Switchboard, from NRDC › Barry Nelson's Blog

Solar in the Central Valley – The Idea is Catching On

2010-03-16T23:13:36Z

Just about a year ago, I wrote about the potential for solar production on the West side of the San Joaquin Valley to produce multiple benefits. As this story in the Fresno Bee indicates, the idea is catching on. The Westlands Water District has signed a lease with a private investment group as part of an effort to explore a 5,000 megawatt solar power plant on up to 30,000 acres of land. The project could provide enough power for 2.5 to 4 million California homes.

The land in question has already been retired from farming as a result of salt accumulation. Obviously, this land has far less environmental value than land in the Mojave Desert, which has been the primary focus of most industrial-scale solar development proposals in California. The Westlands site is relatively close to California cities, as well as major power transmission corridors. A project of this magnitude also has the potential to generate jobs in a region that has been hit by three dry years, the collapse of the construction industry and the general economic downturn.

This project is still in the early stages. It must secure financing, obtain permits and agreements with utilities to purchase power. However, the growing common ground around this idea, among the Westlands Water District, farmers, environmentalists and solar entrepreneurs, is certainly promising.

About Myths, Water and California’s Salmon Industry

2010-03-16T23:04:03Z

Three cheers to the Los Angeles Times for running this column “Deceptive Arguments are Being Made in California’s Water Wars" by Michael Hiltzik about the misleading arguments made by some in the current debate over California water policy and protections for the Bay-Delta ecosystem and its fisheries.

The column points out that unemployment in the Central Valley is a long-term problem, exacerbated mostly by water rights and drought -- not fisheries protections. But perhaps the most important point is the often overlooked linkage between the mismanagement of water projects and the collapse of California’s salmon runs – leading to a two-year closure of the salmon fishery, along with the loss of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars to commercial and recreational fishing communities.

The salmon fishing community has noticed that they have been frequently ignored in the debate about water policy – and they’re speaking up. Here’s a post by Zeke Grader, on behalf of commercial salmon fishermen. Dick Pool writes here from the perspective of the recreational fishing community and the many jobs it represents. And just yesterday, Paul Johnson, the well known owner of Monterey Fish Market, cookbook author and sustainable fishing advocate, posted this piece on Grist and Ethicurian.

The Hiltzik column points out a clear pattern -- deceptive claims about the cause of water shortages, exaggeration of economic impacts, and failure to mention impacts to salmon and fishermen who depend on a healthy Delta ecosystem. Put this pattern together and one is left with a suggestion that we face a simple choice of “fish or people.” The reality, however, doesn’t correspond with this myth. People actually do value and depend on a healthy environment. They like to be able to serve their families local, sustainable seafood. There actually are limits to how much water we can squeeze out of any river system. And we have plenty of other options to meet our urban and agricultural water needs.

Facing the reality of California’s complex water supply picture may not be as simple as focusing on the myths – but it’s the path to finding workable solutions.

Dam Advocates Make Case for the Virtual River

2010-03-10T19:30:23Z

This story in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times makes a compelling case for what NRDC calls the virtual river – new water supplies that can be tapped without pumping more from our overtaxed rivers. In fact, the dam advocates themselves make this case very persuasively.

As the article points out, some Central Valley growers are quite enthusiastic about the proposed $3.3 billion Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River. That's no surprise - the federal water reclamation program has been very generous to its agricultural beneficiaries. As Bettina Boxall points out, after a 60 year interest-free loan provided by federal taxpayers, Central Valley Project growers have repaid only 19 percent of the 1.2 billion dollars they owe the federal government for the construction of the existing project. (That amounts to a 300 year interest-free loan. Imagine what your mortgage payment might be if you could get those terms!) If these farmers could get that kind of financing deal on Temperance Flat Dam, of course they would jump at the opportunity. But even a casual look at the numbers raises real questions about such an investment.

