Peter Gleick: Water infrastructure, but for whose benefit?

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 11, 2010 at 5:54 am

From Peter Gleick at the City Brights blog:

“Part of the debate about water in the Western US, and California in particular, always revolves around whether, where, and how to build new dams. After all, that’s how we tried to solve our past water problems — just build another dam.

I’ve argued long and hard about this in my research and writing, and in previous blog posts (see “Temperance Flat falls flat”) — both in general and with some specific thoughts and concerns about the proposal to build a dam at Temperance Flat on the San Joaquin River. In short, I think it is a terrible idea: environmentally, politically, and economically unsound. That proposal is completely unsupportable by any objective analysis.

Water Number: 19%. As Bettina Boxall of the LA Times noted in her story this week, our experience with paying for past infrastructure should be a huge warning today. Irrigators who benefit from the federally built Central Valley Project have enjoyed the equivalent of a massive 60-year, interest-free loan. Not only have they failed to repay their share of the costs (having only repaid about 19% of their $1.2-billion share of the capital costs), but the federal government charges them no interest. Pretty sweet. Give me $1.2 billion in a very long-term, zero-interest loan and I can find you hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water. Buy everyone efficient fixtures (washing machines, toilets, showerheads, urinals, drip or sprinkler systems, etc.) and get repaid over time through water bills savings. … “

Continue reading Peter Gleick’s post by clicking here.

March 11, 2010 · Filed Under Water Storage

2 Comments

Barry Nelson: Dam advocates make case for the virtual river

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 11, 2010 at 5:51 am

From Barry Nelson at the NRDC Switchboard blog:

“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, the growers advocating the next dam on the San Joaquin River have repaid only 19 percent of the 1.2 billion dollars they owe the federal government for the construction of the existing Friant Dam. (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. … “

March 11, 2010 · Filed Under Conservation, Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Tuesday’s top of scroll: Another water project could divide the state

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 9, 2010 at 9:23 am

From the Los Angeles Times:

“Reporting from Orange Cove, Calif. – Harvey Bailey was 11 when Friant Dam started spitting the San Joaquin River into an irrigation canal the size of a freeway.

His father and other growers laid bets on when the river’s cool waters would reach their little farm town on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, promising an end to the region’s irrigation woes. Life magazine published a big photo spread on the canal’s opening.

“It was a huge event,” recalled Bailey, 72, president of the Orange Cove Irrigation District.

Now he hopes another dam will rise on the San Joaquin, at a narrow spot seven miles upriver from Friant, called Temperance Flat.

Backed by the Schwarzenegger administration and Central Valley farm interests, the $3.3-billion dam and reservoir at Temperance Flat would be the biggest water storage project in California in more than three decades.

But amid a deep recession and an endemic budget crisis in Sacramento, some are questioning whether it’s worth the investment and whether taxpayers should keep subsidizing water projects that primarily benefit California agribusiness. … “

Continue reading this story from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.

March 9, 2010 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Recent storms filled smaller lakes and raised water levels at Big Bear and Diamond Valley

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 17, 2010 at 6:03 am

From the Riverside Press-Enterprise:

“After several years of drought that forced rationing and severe cutbacks in water deliveries, Inland water officials and residents are encouraged by this year’s early storms that filled some lakes and started to replenish the larger reservoirs.

“It’s a huge relief when the lake fills up and we’re good for another year,” said Mike Scorziell, owner of MJS Dock Service in Lake Arrowhead.

The weather has been a boon for water providers, recreation and businesses such as Scorziell’s that rely on tourism. But experts warn that the drought isn’t over. Regular storms over the next couple of months will be needed to fully replenish lakes and reservoirs. … “

February 17, 2010 · Filed Under Riverside - San Bernardino, Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Dams in doubt: Fish, climate change and passage of time take toll on water infrastructure

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 12, 2010 at 8:28 am

From the Capital Press:

“The pressure on Western dams is mounting. Age and delayed maintenance have led to worries about structural deterioration and catastrophic failure. Environmental activists have focused negative attention on dams as barriers to the migration of endangered and threatened fish.

At the same time, the demand for water storage, flood control and electricity generation is expected to surge in the future.

As renewable energy continues to be a national priority, hydroelectric facilities offer a reliable source of power compared to the fluctuating output of wind turbines and solar panels.

Climate change may diminish mountain snowpacks, potentially causing summer water shortages unless the capacity to store runoff is increased. Volatile weather patterns in the winter may also aggravate flooding, heightening the need to regulate seasonal water flows.

“It does set up a real tension,” said Karl Wirkus, deputy commissioner for operations at the Bureau of Reclamation. … “

Continue reading this article from the Capital Press by clicking here.

February 12, 2010 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

The relationship between large reservoirs and seismicity

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 8, 2010 at 6:01 am

threegorgesdam From International Water Power & Dam Construction:

“Following the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China, Chen Houqun, Xu Zeping and Li Ming discuss the question of whether large reservoirs can trigger strong earthquakes

The issue of reservoir-triggered seismicity (RTS) received a great deal of attention worldwide following the earthquake which jolted Wenchuan County in Sichuan Province on 12 May 2008, resulting in the death of over 60,000 people. A major question raised was whether the earthquake was related to the impoundment of the nearby Zipingpu reservoir – or even the Three Gorges reservoir. There are a number of different views on this issue and the authors believe the ongoing discussion will emphasize the importance of the seismic safety of dams, while promoting further research on the subject.

