Switchboard, from NRDC › Barry Nelson's Blog

The Path to Success in the Bay-Delta

2012-02-14T17:45:33Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

In his State of the State address, Governor Brown emphasized his commitment to developing a visionary Bay-Delta plan that will restore the estuary and its fish, and ensure a reliable water supply. Developing this plan will require hard work, but it can be done. The Bay Area has a great deal at stake. The Bay-Delta is the defining feature of our region. It provides a cornucopia of recreational opportunities and is a major reason why people choose to live here. But this ecosystem is in trouble, as shown by the plight of Chinook salmon.

A dozen rivers, draining 40 percent of California, funnel through the Golden Gate, the most important salmon system south of the Columbia River. But in 2008, 2009 and most of 2010, California’s salmon fishery was closed – the result of collapsing Bay-Delta runs-- putting thousands of fishermen out of work and costing the state a quarter billion dollars per year. One primary reason is increased water pumping from the Delta mostly for Central Valley agriculture. In some years, less than 40 percent of natural spring flows reach the Bay, starving the estuary of nutrients and imperiling young salmon.

But we don’t have to sacrifice salmon and the health of the Bay-Delta to meet water needs. There is a way to balance our water needs that would yield benefits for all. Two years ago, the legislature passed the Delta Reform Act, with a road map for the Delta. The Act established ecosystem protection as a “co-equal goal” for management, ending decades of narrow focus on increasing diversions. The law established a policy of reducing reliance on Delta water by increasing water efficiency. It also directed the State Water Resources Control Board to determine the flows needed for a healthy ecosystem. (They did so, concluding that restoring the Bay-Delta will require diverting far less.)

The legislature charted a path to success in the divisive debate over the Delta. A successful effort will mean less pumping and increased water conservation, water recycling and more – so that Central Valley farmers and Southern Californians can meet their needs with less Delta water. It will entail wetland restoration and flood protection investments. It might include a new facility to convey water around the Delta, if designed carefully and accompanied by strong protections built on a solid scientific foundation. Finally, it must be founded on fiscal reality. No public agency has resources to squander on overbuilt infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, an ambitious process that is developing a long-term Bay-Delta conservation strategy, has focused almost exclusively on a massive new facility to pump more water from an ecosystem that is already flow-starved, and has largely ignored the scientific findings of the State Water Resources Control Board, the National Research Council, the Delta Independent Science Board and others. This isn’t the path to success.

Returning to the path the legislature established will require state and federal agency leadership. They can’t turn this process over to water users and must give all an equal role in shaping this critical plan.

If we work together to use the water we consume more wisely, we can continue to grow California’s economy, restore fishing jobs, and protect the heritage represented by this natural treasure. There’s no pretending that striking the right balance in the Bay-Delta is an easy task, but the legislature has pointed the way.

The Southern California Trend Toward Reduced Reliance on the Delta - Price Matters

2012-02-06T19:04:17Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

Last week, I posted this piece about Southern California Urban Water Management Plans. Those plans show a significant trend toward investments in local supplies and reduced reliance on imported water. That trend is likely to grow, in part because of the rising cost of imported water.

Our analysis revealed that imported water from MWD now costs LADWP $912 per acre-foot, when all related costs are included. This is more expensive than some conservation, recycled water and stormwater projects. That’s nearly as expensive as the low end of desalted groundwater in the Chino basin. (There is more data on costs in the study.)

Price is not the single determining factor today, but the rising cost of imported water is certain to continue. In the most recent version of the Water Education Foundation’s Western Water magazine MWD General Manager Jeff Kightlinger states that “(In) the past five years, we had to basically double our rates…We’re going to have to raise rates every single year nonstop, pretty much forever, and it’s going to have to be more than inflation.” This trend isn’t lost on water managers. Increasingly, local water supplies are becoming cost-competitive. They also provide local jobs, local control, water quality benefits, as well as reduced vulnerability to climate change and to the uncertainties facing the Colorado River and the Bay-Delta. Increasingly, these tools are the smart bet for scarce ratepayer dollars.

These new UWMPs come at an important time. In 2009, the state legislature established a state policy of reducing reliance on water imported from the Delta. Less than two years later, that approach is gathering momentum among Southern California agencies.

Two years ago, a Southern California water agency board member said to me “Don’t call conservation and recycling ‘alternative supplies’. Those aren’t alternatives. They’re not Plan B. Those tools are our core strategies for the future."

Our reviews suggest three important next steps. First, the most forward-thinking water agencies must make the needed investments to implement their ambitious plans. Second, other MWD member agencies should take a second look at their ability to accelerate the development of local tools. And third, as the BDCP, the State Water Board and the Delta Stewardship Council consider the future of the Delta, the UWMPs that show how Southern California can reduce reliance on the Delta should play a major role in their thinking.

Southern California's New Wave of Local Water Supplies

2012-02-03T20:04:04Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

Last week, the Luskin Center at UCLA sponsored a conference called “The Future of Water in Southern California.” The conference lived up to its ambitious title. That event also prompted me to write about an interesting analysis of the plans of Southern California water agencies, which was completed for NRDC several months ago.

The Luskin Center conference featured a range of Southern California water leaders (including two NRDC colleagues) in a lengthy discussion of future water strategies for the Southland. The discussion revealed a dramatic trend. Southern California water leaders see the development of local supplies – through conservation, water recycling, groundwater management and other tools – as the primary strategy for providing new water.

Some Southern California agencies are making significant progress in investing in what we call the Virtual River – and reducing dependence on imported supplies. The trend that was so visible at this conference can also be seen in the long-term water plans of individual water agencies. Those plans were the subject of this analysis prepared by a graduate student at the U.C. Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy. This effort examined 11 Urban Water Management Plans which were completed last year by Southern California water agencies. Together, these 11 agencies represent 90 percent of Metropolitan Water District’s purchases. So although they don’t represent the entire picture for Southern California, they come pretty close.

