Water Education Foundation
This is just one post in the Aquafornia News & Exclusives Category
Click here to view all posts

Odds and ends: Buy more imported water rather than conserve?, bloggers discuss outdoor irrigation & groundwater recharge, MLPA in Malibu, farmer disputes Spreck’s 86% number, educate yourself and make exploding drinks, plus some great picture galleries!

Posted by: Maven on June 21, 2009 at 10:03 am

Great stuff in today’s edition of odds & ends:

Should Pasadena buy water from Northern California instead of enforcing conservation? It would cost close to the same, Blogger Wayne Lusvardi says: The San Diego County Water Authority is about to purchase enough water for 40,000 households for one year from Folsom Dam in Placer County, operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation at a price of $5.5 million, or $275 per acre foot (or $137.50 per household per year). He then points out: To comply with water conservation mandates Pasadena plans to hire six new water enforcement personnel and set up a water court for water wasters to appeal fines at an administrative cost of about $1,000,000. Buying 3,750 acre feet of raw water from Folsom Dam in lieu of a 10% water cutback would only cost about $1 million plus, say, about $375,000 in treatment costs for a total of about $1,375,000, or about $183 per household per year. (Note: This may not include conveyance costs). Read more from the Pasadena SubRosa blog: Would it be better to buy imported water or hike water rates?

Does outside irrigation recharge groundwater aquifers? This question was raised by Wayne Lusvardi of the Pasadena SubRosa blog in a recent “Perspectives” section of the Pasadena Star News: It featured the mainstream conservationist views of Pasadena water expert Tim Brick, the chairman of the mammoth Metropolitan Water District, and then the skeptical minority-report take of Pasadena Sub Rosa blogger Wayne Lusvardi and water engineer David Powell. They argued that cutting back on irrigation of what Wayne in another place terms “traditional” landscaping could have the unintended consequence of failing to recharge the huge underground aquifer known as the Raymond Basin beneath much of the West San Gabriel Valley, from which we get a lot of well water. (Some would say that topiaried hedgerows, massive lawns and begonias are traditional if you live in the Lake District and not the Southwest, but that’s another story.) Our former City Hall reporter John Fleck, now a science writer and the reigning water-policy wonk at the Albuquerque Journal, saw a reference on our editorial page to the failing-to-recharge theory and posted it on his blog, soliciting comments from any experts. You can read what Larry Wilson has to say from the Pasadena Star News: Bloggers divided on watering lawns, and check out the conversation on John Fleck’s Inkstain blog: Groundwater recharge in California

More on the MLPA meeting in Malibu:A fisherman shares his sobering thoughts on the MLPA and why it is needed: The truly sad thing is that we’re incapable of policing ourselves. There wouldn’t be a need for reserves if we could understand what is happening, educate ourselves and act accordingly. But we’ve put a dollar sign on fish and measure our success in tons. Our ego driven, trophy hunger demands taking the largest fish, usually the biggest breeding females. Convincing people to rethink these parameters is the tough sell. Will posting “no fishing” signs in the best fishing spots accomplish this? Doubtful. Will we, once again, make a law abiding public into criminals, crowding the over-burdened courts? Probably.  Many people refuse to believe there is global warming, severely diminished fisheries, global ocean pollution; they just want their calamari, their sashimi, their surf and turf, and their Mcfish sandwiches. Regardless of the cost. Stronger education and alternative aquaculture is the key, but we live in a punitive country that loves to pass laws and punish those that don’t obey. Read more of this forum post from BloodyDecks: Some MLPA in Malibu observations…

Westlands getting 86% of their water?  No way, says Westlands farmer Shawn Coburn, who takes issue with Spreck Rosenkranz’s calculations: Cherry picking data from previous years is disingenuous at best. Spreck did not inform the readers of his article that this data at best is a rough estimate, example 1 transfer water at 172, we will be lucky if we can get the south of the delta transfers done this year which is 80 not 172. Ground water pumping is used in his scenario to prove his point that WWD is at 86%, first no one knows what is going to be pumped, my standing water levels on all of my properties east or west are going down, secondly I find it quite interesting that this “Estimate” does not account for any ground water pumping for Friant, more water is pumped in Friant than has ever been annually pumped in WWD simply based on aquifer constraints and quality. Just this omission of fact should shed some light on the validity of this draft. Read more from the Aguanomics blog: Waterflows II (Shawn for Spreck)

Clean Water Act course available online: Check out the River Network’s Clean Water Act course by clicking here.

Just for fun, Wired gives you instructions on how to mix an exploding drink and Thirsty in Suburbia tells you four corny water jokes.

Picture galleries worth checking out, both water related and not: Here’s the Long Beach Post’s slideshow of the Colorado River Aqueduct, and Scientific American has posted a view of China’s Three Gorges Dam from space. Not water related but interesting nonetheless: Aerial shots of the San Andreas Fault by Environmental Graffitti, Wired’s Oddities of NASA’s Massive Image Archive, and the Big Picture’s Dance Around the World.

June 21, 2009 · Filed Under Aquafornia News & Exclusives

Comments

One Response to “Odds and ends: Buy more imported water rather than conserve?, bloggers discuss outdoor irrigation & groundwater recharge, MLPA in Malibu, farmer disputes Spreck’s 86% number, educate yourself and make exploding drinks, plus some great picture galleries!”

  1. WayneLusvardi on June 21st, 2009 11:47 am

    It should be pointed out that for a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to propose to buy raw imported water and have MWD deliver it through their distribution system raises the issue of what are called “wheeling fees.” MWD previously blocked the San Diego County Water Agency from receiving farm water from the Coachella Valley over the issue of wheeling fees. San Diego only wanted to pay the actual conveyance costs but MWD demanded to tack on its overhead for its entire six-county system. MWD won the issue in court. But in a so-called “drought” (or is it an environmental blockade?)it would seem that all the members of MWD would benefit if each member was able to negotiate its own imported water deals without having to pay “full freighting” costs. In other words, the true cost/benefit ratio to MWD would seem to be positive (unless MWD’s drought penalty water rates are considered as “revenue enhancing”).

Leave a Reply