General concepts of reservoir triggered seismicity

Seismic events have occurred near large dam sites or in reservoir areas, and may have been triggered by changes in the physical environment as a result of impounding and operation of reservoirs. … “

February 8, 2010 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Water storage vs. water conservation

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 6, 2010 at 7:51 am

From the Hanford Sentinel:

“If there’s one issue that virtually everybody agrees on in Sacramento, it’s that California has water problems. Three years of drought, endangered species restrictions on pumping, a growing population, huge areas of the state without natural water supplies, an outdated delivery system — the list of liquid challenges for the Golden State goes on and on.

The problem was felt last year by urban residents in Southern California who faced mandatory rationing. But the issue also had a big impact on agriculture, the largest water user in the state. In Kings County, supervisors declared a state of emergency all year. Farmers, particularly those who count on water pumped from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta, grew increasingly worried about whether there would be enough. In many cases, fields were left fallow and millions of dollars were lost in production along with thousands of agricultural jobs. Researchers at the University of California, Davis, estimated that water shortages cost the San Joaquin Valley 21,000 jobs in 2009. In Avenal and Kettleman City, unemployment soared past 30 percent.

It’s impossible to deny that water is becoming a bigger and bigger issue. But when it comes to solutions, agreement tends to evaporate. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the argument between environmentally-minded conservationists and advocates for new dams. … “

February 6, 2010 · Filed Under Conservation, Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Dams trigger stronger storms, study suggests

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 6, 2010 at 7:11 am

From National Geographic News:

“Scientists have long suspected that the world’s dams can create their own weather, often bringing more rain. Water in reservoirs behind dams, plus the water used to irrigate nearby land puts more moisture in the air, which falls as precipitation.

Now some researchers are sounding the alarm that dams—along with their reservoirs—might also trigger more frequent fierce storms that could be the dams’ undoing. That’s worrisome, especially in the United States, where dams are rapidly aging, according to some researchers.

Faisal Hossain, an engineer at Tennessee Technological University in Cookeville, has led several recent studies on 633 dams and about 100 rainfall nearby stations.

“The focus is not so much on average rainfall per se, but rather on the question of whether 25-year storm data that an engineer used to size a reservoir has now become a 15-year storm … as the dams aged,” he said. “It is the heavy rainfall that has tremendous implications on dam safety.” … “

February 6, 2010 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Dams could alter local weather, cause more rain

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 4, 2009 at 7:41 am

From Wired Science:

“As if America’s aging dams were not in enough trouble already, new research suggests that their reservoirs could be increasing the intensity of extreme rainstorms in their immediate vicinities.

That’s a problem because the dams were designed for the climate that existed in the area before they were built. If by virtue of their creation, they increase the chance that an extreme weather event will exceed the dams’ capacity, they could be less safe than previously thought.

“What if the dam itself, its reservoir, could have accelerated or intensified the heavy rainfall patterns?” said Faisal Hossain, a hydrologist at Tennessee Tech University, who has co-authored a paper and editorial on the topic accepted for publication in Natural Hazards Review and Water Resources Research, respectively.

There is strong evidence that a standing body of water, like a lake, can alter precipitation patterns, Hossain said. Increasing the amount of liquid water in a region increases the amount of evaporation in a region, too. That water vapor will eventually condense and fall as precipitation. So, it’s logical to think that a dam’s reservoir could have the same impact. And dams allow irrigation, which can transform the land in the area, possibly leading to local climactic impacts. … “

December 4, 2009 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Saturday’s top of the scroll: Dam plan for Valley a distant dream: Temperance Flat project, although promising to supply new water to Valley farms, is mired in skepticism

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 21, 2009 at 9:06 am

From the Fresno Bee:

“When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently picked Friant Dam as the spot to sign an $11 billion water bond proposal, the symbolism was clear: One day, a new dam will rise to the east, supplying new water to Valley farms.

Or will it?

Some — including both fans and foes of a proposed Temperance Flat dam — doubt the long-envisioned project will ever get a share of the $3 billion set aside in the bond for storage.

Just taking the first step is problematic: State voters must approve the bond a year from now. But even if they do, Temperance Flat faces many hurdles, as do the two other proposed dams that could be financed through the recent water legislation.

Under the bill, water users must commit to covering a major share of construction costs, which for Temperance totals an estimated $3.4 billion. And an unelected water commission must decide the dams provide “public benefits,” such as improved flood control and new water to aid fish and wildlife.

“I think there is a slim chance [Temperance Flat] will be built,” said Jonas Minton, water policy adviser for the Planning and Conservation League, an environmental group that opposes dams and the bond. … “

November 21, 2009 · Filed Under Water Storage

2 Comments

Governor, forget the dams, says commentary

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 15, 2009 at 9:04 am

From the San Francisco Chronicle, this commentary by Robert Caughlan, co-founder of Friends of the River:

“By clinging to the mummified idea that big dams are the solution to California’s water needs, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is ruining what’s left of his progressive legacy.

Everyone – tree-hugging liberals and tightwad conservatives – agrees that big dams are environmental and economic disasters.

Today, because of the financial meltdown, people are finally and fairly asking: “How much should be paid for water and who should pay for it – the taxpayers or the users? There is considerable evidence that the failure of the Legislature to reach a water deal is partly over the issue of who should pay. It is hoped that we have seen the last of billion-dollar water project boondoggles that only benefit developers and Big Agriculture. …”

Read more of this commentary by clicking here.