Some of the conclusions of this study are striking:

All 11 of these agencies plan to diversify their supply portfolio by developing additional local supplies. For example, every UWMP examined called for an increase in recycled water supply between now and 2035.
Almost all of the agencies plan to reduce the percent of their total supply that is imported from MWD by 2035.
Several agencies plan to reduce the total amount of imported water purchased from MWD between now and 2035, including LADWP, West Basin, and Long Beach. SDCWA plans to reduce their absolute amount between now and 2020.
The local supply alternatives that agencies are developing include: conservation/efficiency, water recycling, groundwater treatment, advanced urban runoff management, stormwater management, water transfers and desalination.

The most dramatic example of this trend is seen in the following pie charts, which summarize the plan prepared by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

LADWP is planning to cut their purchase of imported MWD water in half, in percentage terms, over the coming 25 years – dropping from 48 percent to 24 percent. That represents an annual reduction of more than 95,000 acre-feet of demand for imported water. Wow. That, of course, represents just one agency. West Basin Municipal Water District’s planned investment in local supplies is nearly as striking. Together, Long Beach and West Basin plan to reduce imported water use by another 45,000 acre-feet per year.

There are many reasons for this trend toward local sources and away from imported supplies. First, pressure is growing on water supplies from the Colorado River and the Bay Delta. Smart water managers aren’t betting their community’s future on more water from these sources. In addition, conservation, recycling and other tools now have a strong track record in Southern California.

Despite these encouraging developments, this review also revealed that, collectively, these UWMPS anticipate a small overall increase in total long-term water purchases from MWD. I think water agencies can and will do more to accelerate the current trend toward local investments over time, further reducing reliance on the Delta. One reason for this is price. Imported water was once pretty affordable in Southern California. Those days are over. I’ll write about that next week.

How Reducing Dependence on Delta Water Creates Jobs in Southern California

2011-12-13T04:43:15Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

Last Tuesday, the Economic Roundtable released a report evaluating the economic benefits of local water supply projects in the Los Angeles area. The report provides some badly needed good news for Southern California’s water supply and economy.

The 138 page study examines the job creation and economic stimulus benefits of more than $1.2 billion that has been invested recently in Southern California stormwater management, water conservation, water recycling, groundwater management and greywater systems. (This same list of strategies – which we call the “virtual river” - shows up again and again on the priority list of urban water agencies, business leaders and environmentalists.) The analysis included 11 conservation projects, 18 recycling projects, 24 stormwater management projects and more.

It turns out that these investments generate dramatic job creation benefits, ranging from 12.6 to 16.6 jobs generated for every million dollars invested. Together, these investments have created thousands of badly new jobs in the Los Angeles area. Interestingly, this employment benefit is greater than the job creation benefits of other traditional mainstays of the Southern California economy, including the motion picture industry (8.35 person years of employment per million dollars) and housing construction (11.3). Given the challenges currently facing the construction industry in California, this is particularly good news.

Conservation emerged as the biggest winner. Not only is conservation the most cost-effective new water supply source, but by creating 16.6 person-years of employment per million dollars of investment, conservation is also the most efficient job creator among the water investments considered. For Southern California residents and decision-makers, it’s also important that these are local jobs – created in the very communities that foot the bills for developing new water supplies. Not surprisingly, these benefits appeal to the broad range of organizations involved in the study, including the Economic Roundtable, the City of Los Angles, labor, environmental groups and water agencies.

The potential long-term economic benefits from these water supply investments are significant. In the coming 25 years, the City of Los Angeles is planning to cut in half the percentage of its water supply that is imported from the Bay-Delta. Long Beach, Santa Monica, San Diego and others have adopted similar plans to reduce their reliance on the Delta. All of these plans should now be seen as job creation programs.

This is a groundbreaking report on an issue that is often overlooked. The economic benefits of energy efficiency, for example, are well known. The similar benefits of water use efficiency have received far less attention.

Two years ago, the legislature passed the Delta Reform Act, establishing a new state policy of reducing reliance on Delta water supplies. This new report shows that the cost-effective investments in Southern California water supply that can make this policy a reality can also create local jobs and stimulate the economy. That’s a win-win by any measure.

Redford Center Film to Examine the Future of the Colorado River

2011-12-10T01:20:44Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

Early next year, the Redford Center will release a documentary on the Colorado River called The River Red, directed by Mark Decena. (Take a moment to follow the film on Facebook) The film couldn’t come at a better time. The Colorado, and the seven Western states that depend on it, face unprecedented challenges.

Earlier this week, the Bureau of Reclamation held a webinar to ask water managers, the public and others for suggestions regarding how to avoid severe water shortages of Colorado River water in the future.

Earlier this year, as part of its ongoing Basin Study, the bureau confirmed that growing demands on the Colorado River now exceed the average flows on the river. That is the primary reason for the dramatic drop in the level of Lake Mead in the past decade. A wet year has helped to raise the level of the lake this year, but the Bureau projects that climate change will cause basin water supplies to decline by 9% in the coming half decade. In the meantime, population in the West continues to grow.

In the Basin Study’s new fact sheet the Bureau has now concluded that “large supply-demand imbalances (greater than 3.5 million acre-feet) are plausible over the next 50 years, particularly when considering potential changes in climate.” Annual water supply shortages in this region of 3.5 million acre feet per year are hard to imagine. That’s more than 20 percent of the flow of the river and five times the amount of water used by the City of Los Angeles. Such potential shortages threaten the environment, water users, Native Americans, recreation and the economies of much of the West.

Meeting this challenge will require creative thinking and an ambitious shared effort. The Bureau has appropriately asked the public and water managers to submit creative ideas about how to respond to this challenge.

