Switchboard, from NRDC › Barry Nelson's Blog

A Drought Agenda for California

2009-06-11T22:36:55Z

With a third dry year, reduced water supplies, crashing fisheries and multiple crises in the Bay-Delta, the water challenges facing California have never been greater. Fortunately, as a result of the drought, the work of the Delta Vision Task Force and other factors, the Governor and the State Legislature are highly focused on delivering long-term-water solutions for California to help meet the needs of our cities, farms, environment and fisheries for decades to come. This week, NRDC released a "drought agenda," addressed to Governor Schwarzenegger and the State legislative leadership, with a broad range of recommended water supply solutions, including both state-level administrative and legislative actions.

NRDC's top legislative priorities this year are the passage of AB 49 (Feuer-Huffman) -- a bill designed to achieve the Governor's goal of reducing per capita water consumption 20 percent by 2020 -- and comprehensive Delta governance legislation. However, our drought agenda consists of a wide range of actions, covering a broad range of water management issues, including NRDC's top priority water supply tools -efficiency, stormwater capture, groundwater management and water recycling - as well as funding, climate change and energy, and critical Bay-Delta issues.

Working together, the Administration and the Legislature can put in place policies and programs that will ensure help ensure adequate water supplies, improve water quality, restore fisheries and the Bay-Delta, save money and energy, and make our water systems more resistant to the effects of climate change.

Bill Reilly’s Call for Leadership from Governor Schwarzenegger

2009-05-31T00:44:18Z

On Wednesday, Bill Reilly, the former Administrator of the EPA under President George H. W. Bush wrote an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, urging the Governor to lead an effort to reform the agencies that manage (or don't) the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary.

Mr. Reilly's piece is remarkably well timed. For the past two months, bipartisan working groups composed of members of the California legislature have been involved in an intensive, quiet process of education and discussion on Bay-Delta issues. The Delta Vision Task Force, on which Mr. Reilly served as a member, seems to have been successful in shaping the legislature's initial thinking. Agency reform - referred to as "governance" in water-speak -- is a central part of these discussions.

In the next few weeks, legislators including Assemblyman Jared Huffman, Senator Fran Pavley, Senator Lois Wolk and Senator Joe Simitian will take the results of those internal discussions and amend - probably dramatically - their current governance bills, which have already begun moving through the legislature. At the top of Mr. Reilly's priority list is the creation of a new Council and a plan to oversee Delta management. The Delta is a critical, complex, changing, and vulnerable ecosystem - yet today there is no state plan and no single state agency charged with ensuring its future. The Delta Vision Task Force has several other critical governance recommendations, such as stronger rules governing land use, particularly on below-sea-level Delta islands.

The State Administration is also quietly working on governance reform ideas. In the coming month or so, we should see signs that will reveal if this issue will emerge as a real priority for the Governor.

A decade ago, a similar discussion of Delta governance issues led to the creation of a toothless Bay-Delta Authority. It still exists - but only on paper. This time, the legislature should create a body with real power to address key issues in the Delta, such as the growing flood risks to Delta infrastructure and its 400,000 residents, the need to improve the management of the state and federal Delta water projects, the need to restore habitat and to ensure that the Delta has enough water to restore its health, as well as that of the state's imperiled salmon fishery.

OK, I'll admit it. It's hard to make agency reform a riveting public debate. This is not "must see TV." It's complex, wonky, and easy to dismiss as rearranging deck chairs on a sinking HMS Delta Titanic. But Mr. Reilly is right. It's hard to imagine how California can solve the complex problems facing the Delta in the 21st century without changing the agencies that were largely conceived to meet the water challenges that faced us in the middle of the last century.

Our thanks to Bill Reilly and the Delta Vision Task Force. (The members of the Task Force have recently formed a foundation to encourage the implementation of their strategic plan.) And hey, if you've got more ideas about how to make governance reform sexy, I'm all ears.

From Cotton Farms to Solar Farms

2009-05-13T23:09:48Z

Charting a path to a more sustainable future for California will require reducing both water use and greenhouse gas emissions. One innovative strategy that could contribute to both goals would be an ambitious effort to encourage some Central Valley farmers to grow a new crop - electricity. Moving from cotton farms to solar farms could offer dramatic multiple benefits. Such an effort could help reduce the Golden State's carbon emissions. It could also help reduce pressure on the fragile Bay-Delta system and reduce demand on a limited water supply that is expected to shrink as a result of climate change.

In general, the Central Valley does not receive as much annual solar radiation as the state's desert south - a key consideration in evaluating potential photovoltaic or concentrated solar projects. However, during the hot summer months when California's electricity demand is at its peak, the Central Valley has significant potential for both concentrated solar and photovoltaic projects.

A large Central Valley solar energy project could be a very ambitious undertaking, potentially representing many gigawatts of installed capacity. This prospect is not unrealistic. Utilities have begun to recognize the potential for such facilities in Central California. For example, last August, PG&E signed agreements for 800 MW of solar capacity at two new proposed facilities in Central California. A year ago, the South San Joaquin Irrigation District flipped the switch on a seven acre photovoltaic system -- one of the largest in California. And just last week, Cleantech America announced that it had received approval for a new 5 MW photovoltaic facility in the Central Valley community of Mendota.

Solar power is not cheap. The key to determining the feasibility of a very large-scale Central Valley solar project is accounting for several potential additional benefits of such a project.

Along with renewable power, the most obvious benefit of a cotton-to-solar project would be a potential reduction in water use. For example, 100,000 acres of cotton consumes more than 250,000 acre-feet of water per year - nearly half of the water consumption of the City of Los Angeles. Farmers, environmentalists and urban residents could all see benefits from a large solar project, if it could help reduce water use by cotton or other low value crops. This year, some farmers in the Central Valley are hurting. Three successive dry years have drained the reservoirs of the State and federal water projects, reducing agricultural water deliveries. Looking down the road, it appears likely that, as a result of climate change, the need to protect the Delta ecosystem, the rights of other water users, and the need to restore California's salmon fishery, the State and federal water projects may never again pump the record amounts of Delta water diverted just a few years ago. A cotton-to-solar project should not be seen as reducing agricultural acreage, but rather as adding a new crop for farmers - one that would be unaffected by dry years.