As grower Harvey Bailey admits in the piece, farmers couldn't pay $1,500 per acre for water from the proposed dam. At around 3 acre-feet applied per acre of land, that amounts to a per acre-foot cost of about $500. In reality, the real cost of water from the dam would certainly be far higher. The Bureau’s estimate of $850 per acre foot is also certainly too low. In 1994, the Bureau estimated that raising Friant Dam – a very similar storage project – would produce water costing nearly $3,000 per acre-foot. A realistic low estimate of the true cost of water from Temperance Flat is perhaps $1,000 to $1,500 per acre-foot. That’s more than 20 times what farmers in the area pay the Bureau of Reclamation for water today. As Mr. Bailey admits, such a project would only be viable if subsidized by urban taxpayers or water users. The problem is that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, quoted in the article, seems less than enthusiastic about the proposal. The reasons for this reluctance are many - and persuasive.

First, there’s just not much water there. For most of the past half century, 60 miles of the San Joaquin River have been literally dry – with every drop of water captured by the existing Friant Dam. (Today, thanks to an agreement reached by NRDC, the Friant water users and the federal government, restoration flows have begun in the river. As a result, in most years, Temperance Flat Dam would not produce a drop of water. In very wet years, some water would be captured; however, on average, this yield is tiny. It’s hard to justify building a new multi-billion dollar dam when there’s just not much water left to squeeze out of the river.

Second, the alternatives are far cheaper. At perhaps $1,500 per acre-foot, just about everything would be cheaper than water from Temperance Flat - conservation, water recycling, groundwater clean up and storage, water purchased on the open market, even desalination could cost less. And the proposed urban subsidy for agricultural water from this project – contemplated by the growers in the Times story – would further raise the cost of water for urban dwellers.

Third, the water from this dam would go to agriculture, not urban water users. The Bureau of Reclamation owns the current dam on the San Joaquin River. It holds the water rights and is studying Temperance Flat. Existing Central Valley Project agricultural contractors would expect the lion's share of water from any project. Even if MWD wanted a piece of the project, getting water from Temperance Flat to Southern California would be a long uphill struggle.

Fourth, with every new groundwater project built in this part of the Central Valley, the tiny amount of water left to capture in the San Joaquin River would shrink. Even optimists admit that it would likely be 20 years before Temperance Flat could be completed. By that time, two decades of groundwater development would reduce the already small potential yield of the dam to a trickle.

Fifth, climate change is likely to further shrink the yield of Temperance Flat. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program has projected that California could be 5-10 percent drier by the middle of the next century. Clearly, water planners should be careful when considering a potential multi-billion dollar investment to capture the last 5 percent of water on the San Joaquin or any California river. That water simply might not be there in the future.

It’s not a surprise that agricultural interests are interested in building more old-fashioned dams in the Central Valley. This technology served them well in the past. However, given the issues above, it’s also not a surprise that business leaders, urban water agencies and environmentalists agree that the virtual river is a far better investment.

The only thing the LA Times got wrong in this story was the title – “Another Water Project Could Divide the State.” When it comes to expensive projects like Temperance Flat Dam, most of the state is united.

All the Tools in the Toolbox

2010-02-27T00:36:53Z

There’s a lot to be encouraged about in the Department of Interior’s announcement of initial water allocations for the CVP – as well as the reactions coming from many quarters. The focus of discussions today has been on solutions that can protect the Bay-Delta, salmon and fishing jobs while helping water users meet their supply needs. (That’s what we call co-equal goals.)

DOI’s announcement today confirms what all water users know, that water allocations are driven primarily by weather. Interior announced that, coming out of three dry years, if the rainfall this year remains on the current track, we will end up in a below normal year, with the most junior water users in the CVP system receiving 30 percent of their maximum allocation. Most other CVP farmers in the San Joaquin Valley will receive 100 percent of their total allocations. On balance, the Bureau projected that “should precipitation continue so that a median forecast is realized, Reclamation expects to deliver 5.7 million acre-feet, representing 96 percent of deliveries over the past 5 years.” That five year period extends back before the current dry period and before the issuance of the new Biological Opinions issued pursuant to the ESA.