The team producing The River Red is hoping to help meet this challenge for a new vision of the future of the Colorado River. They’ve spent the past year filming people across the Basin, examining the importance of the river, the challenges facing it today (like oil shale production) and pointing the way to promising solutions.

Especially if you live in the West, take a moment to forward The River Red’s web site to friends and colleagues. More than 20 million people, from Denver to San Diego, have a great deal at stake. And all of them can be part of the solution.

Tilting the Playing Field - the BDCP MOA

2011-11-17T23:35:03Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

Recently, a Memorandum of Agreement for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan process has attracted widespread criticism from members of Congress, the Sacramento Bee, the San Jose Mercury News and the San Francisco Chronicle. Yesterday, the Contra Costa Water District and the League of Women Voters of California also weighed in. Environmental and fishing groups filed these comments (as well as these, and these) expressing deep concerns regarding this important document.

The contents of this MOA came as a surprise to many. After all, state law requires the water contractors who would receive water from a new Delta water conveyance facility to pay for the costs of planning. This MOA should have been an uninteresting document designed to secure this necessary funding – and nothing more. However, the final MOA included many provisions that go far beyond financing issues. All of these provisions benefit the export water agencies that negotiated the MOA, to the disadvantage of other stakeholders and the environment. For example, the MOA:

Provides export water agencies with a privileged role in selecting the BDCP consultant team and in providing direction to them.
Allows export water agencies a role in preparing responses to comments about the BDCP received by state and federal agencies from other stakeholders.
Gives the export water agencies the ability to stop work on the BDCP for any reason.
Commits state and federal agency support for listing the export water agencies as “permittees” under the ESA.

This last item is an obscure one, but it cuts to the heart of the role of state and federal agencies in writing a plan for the Delta. The water agencies that rely on water from the Delta would like to be listed as “permittees” in permits issued for the BDCP by state and federal regulatory agencies. The BDCP process hasn’t yet defined the role of permittees clearly, but in most Habitat Conservation Plans, permittees have a great deal of control over the implementation of a project.

It’s not surprising that the export water agencies would like as much control as possible over the BDCP process. They have a great deal at stake. Permittee status could increase their influence significantly – so does the MOA. It’s also not surprising that many other stakeholders with legitimate interests in the Delta are concerned about increasing further the traditionally powerful role state and federal water contractors have played on Delta issues. The extensive comments about the MOA submitted from a wide range of interests demonstrates that the level of control the export water users currently have is steering BDCP in an unproductive direction and further eroding its credibility.

The “permittee” raises a central question about BDCP. Who will make the key decisions in this critical planning process—state and federal agencies or the water agencies that rely on Delta supplies? The interesting thing here is that the export water agencies don’t resemble permittees in a traditional HCP. They’re not listed as permittees on the existing biological opinions for the CVP and SWP. They don’t own or operate the state and federal water projects. They don’t hold water rights in the Delta. They would not own or operate an isolated facility. They aren’t Delta local governments. (Local governments often prepare HCPs. Here’s what Delta counties have to say about the BDCP MOA.) Simply put, DWR and the Bureau of Reclamation, not the export water agencies, are responsible for the management of the state and federal water projects – and for good reason.

The state and federal agencies that operate the massive twin water projects in the Bay-Delta watershed do so under state and federal legal mandates to consider a wide range of needs in making management decisions. For example, state and federal law require DWR and the Bureau of Reclamation to manage for the coequal goals of environmental protection and water supply reliability. State and federal law also includes additional mandates to restore endangered species and the salmon runs relied upon by California’s fishing industry. The export agencies, on the other hand, have a far narrower mandate. They’re much more narrowly focused on the water supply needs of their customers. Writing an effective, balanced plan for the Delta that achieves the goals established under state and federal law and is built on a solid scientific foundation is a challenging task. It’s difficult to imagine how the BDCP can meet this challenge without revisiting an MOA that so clearly tilts the playing field.

Floods and Droughts and Sea Level Rise -- California's New Climate and Water Video

2011-11-11T18:18:05Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

OK, it might not get more YouTube hits than that dancing dog I saw recently, but this new Department of Water Resources video, ”A Climate of Change,” does an excellent job - in 12 short minutes - of summarizing the likely impacts of climate change on California’s water resources. It doesn’t shy away from the daunting list of the ways in which the Golden State’s precious resources could be affected, including reduced snowpack, more wildfires, more droughts AND more intense storm events, increased erosion, decreased water supply, increased flood risk, sea level rise, and salt water intrusion into coastal aquifers. (Here’s NRDC’s analysis of the water-related impacts of a warming world.)

California has done more than most states to acknowledge and begin planning to adapt to this less water-friendly future. This archive of DWR’s publications on the subject shows the results of this effort. Other states, particularly in the arid West, would do well to learn from California’s investment over the past decade. Unfortunately, not all states are moving in this direction. For example, take a look at how Texas is tackling climate change – or not.

The DWR film appropriately highlights the threat that climate change and sea level rise pose to the San Francisco Bay-Delta system – a threat that was recently explored in a USGS Bay-Delta climate change study. This risk has enormous potential implications for water supplies, for the environment, for a half-million acres of farm land and for a half-million Delta residents. This is a challenge that California must address head on. Last week I posted this piece about a new Southern California Water Committee presentation on the Delta. DWR’s video leaves me with the same question. Why is BDCP, one of the state’s primary Bay-Delta planning efforts, so focused on last century’s water challenge - pumping more water from the Delta - rather than the challenge so convincingly presented in this new video?

Step One in Fixing the Delta - Identifying the Problem

2011-11-02T23:02:44Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

Yesterday, the Southern California Water Committee unveiled a new public outreach effort focused on the Bay-Delta. Take a moment to look at their PowerPoint presentation. The takeaway message is that the Delta faces serious threats from earthquakes and climate change, that Southern California should care about these threats given its reliance on Delta water supplies, and that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan process is addressing these problems. These threats deserve our careful attention and will require significant investments. However, BDCP is not currently addressing these problems effectively. That’s a missed opportunity of alarming proportions that should be immediately rectified.