October 15, 2009 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Changing weather patterns affect local water storage

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 3, 2009 at 7:38 am

From the Visalia Times Delta:

“As if the costs of building new reservoirs and the battles over the rights of fish and farmers for water weren’t enough to complicate the debate over water in California, add changing weather patterns.

“The Valley has experienced a warmer-than-normal summer, and the fall also is expected to be warmer than normal,” said Scott Borgioli, a meteorlogist and partner in WeatherAg, a Visalia-based forecasting service for agriculture.

In addition, during the past 15 years snowfall in the Sierra — which, when the snowpack melts, supplies water to the Valley during non-winter months — has been ending earlier, in February or March rather than April, Borgioli said.

“The result really is from climate change,” he said.

In addition, this past spring was unusually warm, causing an unusual spring snowmelt that led the Army Corps of Engineers, which operates Millerton Lake in Fresno County — the source of water for the Friant-Kern Canal — to initiate a heavy spring water release.

“That’s actually been happening in the past three years as well,” Borgioli said. “When this happens, the reservoirs prematurely fill up, and the water has to be discharged … and then there’s not enough snowmelt to refill them in the early summer months,” he explained. …”

Read more from the Visalia Times-Delta by clicking here.

October 3, 2009 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Dams controversy drags on

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 3, 2009 at 7:07 am

From the Hanford Sentinel:

“Ask thirsty Kings County farmers the number one thing they’d like to see happen in Sacramento, and chances are good you’ll get the same answer: “Build new dams.”

If there’s one thing that unites Kings County’s diverse agricultural sector, it’s the overwhelming desire to see new water storage somewhere in the state to ease the pressure on a system that is being pushed to the breaking point by the effects of drought and environmental issues in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

But the same unity can’t be said of the lawmakers in the state capital. Few issues have so consistently divided the Democratic majority from the Republican minority as the seemingly eternal battle between conservation vs. new dams.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s vow to veto any water package that doesn’t include new money for dams has only drawn the dividing line more clearly.

Depending on who you talk to, the current crisis could either produce a historic compromise that includes a couple of new dams or it could fizzle into another demonstration of lawmakers’ inability to craft a bipartisan water deal. …”

Read more from the Hanford Sentinel by clicking here.

October 3, 2009 · Filed Under Water Storage

1 Comment

Chico E-R Editorial: Fish, rivers win two long battles

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 2, 2009 at 7:28 am

From the Chico Enterprise-Record:

“Our [Chico E-R] view: Removing dams can be a good thing. So can building dams. People need to be flexible about both ideas.

In California’s contentious battles over water, it was a good week for the environment.

Rivers and fish won a couple of protracted fights. At the top of the state, a deal was cut to remove four hydroelectric dams along the Klamath River. In the lower half of the state, more water started flowing from a dam east of Fresno that eventually will restore year-round flows — and hopefully salmon — to the San Joaquin River.

Both developments are remarkable, and the byproduct of years of negotiation. Power companies, environmental groups, fishermen, and farmers and other water users all seem to want something different.

In the Klamath River case, they all compromised and gave up a little to reach an agreement. In the San Joaquin River case, there also was compromise — after a firm kick from a federal judge who said it needed to get done.

The Klamath River salmon run was once legendary. Now it’s in shambles. There are a few hurdles to go, and about 10 years before work begins, but once the four dams in California and Oregon are removed, it will open about 300 more miles of the river to spawning salmon and steelhead. …”

Read more from the Chico Enterprise-Record by clicking here.

October 2, 2009 · Filed Under Water & Wildlife, Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Glendale reservoir is almost done: 14.5-million-gallon site under Chevy Chase golf course is on track for Dec. 31 completion

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 13, 2009 at 6:28 am

From the Glendale Press:

“The gaping hole that has dominated the Chevy Chase Country Club golf course for months has been covered with dirt as crews begin work on shoring up a $21.5-million replacement of a massive underground reservoir.

Despite construction delays last year, officials said the Chevy Chase Reservoir project is on track to be completed by Dec. 31 — a key date called for in the legal agreement between the country club and the city. “It’s going very well,” said Gary Roepke, project manager for the private construction firm doing the work.

Dirt covering the reservoir, which is under a 2.34-acre area of the 45-acre Chevy Chase Country Club golf course, will soon get irrigation systems in preparation for sod scheduled to be laid about Oct. 1.

City engineers determined that the reservoir, built in the 1920s, needed to be replaced because cracks in the concrete had significantly compromised the structure’s integrity, especially after the 1994 Northridge earthquake. …”

Read more from the Glendale News Press by clicking here.

September 13, 2009 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Peter Gleick: Rigged feasibility study shows desperation for new surface reservoirs: Temperance Flat falls flat

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 6, 2009 at 7:59 am

From Peter Gleick at the City Brights blog:

“A couple of weeks ago, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation released its Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation “Plan Formulation Report.” Despite its long name, and the very odd fact that it is dated October 2008 but was released just recently, this massive report is simply a feasibility study for the proposed Temperance Flat dam on the San Joaquin River — one of the two surface storage dams being intensively pushed by a few special interests as a critical solution to our water woes. This report, which I just managed to read, is remarkable. Its purpose is to show that Temperance Flat is feasible and makes sense. But in fact, this report actually shows that Temperance Flat is a bad idea, will create far fewer benefits than costs, and will be an ecological, recreational, and economic failure. And the “new” water it will create will be minimal and hugely expensive.