Why focus on cotton? Cotton is relatively low value and among the crops most likely to be displaced as farmers turn to new ideas. Cotton is also highly subsidized, consumes vast quantities of agricultural chemicals and provides little habitat. Farmers are already looking for alternatives to cotton. Acreage in cotton production in California is declining. For example, cotton acres in the Westlands Water District fell from 240,000 acres in 1993 to 37,000 in 2008. But California farmers still grow a great deal of cotton. In 2007, state-wide, 450,000 acres were planted in cotton.

Another potential benefit of a Central Valley solar project is help in resolving the chronic drainage problems in parts of the Valley. The agricultural industry and the federal government have already proposed large changes for agriculture in the Valley to respond to the drainage problem. For example, the Westlands Water District has called for the retirement of 200,000 acres of land - one third of the entire district. The Bureau of Reclamation has identified the retirement of 194,000 acres of land as the preferred alternative for addressing drainage issues in the Valley. USGS and the Fish and Wildlife Service have recommended that this target should be 375,000 acres. More than 35,000 acres of land in Westlands has already been permanently retired. Some of this land might be available for the initial phase of a solar project. And a "buy down" in water use could create an income stream to help finance the conversion to solar.

A Central Valley solar project could also provide jobs in some of California's most disadvantaged communities. One interesting option would be the creation of a thin film photovoltaic (PV) factory on the West side of the San Joaquin Valley. Applied Materials and Oerlikon both offer "turnkey" PV factories, which customers can order to be built to their specifications. A large scale Central Valley solar project could consume for decades the capacity of a factory dedicated to the project. Such an effort could provide badly-needed local employment.

Some Central Valley communities are suffering from reductions in water deliveries this year. In fact, Valley towns like Mendota and Firebaugh have been economically disadvantaged for decades. Large-scale agriculture in this region, with a high percentage of absentee landlords, has not served these communities well. An ambitious renewable energy project could provide long-term factory, construction, and maintenance jobs. Given its scale and potential duration, such a project could also include scholarship and trade school programs designed to build skills and increase benefits to local communities. Renewable energy might finally provide some of the local economic benefits that the federal water reclamation program has failed to deliver.

The economic feasibility of this idea is enhanced when one considers existing agricultural subsidies. One acre in cotton production in the Central Valley produces an annual yield worth approximately $1,200 (at 2005 prices.) NRDC's analysis concluded that water and crop subsidies represent 17-56% of the total value of this cotton. A renewable energy project that reduced cotton production could help reduce these taxpayer subsidies - yet another potential benefit.

There's one final potential benefit. Selecting sites and providing transmission for renewable energy facilities in California presents a major challenge. In the Mojave Desert, siting and transmission have significant potential for conflict with wildlife and sensitive resources. From this perspective, the Central Valley has a few advantages. The Valley already hosts major existing transmission corridors and cotton fields provide little wildlife habitat.

In short, a Central Valley solar project could offer remarkably broad benefits, including:

Large scale renewable energy generation.
A new crop (electricity), which is unaffected by droughts, for farmers south of the Delta.
Reduced water use south of the Delta.
Jobs and an increased tax base in disadvantaged Valley communities.
Help in resolving drainage issues on the West side of the Valley.
Reduced pesticide use and improved air quality in the Valley.
Reduced agricultural subsidy payments.
Reduced siting and transmission conflicts compared with alternatives (e.g. the Mojave Desert), leading to reductions in cost, time, and uncertainty in the permitting process.
It beats going nuclear.

Many factors suggest that this is a uniquely appropriate time to carefully evaluate this idea. California is suffering from a third dry year. The California legislature is focused on addressing problems in the Delta. The federal stimulus bill included a significant emphasis on renewable energy. The California Air Resources Board is working on a plan to implement California's ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals. And Congress is considering a similar climate bill for the nation.

Finally, it's important to note that land owners in the Central Valley are highly sophisticated businessmen and women who have spent decades adapting to changing water supply and market conditions. These owners and their local communities understand local conditions and needs better than anyone. Their involvement is essential if a cotton-to-solar project is to work. Common ground has been hard to find among environmentalists and agricultural interests south of the Delta. An ambitious renewable energy project might provide an important opportunity for a collaborative effort with broad benefits.

California’s Dry Summer – and the Path Forward.

2009-04-30T00:51:12Z

The third consecutive dry year in California has received extensive media coverage - and will receive even more attention this summer. Some simple facts and a few recent quotes from the media demonstrate the water management challenge California faces - and point the way to practical solutions.

First, thanks to litigation and advocacy by NRDC, state and federal agencies have imposed new protections for endangered fish and wildlife in the Bay Delta that will restrict water exports, particularly compared to recent record levels of diversions. Over the past decade, numerous Delta fish species have declined precipitously, including delta smelt, longfin smelt, salmon, steelhead, and green sturgeon. However, the cause of the water shortages this year is not environmental protections (as some have alleged), but rather a third consecutive dry year. Lester Snow, director of the state's Department of Water Resources, estimates that without ESA rules on Delta water, State Water Project irrigation allocations might reach 35 percent this year, instead of 30. Federal officials give a similar estimate - the Central Valley Project's 10 percent allocations for south-of-Delta farmers might rise to 15 percent, they say. "If the ESA goes away this afternoon, we still have a drought," Snow said last week. Overall, although pumping has been reduced modestly to protect endangered fish, the pumps have not been turned off, and it is drought, not environmental restrictions, that are reducing water deliveries.

Second, although some farmers are receiving very low water allocations this year, other neighboring farmers are receiving 100% of their allocated supplies, as a result of their senior water rights under California law. Some of this water will be transferred through water marketing agreements to water-short farmers, as well as to urban areas. Overall, several million acre feet of water will be delivered to agriculture this year by the state and federal water projects, despite the drought, although some districts will only get 10-15% of their allocations.

Third, in the past few weeks, as a result of extraordinarily low returns at a time when spawning fish will face poor river conditions (fish are also affected by droughts), state and federal regulators have closed entirely the 2009 California commercial salmon season. Nearly all of the recreational salmon season has also been closed. This closure will cost California approximately $280 million and 2700 jobs. The salmon season was closed last year as well, for the first time in state history. The future of this important resource and industry is a key part of the discussion about future water policies in California. (Many of the protections imposed for delta smelt also benefit the salmon fishery and endangered salmon and steelhead runs.). Without new solutions, the coming few years could bring a permanent end to salmon fishing in California, and an end to locally caught salmon on our dinner plates - an important the heritage and economic engine in many coastal and tribal communities.