In the first half of the presentation, the SCWC correctly emphasizes their concerns about the long-term stability of the Delta and the need to restore a healthy ecosystem. That’s the right focus. Delta stability is profoundly important for portions of the Central Valley and Southern California. It’s even more important for a half-million Delta residents. The presentation focuses on earthquake risk, but it also touches on land subsidence, climate change and sea level rise. These concerns have redefined the Delta debate over the last several years.

This challenge is different from the primary focus of water users south of the Delta for the past 50 years. Since the middle of the 20th century, these water users have been primarily focused on squeezing more and more water from the Delta ecosystem. Over the past decade, that approach helped lead to record diversions, the collapse of the Delta ecosystem, the closure of the state salmon industry for two years, and new legal restrictions on pumping to protect the Delta. Solving the Delta’s stability and environmental problems will require a very different approach – one that is not narrowly focused on increasing exports. A program designed to tackle Delta stability and reduce the threat it poses to water supplies for Southern California should do the following:

Reduce Southern California’s reliance on vulnerable Delta water supplies.
Invest in the stability of Delta levees in the near and mid-term, while a long-term plan is developed and implemented.
Develop a long term strategy -- one which may include a canal, pipeline or tunnel -- that is focused primarily on reducing the vulnerability of water supplies and restoring the Delta ecosystem, rather than on increasing pumping.

At the moment, BDCP is not designed with these strategies in mind.

First, BDCP has steadfastly refused to analyze water supply investments, like those planned by many Southern California water agencies, to reduce reliance on Delta water. Reduced reliance on the Delta means reduced vulnerability for water users. The state legislature understood this when it passed the 2009 Delta Reform Act, which established a state policy to reduce reliance on the Delta. Santa Monica, Los Angeles, San Diego and other communities understand this and are reducing their reliance on the Delta. But BDCP doesn’t seem to get it. Over the past five years, BDCP should have helped Southern California agencies and others to understand the costs and benefits of a large Delta facility, as well as the costs and benefits of a smaller, less expensive Delta facility, combined with more investments in local Southern California water supplies. That would provide valuable information about the costs and benefits of alternative investment strategies. Unfortunately, this hasn’t happened.

Second, BDCP’s long-term plan will take will at least 15-20 years to be implemented. (It took EBMUD 38 years to complete their project in the Delta, which is just 2% the diversion capacity of a large Delta canal or tunnel.) In the meantime, Delta supplies will continue to be entirely dependent on the stability of Delta levees. Yet BDCP isn’t investigating options to improve Delta levee stability. At the moment, water users south of the Delta aren’t contributing a cent to maintain and improve the levee system that they will rely on for decades to come. The Delta Stewardship Council is working to address this issue. BDCP is not.

Third, BDCP has focused almost exclusively on the largest possible canal or tunnel and on exporting even more water from the Delta. This resistance to a full investigation of smaller facilities and more protective pumping rules puts the BDCP in jeopardy. It flies in the face of a requirement in the Delta Reform Act to investigate a full range of alternatives. It has increased resistance to BDCP in the environmental, fishing and Delta communities. It runs the risk of additional delays. This narrow focus on increased exports is making it more difficult for the BDCP to develop a credible, implementable project to address Delta ecosystem and stability issues.

The SCWC is right. The Delta challenge for the 21st century is addressing stability and restoring the Delta ecosystem. That challenge led NRDC to change our position on a canal. A decade ago, we were simply opposed to any new Delta facility. That’s not our position today. Unfortunately, however, BDCP still seems to be focused largely on last century’s Delta challenge – increasing pumping-- rather than on this century’s.

Meeting this challenge won’t be easy. But the BDCP’s chances of success will be far greater if it focuses on the right problem.

Between a Rock and a Dry Place - The Potential Impacts of Oil Shale Development on Colorado River Water Supplies

2011-08-18T17:40:10Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

The Colorado River flows as a slender thread through one of the driest regions in America. In addition to supporting natural beauty, recreation and critical ecosystems, the river provides precious water supplies for 30 million residents and four million acres of farmland in seven Western States. These states strive today to manage the Colorado’s limited waters. A new NRDC report called Between a Rock and a Dry Place reveals that Basin States could face increased challenges in meeting their water needs if proposed oil shale development moves forward in Colorado and Utah.

The potential water supply impacts of oil shale development are best understood by starting with the challenges facing Colorado River water users today.

During the past decade, the river has hit a tipping point. The massive dams on the Colorado capture the river’s entire flow. The river no longer flows through its Delta to the Sea of Cortez. We now know that the period before the 1922 Colorado River Compact was anomalously wet. As a result, the agreements and decisions that make up the Law of the River have divvied up more water than the river provides on average. According to the Bureau of Reclamation, the average natural flow of the Colorado is 14.7 million acre-feet – far less than believed ninety years ago. As a result of increasing water use, demand now exceeds average supplies available from the river. (See the graphic below.) This imbalance is the cause of falling storage in Lake Mead – which reached a record low last fall. One more year of drought would have triggered reductions in water deliveries to Lower Basin states.

Scientists agree that climate change will increase the water challenges facing the region. In June, the Bureau of Reclamation concluded, in a landmark interim report from its Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, that the river’s flow will likely decline by nine percent over the next 50 years. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (see figure 4.10 in this document) anticipates even greater impacts on river flows – a future that is 10-25 percent drier. In short, the cities, Native American tribes and farms that depend on the river today face an overtapped river and a drier future.

Should proposed oil shale development move forward, the effects could ripple across the Basin, making life more difficult for water managers in seven Western states, reaching from Wyoming and Denver to San Diego.