The announcements today also show an encouraging broadening of horizons within the water community. The CVP and SWP are enormous water projects, but together, they still provide a minority of California’s water supply. Water users have many tools in their toolbox to meet their needs. Last year, the Westlands Water District used those tools to reach a supply equal to 80% of their maximum allocation of CVP water. This year, thanks to discussions over the past few weeks, they will have more tools at their disposal.

Ultimately, crops will grow when they get water – and it doesn’t matter whether that water is from the CVP or from another source. The bottom line is that the junior water users in an overallocated system will always need to work to secure supplemental supplies. Senator Feinstein, the Department of Interior, water users and a great many others (including NRDC) have been working hard to identify those potential supplies – supplies that can be obtained without harming other water users or the environment.

Here’s NRDC’s list of candidate options. Most of these options have been developed by other water users. It’s particularly interesting that the restoration of the San Joaquin River creates opportunities to operate the CVP systems on the East and West sides of the Valley together in a way that can benefit junior water users without interfering with the restoration of the river. The newly restored flows in that river provide the aquatic artery that has reconnected these two systems.

The tools in the Westlands toolbox fall into five categories:

CVP supply – which from this point forward will largely be determined by rainfall and their junior status in the system.
Voluntary water transfers from their water rich neighbors with senior rights.
The reoperation of the State Water Project and the CVP Friant system in a manner that helps junior water users without harming others. (This is explained more in the fact sheet.) The Metropolitan Water District and the State Water Project deserve credit for stepping up and being the first to volunteer to help implement a reoperation program.
Carryover storage. Westlands and other junior water users have worked hard to build up supplies over the past six months to have water “in the bank” – more specifically stored in the San Luis Reservoir. Currently, they have more than 400,000 acre-feet of stored water in San Luis.
Groundwater. Yes, California has a major groundwater overdraft problem, because farmers are pumping at rates greater than recharge over the long-term. However, there is a safe level of groundwater pumping. In wet years, groundwater should be allowed to recharge. And in dry years, Westlands should pump more than their long-term yield. That’s how conjunctive use works. Given California’s lack of groundwater management requirements (a topic for another day) it is all but certain that Westlands and its farmers will pump between 200,000 and 600,000 acre-feet of water this year. The more they can squeeze from other sources, the less pressure will remain on groundwater.

We’re confident that, working together, Senator Feinstein, the Department of Interior and various other interests can get the most from those tools – largely by persuading neighbors in the Valley to help junior water users.

Today has been an eventful day in the water world. But the bottom line is simple. Salmon and other fish don’t have a choice. They swim in the water we leave in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. If we don’t leave enough, they won’t survive. Water users, however, have lots of choices. We just need to use all of the tools in the box.

Reason #1 – Trust

2010-02-17T17:51:57Z

There are many complex reasons why legislation to block ESA protections in the Delta would be unproductive. One of the most important reasons, however, is simple: trust. The lack of trust among stakeholders has been a major obstacle to progress on Delta issues for years. As a result, discussions about solutions to the challenges in the Delta often don’t get out of the starting gate.

Over the past several months, I’ve written many times about the provisions of the policy reform package that the state legislature passed last November. However, beyond the details of the many bills in that package, that legislation started to rebuild trust among some of the warring parties in the Delta. That trust is fragile, and it’s not universal, but it’s an important ingredient for progress.

For example, NRDC has been a long-time opponent of a peripheral canal in the Delta. However, as a result of increasing awareness of sea level rise, subsidence and earthquake risks in the Delta, we’ve moved from that simple position to a more open and nuanced one. In short, our position on Delta infrastructure will be determined by its design, proposed operations and assurances that it will be operated responsibly. That last point is where trust comes in.

You see, the problem is that new infrastructure in the Delta could be managed to improve ecosystem health – or to further damage Delta resources. It could be used to restore fisheries, or could serve as the final nail in their coffin.