Three consecutive dry years are imposing hardships on farmers, fishermen and some urban residents who face mandatory conservation requirements. NRDC has launched a comprehensive effort to meet this challenge and advance effective solutions.

NRDC has identified four priority water management tools to improve our water supplies - a "virtual river" of urban and agricultural water use efficiency, wastewater recycling, groundwater clean up and management, and urban stormwater capture. These tools represent by far the largest source of "new" water to meet human and environmental needs. These tools also offer dramatic water quality benefits, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and reduced vulnerability to drought and the likely impacts of climate change on our water supply systems. Business leaders and urban water agencies agree with NRDC that these tools are the keys to providing water for California's future.
California should take action this year to tap into the water supplies of the Virtual River. The cornerstone of this agenda is AB 49 (Authored by Assemblyman Mike Feuer and sponsored by NRDC), which is designed to implement the Governor's call for a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2020. Other legislative and administrative actions should include improving landscape irrigation water use efficiency, expanding water recycling programs, safely increasing the use of grey water, and promoting stormwater capture and management plans.
At the federal level, last December, NRDC wrote a joint letter with the Association of California Water Agencies, requesting funding for water solutions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That effort, along with the efforts of our Water Program team in DC, succeeded in setting aside funding for green water solutions. Last week, Secretary Salazar released $260 million in stimulus funding for California water projects, including NRDC priorities such as wastewater recycling and efficiency.
One of the projects that will receive stimulus funds is a pumping plant that will permanently decommission the Red Bluff Diversion Dam -- one of the most damaging barriers to fish migration in California. This project is a direct result of a recent agreement with local farmers reached in NRDC's successful ESA litigation on salmon protection.
On March 30, President Obama signed the bill giving final authorization to the restoration of the San Joaquin River. Before the federal Bureau of Reclamation literally dried up the river below Friant Dam, this was one of the state's most important salmon rivers. This fall, for the first time in 60 years, water will be released from Friant Dam to begin the restoration of the river's ecosystem and salmon fishery. The restoration agreement that NRDC and our coalition reached with the federal government and local farmers also provides for a water management program, including efficiency and improved groundwater management, to help farmers co-exist with a living river. The restoration of the San Joaquin is one of the most ambitious salmon restoration projects ever undertaken and represents a ray of hope for California salmon and fishing communities.
California must take advantage of this moment to develop a comprehensive solution for the troubled Delta. That solution should be based on the careful and far-reaching recommendations of the Delta Vision Strategic Plan. More on that topic soon.

California's water problems have been brewing for decades. But water issues usually languish far too low on the priority list of the public and decision-makers. Today, three dry years have produced a sharp focus on water among elected officials and the public, providing a remarkable opportunity to advance a new generation of solutions that demonstrate that we can meet our water needs while helping to restore both our economy and environment.

Responding to California’s Drought

2009-02-20T19:44:34Z

Today, the federal Bureau of Reclamation announced that the Central Valley Project's initial water supply delivery allocations would be extremely low.

When faced with a crisis, a community can pull together or pull apart. We believe that the water crisis we are now facing provides an opportunity for everyone in California to work together. We're all going to feel this drought, and we all need to be a part of the solution. Although today's announcement is unquestionably bad news for our water supply this year, there is a remarkable amount of agreement about the future and the solutions to our water woes.

California is facing a third consecutive dry year. This January was the driest in history. As a result, the state's reservoirs and rivers will be at near-record lows. Many urban residents will face mandatory rationing this year. Conditions for farmers will be even tougher. Some farmers, facing near total cut-offs of surface water, will pump more groundwater and try to buy water from neighbors with somewhat greater supplies. Commercial and recreational fishermen know that California's quarter-billion dollar salmon fishery is likely to be closed entirely again this year and that the few remaining spawning fish will face some of the worst habitat conditions ever in our rivers - which bodes ill for the future of salmon in California, and salmon fishing. California's public, its economy and its environment will all suffer this year. This brings us the first area of agreement - we must do a much better job of preparing for droughts and investing in a more reliable water supply.

We also know, as a result of an enormous amount of progress by the scientific community in the past decade, that global warming is likely to mean more dry years in the future. Scientists, water agencies, the state's Department of Water Resources and environmentalists all agree that a warming climate will put the squeeze on our water resources. Again, there is agreement that we must prepare for a dryer future.

This takes us to the most important area of consensus - we need to be far more ambitious in our investments in a new generation of reliable water supplies. Water agencies, business leaders and NRDC agree that four tools - water efficiency, wastewater recycling, urban stormwater management and improved groundwater management - what we call the Virtual River - offer the largest, greenest, fastest and most affordable opportunities for making California's water supply more drought resistant.

There is also agreement about where the funding can come from to begin these investments immediately. The new federal stimulus package contains $126 million for wastewater recycling projects and a total of six billion dollars for wastewater and drinking water projects, of which California's share can be invested to help us prepare for the future. Now that the California legislature has passed a budget, the state can tap into existing bond funds, already approved by the public and available today. Most of the needed funding, however, will be made at the local level, by communities investing in their future.

There has been a Catch 22 in California's drought planning - or the lack thereof. During droughts, we are too narrowly focused on what we can do in a single year. The truth is, in a single year, our options are limited to strategies like water conservation and water transfers. After a drought ends, however, decision-makers tend to forget about water and turn to other pressing problems. What we need to do is to launch an ambitious effort to prepare for droughts and a drier future. Even in this crisis, perhaps because of this crisis, there is a great deal of agreement about the path ahead of us.

There is another, sober, final area of agreement - There's no guarantee that this will be the last dry year in this drought. So more than ever, we all need to come together and use water wisely. There simply isn't a drop to waste this year.

Stimulus for the Virtual River

2009-02-17T17:48:17Z

Today, President Obama signed a $787 billion economic stimulus package. NRDC staff worked hard to ensure that the final package includes funding for cutting edge water solutions to help California meet its needs during the current drought and prepare for the future. These solutions, including water use efficiency, wastewater recycling, urban stormwater management and improved groundwater management (which, together, we call the virtual river), can provide California with additional water supply, safe drinking water, clean beaches and healthier ecosystems.