The study looked at a wide range of dam projects, but quickly rejected most of them as infeasible. They settled on four possible alternatives — a bigger and a smaller reservoir, with and without a new canal to move water across the valley (not the so-called “peripheral canal,” but a new local canal). Yet of these four alternatives, even the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) couldn’t make the ones with the smaller reservoir create more benefits than costs. This left the big reservoir, with and without the canal. They then dumped the canal option, because it didn’t add any new net benefits. Thus, they could only make one possible configuration make sense. And here is the problem, even that configuration doesn’t make sense.

Water Number: 1.06. The best that the Bureau of Reclamation could do to make Temperance Flat look feasible was to come up with a benefit/cost ratio of between 1.00 and 1.06. 1.06? This means that even after rigging the numbers in favor of the project, they could barely make it appear that the benefits exceed the costs. And yes, the numbers are rigged. Certain “benefits” are exaggerated. Certain major costs are excluded. And even worse, other alternatives that can provide the same benefits at lower costs are simply ignored. …”

Read more from Peter Gleick at the City Brights blog by clicking here.

September 6, 2009 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

State must improve water storage system in two ways, says Senator Denham

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 21, 2009 at 9:24 am

From the Bakersfield Californian, this commentary by State Senator Jeff Denham:

“The old saying goes “when it rains it pours.” But in California, our water supply is threatened in wet years, as well as dry years. With this precarious situation, California’s water crisis could pale the energy crisis in comparison.

California has reached a critical stage in how it stores, conveys and uses water. While great strides have been made over the years in conserving water, whether it be in commercial, residential or agricultural uses, the state has done a terrible job in tackling the lack of adequate water storage facilities and the need to build better conveyance systems.

Unfortunately, the water problem in California has been allowed to fester for years. The fact that the Legislature and the last couple of governors have not addressed our water situation is inexcusable. …”

Read more from the Bakersfield Californian by clicking here.

August 21, 2009 · Filed Under Water Legislation, Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

The State of Storage: Oodles of room at Lake Mead

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 14, 2009 at 7:43 am

From Spreck Rosekranz at the Environmental Defense Fund’s On the Waterfront blog:

“How can we store some of the high river flows in California’s Central Valley in wet years without building expensive new storage projects? Well, there is currently about 15 million acre-feet of unused storage space at Lake Mead, the combined storage capacity of Shasta, Oroville, San Luis, New Melones and Don Pedro Reservoirs. Due to increased demand in the Colorado Basin and depressing hydrologic projections, experts doubt that the reservoir will ever fill again, so the space is highly likely to be available.

We are not suggesting that Central Valley water be physically moved to Lake Mead, which is far way, along the Arizona-Nevada border near Las Vegas. We are suggesting that urban Southern California could take less water out of the Colorado River in years when there are additional supplies from other sources in California, thereby increasing storage in Lake Mead. During dry years in California, more water would be taken out of Lake Mead, leaving California’s limited supply available for other uses. …”

Read more from the On the Waterfront blog by clicking here.

August 14, 2009 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Spreck Rosekranz on the state of storage in California

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 5, 2009 at 8:59 am

From Spreck Rosekranz and the Environmental Defense Fund’s On The Waterfront blog:

““California needs more storage!” is a familiar refrain, especially when the legislature is considering water issues. Usually it refers to building dams and is often uttered with a twinge of nostalgia for the mid-20th century when most of the state’s major dams were built.

The public, however, according to the recent Public Policy Institute if California poll, prefers investing in conservation and efficiency to building new storage as a means to solving our water woes.

The debate over storage is sometimes described as religious, with tree-hugging river lovers in opposition and self-described “water buffaloes” in favor. This blog, the first in a series of three posts about water storage, will take a look at storage levels over the current three year drought. The second will focus on groundwater and the third will suggest an opportunity to optimize the use of our existing infrastructure including surface storage to meet our existing and growing demands. …”

Read more from Spreck Rosekranz and the On the Waterfront blog by clicking here.

August 5, 2009 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Dam it all: For decades, big business and environmentalists have battled over access to America’s rivers; Now that dams are being torn down in record numbers, we went back to the one that started it all for some clues about what happens next

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 28, 2009 at 7:22 am

From GOOD Magazine:

Driving on the eastern bank of the Kennebec River, past several “No Trespassing” signs and across a set of railroad tracks, I turn onto a narrow access road pocked with potholes. It cuts in front of the worn, empty buildings of an abandoned tissue factory, part of another era in Maine’s capital of Augusta. I spot a guy in a hard hat and pull over. I’m looking for the Edwards Dam, I tell him. He straightens up, takes off his hard hat. “You know, come to think of it,” he says, “I think they tore that down.”

It was 10 years ago this July that a backhoe punched a hole in the Edwards Dam. For 162 years, the dam had channeled a watershed roughly the size of Connecticut to power sawmills, a textile factory, and, more recently, a 3.5-megawatt electric generator. It had also blocked access to the spawning grounds of 10 native fish and, throughout the 1990s, environmentalists had called on the federal government to tear the dam down.

“This is the beginning of something that’s going to affect this entire nation,” U.S. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbit said at the time, standing in a parking lot a few hundred feet from where I stand now. Guys in hard hats on the opposite shore then scooped away a temporary gravel dam, allowing the river to flow out unimpeded to the Atlantic for the first time in the better part of two centuries. “You’re going to look back in years hence and say, ‘It all began right here on this riverbank,’” Babbit said. Years hence, it appears he was right.

Read more from GOOD Magazine by clicking here.