The request from some South of Delta water users for the last few years has been simple: “Let us build a very large peripheral canal. Trust us. It will be operated responsibly pursuant to a scientifically-developed plan.” The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan process is struggling to design a facility (be it a canal, tunnel or pipeline), determine how it might be operated, and design governance “assurances” to ensure those operations.

It’s pretty obvious where this is going. If Congress were to waive ESA protections for the Delta that were designed after extensive scientific review, at a time when several species are on the brink of extinction, when the salmon fishery is in danger of a permanent closure, and when water supply reductions have been caused largely by drought (rather than environmental protections), it’s difficult to imagine that any trust would survive in the Delta debate. Instead, environmentalists, fishermen, Delta interests and others in Northern California would see any Delta facility as a grab for more water. If Congress were to block ESA protections, the only responsible assumption regarding any future Delta facility would be that, when the chips are down, good science and legal protections will be trumped by political pressure.

In short, such legislation would cause the Delta debate to revert back to an old-fashioned North/South water war. We’ve seen that kind of gridlock before. The Los Angeles Times makes this point in an editorial this morning about an ESA rider.

The problems in the Delta are real. And many water interests have been cautiously looking for new solutions. Trust is one of the missing ingredients that can help us find them. That’s one reason why so many understand that a bill blocking ESA protections in the Delta could cause long-lasting damage. Today more than ever, it’s critical that we look for opportunities to rebuild trust, rather than to destroy it.

Proposed ESA Rollbacks -- A Fork in the Road

2010-02-16T17:58:33Z

For the past year, Central Valley agricultural interests have urged Congress to waive Endangered Species Act protections for San Francisco Bay-Delta fish species that are on the brink of extinction. Congressman Nunes has introduced sweeping legislation (H.R. 3105) to prevent ESA protections for the Bay-Delta from being implemented. Recently Senator Feinstein announced that she is also considering legislation that would block ESA protections.

It’s not a surprise that environmentalists and fishermen oppose a rollback of one of the nation’s bedrock environmental laws as it applies to one of the nation’s most important aquatic ecosystems. (You can read more about the environmental and fishing community response here and here.) But some may be surprised by the breadth of opposition to this idea and the many reasons why such legislation would be unwise. During the coming week, my colleagues, Kate Poole and Doug Obegi, and I will be writing a series of posts surveying the opponents to this idea and the far reaching potential implications.

California has a great deal at stake here. The Bay-Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast, and is the lifeblood of the commercial and recreational salmon fishery south of the Columbia River. Farmers and communities in the Delta are deeply concerned about the future of their region. And all water users know that water is a key to California’s economic health. Success in California’s famously contentious water policy debate lies in developing workable solutions that do not sacrifice any of these critical interests. At NRDC, we believe that working together we can find those solutions.

Legislation blocking ESA protections would lead to some simple and obvious impacts, such as potential extinctions and permanent damage to the salmon fishery, and some complicated and less obvious impacts, such as conflicts with state law and implications for other water users. Given the severity and number of those impacts, my colleagues and I will take some time to explain them individually.

It’s a cliché that it’s easier to destroy something than to build something. Well we’ve built some fragile progress on water issues in the past year. It would be a tragedy to see that progress lost, perhaps costing us another decade. (It took almost 10 years to get from the ill-fated CALFED Plan to the state legislative package last November.) Given what’s at stake, we don’t have the luxury of wasting a decade.

Assemblyman Huffman Writes to DWR about State-Created CESA Violation

2010-02-11T19:02:19Z

My colleague Kate Poole wrote here about the risk that, should it succeed in its efforts to invalidate current ESA protections in the Delta, the Department of Water Resources would put itself in violation of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Yesterday, Assemblyman Huffman, chairman of the Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife Committee, sent DWR a letter chronicling the agency’s convoluted path toward compliance with CESA – and the risk that the state’s own legal strategy could result in a violation of state law. He asks DWR to explain how it intends to meet the requirements of CESA, should the federal courts block either of the federal biological opinions that regulate the operations of the pumps in the Delta. DWR’s reply should make interesting reading.