For example, the final stimulus bill includes $126 million for wastewater recycling projects, most of which will likely be in California - the national leader in wastewater recycling. It also includes $6 billion for wastewater and drinking water programs. At least 20 percent of these funds are intended for efficiency and green infrastructure projects that can provide broad and rapid benefits in California. These funds can also help rural water systems with contaminated groundwater sources, including several in California's Southern Central Valley.

If properly spent, these stimulus funds can help revive our economy, respond to the drought and start building a smarter, greener water future for California.

Duct Tape, Baling Wire and Adaptive Management

2009-02-14T19:36:14Z

Adaptive management – it has become a popular term among those of us who debate the future of the complex San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem.   This flexible approach to resource management allows for the testing of hypotheses in complex systems and, through to a feedback loop involving careful monitoring and measurement of progress toward management goals, is designed to lead, in an iterative manner, to better decision-making over time.

In the Bay-Delta, adaptive management is essential, if we are to improve the health of this complex and dynamic ecosystem.   We will never fully understand the complex natural mechanisms in the Delta. That realization is inevitable, given that we now know that the Delta is subject to powerful forces, such as invasive species, climate change, earthquakes and subsidence that will shape the Delta over time. This means that, when it comes to our regulatory system in the Delta, we can never (as a famous TV pitch man says) “Set it and forget it.”

Today, the Bay-Delta is subject to a patchwork of adaptive management and old-school regulatory approaches. If we are to succeed in managing the Bay-Delta for the co-equal goals of ecosystem health and water supply, we must reform our institutions so that they are capable of fully integrated adaptive management. The Delta Vision Task Force strongly supported an adaptive management approach to the Delta. (See page 131 of the Strategic Plan)

The old approach to regulation – establishing relatively fixed environmental standards and simply monitoring implementation – is still seen at the State Water Resources Control Board. The bulk of the State Board’s water quality standards for the Delta were negotiated and put in place 15 years ago. State law calls for a triennial review of these standards, to respond to on-the-ground developments and improved scientific understanding. However, the State Board has been remarkably slow in updating those standards and in responding to the ongoing collapse of the Delta ecosystem. This is a far cry from the agile, science-driven approach that is the goal of adaptive management. The existing SWRCB standards are widely recognized as inadequate to protect the beneficial uses of the Delta. These standards must be improved. Indeed, Delta Vision specifically called for stronger State Board standards to provide greater outflow at critical times. But it’s not just the standards that must be improved; the old, rigid approach to regulation must adapt as well.

There is one place where real adaptive management is occurring today – in the implementation of the new Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion on delta smelt. The new BO creates a mechanism that uses the results of ongoing monitoring and the recommendations of a group of scientists called the Delta Smelt Working Group to inform real-time decision-making by the Service, in an attempt to prevent this species from falling over the edge of extinction. After the Working Group reviews the latest scientific results and makes management recommendations, the State and federal water projects may propose alternative approaches, and the Service makes final decisions on a relatively short timeline. This approach is science based, highly adaptive, nearly real-time and designed to allow for the input of the regulated agencies.

This BO addresses the needs of a single species (although many species benefit from actions to protect the smelt). Achieving the co-equal goals envisioned by Delta Vision, however, will require adaptive management decisions that consider a full range of species, habitat conditions, water quality and ongoing changes in the ecosystem.

As the state legislature considers Delta governance reform legislation to implement the recommendations of the Delta Vision Task Force’s Strategic Plan, it should pay particular attention to the creation of an adaptive water management program that meets the requirements of state and federal law, that fully protects all beneficial uses (e.g. commercial and recreational fishing, not just listed species.), that includes measurable, enforceable biological objectives and is based on sound science.   Baseline State Board standards like X2 are essential to ecosystem health, but the Board cannot fully protect beneficial uses without adding a more adaptive approach.

One option would be to build on the approach in the smelt BO and create, under a new California Ecosystem and Water Council, a Delta Water Management Group including all of the state and federal regulatory agencies (SWRCB, DFG, NMGS, FWS and EPA). Such a group could lead to a more coordinated, adaptive approach among all of the relevant regulatory agencies. It would allow these agencies to share a common base of scientific analysis on a broad range of issues (including the Delta Smelt Working Group and the CALFED Science Program. It would provide a forum to work through the delicate balancing act of ensuring the protection of different parts of the ecosystem – such as providing adequate flows for the Delta and sufficient cold water for salmon spawning upstream. It would also provide a more transparent forum for environmentalists and water users alike. Finally, creating a more functional, adaptive regulatory program would likely reduce court intervention.    There would be no need to revisit the underlying authority of these agencies. Each of these agencies has an important role to play in making final regulatory decisions. However, reforming the existing system through the creation of such a body could help support Delta Vision’s co-equal goals and bring the management of the Delta into the 21st century.

The Virtual River - Fueling California's Economic Growth with Water

2009-02-03T18:01:43Z

Yesterday, the Senate began debating a recovery package to strengthen the nation's economy. During this discussion, the Senate should look to water as a key area for investment - across the nation, and especially in California.

Water is one of the fuels that drives California's economy. While the nation's economy and the state's budget deficit are dominating headlines, a perfect storm is facing our water systems. Fortunately, smart water solutions can also deliver economic benefits and should be included in federal and state stimulus packages.

There are many signs that our water systems are in trouble. A federal court and federal regulators have ordered reduced pumping from the collapsing San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary. Southern California's drought stricken Colorado River supply may be showing the early signs of climate change. Northern California's rivers are in trouble, leading to the first ever closure of our salmon fishery in 2008 - at a cost of $250 million and thousands of jobs.

Hundreds of waterways, including San Francisco, Santa Monica and San Diego Bays are listed by the state as "impaired," by urban runoff and other sources of pollution. Across California, groundwater contamination has closed more than 4,000 wells, showing how water quality problems can threaten our water supply. Water quality problems make people sick, impair ecosystems and weaken coastal economies.

During the Great Depression, the construction of massive dams was part of a heroic economic stimulus program. These dams have helped California meet its water needs, but at great cost to our environment. Today, business leaders and environmentalists agree that new dams are not the best water solutions. For example, the Southern California Leadership Council said earlier this year that new traditional dams "offer Southern California little in the way of water reliability and if and when deliverable would be one of most expensive and energy intensive options." What we need are new solutions for the 21st century.

