[env-trinity] Water Wars

[Byron Leydecker]

CALIFORNIA WATER ISSUES:

Guest Column: California Water Projects; It's time to end the water wars

San Francisco Chronicle - 3/4/07

By Dave Codgill, represents Mariposa County and portions of Fresno, Madera,
San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties in the state Senate

Water issues in California are divisive. Decades ago, water disputes were
settled at the end of a gun, and even today policymakers use terms like
"water wars." But what are we fighting over? So many of these battles are
simply a natural result of dwindling supplies in the face of increasing
needs. Environmentalists want water to restore habitats and protect
endangered species. Builders want water to sustain development and growth.
Farmers want water to grow their crops. Average Californians want water for
their homes and watering their lawns. But what makes no sense is the fact
that we are fighting over a completely renewable resource. 

Instead of fighting, we should develop a way to manage this resource
responsibly and maximize the usage of the water resources we have. Enough
water falls from the sky and drains into the ocean that if we managed it in
an efficient manner, as has yet to be accomplished by CALFED,
environmentalists, builders, farmers -- everybody who wants water -- could
have an ample amount for their preferred purposes. Failure to come up with
an effective management plan could leave us fighting over no more than a
glass of water. 

According to the California Water Plan , water use will increase over the
next 25 years by as much as 4 million acre-feet -- enough water to supply 8
million households. To put it another way, every new home would need seven
swimming pools full of water to meet its annual demand. Unfortunately, the
state has not been capturing rainfall or melting snowpack -- the most
renewable water sources in California -- to increase supply. In fact, only
two major surface storage projects have been built in the last 15 years:
Diamond Valley Reservoir in Riverside County and Los Vaqueros Reservoir in
Contra Costa County, together representing less than 3 percent of
California's existing water storage. Both were built by local water
agencies.  

The state has not built a reservoir since the State Water Project was halted
more than 30 years ago. To put it simply, our existing water system cannot
handle the increased demand it faces.  

Developing new groundwater storage requires a source of surplus surface
water. That means expanding our reservoir capacity is crucial to expanding
groundwater supplies in any significant way. A plan to build only surface
water facilities or only groundwater is needlessly inefficient. There must
be a mechanism to get the water into the ground -- spreading water on the
surface, injecting it through wells, or "in lieu" recharge -- and to draw
the water out of the ground for use. There are myriad other issues to be
resolved, such as ensuring water quality, which requires careful
consideration of levels of salt, bromides and organic carbon. 

That is why a bipartisan group of legislators and the governor are digging
for a real solution with a comprehensive package of water bonds. The nearly
$6 billion in proposed bonds would increase water storage by developing new
groundwater and surface sites. The surface storage project, Sites, north of
the bay delta in Glenn and Colusa counties, and Temperance Flat, northeast
of Fresno, have already begun the approval process. 

They were selected because those areas are part of an agreement negotiated
by CALFED, the state and federal agency created to restore the ecological
health of the delta and improve water management that underwent considerable
review by all stakeholders. Of the projects identified, these two carry the
promise of providing the highest yield, while working within the goal of
creating a comprehensive statewide water system. 

The proposal expands groundwater storage sites and improves conveyance to
water users while addressing environmental concerns. It is the start to
finding a balanced, manageable approach to the state's water needs that all
Californians -- whether they are environmentalists, builders, farmers or
families -- can all agree to. Done right, it may end the water wars. 

Guest Column: California Water Projects; New and broader role needed for
Army Corps of Engineers

San Francisco Chronicle - 3/4/07

By Thomas J. Graff, California Regional Director of Environmental Defense
and Paul Harrison, Coastal Louisiana Project Manager at Environmental
Defense 

California and Louisiana have much in common, and not just that both are
internationally renowned tourist destinations. In both states, communities,
industry and the environment bear significant risk from floods and poorly
designed flood-control projects.  

Inefficient planning has exacerbated that risk. When Hurricane Katrina
struck New Orleans, Louisiana learned the hard way. If we can improve the
way the federal government spends its flood-management funds, California can
avoid a similar fate. 