The first and most direct water supply impact of oil shale development is documented in this report by Western Resource Advocates - the reallocation of water from farms and ranches to industrial use. Water use estimates for oil shale development include a significant range. However, according to the Government Accountability Office, a mid-range oil shale industry could use 360,000 acre-feet of water annually in Colorado and Utah. If all of this water were reallocated from agriculture, based on senior water rights held by energy companies, it would be equivalent to nearly one quarter of the agricultural water used from the Colorado River in the State of Colorado. This is the mid-point. The upper end of estimates of oil shale water use is well over one million acre-feet of demand.

Oil shale development could also increase the challenges facing Colorado’s cities. In extended droughts, cities with junior water rights could face reduced supplies. Today, agriculture can provide a buffer during droughts. Agricultural water use is relatively flexible. In dry years, farmers and ranchers can reduce water use and sell to water short cities. However, this ability could be reduced by oil shale development. Industrial water use is far less flexible than agricultural use. Water managers call this “hard” or "hardened" demand. Oil shale refineries would be unlikely to sell to cities. And with significantly less water remaining in agriculture, the flexibility in that sector would be reduced as well.

If water used for oil shale did not result in a 1-1 reduction in agricultural water use, then it would further increase water use in river system in which demand already exceeds supply. This would increase the challenges that Upper Basin states face in maintaining water deliveries required under the Law of the River to Lower Basin states, Mexico and to offset reservoir evaporation. If these required flows are not provided, a “call” on the river could reduce water supplies for all Upper Basin states.

Finally, given the status of Colorado River supplies today and the drying impacts of climate change, Basin States and water users will need to work together to bring supply and demand into balance. By increasing demand and decreasing flexibility, oil shale development would increase this challenge, making life more difficult for water managers in Lower Basin states, as well as in the Upper Basin. In the Lower Basin, Arizona, Mexico and Nevada would be the first to feel the impact of shortages. However, if shortages continued, California could be affected as well.

NRDC’s new report contains recommendations to tackle the potential impacts of oil shale. In the water management arena, the keys are to understand potential impacts before they happen and to work to manage the river’s flows sustainably to meet the needs of future generations. Specifically, we recommend the following:

The Bureau of Reclamation’s Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study is beginning to tackle these tough issues. At the moment, the study is developing several scenarios for future demand. These scenarios should paint a clear picture of the challenges facing water managers today without oil shale development -- as well as in a future with no, mid-range and large-scale oilshale development . The study should then methodically investigate all of the potential water management impacts summarized above.
Individual states and the Basin states together should prepare comprehensive water management strategies, with an emphasis on a full range of options to increase water use efficiency across the basin in the agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial and institutional sectors. In some regions, water recycling, and urban stormwater capture could help stretch Colorado River supplies further.
And finally, water users across the Basin should ask tough questions about the potential supply impacts of oil shale development.

Obviously, the best outcome for water managers will come if oil shale development does not take place in this arid region. Across the West, tens of millions of residents, businesses, ranchers and farmers have a great deal at stake. When it comes to Colorado River water management, oil shale could be the last straw in the river and the last straw on the camel’s back.

Price Matters - Water Conservation and the California Farm Bureau

2011-07-29T22:55:21Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

In today’s San Jose Mercury News, Paul Wenger, of the California Farm Bureau Federation issues a caution about the limits to agricultural water conservation, citing rising prices in San Diego that are squeezing avocado farmers out of business. The article is striking, however, for failing to mention the actual prices. It’s worth exploring this issue a little deeper – because when it comes to agricultural water conservation, price matters.

Here’s another article, also by the California Farm Bureau Federation, from this May. It reports that agricultural water prices in San Diego have risen sharply since 2005. Water short local agencies have decided that they can no longer provide water for local farmers at discounted prices. Before recent increases, water for agriculture in this area cost $400 to $500 per acre-foot - very high prices for farmers in California. Today, the CFBF reports, those costs can reach $1,400 per acre-foot. It’s unfortunate, but not surprising, that some San Diego farmers are struggling to afford water prices that approach those for desalinated seawater. (Remember that local residents pay those same prices.)

Beyond any doubt, there is a price above which farmers cannot compete. But California’s water supplies have hit real limits and we need to look for opportunities to encourage efficiency in all sectors, including agriculture. Economics is a key tool in this effort – and agricultural efficiency can provide cost-effective new water supplies.

In recent years, California’s agricultural economy has set production and revenue records in a wide range of crops. This industry, which represents about three percent of the state economy and consumes about 80 percent of the state’s developed water supply, is incredibly diverse. Some California farmers are investing in high value crops and highly efficiency irrigation technology – making more money with less water than in the past . Others grow low value crops and flood irrigate in much the same way farmers did a century ago.

Why is this? More than anything else, the explanation is price. Some California farmers receive highly subsidized water. For others, water is literally free. For these farmers, there is often little incentive to conserve. Many efficient farmers, on the other hand, pay far higher prices – in some cases purchasing water at prices determined by real costs and an open market. Imagine the difference in the incentive for efficiency between a farmer paying nothing for water and another paying $1,400 per acre-foot. (There’s plenty of room in between.) Price matters.

If gas were free, the average consumer would pay less attention to fuel efficiency. Free gas would be a disaster for air quality, climate change, and our dependence on imported oil. People instinctively know that free gas would disguise the real cost of this commodity and encourage waste. Water isn’t that different. In a water short state, we need to encourage agriculture to adapt and to pay realistic prices for water. For example, the federal government should reduce water subsidies in renewed Central Valley Project contracts. Those subsidies encourage less efficient water use and harm our environment and salmon fishing industry. Another opportunity is for California’s Department of Water Resources to require all California farmers to meter the water they use – and to pay a price based on that volume.