One such new idea is what we call the "virtual river," which consists of the combined water supply potential of conservation, water recycling, improved groundwater management and urban stormwater capture. These proven tools can provide more water than we have ever exported from the Bay-Delta, which was the largest single source of water for California in the late 20th century. The virtual river can be California's largest source of water for the 21st. There is a consensus among the Department of Water Resources, business leaders, environmentalists and urban water agency leaders that these tools offer the greatest potential water supply. On California water issues, such a consensus is not easy to come by.

But the virtual river is more than just a source of supply. It represents a superior solution to water quality and other environmental problems as well. By greening our cities, capturing runoff, cleaning up groundwater and recycling wastewater, we can turn polluted water into a valuable resource. And by providing alternative supplies, these tools can help restore salmon runs and the ailing Bay-Delta.

Other factors suggest that investments in the virtual river would be an appropriate part of an economic stimulus package. These tools offer the quickest and most cost-effective water supply available. Conservation, for example, can produce water at ten percent of the cost of water from new dams. And unlike the Colorado River and Sierra snowpack, climate change will not reduce the amount of water we receive from tools like conservation and recycling.

The House-passed economic recovery package includes $6 billion for clean water infrastructure and $2 billion for drinking water infrastructure upgrades, rehabilitation, and repair, including grant funding for a number of elements of the virtual river, such as water efficiency and use of green infrastructure to re-use stormwater and to recharge groundwater supplies. The Senate is expected to consider an amendment that would increase clean and safe water funding from $6 billion to $13 billion, 15% of which would be reserved for water efficiency, green infrastructure, or other environmentally innovative projects. NRDC has been working hard with both wastewater and drinking water agencies to increase this funding.

Federal stimulus funds, however, should only be the beginning of this effort. Once California resolves its current budget crisis, funds from a water bond approved by California voters two years ago are also available to invest in these solutions. Governor Schwarzenegger, the legislature, local governments and water leaders can also work together to maximize the benefits of these investments, by writing building codes that encourage the capture of stormwater and reuse of recycled wastewater, launching groundwater clean-up efforts, and passing legislation to implement the Governor's call for a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2020.

California is leading the world by showing how investments in energy efficiency can prepare our economy to be a world leader in the coming century. Smart investments in water solutions can do the same - providing abundant clean water while strengthening our economy and environment.

The Once and Future Delta

2009-02-02T18:33:08Z

Some landscapes, like Yosemite, are literally carved in stone. Others, like the San Francisco Bay-Delta, being formed of humbler and less permanent stuff, are subject to dramatic changes over time. Indeed, we're only starting to understand what a dynamic system California's largest aquatic ecosystem is. Today, we're at a pivotal point in our thinking about the Delta. But it's often hard to see the shift in thinking on a day-to-day basis. To do that, one must start with a little history.

The first Delta that Californians knew was a 1,000 square mile labyrinth of tule wetlands and sloughs -- the largest estuary on the West Coast of North or South America. Native Americans lived for months on floating rafts, feasting on abundant fish and wildlife. Riparian forests were flooded every spring by water flowing from more than a dozen rivers draining the estuary's vast watershed. Early European travelers were sometimes lost for days in the maze of Delta channels. This was truly the Natural Delta.

That Delta is gone. From the Gold Rush to the early days of the last century, a growing agricultural industry (including my relatives) converted the Delta to dozens of leveed islands supporting thriving farms. Winter rains continued to draw remarkable displays of ducks, geese, swans and sandhill cranes. Fishermen plied Delta waters in search of striped bass and millions of salmon that still passed through the Delta each year. When you visit today, this is the landscape you still see - the Agricultural Delta.

During the Great Depression, plans emerged for a new vision of the Delta as California's greatest water supply. With the construction of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project a new system was created -- the Water Supply Delta. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Water Resources were created to make this vision a reality. Most of today's current legal protections for the Delta and our regulatory agencies were shaped during this period. By the early 1990's, it was clear that the Water Supply Delta was causing catastrophic impacts on our fisheries. That trend has accelerated, leading to ESA listings and the closure of California's salmon fishery in 2008.

Beginning just 17 years ago, with the passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, a serious effort was begun to move to a new vision. This vision for the Delta did not seek to eliminate water supply, but rather to strike a balance -- providing water supply while responding to the decline of the Delta ecosystem, to the legal imperative to protect it and, most importantly, responding to a change in values. Today, the public demands environmental protection. The CVPIA, CALFED, the Bay-Delta Accord were all attempts to facilitate this transition. Today, the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan process is still struggling to find this balance. The Delta Vision Task Force Strategic Plan summarized this new vision as one reflecting the "co-equal goals" of water supply and ecosystem health. Today, this paradigm shift to a Shared Delta is still not complete.

(It's worth noting that the current real estate crisis has temporarily slowed another transition -- the rapid development that has been leading to the Suburban Delta. This has been one of the fastest growing parts of the state over the past decade. 400,000 people live in the Delta today. This trend could lead to truly disastrous results.)

The Delta Vision Task Force also worked to tackle another, more fundamental, rethinking of the Delta. One of the classic paradigm shifts discussed in the history of science is the emergence of plate tectonics among geologists. Plate tectonics reflected a new understanding of the forces literally shaping our world -- moving continents around like jigsaw puzzle pieces. This shift from static to dynamic continents was a dramatic change in thinking. The same thing is happening today in the Delta.

The Delta is subject to profound natural forces that will shape the future of the place we see today. Oxidation has caused Delta soils to subside. As a result, some Delta farm land is now 30 feet below sea level - and is continuing to sink. Pressure is building on the Bay Area's earthquake faults, with serious implications for the 1,100 miles of levees that protect Delta islands. Sea level rose by seven inches at the Golden Gate since 1900 and significantly more is expected in the coming century. Climate change will also increase the magnitude of flood events flowing down the Bay-Delta's major rivers. (The Delta is one of the three most important places where Americans must confront the potential impact of climate change on our land -- the other two are New Orleans and Florida's long coastline.)