July 28, 2009 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Corps settles on potential remedy for Success Dam

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 15, 2009 at 6:42 am

From the Recorder Online:

After years of delays, officials at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are confident they have found a remedy to Success Dam’s problems — one that Congress will approve. The restoration could cost $500 million in taxpayer money, but would help store more water and get it to people more efficiently.

“The key is getting more storage, more water,” Mayor Pete McCracken said. “The farmers don’t have enough water.”

A few years ago, an inspection team found faults within the dam, located off Highway 190 between Porterville and Springville, including seepage problems and instability in the soil. Years of research have yielded a variety of solutions, but the recommendation to Congress will be that it approves a 350-foot extension downstream and the replacement of its core.

Read more from the Recorder Online by clicking here.

July 15, 2009 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Sunday’s top of the scroll: California water banking plan backfires; increased storage more promising, says editorial

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 31, 2009 at 7:47 am

From Inside Bay Area, this Media News editorial:

There appear to be two fundamental problems that undermine almost any attempt to deliver adequate supplies to users and still protect the Delta: unrealistic water rights and a lack of storage near the Delta pumps.

Former state legislator Phil Isenberg, who chairs the Delta Vision task force, said that the average natural flow of the Delta watershed is 29 million acre-feet. Yet landowners have water rights to 245 million acre-feet. Thus there is always on overabundance of demand for water, many times the supply, complicating the legal obligations to water users.

The second, and arguably most severe, problem confronting California water policy is inadequate storage near the Delta and elsewhere. If there were a large reservoir near the Delta pumps, water could be stored in wet periods for use in dry times, mostly for environmental purposes. Pumping could be temporarily slowed or even stopped to protect fish, and there would not have to be any special water accounts or dysfunctional trading.

Unfortunately, California’s lawmakers do not recognize the severity of the problem and have not approved a major new reservoir for decades, while the state’s population has doubled.

In the meantime, long-term water contracts were signed with the expectation that dams would be built in Northern California. They never were.

As a result, California now faces the prospect of losing much of its agriculture or starving urban users. Perhaps a few dry years might alter our state leaders’ reluctance to invest in water storage, but we remain pessimistic.

Read the full text of this Media News editorial by clicking here.

May 31, 2009 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Commentary: Ranch owner: Sites Reservoir is full of promise

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 31, 2009 at 7:24 am

From the Sacramento Bee, this commentary by Mary Wells, whose land sits on the site for the proposed Sites Reservoir:

When my family purchased our ranch 35 years ago in the small foothill community of Sites, we knew there were discussions to flood our land and make it a reservoir. Even so, we hoped we could continue to ranch here for generations to come. We could not predict back then that California would grow so fast and our state’s needs would be so great that a reservoir would become an essential part of solving California’s current water crisis.

It would be sad to see our land and our neighbors’ land flooded, but I understand that Californians would benefit from storing this water.

For years, California’s leaders talked about solving our state’s water crisis. In drought years they focused on this issue, but public attention faded with the next rainfall. That short-term thinking has created a long-term problem for everyone.

As the great-great-granddaughter of W.H. Williams, the founder of a small town in western Colusa County in the mid-1800s, and being a grandmother, I think about the past but most importantly about the future.

My children and grandchildren sit on tractors and harvesters and on horseback in Northern California, managing our lands. I want their lives to be as good as they are now, where we maintain our roots to the land that sustains us all while protecting California’s environment. This requires unprecedented commitment to resolve our state’s water crisis.

Read more of Mary’s commentary in the Sacramento Bee by clicking here.

May 31, 2009 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Low and high entropy water sources, water bonds and the Sites Reservoir

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 8, 2009 at 7:56 am

The On the Public Record blog has a really interesting post, which is a rebuttal to yesterday’s guest commentary regarding the current water bond proposals floating around the state capital. The OPR blog begins by discussing the difference between low entropy and high entropy goods:

Low entropy goods, either stocks or flows, contain tons of energy and are well ordered. Think of old growth timber stands that yield wide boards. Or high quality oil wells, close to surface and under pressure. Or fisheries of abundant huge fish that swam close together. Or of pure snowmelt flowing into narrow-mouthed canyons above a waterfall, so you can get some hydropower too. All the old rich sources, so easy to gather, so low-entropy. Those are low-entropy goods.

You can tell when people haven’t accepted that the world has changed, because they are still wishing for low-entropy sources. Those are gone. If they were stocks, they’re used up. Big trees, big fish, artesian water, artesian oil, all gone. If they were flows, they’re tapped already. Ms. Sutton calls for Sites Reservoir, but the concept of building dams is played out because all the good options are already in use. She mentions Sites, but it is more interesting that there is no other dam on the table. Besides Sites, I couldn’t name another proposed dam project in the state. (The San Joaquin River Restoration project was the end of Temperance Flats.)

The next water available to the state is from high entropy sources, widely distributed dribs and drabs, or mixed with something, or requiring lots of energy to extract.

The blogger goes on to discuss how this relates to water bonds, and then discusses the Sites Reservoir – and how this fits into the entropy discussion. Be sure to read the comments, too. Good discussion – it is only until recently we have started to hear much about the Sites Reservoir. Check it out from the On the Public Record blog by clicking here.

Here is Donn Zea of the Northern California Water Association’s argument for the Sites Reservoir from the Capital Weekly (March 12th): Time for California to ‘Insure’ Against Drought

April 8, 2009 · Filed Under Water Legislation, Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

East Bay Municipal Utility District moves toward raising the height of dams

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 9, 2009 at 3:54 pm

From the Central Valley Business Times:

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a 30-year Safe Harbor Agreement permit covering 28,000-acres in parts of San Joaquin, Amador and Calaveras counties for three federally threatened species: Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, California red-legged frog, and California tiger salamander.