At the federal level, flood protection responsibility falls to the Army
Corps of Engineers, an agency that has been slow to change and learn from
past mistakes. New leadership in Congress, including Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee Chair Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Greenbrae, will have the
opportunity to change the way the Corps does its job. An improved Corps can
provide better flood protection while simultaneously enhancing our rivers,
estuaries and coastal wetlands. 

In Louisiana, federal projects have led to the loss of more than 2,000
square miles of forests and marsh -- an area the size of Marin and Sonoma
counties combined -- that has left New Orleans and other Louisiana
communities vulnerable to devastating flood damage like that wreaked by
Katrina. 

For example, in 1958 Congress directed the Corps to build a shipping channel
called the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet by slicing through the natural
ridge that separated New Orleans from the Gulf of Mexico. Known locally as
"Mr. Go," the channel allowed millions of gallons of saltwater to flow into
the area's freshwater bayous and lakes, which in turn killed the wetlands
that had protected the area from storms. This little-used shipping channel
thus allowed storm surge from Hurricane Katrina to slam into the coast at
full force and put unprecedented strain on manmade levees, several of which
failed, inundating many of New Orleans' most vulnerable neighborhoods. In
hindsight, we can see that poor decisions by Congress and the Army Corps of
Engineers, such as building Mr. Go, result from federal policies that
undervalue natural ecosystems, sacrifice science to politics, shortchange
maintenance in favor of new construction and refuse to prioritize in favor
of projects that benefit broad swaths of society versus those that benefit a
few privileged developers looking to build in the floodplain. 

California is hobbled by the same federal policies. While hurricanes are not
a threat to California, levees in the San Francisco Bay Delta estuary are
subject to tidal surges that can be intensified by storm runoff. Like New
Orleans, Sacramento is dependent on the levees that surround it. A levee
failure could leave millions of East Bay and South Bay residents with only
emergency supplies because their water supply delivery systems also depend
on the levees. The state's ecosystems suffer as well. Federal flood control
and navigation projects have damaged rivers throughout the Central Valley
and the San Francisco Bay Delta estuary by channelizing free-flowing rivers
and eliminating riparian habitat. Widely supported reforms to set back
levees and open up floodways, which also have water storage and
environmental benefits, have faltered as the Corps' efforts to develop a
comprehensive flood-control plan for the Central Valley have resulted in no
discernible change in its policies or practices. 

Sen. Boxer held a hearing last week in Louisiana to bring needed attention
to the pressing problem of Louisiana's rapidly deteriorating wetlands. So
far, post-Katrina federal action has been spotty and, although a football
field's worth of protective wetlands disappears every 38 minutes, according
to the U.S. Geological Survey, Congress has authorized almost no new money
for immediate wetlands restoration. The federal government created this
problem, and it should step forward to fund and jump start wetlands
restoration now.  

However, there is a bigger opportunity for Congress to establish a new way
forward for all coastal states. The Army Corps of Engineers needs serious
reform, as does the Water Resources Development Act that governs its
activities, which is up for reauthorization this year. Much of Hurricane
Katrina's damage would have been avoided if there had been a prioritization
system that spends the Corps' budget where it is most needed. This system
should be backed up by an independent and robust peer review of the Corps'
scientific and engineering analysis on major projects and integrated with
rewritten criteria for flood-control projects that stop encouraging
development in flood-prone areas. The Corps should also be required to
mitigate environmental harm it causes in the same way that private citizens
must do so. It is not just Louisiana's future that is at stake. 

Making those reforms now will protect California's cities and restore its
damaged bays and estuaries. 

Thomas J. Graff is the California Regional Director of Environmental
Defense. Paul Harrison is the Coastal Louisiana Project Manager at
Environmental Defense, a national nonprofit organization that links science,
economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to create
breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems.

Byron Leydecker

Friends of Trinity River, Chair

California Trout,Inc., Advisor

PO Box 2327

Mill Valley, CA 94942-2327

415 383 4810 ph

415 383 9562 fx

 <mailto:bwl3 at comcast.net> bwl3 at comcast.net

 <mailto:bleydecker at stanfordalumni.org> bleydecker at stanfordalumni.org
(secondary)

http:// <http://www.fotr.org> www.fotr.org

http:// <http://www.caltrout.org> www.caltrout.org 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20070305/ecdd273a/attachment.html>