All of these natural forces are increasing over time. The groundbreaking work of Prof. Jeff Mount of UC Davis concluded that, without major changes, there is a 2/3 likelihood of a catastrophic failure of multiple Delta islands. Such an event would have disastrous consequences for farmers, water supply, Delta residents, the environment and the web of infrastructure that crisscrosses the Delta (including highways, railroads, power and gas lines and more). The fundamental realization here is that the Delta is a dynamic place shaped by powerful natural forces. It is not the static, malleable system we have assumed it to be for the past century and a half. This is the Dynamic Delta.

In the past, we have largely overlooked these natural forces. But we will either plan to account for these forces, or we will watch as they determine the Delta's future. Without a dramatic shift in our thinking and without a visionary new plan, we will not succeed in deciding the fate of the Delta. The Delta Vision Task Force's Strategic Plan is an ambitious and largely successful effort to grapple with these paradigm shifts - encouraging a new vision of a Shared, Dynamic Delta (while keeping the Suburban Delta at bay.)

Are our government agencies up to meeting these new challenges? The conclusion of the Delta Vision Task Force was a resounding "no." Our current state and federal agencies have not succeeded in the transition to the Shared Delta. They did not slow the development of the Suburban Delta. And have barely begun seriously confronting the Dynamic Delta. The Delta Vision Task Force concluded that far reaching governance reform - reshaping our existing agencies and creating a new Delta Council and a new detailed plan -- is essential if we are to meet the major challenges we face in the Delta.

This governance reform debate is only beginning in the state legislature, with the introduction of two bills certain to change dramatically over time -- AB 39 and SB 12, introduced, respectively, by Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D, San Rafael) and Senator Joe Simitian (D, Palo Alto). The transition to plate tectonics was not debated in California's capitol. The transition to the Dynamic Delta will be. It should be interesting.

A Tale of Two Peripheral Canals. Or is it Three?

2009-01-08T23:31:19Z

On Tuesday, the Sacramento Bee reported that The Nature Conservancy has conditionally endorsed a Peripheral Canal. News about the canal always travels fast. It's one of the most controversial projects in the contentious history of California water.

The canal is designed to divert water from the Sacramento River, just south of the state capital, and divert it around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the enormous state and federal water pumps on the Delta's southern edge. A previous proposal for the canal was rejected by California voters in 1982. Margins in Northern California, driven by fears of thirsty Central Valley and Southern California water users, reached historic levels. For example, 97 percent of Marin County voters pulled the lever against the canal. For the next 25 years, the canal was ignored. It became a third rail of California water policy.

So what's changed to revive this debate? Two things. First, our understanding of the risks facing the Delta has changed. Second, the canal is now more mirage than reality - more a concept than a concrete proposal. Let's take these changes one at a time.

Since 1982, remarkably little analysis or critical thinking has been applied to the Peripheral Canal concept. As we learned more about changes in the Delta, the estuary's environment, climate change, water quality, alternative water supplies and more, no one analyzed how a canal would perform. Little thought was given regarding why one would want to build a canal in the first place.

This changed in 2007, when the Public Policy Institute of California released an influential report called "Envisioning Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta". That report built on work done by U.C. Davis professor Jeff Mount, which concluded that there is a 2/3 probability of a catastrophic failure of Delta levees by 2050. These risks are increasing over time, driven by ongoing land subsidence, inadequate levee maintenance, increasing earthquake risk and ongoing sea level rise. The failure of levees on a dozen Delta islands would be a sobering event for hundreds of thousands of Delta residents, for water users South of the Delta, and for the environment. PPIC suggested that a canal could be needed, not to increase water diversions, but rather to decrease the risk of a long-term shut down in Delta pumping as a result of levee failures. This effort helped shape the Delta Vision Task Force's work on a comprehensive Delta plan.

Second, today, there is no single canal proposal. In fact, there is a remarkable diversity of ideas about a canal. On the one hand, PPIC suggested that a canal could help reduce the risks posed by earthquakes and sea level rise. In its final Strategic Plan the Delta Vision Task Force agreed in concept, and called for strong new protections for the estuary and a new governance entity to ensure that a canal would be operated in a responsible manner. Neither PPIC nor Delta Vision anticipated that a canal would produce much, if any, new water supply. In fact, both suggested that a reduction in diversions might be needed. They envisioned a canal designed to increase reliability, not supply, with major new environmental protections. This is the kind of canal the Nature Conservancy has in mind.

On the other hand, last April, the Department of Water Resources released its own preliminary analysis of a canal. The project analyzed by DWR was very different from that envisioned by PPIC and Delta Vision. It did not include new standards to protect the Delta. In fact, it relied on weakening and violating existing environmental standards. It would, according to DWR, lead to a dramatic increase in pumping. This version of the project would cause major impacts to the Delta environment, water quality and Delta agriculture. It would drain upstream reservoirs, leaving little or no cold water to meet the needs of spawning salmon. This Peripheral Canal could lead to extinctions and the permanent closure of California's salmon fishery.

These very different versions of the Peripheral Canal are just the tip of the iceberg. Some have proposed that the "canal" should actually be a pipeline. Others have advocated a thousand-foot wide unlined canal built below sea level on subsided Delta islands. Still others have suggested an alignment on the West side of the Delta, with a massive tunnel under the Western Delta to deliver water to the pumps. Some have argued for "dual conveyance" - pumping through both a new canal and the existing intakes in the southern Delta. Others insist on "full isolation." Yet another proposal calls for armoring levees and separating Delta channels. Delta Vision has called for a new agency to regulate a canal. That proposal, however, is opposed by water users south of the Delta.

Finally, after years of study and negotiations, EBMUD is currently building a (much smaller) canal around the Delta - called the Freeport Project. In this case, the hard work paid off. As unlikely as it seems, no one sued to stop EBMUD's project.

In short, today, the Peripheral Canal is in the eye of the beholder. Different canal proposals would have dramatically different implications in terms of cost, yield, benefits and impacts. Nearly every stakeholder group could find in this list a version of the canal to oppose.

Given this tremendous uncertainty, it's not a surprise that the debate about the "Peripheral Canal" is often unproductive. Without specific projects and careful analysis, this debate is often founded in hunches, history and near-religious faith. Moving this discussion in a more productive direction will require three things - all of which are clearly outlined in the Delta Vision Strategic Plan.