Our state can have a thriving, modern agricultural industry that uses water more efficiently. Indeed, farmers all over the state show that. Californians value that industry. So tomorrow morning, I’ll bike to my local farmer’s market to pick up some California avocados. If I’m very lucky, I’ll find some salmon there too. One thing I’ve learned about water economics is that cheap water means expensive salmon.

Be Careful What You Ask For - Eliminating Federal Funding for the San Joaquin River Agreement

2011-07-13T23:05:47Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

Among the many radical provisions in H.R. 1837 (Nunes, CA), is a proposal to shut down the consensus restoration of the San Joaquin River. That bill has a long list of opponents and has received a raft of criticism in the press. But another effort to shut down river restoration has received far less attention. Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is likely to vote on an Energy and Water Appropriations bill that, at the request of Congressman Nunes, would eliminate all funding in the federal budget for the San Joaquin River restoration program. The potential implications are far-reaching and show the careful balance in the bi-partisan restoration agreement. It’ll be no surprise that this proposal would harm the environment and California’s salmon fishing industry. But Congressman Nunes’ proposal would also harm the very water users whom he represents.

First, although the House bill would shut down funding for restoration, it would not save Friant water users a penny. The court approved settlement that serves as the foundation of the restoration program requires Friant water districts to contribute to the federal government to support implementation of the agreement. However, the settlement cannot compel Congress to appropriate these funds. As a result, if the House language is included in the final federal budget, Friant farmers would continue paying into a federal restoration fund. It’s just that these funds would not be appropriated and invested as anticipated by the settlement. Friant’s ongoing contributions would simply vanish into the federal deficit.

Second, the programs that would be de-funded by the current language include projects designed to benefit water users. Friant Water Users Authority signed the settlement in part because it includes canal improvements, groundwater storage, water recirculation, a recovered water account and other projects crafted to provide water supply benefits that would not have been mandated if restoration were left up to the courts. But without funding, there would be no water management program. Seepage and flood management projects would also be shut down.

Third, the bill would not alter the court-ordered deadlines for the restoration of water flows. Congress and the courts have required water releases on a specified schedule. The House appropriations bill would not change those deadlines. So the water management program would be shut down, but the mandate to release of water from Friant Dam would be unchanged.

Fourth, if the program were defunded, the program repeatedly missed legal deadlines, the restoration settlement fell apart and the case wound up back in court, the Friant water users could lose the 20 years of water supply certainty that was built into the settlement. A court would be free to increase releases over time to meet the needs of a highly damaged river.

There’s been a great deal of smoke and heat in the California water policy debate over the last couple of years. So it’s easy to overlook a simple fact. Water agencies are not calling for the San Joaquin River restoration program to be shut down. There’s a simple reason for this. All of the signatories to the restoration agreement still support it. Water users quietly recognize that the settlement is far more appealing than the alternative. On the other hand, it’s clear that Congressman Nunes doesn’t support funding the restoration program, despite the damage his budget language would cause to his district.

Senator Feinstein remains a champion for the San Joaquin River and is committed to continued federal funding. She’s demonstrated her effectiveness on water policy and budget issues for many years. Unfortunately, the House language seems designed to make her task as difficult as possible – a reckless risk in an era of unprecedented pressure on the federal budget.

The House budget language is a remarkable example of the old adage, “Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.”

H.R. 1837 Offers No Solutions for California's Water Challenges

2011-06-11T00:05:43Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the June 2 House Subcommittee hearing on Congressman Nunes’ H.R. 1837 was the lack of focus on solutions. California faces real water challenges, but the authors of H.R. 1837 have paid little regard to advancing effective solutions – or even to the impacts that this reckless bill would cause. Here are a few examples.

Water Supply Reliability: Water agencies south of the Delta want their supplies from the Delta to be more reliable. But this bill would make state and federal collaboration in efforts to achieve this goal, such as the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, next to impossible and virtually eliminate any possibility that the state could ever issue permits for an isolated Delta facility.

Climate Change and Earthquake Risks: Climate change is likely to make California a somewhat drier place. It will also cause sea level to rise, threatening Delta levees. Earthquakes present another risk to Delta stability. The Delta Stewardship Council is working to write a Delta Plan to address these major challenges. 400,000 Delta residents and South of Delta water users have a great deal at stake here. H.R. 1837 doesn’t even mention these problems.

Environmental Health and the Fishing Industry: The Bay-Delta ecosystem is collapsing and the salmon industry is slowly recovering from a near-total shut down for the past three years. H.R. 1837 would respond to this situation by blocking current science-based federal protections for the Delta’s fisheries, shutting down the consensus restoration of the San Joaquin River, pre-empting protections for the Delta under state law, and redirecting existing federal restoration funds to be spent instead on dam building and other potentially damaging water projects. Simply put, H.R. 1837 is a formula for the permanent collapse of the Bay-Delta, unemployment in the salmon industry, and gridlock in collaborative efforts to find solutions.

Promoting New Water Sources: Water agencies know that they need to become less dependent on the Delta by investing in alternative water supplies. In fact, state law requires this. However, rather than encouraging conservation, water recycling and other proven solutions, H.R. 1837 would turn California’s water rights system on its head, taking water from senior water users -- including cities and farms -- to benefit late-arriving junior water users. This water grab would overturn a century of federal water law. That might be a boon for litigators, but it hardly represents a solution. The provisions of this bill would harm fishermen, farmers and cities across the state.

California only has so many rivers and so much water. If we lose our salmon runs, they’re gone forever. Restoring healthy rivers and leaving reliable water supplies for the next generation is not a simple task. But recent progress shows that it can be done. The San Joaquin River settlement was a delicate, bi-partisan compromise among environmental groups, fishermen, the Friant Water Users Association, and the federal government. The 2009 state water reform package represents a similar bi-partisan victory that advanced ecosystem health, water conservation, improved groundwater monitoring and a comprehensive approach to the Bay-Delta. Senators Feinstein and Boxer recognized these facts in their excellent recent letter on H.R. 1837.