DWR received a temporary reprieve today, when Judge Wanger refused to block protections under the Fish and Wildlife Service delta smelt biological opinion. As a result of this ruling, pumping limitations will remain in place under both the ESA and CESA.

Over the last weekend, however, the SWP was clearly in violation of CESA limits, which reflect those in the federal BO. The CESA requirements, which were not blocked by the federal court ruling last Friday, allow no more than -5,000 cfs flows in Old and Middle River. For the layperson, that means that the average flows in these two Delta channels may not exceed 5,000 cubic-feet-per-second flowing in the wrong direction – carrying fish upstream toward the state and federal pumps. As you can see here, the 14 day average reverse flows on February 7 and 8 exceeded this legal limit, as the CVP increased pumping in response to Judge Wanger’s ruling enjoining salmon protections.

As Kate Poole points out here, this reckless approach to Delta protections is penny wise and pound foolish.

State Legal Strategy in the Delta Conflicts with State Legal Requirements

2010-02-04T21:25:50Z

Yesterday, a federal judge refused the Department of Water Resources’ “nonopposition” to a request to block ESA protections for the delta smelt under the Endangered Species Act. The court, however, has not yet ruled on the request to weaken protections for listed salmon and other species. The state’s position in this case is in conflict with two important legal requirements.

The first conflict is with SB 7x1 -- the Delta governance bill passed in November. That bill requires the state’s Bay-Delta Conservation Plan to meet the requirements of the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act – the state’s highest standard for ecosystem restoration and species recovery -- which requires the development of a science based program to protect and restore listed species.

The problem is that the best available science on Delta fish has already been used to develop the biological opinions to protect listed Delta species. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service took great care to ensure that these BOs were grounded in solid science – through at least five separate scientific peer reviews. So although the state is required to use the best available science to develop a BDCP, DWR is currently challenging the federal BO’s based on that same science.

The second conflict is with the state’s salmon doubling requirement, which was established twenty years ago in Section 6902 of the Fish and Game Code and subsequently incorporated into the State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Right Decision D 1641. Since the passage of this requirement, rather than doubling salmon populations, state agencies have watched populations plummet to record lows. In fact, the State Water Project has played a significant role in this decline in the Central Valley.

The protections that DWR has asked the court to block are designed to protect listed salmon, such as winter-run and spring-run Chinook. But these protections also benefit the fall-run – the backbone of California’s and Oregon’s salmon fishery. So, in addition to seeking to relax protections for listed species, the state is seeking to weaken protections for the salmon upon which the salmon fishing community depends. Rather than seeking to restore salmon populations, as required by law, DWR is seeking permission to facilitate its further collapse.

The recreational and commercial salmon fishing community is well aware of the implications of the state’s legal strategy. Here’s a press release from the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Communities discussing the implications of the court hearing.

The potential implications of the state’s legal strategy don’t stop here. My colleague Kate Poole writes here about potentially serious implications for water users.

The Future of the California Salmon Industry

2010-02-02T00:32:51Z

Tomorrow, a federal district court in Fresno will hear a request from water users south of the Delta for a temporary restraining order to block protections under the Endangered Species Act for threatened and endangered species that are harmed by water project operations in the Central Valley. These species include winter-run Chinook salmon, spring-run Chinook salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, delta smelt and even orca (which feed on anadromous fish from the Bay-Delta system). Although the fall-run Chinook salmon is not among these listed species, the fate of the fall-run – and the fate of California’s salmon fishery – may also hang in the balance.

The Central Valley fall-run is the backbone of the commercial and recreational salmon fishery in California and southern Oregon. The protections in place under the current federal biological opinion for listed salmon species also protect the young fall run currently migrating through the Delta and out the Golden Gate, to rear in the ocean. These protections are helping to give this fish – and the fishery – a fighting chance.