First, we need clarity regarding the purpose of a change in the Delta conveyance system. A canal designed to increase reliability and help restore ecosystem health would look very different from one designed to increase diversions. These different projects would have different costs, impacts and benefits. Specifically, water users South of the Delta should abandon the outdated assumption that a canal would automatically result in more water pumped from the Delta. And California must make a dramatic investment in the "virtual river" - consisting of conservation, water recycling, urban stormwater capture and groundwater management. These tools can help California meet its future water needs without more diversions from damaged ecosystems like the Delta.

Second, careful scientific analysis must address the unanswered questions regarding Delta conveyance identified by the Delta Vision Task Force. The Task Force concluded that a meaningful, final decision on conveyance is not possible until we answer these tough questions. How much water would be diverted? How would the project affect the Delta environment, water quality and salmon runs? How would the canal's massive fish screens - which would be the world's largest - perform? What new environmental standards would be put in place? Would those standards include new protections called for by Delta Vision? How would the facility fit into a strategy to restore ecosystem health and protect Delta residents and infrastructure? These answers matter, particularly for a facility that could cost $20 billion and take 20 years to build. Water users, regulators, environmentalists, fishermen, the Delta community and others can't judge a canal accurately without answers to these questions. The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan process, which is currently studying a canal, has not yet indicated if or how it will address these unanswered questions or incorporate key Delta Vision recommendations.

Third, the legislature must reform the agencies that manage the Delta, as recommended by the Task Force, with particular attention to reforming the regulation of the state and federal water projects. Those projects have, in recent years, been operated with little regard to the needs of the Delta environment or the requirements of state and federal law. That's why a federal judge stepped in, as a result of a lawsuit brought by NRDC, ordering the projects to comply with the ESA. In another lawsuit, a state judge has ruled that the projects are violating California's ESA. There are other violations as well. Governance reform is essential to reestablishing trust that any Delta facility would be operated responsibly.

The Delta Vision Task Force's Strategic Plan includes a detailed framework in each of these three areas. The Task Force, however, has no implementation authority. It is now up to the Governor, the legislature, state and federal agencies, and stakeholders to determine if this promising plan will be implemented or if it will simply gather dust.

No one defends the status quo in the Delta. The current levees are inadequate. Urban development in the Delta is putting more and more people at risk of flooding. The Delta ecosystem is crashing, in large part because of excessive water diversions. That's the devil we know. On the other hand, we know remarkably little about a Peripheral Canal. No one believes that a canal alone could solve all of the Delta's problems. Most importantly, to date, no one has produced a detailed, credible proposal that meets the test laid out by the Delta Vision Task Force.

The quickest road to failure in the Delta would be a premature fight over an ill-defined Peripheral Canal. Such a debate would be more faith-based than fact-driven and would inevitably lead to gridlock. We've been here before.

The past several decades are littered with efforts that failed to resolve the issues in the Delta. Our new understanding of the Delta, however, shows that the stakes are higher this time. Extinction is permanent. As is sea level rise. And a massive levee failure event could unalterably change the Delta and threaten thousands of residents. If the Delta Vision effort fails, we may not have another chance.

A New Vision for the Bureau of Reclamation

2008-11-25T23:30:25Z

The Bureau of Reclamation was conceived at the start of the 20th century (originally as the Reclamation Service) to meet the needs of a world that no longer exists. Now, at the start of the 21st Century, the Bureau needs a new mission to help the West meet its needs in the future. The Green Group recommendations for the Bureau represent just such a new vision.

The West the Bureau served in 1902 looked vastly different from the world we face today. In 1902, most western states saw agriculture as the dominant force in their economies. Most of these states were seeking policies designed to increase their populations as rapidly as possible. The dramatic rise of public concern regarding the health of the environment was decades in the future. And the Bureau had relatively few tools at its disposal to help meet water needs. In 1902, even effective groundwater pumps wouldn’t be developed for decades. It’s not a surprise that, for the next century, the Bureau focused primarily on building dams and canals to serve agriculture – becoming a world leader through the construction of Hoover Dam and dozens of other projects.

Today, however, the Bureau faces dramatically different challenges. New industries have emerged, driving the economies of most western states. Burgeoning cities are concerned about the adequacy and reliability of their water supplies. Salmon runs and aquatic resources are declining across the West -- leading to a public outcry for a more balanced approach. And finally, climate change presents a clear case for a new direction. Three examples of these new challenges suggest that a new direction is needed and possible.

First, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program has projected likely changes in median runoff across the nation. These projections suggest that climate change will cause most of the West to be drier in the future. The most dramatic projection is that the Colorado River Basin, a critical artery for seven states, will likely be from 10-25 percent dryer in the future. Today, the Bureau’s projects capture the entire flow of the Colorado, leaving the river’s mouth dry. Squeezing more water from a river that is likely to produce less water in the future is not a promising strategy. Rather, in the Colorado River Basin and across the West, the Bureau must increasingly emphasize conservation, water recycling, groundwater cleanup and other proven tools to help meet growing water needs through conservation and reuse. These cost-effective tools can make our water supply (and economy) less vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and reduce the pressure on our aquatic ecosystems. This is just part of a new agenda for the Bureau to meet the challenges of climate change.

Second, this year, state and federal regulators closed California’s commercial and recreational salmon fishery for the first time in state history. Water project operations, particularly the Bureau’s projects, are one of the primary causes of this decline. According to the state’s leading fisheries biologist, without a change in the water management, California is likely to lose permanently this iconic fishery, costing the state thousands of jobs and more than a quarter billion dollars a year. To address these growing problems, the Bureau should pay greater attention to managing its water projects to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems across the West.

Third, sea level rise, another result of climate change, threatens the future of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary, much of which is far below sea level as a result of agricultural land subsidence. This long-term threat has made the already complex Delta issues even more challenging. Given that the Central Valley Project pumps much of its water from the Delta, these problems have powerful implications for the Bureau. This month, Governor Schwarzenegger’s Delta Vision Task Force released a strategic plan calling for a dramatic new direction in California water policies, Delta management and the Bureau’s Central Valley Project. The Bureau’s new leadership should read these detailed recommendations with great care.

By incorporating climate change into the Bureau’s management, by involving more stakeholders in its deliberations, by increasing its emphasis on efficiency and ecosystem health, and by partnering with local agencies in a more integrated manner, the Bureau can chart a new course to help Western states and communities meet their needs for another century.