As the old saying goes, it’s more work to build something than to tear something down. Congressman Nunes’ approach is getting him plenty of air time on Fox News, but H.R. 1837 represents the triumph of attack politics over the hard work of designing workable solutions that will help California steward its water resources though the 21st century.

The San Joaquin River Agreement and H.R. 1837 - A Deal is a Deal

2011-05-27T00:02:22Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

Next Thursday, the House of Representatives Water and Power Subcommittee will hold a hearing on perhaps the most radical bill on California water issues I’ve encountered in my career. H.R. 1837, introduced by Congressman Nunes (R, Visalia), would block federal protections for the San Francisco Bay-Delta, its tributaries and its fisheries. It would pre-empt state water laws, overturn state water rights and undermine efforts to find solutions to the many challenges facing the Bay-Delta. One of its many remarkable provisions would overturn the consensus agreement to restore the San Joaquin River.

The agreement to restore the San Joaquin was an historic moment in California water policy. After years of divisive litigation, all of the parties to the suit reached an agreement to restore flows and salmon to the parched river. That settlement contained carefully balanced provisions to make it acceptable to all sides. Following the settlement, a series of meetings were convened by Senator Feinstein in Washington DC and in California, to negotiate legislative language to implement the settlement and address the concerns of other water interests who were not parties to the settlement. A much larger group of water users participated in these discussions. Thanks to the hard work of Senator Feinstein, after several intense weeks of talks, a consensus bill was produced that all sides agreed to support.

But all of the interested stakeholders took another step to keep this agreement intact. NRDC, along with nearly every major group of agricultural water districts south of the Delta, signed a written agreement, which is often referred to as the “blood oath”. That agreement didn’t just pledge support for the settlement and the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. In addition, all of the signatories pledged “to oppose any amendments to said Legislation that are not agreed to by all the organizations listed below.” H.R. 1837 clearly includes such amendments.

This is one of many reasons why it will be interesting to see what position water users take on H.R. 1837. After all, water users pledged to fight legislation to interfere with the settlement. If any of those water users won’t oppose a bill designed to repeal the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, it would severely damage their credibility in negotiations regarding an ambitious plan for the Bay-Delta. After all, if water users don’t honor a written agreement on the San Joaquin, why would anyone believe that they would honor one on the Bay-Delta?

On Water Buffaloes and Groundwater Management

2011-04-12T20:54:43Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

After years of being the state’s forgotten water management stepchild, the need to improve California’s nation-trailing groundwater management is beginning to get the attention it deserves. The latest development is the release of this report by the Association of California Water Agencies. ACWA represents most of California’s water agencies, including agricultural water users who have long resisted stronger groundwater laws.

There are some recommendations with which I disagree and places where I wish the report had gone farther. But ACWA has made a strong case for improved groundwater management. For example, the report includes the following statements:

“Where there is insufficient water to meet the demand of overlying land-owners, those users are expected to reduce their demands correlatively to bring their groundwater extractions within the safe yield of the basin and prevent overdraft.” (p. 13)

“surface and groundwater are often interconnected from a hydrologic perspective.” (p. 14)

“In many areas, the lack of a comprehensive approach to systematically managing data on California’s groundwater is a considerable challenge to sustainable development. Due to inadequate funding, a comprehensive assessment of groundwater level trends in California’s groundwater basins has not been conducted since 1980.” (p. 17)

Some AB 3030 groundwater plans “have suffered from little or no implementation.” (p. 20)

The report calls for a “continued and intensified commitment to conservation and water use efficiency” to address groundwater issues. (p. 25)

“The constant pressure of residential and commercial development can result in the loss of critical acreage that could be utilized to recharge groundwater basins…..Local agencies should be proactive in identifying and including in a sustainable groundwater management plan the most appropriate areas to serve as dedicated recharge or conjunctive use locations.” (p. 27)

“One example of an indirect approach to conjunctive use is promoting low-impact development (LID), a strategy increasingly used to improve the effectiveness of groundwater recharge and extraction options by minimizing the loss of recharge areas and requiring certain construction practices that increase or maintain the absorption capability of lands overlying groundwater basins.” (p. 27)

While the water reform package of 2009 “includes much that will contribute to improved water management in California, it alone will not lead to sustainable groundwater management.” (p. 28)

“Protecting groundwater quality should be considered as important as the development of sustainable groundwater supplies.” (p. 31)

“The state, working with appropriate local entities, should address groundwater-related drinking water quality issues in small or disadvantaged communities.” (p. 31)

These clear statements help set the stage for a productive discussion on groundwater management.

Of course, not all disagreements are behind us on groundwater issues. For example, the ACWA report opposes a state-administered groundwater management program, stating that locals “tend to be the first to notice changes or problems” (p. 19). That may be true, but often, those problems are caused by local actions that some locals are not eager to change. That’s why many others, from the Legislative Analyst’s Office to the Public Policy Institute of California have called for a state-administered groundwater management program. I also tend to believe that there is an important role for the state in ensuring improved groundwater management state-wide.

The ACWA report also calls for state and federal taxpayer subsidies for surface storage projects. The Sacramento Bee offered a pithy editorial recently offering a different perspective. EDF has written about this issue as well. Finally, I wish the report contained a discussion of the extent of the groundwater overdraft problem in parts of the state. Such a discussion would have given the report a greater sense of urgency.