The California salmon fishery has been closed for two years now, because of the collapse of the Central Valley fall-run, and initial spawning counts suggest that the fishery may be closed for a third year. Here’s a story on the subject just posted on NRDC’s OnEarth magazine web site.

But salmon are protected by more than just the ESA. State and federal laws require agencies to double salmon runs from their populations two decades ago. But instead of doubling salmon, the combined pumping of the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project increased to record levels five years ago, helping to drive the fall-run population to record lows today. The water projects appear to have forgotten their legal mandate to double salmon – and the fishing community is now paying the price.

These massive water projects aren’t the only thing affecting California’s salmon. However, in the near-term, improved protections for salmon are the best hope for the survival of the species, and for the thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity that the fishery should support each year.

Another Quiet Water Supply Solution – Capturing Urban Stormwater

2010-02-01T22:23:50Z

I must admit that when I first heard the term Low Impact Development (“LID”), I thought it meant locating townhomes near mass transit. However, LID (also known as green infrastructure or urban stormwater capture) is rapidly emerging as a significant contributor to California’s future water supply. My colleague Noah Garrison has written extensively about this solution here. One clear sign of the momentum building behind this strategy is the new proposed ordinance that the City of Los Angeles is considering to require new homes, large developments and some redevelopments to be designed to capture, reuse or infiltrate 100% of the rainwater from storms that drop up to 3/4 inch. Here’s today’s Los Angeles Times story.

Green Infrastructure was originally conceived as a way to reduce pollution from urban stormwater runoff. However, by capturing and using this water, green infrastructure is also augmenting Southern California’s water supply, reducing its vulnerability to climate change impacts, and reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, in comparison with imported water supplies.

The water that can be generated by green infrastructure isn’t even considered in Peter Gleick’s recommendations to develop rapidly one million acre-feet of new water supply through urban and agricultural water conservation.

All around California, one can find quiet solutions like this. They aren’t as dramatic as fights over Delta protections and don’t receive as much attention, but these solutions represent California’s water supply future.

Pima Cotton Farmers: Making More Money with Less Water

2010-02-01T19:33:24Z

I just came across an interesting article from the San Diego Union-Tribune about a bold shift taking place among California farmers that has been largely overlooked. Acala cotton, long known as King Cotton in the Central Valley, is losing its market share.

Instead of growing traditional, federally-subsidized acala cotton with heavily subsidized water, some farmers are planting premium quality Pima--a variety that attracts a higher price but is ineligible for subsidies.

Pima can draw as much as 25 cents more per pound than generic acala. According to the Union-Tribune, in 2008, California farmers planted 151,000 acres of Pima at a value of $227 million, versus 127,000 acres of acala which only brought in $100 million.

But the most impressive trend is away from cotton altogether. Overall acreage planted in cotton is down dramatically in the past decade, as growers turn to higher value crops like processing tomatoes. The drought is one reason for this change. However, several simultaneous developments show that a new way of thinking is emerging in the agricultural community.

First, the drought is forcing some farmers to buy water on the open market from their water rich neighbors) – at unsubsidized prices. Second, these higher water prices are leading to a significant investment in water use efficiency among agricultural water users south of the Delta. And third, in order to afford to purchase water and invest in efficiency, farmers are moving toward higher value crops.

What these farmers are doing in their fields illustrates what water wonks like me have been saying for years: when you reduce subsidies and let the price of water more closely reflects true costs, growers have a powerful incentive to plant higher value crops and to use water more efficiently.

In other words, the market rewards efficiency: Farmers who use less water can make more money.

Considering that California has hit peak water, and that agriculture consumes 80 percent of our water supply, this is big news.

But this big news has happened quietly.

Some Californians might be surprised to discover cotton farmers setting this example. Cotton has been the traditional bad boy of California’s crops. It has long been one of the top four water consumers, along with rice, alfalfa, and pasture.

But unlike the other three, cotton has no habitat value. Cotton is also chemically intensive, and is grown mostly south of the Delta, which means it uses some of the most high-impact water available. Federal subsidies for cotton and for much of the water used to grow it have helped exacerbate California’s water challenges.