If granted, it would be the largest such agreement in the nation.

The EBMUD application centers on two large dams and their reservoirs, Camanche and Pardee, and the lands surrounding them for roughly a mile out from the reservoirs, plus lands adjacent to the Mokelumne River for a half-mile below Camanche Dam.

EBMUD has proposed that the agreement provide authorized incidental ‘take” of the three federally listed species and any future activities associated with raising the heights of the dams.

A spokesman for the utility district says there are no firm plans to enlarge the reservoirs any time in the near future.

Read more from the Central Valley Business Times by clicking here.

March 9, 2009 · Filed Under Bay Area, Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Making a ‘new’ case for the Auburn Dam; Rumors of the dam’s demise greatly exaggerated, says commentary

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 22, 2009 at 8:23 am

From the Sacramento Union, the first in a three-part commentary series on the Auburn Dam:

The Auburn Dam is dead. Late last year, the state of California revoked water rights issues issued to the federal government to build the Auburn Dam. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation did not protest the move. Thus, an obscure bureaucracy and gleeful environmentalists tell us the deed is done.

But wait: The Auburn Dam has been declared dead many, many times.

Using one complaint and lawsuit after another, environmentalists have obstructed new surface water storage anywhere in California. “Death by a thousand lawsuits,” Laura King Moon of State Water Contractors has said about water storage projects.

Studies, engineering reports and lawsuits disproved or mitigated every complaint—so much so that the Auburn Dam remained a vital part of every single California Water Plan until 1998. Thereafter, a white water rafter, Jonas Minton, became deputy director of the California Department of Water Resources. As he had in the Sacramento Water Forum, Minton stacked the water planning process with environmental extremists; inflated water conservation projections; summarily dismissed any new water storage; delivered a report years late and waterless; and dropped the Auburn Dam from the state plan for the first time.

To win, opponents of the Auburn Dam shout the loudest and speak the longest. Ultimately, intimidated bureaucrats and politicians have failed to protect the public interest they are obligated as civil servants and elected officials to protect.

So on Dec. 2, an obscure California bureaucracy, the State Water Resources Control Board, unanimously voted to steal water from the Auburn Dam project. Last nail in the coffin, it is said.

The board’s hearing was a phony show trial in which environmental extremists dominated the judge, jury, plaintiff and most of the defendants. Except for public comment from the Auburn Dam Council (an advocacy group backing the construction of a dam at the Auburn site), the interests of the people of California were not represented. The water board stacked or solicited letters on the opposing side; almost all letters came from outside the Auburn Dam area.

Read more of this commentary from the Sacramento Union by clicking here. The second installment of this three-part commentary series will be posted next Sunday. Hat tip to the Parkway blog!

February 22, 2009 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Indio constructs new reservoirs; Water authority to triple capacity; anticipates city’s growing demands

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 6, 2009 at 5:50 am

From MyDesert.com:

Just four months after building a 5.2-million-gallon water reservoir, Indio will start work Monday on yet another that will hold 2.5 million gallons. Another 5-million-gallon reservoir is in the works that will provide water to a planned community in north Indio.

When complete, the three new reservoirs will more than double the growing city’s water storage capacity. “We’re not looking at just today. We’re looking at 100 years from now,” said Paul Giera, water operations manager for the Indio Water Authority.

Until about five months ago, the city’s reservoirs had the capacity to hold 8.25 million gallons of groundwater — the same capacity Indio had in 1984, Giera said. Once the authority’s planned reservoir-related projects are complete, the city will have the capacity to store about 19 million gallons of water, he said.

Read more from MyDesert.com by clicking here.

Interesting note: You can view a photo gallery of Indio water infrastructure from MyDesert.com by clicking here.

February 6, 2009 · Filed Under Coachella Valley, Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Editorial: State must boost water storage

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 19, 2008 at 6:13 am

From the Contra Costa Times, this editorial:

THE TIME MAY be coming, if it is not already here, when decision-makers in Sacramento finally understand that California must store a lot more water in reservoirs or lose much of its agriculture.

That message was delivered Monday by federal regulators, who placed severe restrictions on pumping water out of the Delta. The new rules in a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit will require more freshwater to be released into the Delta and a lot less water to be pumped out of the estuary.

U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger ruled that the old pumping permit was highly flawed because it did not do enough to protect fish like the Delta smelt. Other species of fish in the Delta also are endangered and could face extinction without major cutbacks in water pumping.

When huge volumes of freshwater are removed from the Delta, fish are caught in the pumps. Even more damaging, salinity levels in the Delta rise, allowing invasive species such as clams, algae and plants to multiply and alter the entire estuary ecosystem.

The new permit is designed to save the Delta environment, regardless of the impact it will have on water users.

About two-thirds of Californians depend on water that flows through the Delta. However, it is agriculture that is likely to suffer the greatest impact.

Read the rest of this editorial from the Contra Costa Times by clicking here.