Nevertheless, this report suggests the potential for finding significant common ground in improving groundwater management in the following areas:

An Updated State Groundwater Plan and Improved Data Collection: ACWA emphasizes the lack of comprehensive state data and analyses, suggesting the potential for agreement around the need to update Bulletin 118 – California’s Groundwater Plan. As the ACWA report states, this 2003 document relied on data that is now more than a quarter century old. Since then, many things have changed in California water policy, such as our improved understanding of the water supply – and groundwater - implications of climate change. The state now has access to remote sending data, from NASA and other agencies. The state’s new groundwater elevation monitoring program and its Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment program are both providing important new information. Recently created and improved local groundwater programs could provide additional data as well, helping the state to characterize accurately the current problem, future trends, potential impacts and possible cost-effective solutions. Such an updated plan should also include a survey of California’s local groundwater management efforts to identify effective tools that would be appropriate for broader adoption.

Strengthened Regional Groundwater Management: There may not be agreement about the need for a state-administered groundwater program, but there is near-universal agreement that local and regional groundwater management can and should be improved. I tend to support a stronger state role here, but ACWA appropriately concludes that if local water agencies wish to avoid a state-wide program, they must step up and provide more effective management. State agencies, as well as local and regional water and land use agencies can and should collaborate on improved local groundwater efforts including such components as:

Mapping and managing critical groundwater recharge areas. AB 359 (Huffman), which is currently pending in the legislature, would help address this need.
Better coordinating local land use decisions and groundwater management.
Expanding water efficiency programs, particularly in overdrafted areas.
Expanding the use of Low Impact Development.
Improving local data gathering.
Improving the implementation of existing groundwater management plans.
Better integration of groundwater quality and quantity.
Effective tools from existing local efforts that would be appropriate for broader adoption.

Groundwater Quality Problems Facing Small and Disadvantaged Communities: Some California communities, particularly small and disadvantaged communities in the Central Valley suffer from truly nightmarish drinking water contamination problems. ACWA’s report acknowledges the importance of addressing those issues, which have for too long been overlooked by the state’s water leaders. Local ACWA member agencies could play a major role in helping to ensure that families in these California communities have access to safe drinking water.

The ACWA report represents a welcome call for action and provides some important common ground. Those in the water world have long referred to California’s water establishment as “water buffaloes”. ACWA certainly represents the largest herd in the state. But this report contains signs that this herd might be moving in a new direction.

CVP-Wide Water Allocation at 91 Percent

2011-03-30T19:31:50Z

Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst, Water Program, San Francisco

On Monday, the Bureau of Reclamation announced its revised water allocation numbers for the year. If you listen to certain water users and members of Congress, you’d think that the recent rains have allowed the CVP to increase its water allocations to 65 percent. But actually, system-wide, the Bureau of Reclamation projects that it will deliver over 91 percent of its generous CVP water contracts.

Stories about the CVP tend to overlook the vast majority of the project’s deliveries. For example, the Bureau has projected that the following categories of contractors will receive 100 percent of their contract amounts. (The contract amount for each is included in parentheses).

San Joaquin River exchange contractors (800,000 acre-feet)
Sacramento River settlement contractors (2,113,209 acre-feet)
Friant Class 1 (800,000 acre-feet)
Contra Costa Water District (195,000 acre-feet)
North of Delta agricultural water service (434,132 acre-feet)
North of Delta municipal and industrial (12,592 acre-feet)
American River municipal and industrial (313,750 acre-feet)
East Side water rights (600,000 acre-feet)
East Side water service (155,000 acre-feet)
Buchanan Unit (24,000 acre-feet)
Hidden Unit (24,000 acre-feet)
Wildlife refuges level 2 (442,251 acre-feet)

Two categories of contractors are receiving a lower allocation this year – a 65 percent projected allocation for the South of Delta agricultural water service contractors (1,965,000 acre-feet) and a 90% allocation for South of Delta municipal and industrial users (139,571 acre-feet). All told, the CVP anticipates delivering more than 7,370,000 acre-feet this year – or just over 91 percent of full contracts for all of these water users.

To be fair, I have excluded a few categories above. I did not include “level 4” deliveries for wildlife refuges, which do not come from CVP yield – and which are far below the deliveries required by federal law. I didn’t include a category for surplus “Section 215” CVP water. These deliveries are unpredictable and are in addition to contractual deliveries. This surplus water may significantly increase total CVP deliveries this year. I included the reliable Friant Class 1 contractors above, but not the lower priority Friant Class 2 deliveries, which fluctuate wildly from wet year to dry – and which will fall short of “full” deliveries even this year. This is the area in which the Bureau most wrote contracts that most dramatically exceed reasonably expected deliveries. These projected class 2 deliveries push anticipated total CVP deliveries to just over 7,660,000 acre-feet this year.

The small group of agricultural contractors who are projected to receive 65 percent have long known that their contracts are junior to their neighbors. These were the last CVP contractors to join the system. As a result, the “South of Delta Water Service” contractors receive the lowest priority in receiving water.

Water projects are notorious for over-promising deliveries – and in this area, the CVP has long been a leader. But a 91 percent allocation of overly-optimistic contracts hardly sounds like a crisis. It sounds like what it is – a good year.

Westlands and the other junior users simply don’t like the CVP’s priorities and California’s water rights system. There’s a clear solution here. Westlands farmers have a long history of purchasing water from their water rich neighbors. Such voluntary transfers encourage senior water rights holders to conserve and help the junior users to meet their needs. State and federal agencies facilitated 600,000 acre-feet of transfers in 2009. Last year, the Bureau facilitated more than half a million acre-feet of transfers. (See page 8 in this document.) And the Bureau could facilitate a similar quantity of transfers this year.

There is one catch. Water purchased on the market comes at full price, while CVP deliveries for the junior water service contractors come with enormous taxpayer subsidies. It’s not a surprise that these junior users fight to maximize their subsidized deliveries. But with 91 percent deliveries, surplus water available and a strong transfers market, legislation to block science-based protections for the Bay-Delta and its fisheries looks like a lousy solution in search of a problem.