Now the story is changing. The way these farmers are adapting proves that when you eliminate or reduce subsidies--which can act as incentives to waste water--California farmers adapt. These sophisticated businesspeople know that when they have to pay market rates for water, it makes sense to invest in efficiency.

On Smelt and the Pacific Legal Foundation

2010-01-28T00:06:37Z

My post about opponents of protections for the Delta drew a response from the Pacific Legal Foundation, claiming that protections for the delta smelt are unconsitutional. My colleague Kate Poole has responded here with a short history of PLF's unsuccessful efforts to persuade federal courts to adopt their perspective on ESA protections.

Water Transfers: A Quiet Solution for California Farmers in Dry Times

2010-01-27T23:32:43Z

600,000 acre-feet is a lot of water. It’s just about a year’s supply of water for the City of Los Angeles. You’d think that a tool that provides this much water in California during a third consecutive dry year would be attracting headlines across the state.

You’d be wrong. The quiet solution here is water transfers – a powerful tool that has been nearly overlooked in the superheated media coverage of water in the past year.

The federal government helped to facilitate 600,000 acre-feet of water transfers during 2009.. Many of these transfers were made by farmers with senior water rights and abundant supplies, selling to their water-short neighbors.

That’s a lot of water, especially during a drought. So why aren’t transfers getting more attention? And why aren’t more farmers embracing them?

One answer lies in the checkered past of California’s water wars.

When some farmers hear the phrase “water transfer”, they think of the fate of agriculture in the Owens Valley. A century ago, the City of Los Angeles secretly bought water rights in this Eastern Sierra valley and shipped it to Southern California through the Los Angeles Aqueduct. With no water left for local farmers, Owens Valley agriculture died.

The memory of Owens Valley still lingers. I know one farmer who is interested in selling some of his water. He told me, “I could conserve more water if I knew I could sell it.” Yet he is reluctant to step into the market because of pressure from his neighbors, who fear another Owens Valley.

But Owens Valley isn’t the only example of how water transfers work. The Palo Verde Irrigation District in California’s remote Southeast corner tells the other side of the story. Local farmers have signed a long-term agreement to sell some of their Colorado River water to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

The agreement provides for up to 3.6 million acre feet over the 35 year life of the agreement. These farmers have found that selling some of their water in some years can generate revenue that helps them invest in their farms and stay in production. The agreement helps to provide a bit of security in a notoriously volatile agricultural industry.

I’dd like to see more farmers follow the Palo Verde model. Last year, senior water rights holders south of the Delta received nearly a million acre-feet of water. Some of that water went on the market. For example, the Westlands Water District alone purchased 165,000 acre feet in 2009 But a more robust water market could create incentives for more conservation among senior water rights holders and more supply available on the market for others.

Environmentalists have long supported carefully-designed water transfers as a voluntary solution in dry years.

Of course, these deals must be done right – by freeing up water through conservation, switching to less water-intensive crops or fallowing. Some past deals have been revealed as nothing more than scams in which sellers propose to transfer more water from streams, not water actually conserved. Some have been bold enough to try to sell non-existent “paper water”. And, of course, transfers should not be allowed to further harm the Delta or the state’s imperiled fisheries. Like any market, appropriate regulation is needed to make a water market work well.

Done right, water transfers can benefit everyone: they offer security to the farmers who sell the water, they provide a precious water source for farmers and cities who buy it, they provide an incentive to increase investments in efficiency, and they can reduce pressure on the environment.

Water transfers work – particularly during dry years. Let’s start drawing more attention to this quiet solution.

Facts are Stubborn Things

2010-01-25T22:38:45Z

“Facts are stubborn things” said founding father John Adams more than 200 years ago. What he meant is that some, in their zeal to advance their political agenda, often fail to acknowledge facts that don’t support their case. Not surprisingly, some folks are particularly careful to ignore facts that undermine their point. He could have been talking about California water.