December 19, 2008 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Golden Gate University’s Environmental Law Journal focuses on removal of dams in the West

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 9, 2008 at 6:19 am

Thanks to Jerry for sending me this link! The entire issue of Golden Gate University’s Environmental Law Journal is dedicated to discussion of the West’s dams. The intro points out, we routinely demolish buildings that are of no use, so why not dams? Here’s a summary of the articles:

Our first article, by Russell Busch, considers the Native American perspective on dam removal. Busch is an attorney for the Lower Elwha Klallan Tribe in the State of Washington and has been involved for more than a decade in the debate over the fate of Elwha Dam (constructed in 1913) and Glines Canyon Dam (constructed in 1927) on the Elwha River in the Olympic Peninsula. FERC and Congress have approved the removal of dams, but actual removal is languishing and has been delayed
due to lack of funds.

The next piece examines O’Shaughnessy Dam on the TuolumneRiver in Yosemite National Park in California. The construction of O’Shaughnessy Dam, authorized in 1913 and completed in 1923, resulted in the inundation of Hetch Hetch Valley. The struggle of John Muir to save Hetch Hetchy Valley, which Muir considered as magnificent as Yosemite Valley, is part of the lore of the origins of the Sierra Club specifically and of the conservation movement in the American West more generally. Gerald Meral (former Deputy Director of the California Department of Water Resources, who is now affiliated with the group Restore Hetch Hetchy and currently serves on the National Wildlife Federation’s Board of Directors) moves beyond this history towards the current rationales now being advanced in support of decommissioning O’Shaughnessy Dam and restoring Hetch Hetchy Valley.

Following Meral’s article, we shift our attention to the Colorado River storage system and Glen Canyon Dam. This article by David Wegner (former Director of the Glen Canyon Studies Project with the United States Bureau of Reclamation) addresses the past failures of the federal government in conducting a comprehensive environmental evaluation of the operation of Glen Canyon Dam as part of the larger storage system on the Colorado River (which also includes Hoover Dam and Lake Mead). Wegner discusses more recent proposals to conduct such a system-wide analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, and explains how such an analysis raises the possibility that the water storage contributions of Glen Canyon Dam could be satisfied through modification of other storage facilities along the Colorado River.

In the final piece, Jonas Minton (former Deputy Director of the California Department of Water Resources and now senior water policy advisor for the Planning and Conservation League in Sacramento) focuses on some of the current political debates involving dam removal in California, which increasingly involve flood control and water storage aspects related to climate change and global warming. In particular, Minton evaluates the statewide water-related bond measure now being promoted by California Governor Arnold Schwarznegger and its potential impacts on both existing and newly proposed on-stream dams.

The articles in this symposium edition reveal that dam removal is no longer considered a radical approach, but rather now one of the more standard options evaluated as dams age.

Read these articles and more from the Golden Gate University’s Environmental Law Journal by clicking here.

December 9, 2008 · Filed Under Water Storage

1 Comment

Death of Auburn dam project focuses more attention on Shasta

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 5, 2008 at 7:49 am

From Redding’s Searchlight Record:

After decades of delay, construction of Auburn Dam has been canceled – a move that intensifies focus on the potential of raising Shasta Dam.

“As more (water) storage options are taken off the table that will increase the focus on the remaining options,” said Brian Person, who heads the Bureau of Reclamation’s Northern California Area Office.

Having studied the possibility of raising Shasta Dam since 1980, the bureau is set to release a draft feasibility study and environmental documents by next September, Person said.

The federal agency is evaluating the possibility of raising the dam as many as 18 1/2 feet, a project that would add another 634,000 acre-feet to the 4.5 million acre-foot Lake Shasta.

Read more from Redding’s Record Searchlight by clicking here.

December 5, 2008 · Filed Under Northern California, Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Dispute over San Diego’s Lake Hodges heads to mediation

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 5, 2008 at 6:41 am

From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

The Olivenhain Municipal Water District has put off suing the San Diego County Water Authority and the city of San Diego by agreeing to have a retired federal judge mediate a dispute over Lake Hodges.

Olivenhain threatened to sue the authority and the city in July, saying a plan to pipe water from 90-year-old Lake Hodges into six-year-old Olivenhain Reservoir would pollute the newer body of water.

The Olivenhain water district, which owns the newer reservoir and has a treatment plant there, has argued that Hodges is polluted with chemicals and elements not found in its reservoir. Treating those pollutants could cost the district an extra $40 million, officials said.

Olivenhain’s lawyers notified the water authority and city by letter that it would sue under a federal law that allows citizens to sue governments for illegally disposing of hazardous or solid waste. It gave the two agencies 90 days to respond.

The three agreed to mediation last month.

Read more from the San Diego Union-Tribune by clicking here.

December 5, 2008 · Filed Under San Diego, Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

California state board revokes Auburn Dams water rights: a victory for many friends of the American River

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 5, 2008 at 6:22 am

From Dan Bacher and the California Progress Report, this commentary:

Anglers, conservationists, hikers, and recreational boaters who enjoy the American River above and below Folsom Dam are celebrating a huge milestone in the decades-long battle to stop the construction of Auburn Dam.

The California State Water Resources Control Board on December 2 voted unanimously, 5-0, to revoke the U.S. Bureau of Reclamations water rights to build the controversial dam on the American River 35 miles northeast of Sacramento.

The landmark order cited Californias tough use it or lose it water rights policy, in which the Water Board noted that the Bureau failed to construct the project and apply water to beneficial use with due diligence as required by state law.

American-River.gif”This is a death certificate for the Bureau’s water rights to build Auburn Dam,” said William Rukeyser, board spokesman. “The Bureau can apply for water rights in the future, but as with every application, there are no guarantees.”

The prospects of Auburn Dam ever being constructed are increasingly dim, since the Bureau now has neither water rights or authorization from Congress to build the project.