Responding to California’s Current Drought

2008-06-04T23:07:39Z

Today, the Governor declared a statewide drought and signed an executive order. We strongly agree with the Governor that a concerted effort is required to ensure that California meets its water needs during the current drought. The Governor, California’s urban water agencies and the environmental community have an enormous amount of common ground to build on.

The best way we can keep our taps flowing is through water conservation and efficiency. NRDC is sponsoring AB 2175, a bill that would apply the lessons of the 2000 energy crisis to our water challenge. For energy and water both, conservation and efficiency are the fastest, cheapest cleanest ways to meet our needs.

Water conservation reduces our greenhouse gas emissions by saving energy. It also reduces our reliance on the troubled Bay-Delta and reduces our vulnerability to the water supply impacts of global warming.

Other tools can help as well. This May 30 op-ed from the San Diego Union Tribune shows that water conservation, water recycling, groundwater management and urban stormwater management are the largest sources of “new” water for the state.

NRDC has helped to negotiate and has supported all of the water bonds that have been passed by California voters in the past decade – Propositions 204, 13, 50 and 84. Together, these bonds have provided 11.8 billion to address water and related resource problems. The last of these - the $ 5.4 billion Prop 84 - was approved just 18 months ago. Most of the funds from this bond remain unspent. Appropriating these funds should be a high priority – to help water agencies respond to the current crisis. Several bills are currently pending in the state legislature to expend some of these bond funds.

NRDC is more than willing to participate in negotiations regarding another water bond. Obviously, that bond must be designed in light of the state’s budget situation. The best way to design a cost-effective water bond is to devote funds to an integrated regional water management program that makes all water strategies to compete, to produce the best solutions. This approach has worked in Props 50 and 84. It allows water agencies to decide what tools are most effective in meeting local needs. It also maximizes local cost-share funding.

Tapping Into California's Virtual River

2008-05-30T18:59:59Z

California is at a turning point in its efforts to meet its water supply needs. For a century and a half, the traditional approach was to search out new rivers to dam or pump from. The problem is that the Golden State is fresh out of rivers. As this op-ed in the San Diego Union Tribune indicates, California has one last river to tap into. But this is a virtual river, composed of the enormous potential supplies from efficiency, reuse, groundwater clean-up and stormwater management.

The familiar narrative in California's "water wars" is one of environmentalists and urban water agencies fighting over massive water projects. What makes the virtual river so interesting is that environmentalists and urban water agencies alike agree this is where we will get our "new" water in the future. This common ground was demonstrated just two days ago, when the California State Assembly passed an NRDC-sponsored water conservation bill, AB 2175, which would reduce California's per capita water use by 20 percent.

The State of California's official water plan shows this same potential. The graphic below shows the combined total of the State Water Plan's estimates of the potential yield of water conservation, water recycling and groundwater management, along with NRDC's estimate of the potential of stormwater management in just three Southern California counties. This total is greater than the Bay-Delta, greater than the Colorado River, and vastly greater than the potential yield of multi-billion dollar new dam proposals.

We're convinced that these solutions, which make so much environmental, economic -- and common -- sense, will win the day in California and in the growing number of places in the nation and around the world that are experiencing water shortages. They may not be as dramatic as an old-fashioned water fight. They just work.

Good to the Last Drop?

2008-05-29T00:03:17Z

Yesterday, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program released a report evaluating the likely effects of climate change on water and other resources in the United States. Rather than focus on long-term projections – to 2100 – this report focuses on the relatively near term – 2040-2060. Perhaps the most disturbing conclusion is that much of the American West will be dryer in the future – in some cases much dryer. Note the conclusion in the graphic below that average water flows in California could be 5% to 10% lower in half a century.

Last February, the National Research Council released an analysis of likely impacts of global warming on the Colorado River system. That analysis also concluded that the Colorado River will provide less water in the future. The Colorado is an important water source for Southern California. However, this new report shows that this reduction in average water flows could also affect other California river systems – like the San Francisco Bay-Delta. This report comes at a critical time. California is at a pivotal point in water management – demonstrated by the formation of the Delta Vision Task Force and several other efforts aimed at transforming water policy and the management of the Bay-Delta. The Bay-Delta’s fish species are collapsing, in large part as a result of excessive water diversions. Restoring a healthy Bay-Delta will require long-term reductions in pumping. However, this report gives us another reason to plan for reductions in water supplies from the Bay-Delta. There will simply be less water to go around. As the Delta Vision Task Force writes its 50 year strategic plan for the Bay-Delta, as the Department of Water Resources and the Bureau of Reclamation contemplate possible changes in Delta infrastructure and multi-billion dollar dam projects, they would do well to remember the conclusions of this report. A 5-10% reduction in total flows may not sound like much. But in the Bay-Delta system and many of its tributary rivers, there’s not must “unallocated” water to go around – if any. A 5-10% reduction could have a dramatic impact on the yield, for example, of proposed new dam projects. No water manager wants to be remembered for building a multi-billion dollar project to capture water that may not exist in a warmer future. In the past, water engineers could safely assume that our rivers will behave in the future as they have in the past. However, today, this “build it and it will rain” philosophy no longer holds water.

DWR’s Analysis of a Peripheral Canal for the Bay-Delta Estuary

2008-05-21T17:42:57Z

In 1982, the public rejected the Peripheral Canal at the ballot box. In the last several years, the Canal has been revived as a possible strategy to address the very real concerns about the current state of Delta levees. Too often, however, the debate about a Peripheral Canal is limited to an abstract discussion. The debate over this controversial facility will never be a productive discussion until it is grounded in specific proposals and thorough analysis – How would a canal be designed? How would it be operated? What impacts would it have? Who would run it? DWR has quietly released a document that will help tether this discussion to specific alternatives. This initial analysis of an isolated facility was submitted to Delta Vision and the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan process.

Our initial response to this analysis is attached. The conclusion of DWR’s analysis is that an isolated facility could allow the CVP and SWP to increase total diversions by a maximum of roughly 2 million acre-feet per year. It is important to note that this is not a DWR proposal, nor is it a draft environmental document. I certainly don’t expect an initial analysis to address fully all of the issues related to an isolated facility. However, the conclusions, assumptions, omissions and biases in this document are troubling. When it comes to fundamental changes in Delta conveyance, details and analysis matter. We are now just at the start of a meaningful discussion of these issues, not at its conclusion.