A lot of hard truths are likely to be overlooked in the busy coming week of events addressing California water issues. At several of these events, we’ll see signs of an ambitious political, legal and media campaign by powerful Central Valley agricultural interests to weaken protections for the Bay-Delta ecosystem, salmon and other species. So pay attention to news stories and statements to see who’s addressing (and who’s ignoring) the following stubborn facts:

According to state and federal agencies, fully three quarters of the water supply reductions in 2009 were the result of a third consecutive dry year. (The Pacific Legal Foundation virtually ignores the dry weather and refers to this as a “government drought” on a video on Delta water issues.)
The science supports the new Bay-Delta protections. Before the salmon and smelt biological opinions were finalized, five peer reviews were completed, to ensure that they were based on the best science available. By contrast, the previous biological opinions rejected by the court were found – in official federal reviews – to have been produced using poor science and political manipulation.
Prior to the new protections, the state and federal projects set all-time records for water diversions in the Delta. After decades of steadily increasing Delta pumping, we were simply taking too much from this ecosystem. The new Delta protections will return us to approximately the level of diversions seen in the 1990’s.
The entire Bay-Delta ecosystem -- the largest estuary on the west coast of the continent -- is in trouble, including spring-run Chinook salmon, winter-run Chinook salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail and delta smelt. In the last two years the fall-run Chinook salmon -- the backbone of salmon fishing in California – joined the list of collapsing Bay-Delta species.
California’s salmon fishery has been closed for two years – the first such closure in state history -- as a direct result of the collapse of Bay-Delta salmon runs, costing the state economy thousands of jobs and more than half a billion dollars. This decline closely followed record Delta diversions. (Some have gone to remarkable lengths to avoid mentioning salmon. The Pacific Legal Foundation video on the Delta refers to the salmon biological opinion as protecting “another fish species”.)
In addition to environmentalists and fishermen, Delta farmers oppose efforts in Congress to block protections for the Bay-Delta, because excessive pumping draws salty Bay water into the Delta threatening the quality of the water these farmers use to irrigate Delta islands. The state administration and the Metropolitan Water District also don’t support efforts to block these protections.
The package of policy legislation passed by the state legislature in November requires the state’s plan for the Delta to restore the heath of the ecosystem and the Delta’s fisheries – and establishes a state policy of reducing reliance on the Delta. These requirements are in direct conflict with efforts to block federal protections.

These stubborn facts about California water issues aren’t going to go away. And our success in designing workable solutions – as opposed to dramatic press releases – will largely be shaped by our willingness to confront these facts, rather than running away from them.

Native Landscaping Saves Money AND Water

2010-01-20T18:04:35Z

Most Southern Californians know that gardening with native plants saves water. But here is something that might come as a surprise: it also saves money.

Journalist Emily Green shows the breadth of these savings on her blog, Chance of Rain. She explains that the City of Santa Monica did a demonstration project in which gardeners planted one yard with conventional landscaping and one with native vegetation (you can see side-by-side photos here).

The results are stunning. At first, the native garden costs $4,300 more to install. But over 10 years, it saves an astonishing $22,000 in maintenance fees compared to the conventional yard. Meanwhile, the native garden uses roughly one fifth as much water as the traditional one. A table from the City of Santa Monica’s brochure lays it out nicely.

Right now, about half of California’s urban water is used for landscaping. Think of the water--and now think of the money--we could save if we converted more private yards, commerical landscapes, and public green spaces to native plants like the ones used here.

I am convinced that more Californians will have this extra money in their pockets soon. Last fall, the California legislature passed a law requiring the state to achieve 20 percent reductions in per capita water use by 2020.

Water-efficient plants like the ones used in Santa Monica’s native garden will help get us there AND they will save us money in the process.

But wait, there’s more. An added benefit of native gardens is that they also save energy. Hauling water takes energy, and when you lower the amount of water you haul, you lower your energy use too.

Save water. Save money. Save energy. Help save rivers and our salmon fishery. And still have a bountiful, lush garden.

What’s not to like?