This is a great victory for millions of people who utilize this river every year, said Ron Stork, senior policy analyst for Friends of the River (FOR). Hopefully, this action closes a chapter on the 35 year effort to build one of Californias most useless and most expensive dam projects ever conceived. Auburn Dam is without purpose, without funding, and now without water.

Read more from the California Progress Report by clicking here.

Sacramento Bee cartoonist Rex Babin on McClintock & the Auburn Dam: click here.

December 5, 2008 · Filed Under Northern California, Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Coverage Wrap-Up: State Water Resources Control Board revokes Auburn Dam’s water rights

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 3, 2008 at 7:54 am

From the Sacramento Bee:

The long-lived federal Auburn dam proposal is officially dead.

The state water board drove the last nail into the coffin Tuesday, unanimously revoking the water rights it dedicated to the American River project nearly 40 years ago. “This is a death certificate,” board spokesman William Rukeyser said following the 5-0 vote.

Under California’s use-it-or-lose-it water laws, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation had to put its rights to American River water to “beneficial use,” as it had proposed with a 690-foot-high dam and a 68-mile canal to San Joaquin County. But the bureau halted construction more than 30 years ago because of safety concerns following a 5.7-magnitude earthquake 50 miles north of Auburn. Environmental concerns and ballooning costs have delayed the project ever since, leaving the river’s deep north fork canyon heavily scarred but not blocked.

“You have to use water with due diligence and due faith, and that hasn’t been followed here,” water board member Arthur Baggett said before casting his vote to rescind the bureau’s rights to 2.5 million acre-feet of water a year.

From the Folsom Telegraph:

Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said that there would be no way the bureau would have been able to get an extension on its 38-year-old permit to divert water off the north fork of the American river without new, extensive environmental studies based on modern-day attitudes, policies and laws.

With the vote, the water reserved since 1970 for a 2.2-million-acre-foot storage and flood-control structure is available for potential use by other jurisdictions, with San Joaquin and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District already filing applications.

“Auburn dam was already dead,” Jennings said. “This is a nail in the coffin of a dream.”

Tim Woodall, president of Auburn’s Protect American River Canyons, said that while the board decision was gratifying, it wasn’t a surprise.

The state water board’s decision was based on a staff analysis, which concludes that the bureau had not acted diligently on the permit to build a dam since work stopped in 1975. That lengthy delay amounted to “cold storage” of water rights to the detriment of other jurisdictions that were in a position to proceed, a prosecution team led by Division of Water Rights’ David Rose said.

From Dan Bacher at IndyBay.org:

“This is a great victory for millions of people who utilize this river every year,” said Ron Stork, senior policy analyst for Friends of the River (FOR). “Hopefully, this action closes a chapter on the 35 year effort to build one of California’s most useless and most expensive dam projects ever conceived. Auburn Dam is without purpose, without funding, and now without water.”

“The board’s actions affirmed that water laws are to be applied equally to everybody,” said Chris Shutes, FERC projects director for the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA). “This decision removes a huge amount of paper water from previously existing permits and paves the away for similar actions in the future.”

While this ruling does not completely eliminate the possibility of an Auburn Dam, it is another nail in the coffin of the struggle to stop the dam. “The dam’s backers are certainly going to have to do a lot more work to bring the dam back to life,” said Stork.

Besides protecting wild trout populations of the North and Middle Forks of the American Rivers and their tributaries, today’s decision will also help fish populations of lower American River. The water of the lower river is already greatly over appropriated – and the building of the dam would make the situation of imperiled salmon and steelhead populations on the American and other Central Valley rivers even worse.

“ I believe this decision by the board will ultimately benefit not only water quality in the American and Sacramento rivers, but also all of the fish that call the river their home,” said Dave Mierkey of Rip Their Lips Off Guide Service, who guides on the American, Sacramento and Klamath rivers. “The better the quality of water and flows in the river, the better the fish will respond. It is just great to see that the board that made this unanimous decision, for once, didn’t back down on protecting the public trust.”

December 3, 2008 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Let L.A. build Auburn Dam with Uncle Sam bailout money, says editorial

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 3, 2008 at 7:46 am

From the Manteca Bulletin, this editorial:

Here’s an idea.

Now that the State Water Resources Control Board has officially yanked water rights for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to build the Auburn Dam on the American River, perhaps Sacramento should give Los Angeles the same deal that Washington, D.C., gave San Francisco.

That sweetheart deal Congress made in the early part of the 20th century gave San Francisco – the self-proclaimed environmental friendly Mecca – the right to destroy Hetch Hetchy Valley for an annual rental fee of $30,000. That allowed San Francisco full reign to destroy the valley. Of course, San Francisco leaders and boosters greased the proverbial skids.

Since Sacramento is desperate for income these days, maybe they could get the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power and the Metropolitan Water District to rent the American River Canyon at Auburn.

Instead of a paltry $30,000, Sacramento could offer the American River Canyon up to Los Angeles for $10 million a year. The state could use the extra money. The economy could use the jobs from the dam construction. The Los Angeles Basin could use the water.

Before environmentalists start having a major coronary – especially the Sierra Club that happens to have Hetch Hetchy water piped into their San Francisco headquarters – there is a caveat. Los Angeles can be given a choice between building the dam on their own and door No. 2 – building massive desalination plants.

Read more of this editorial from the Manteca Bulletin by clicking here.

December 3, 2008 · Filed Under Water Storage

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment