintain its current economic and military power in the world. And the United States is exerting pressure to access Canadian water, despite Canada’s own shortages.

Under the name, “North American Future 2025 Project,” the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) brought together high level government officials and business executives from Canada, the United States, and Mexico for a series of six meetings to discuss a wide range of issues related to the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a controversial and tightly guarded set of negotiations to expand NAFTA.
“As … globalization continues and the balance of power potentially shifts, and risks to global security evolve, it is only prudent for Canadian, Mexican, and U.S. policymakers to contemplate a North American security architecture that could effectively deal with security threats that can be foreseen in 2025,” said a leaked copy of a CSIS backgrounder.

On the agenda for one of two meetings in Calgary were, “water consumption, water transfers, and artificial diversions of bulk water” with the aim of achieving “joint optimum utilization of the available water.”

The water and security connection deepens with the fact that Sandia National Laboratories, a vital partner with CSIS in its Global Water Futures Project, also plays a major role in military security in the United States. While Sandia is technically owned by the U.S. government, and reports to the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, its management is contracted out to Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest weapons manufacturer.

Ralph Pentland, water consultant and primary author of the Canadian government’s Federal Water Policy in 1987, believes that the purpose of these cross-border discussions is to secure sufficient water for Alberta tar sands production in order to ensure uninterrupted oil supplies to the United States. Energy extraction would be far more attractive if a new source of water - potentially from northern Canada - could be brought to the tar sands through pipelines or other diversions. As long as the water doesn’t cross the international border, it is within Alberta’s power to do this.

These schemes to displace water from one ecosystem to another in the service of corporate profit are an environmental problem for the entire planet, which is another reason why water must form a crucial part of any progressive discussion around U.S. dependence on foreign energy resources.

Corporate interests understand the connection and are using it to make their case for private solutions to the water crisis. In language that will be familiar to critics who argued that the United States invaded Iraq not for democracy but for access to oil and profits for corporations, a 2005 report from CSIS’s Global Water Futures project had this to say about water:

“Water issues are critical to U.S. national security and integral to upholding American values of humanitarianism and democratic development. Moreover, engagement with international water issues guarantees business opportunity for the U.S. private sector, which is well positioned to contribute to development and reap economic reward.”

Water for All

Clearly, the powers that be in the United States have decided that water is not a public good but a private resource that must be secured by whatever means.

But there are alternatives.

North Americans must learn to live within our means, by conserving water in agriculture and in the home. We could learn from the many examples here and beyond our borders-from the New Mexican “Acequia” system that uses an ancient natural ditch irrigation tradition to distribute water in arid lands to the International Rainwater Harvesting Alliance in Geneva, that works globally to promote sustainable rainwater harvesting programs.

Conservation strategies would undermine the massive investment now going into corporate technological and infrastructure solutions, such as desalination, wastewater reuse, and water transfer projects. And conservation would be many times cheaper, a boon to the public but not to the corporate interests that are currently driving international water agreements.

At the grassroots, a global water justice movement is demanding a change in international law to settle once and for all the question of who controls water, and whether responses to the water crisis will ensure water for the public or profits for corporations. Ricardo Petrella has led a movement in Italy to recognize access to water as a basic human right, which has support among politicians at every level. The Coalition in Defense of Public Water in Ecuador is demanding that the government amend the constitution to recognize the right to water. The Coalition Against Water Privatization in South Africa is challenging the practice of water metering before the Johannesburg High Court on the basis that it violates the human rights of Soweto’s citizens. Dozens of groups in Mexico have joined COMDA, the Coalition of Mexican Organizations for the Right to Water, a national campaign for a constitutional guarantee of water for the public.

The U.S. and Canada are the only two countries actively blocking international attempts to recognize water as a human right. But movements in both countries are working to change that. A large network of human rights, faith-based, labor, and environmental groups in Canada has formed Canadian Friends of the Right to Water to get the Canadian government to support a U.N. right-to-water covenant. And a network in the United States led by Food and Water Watch is calling for a national water trust to ensure safekeeping of the nation’s water assets and a change of government policy on the right to water.

Such campaigns may have a fight ahead of them, but the vision is within reach: a United Nations covenant that recognizes the right of the Earth and other species to clean water, pledges to protect and conserve the world’s water supplies, and forms an agreement between those countries who have water and those who don’t to work toward local - not corporate - control of water. We must acknowledge water as a fundamental human right for all.

Maude Barlow wrote this article as part of “A Just Foreign Policy,” the Summer 2008 issue of YES! Magazine . Maude is the national chairperson of the Council of Canadians and author of “Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water.” —From truthout.org

Sonoma County Water and Lake Sonoma

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