Infrastructure USA: New era of interbasin water transfers
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 16, 2010 at 5:07 amFrom Infrastructure USA:
“An interbasin transfer of water is the diversion of water from one water source basin to another. How many of these occur depends on the scale one considers. An interbasin water transfer can take place on the scale of a transfer of water from one small stream to another, or to a transfer from water sources draining to the Pacific Ocean to water sources draining to the Gulf of Mexico. Even if you consider only largescale transfers, trillions of gallons of water are transferred among basins each year to serve hundreds of thousands of farmers and millions of municipal residences. As noted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in announcing its rule on the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and water transfers (discussed below):
…
It is important to understand at the outset that climate change will not alter the total global volume of water. It will merely redistribute it on both a temporal and spatial scale. To adapt, the question will be — do we move people to water, or do we move water to people? History tells us it will be the latter. The fact that water fl ows, has allowed us to engineer interbasin water transfers to conform to where people live and work. Interbasin transfers have fueled the development of many major cities in the US. Adaptation to climate change is likely to drive greater interest in water transfers. Even now, climate change and population growth in arid regions are leading to new projects.
Efforts to develop major interbasin water transfers, however, face a growing list of state water law requirements, in addition to federal and state environmental law requirements. … “
To read more from Infrastructure USA, click here.
Already moving south, foothills water might move west
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 6, 2010 at 7:20 amFrom the Amador Ledger-Dispatch:
“For supporters of local water for locals, future opponents lie not to the south, but to the west.
Following in the footsteps of the federal Central Valley Project and California’s State Water Project, which largely benefited the south of the state, is a third big idea for diverting water. It is the brain child of a string of agencies that fall roughly on an east-west line from Alpine County to Alameda County. It advances not a statewide diversion fate for all northern California water but rather a multi-regional diversion plan for Mokelumne River water.
The idea arose in 2005 among the 16 members of a consortium called the Mokelumne River Forum. The forum is “made up primarily of water agencies and local governments with an interest in the Mokelumne River … to discuss how to meet water management needs in the Sierra foothills, San Joaquin County and the East Bay while resolving long-standing water-rights disputes,” its officials say. … “
Read more from the Amador Ledger-Dispatch by clicking here.
Blog commentary: On moving water & transbasin transfers
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on January 30, 2010 at 6:54 amJohn Fleck of the Inkstain blog pauses at the end of a week of remarkable water news to notice a common theme:
” … The more we engage in large scale movement of water out of its natural watersheds, the more trouble we seem to have.
That is certainly the case with this week’s biggest western water news, the decision by Nevada’s Supreme Court to invalidate the process of issuing permits for groundwater to fill Vegas’s big water pipe.
It also is at the heart of California’s debate over a new peripheral canal (or something like it), a conveyance to move water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. George Janczyn at GrokSurf explains the no-win dilemma at the heart of the issue: Southern California faces disaster if (when?) the delta collapses and the southland can no longer get the massive transbasin transfer of water it’s come to depend on: “When the breaking point for the delta is reached, it will be catastrophic for SoCal — and taking the long-term view, such a delta malfunction seems inevitable.” … “
Read the full text of this post from John Fleck at the Inkstain blog by clicking here.
Barry Nelson on water transfers: A quiet solution for California farmers in dry times
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on January 28, 2010 at 8:40 amFrom Barry Nelson at the NRDC Switchboard blog:
“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. … “
Continue reading Barry Nelson’s post by clicking here.
Friday’s top of the scroll: Feds to cut red tape on water trades
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on January 1, 2010 at 9:05 am
From the Capital Press:
“The Obama administration says it will boost water transfers in California in 2010 while aiding water efficiency and conservation on farms.
The policy is part of a plan that engages six federal agencies to attack California’s water challenges while working to restore ecosystems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and San Francisco Bay.
The administration says it wants to improve efficiency in the permitting process for water transfers between sellers and buyers. As part of that effort, the feds are considering a state-federal permit that would allow water to be transferred between state and federal water-use areas.
The administration says it will petition the State Water Resources Control Board to create the permit. The feds will also begin allowing users south of the Delta to carry over stored water for use in 2010. … “
Read more from the Capital Press by clicking here.
Another farmer may sell water to Southern California; On the Public Record runs some numbers
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 31, 2009 at 7:35 amFrom the Fresno Bee’s News Blog:
“Another farmer may be selling his irrigation water supply to Southern California for millions of dollars. And, again, it involves the Dudley Ridge Water District in Kings County.
The deal would involve the purchase of 884 acres of mostly stone fruit trees by Irvine Ranch Water District. The price would reportedly be $14.3 million, though it is not a done deal, say state officials.
The Irvine district would acquire access to 1,700 acre-feet of water from the State Water Project. One acre-foot — 326,000 gallons — would supply an average family for a year.
The other Dudley Ridge deal this year involved a Bay Area land and farming partnership called Sandridge Partners. The partnership agreed to sell $73 million worth of water rights to the Mojave Water Agency in San Bernardino County. … “
However, it’s not quite a done deal yet. More from the Fresno Bee News Blog by clicking here.
Meanwhile, the On the Public Record blog runs some idle calculations on the numbers, and concludes that the only difference between the two sales is:
” … that Irvine Ranch also bought the land. Since the two transfers are from one SWP contract with Dudley Ridge, they’re equally reliable. The conveyance costs are similar. So I am going to say that the difference in price comes from the value of the land.
($5,200 per acre for just the water right)/($8,400 per acre for the water right and the land) = 0.62 .
I’m thinking that the water right accounts for 62% of the value of agricultural land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. … “
More from the On the Public Record blog by clicking here.
Ag board: Officials could improve transfers
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 25, 2009 at 9:15 amFrom the Capital Press:
“Members of the State Board of Food and Agriculture say changes to California’s system for approving water transfers are cause for optimism.
In 2009, the state established its third Drought Water Bank — a clearinghouse for water sellers, usually north-state users, and water buyers, largely San Joaquin Valley farmers.
The bank was more heavily bogged down by procedural difficulties than its predecessors — one in the early ’90s and a second in 2008.
Many San Joaquin Valley farmers see water transfers as a crucial lifeline while drought conditions and environmental restrictions ratchet upward.
But until now, the issues surrounding water transfers didn’t register highly enough on the chain of command, said board member Don Bransford, a Northern California rice grower and president of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. … “
Read more from the Capital Press by clicking here.
Another Dudley Ridge farmer sells water rights
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 24, 2009 at 7:26 amFrom the Hanford Sentinel:
“At a special meeting of the Kings County Water Commission Tuesday evening, members spent most of the meeting discussing something that nobody wants to see: The permanent transfer of water rights to entities outside Kings County.
This time is was Steve Jackson, a farmer with about 1,700 acres of mostly stone fruit trees in the Dudley Ridge Water District. Jackson is selling about half of his land — 884 acres — to the Irvine Ranch Water District in Southern California. … “
Read more from the Hanford Sentinel by clicking here.
SSJID forced to spend $47K to help others in need of water
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 24, 2009 at 6:28 amFrom Manteca Bulletin:
“South San Joaquin Irrigation District wants to be able to help farmers and urban users outside of its district boundaries if the opportunity arrives in 2010.
The SSJID will have to pay a price, though, for doing so.
Federal and state law requires that reviews be done to make sure water transfers don’t adversely impact the environment. That means $47,500 will have to be spent to hire a consultant to do a California Environmental Quality Act review as well as a National Environment Quality Act study. The cost will be split 50-50 with the Oakdale Irrigation District. … “
Read more from the Manteca Bulletin by clicking here.
Castaic Lake Water Agency prevails in court battle over water transfer
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 22, 2009 at 6:40 amFrom the Courthouse News Service:
“A California appeals court cleared the path for the Santa Clarita Valley to receive 41,000 acre-feet of water from nearby districts, rejecting a claim that the water supplier’s environmental impact report on the transfer contained a “hole.”
Two conservation groups, the Planning and Conservation League and the California Water Impact Network, said the impact report certified by Castaic Lake Water Agency had a “hole” in it. The report analyzed the transfer of 41,000 acre-feet of water from Kern County Water Agency and Wheeler Ridge Maricopa Water Storage District to Castaic, Calif., which supplies water to the Santa Clarita Valley. … “
Read more from the Courthouse News Service by clicking here.
From the Santa Clarita Signal:
“Finally, on Dec. 17, 2009, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed an earlier court ruling, and determined the new EIR adequately analyzed all of the water transfer’s potential environmental impacts and that the document fully complied with all of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
This means that the water transfer approval is now final and the water transfer is no longer under a legal cloud. CLWA and its project partners were awarded reimbursement of their costs for the appeal.
“We are grateful to this court for putting an end to a lengthy and costly legal battle and ruling that CLWA had fully complied with the requirements of CEQA,” said Dan Masnada, General Manager of CLWA. “We also are happy that the courts permitted CLWA’s customers to use the water for their benefit and not suffer shortages while the courts evaluated the adequacy of the EIR.” … “
Read more from the Santa Clarita Signal by clicking here.
Thursday’s top of the scroll: Another Kings County water transfer weighed
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 10, 2009 at 8:25 amFrom the Valley Voice Newspaper:
“Another transfer of state surface water from farms in Kings County to southern California appears to be in the works. The news comes on the heels of a purchase of water rights from the Dudley Ridge Water District in southwest Kings County to Mojave Water Agency for $73 million, that closed escrow just last month.
Like the last transfer, the storyline appears to be water is heading to thirsty Southland cities from desperate Westside farmers.
This time it’s Irvine Ranch Water District that is considering the purchase of 880 acres of land in the Dudley Ridge Water District (DRWD) with the right to use up to 1,700 acre-feet of State Water Project Water on that same land, says district spokesperson Shannon Reed. … “
Read more from the Valley Voice Newspaper by clicking here.
New office aims to smooth approvals for water bank transactions
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 20, 2009 at 8:27 amFrom the Capital Press:
“With help from the federal government, California water officials hope a new department will bring needed efficiency to a water-trading system that has caused frustrations among farmers.
The Water Transfer Office was created in early November within the state Department of Water Resources. For the first two years, its primary focus will be working with federal regulators to create a joint environmental document designed to cover much of the permitting process for water transfers, said Teresa Geimer, coordinator of the state’s drought water bank.
After that, the office will serve to manage traffic through the state and federal approval processes for individual water transfers.
“This is a way to do the matrix management from one office,” Geimer said. … “
Read more from the Capital Press by clicking here.
Agriculture board says mindset must change: Water bank deals drag on too long, threaten transfer system’s viability
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 19, 2009 at 1:32 pmFrom the Capital Press:
“Members of California’s agriculture board say streamlining the system for approving water transfers will require public agencies and the general public to adopt a new mindset.
The California State Board of Food and Agriculture has devoted much of its time this year to grilling state officials on why red tape seemed to stifle the state’s ability to promptly approve water transfers through its 2009 drought water bank.
Board President Al Montna said he has yet to find a satisfactory answer on why the process proved so unreliable and cumbersome.
In 2008, the state established its second drought water bank, a clearinghouse for those selling water, usually north-state users, and those buying water, largely San Joaquin Valley farmers. … “
Read more from the Capital Press by clicking here.
Blog commentary: California water woes need market solutions
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 16, 2009 at 8:09 amFrom Le Quebecois Libre, this blog commentary:
“The state of California used to be known above all else for its sun, surf, and sexy film stars. Lately, though, news stories about massive budget problems have obscured this idyllic vision. With many of the rich and famous among its tax base, and with an economy bigger than that of most countries, the government in Sacramento has its hat in its hand. And as if that were not enough to take the shine off the Golden State’s 24-karat image, residents have been living through a prolonged drought, now in its third straight year.
The drought has forced cities in the southern part of the state to ration water supplies. Its impact has been felt most keenly, though, by the farmers of the San Joaquin Valley, nestled between the Sierra Nevada and Coastal mountain ranges. In this dry but fertile land, sometimes called “the nation’s salad bowl,” farmers depend heavily on irrigation to grow most of the country’s fruits and vegetables. Less rain means less water for thirsty crops, and less work for farm labourers as more fields lie fallow. Adding insult to injury in many farmers’ eyes was a 2007 decision by Federal Judge Oliver Wanger. According to a recent article in The Economist, in order to protect the endangered delta smelt, Judge Wanger decreed that the amount of water pumped out of the Sacramento Delta—which supplies both valley farms and southern cities—had to be reduced by a third. … “
Read more of this blog commentary by clicking here.
Senator Boxer testifies on critical water legislation
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 9, 2009 at 7:57 amFrom the website of Barbara Boxer:
“WASHINGTON, DC – [Thursday, Nov. 5], U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on legislation she introduced with Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to permanently allow voluntary water transfers throughout the San Joaquin Valley.
Senator Boxer’s prepared testimony follows:
Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to discuss S. 1759, the Water Transfers Facilitation Act of 2009. Senator Feinstein and I have introduced this legislation to facilitate voluntary water transfers within the San Joaquin Valley.
This is about getting water where it’s needed, when it’s needed. It’s about finding ways we can all come together to find pragmatic solutions to the water crisis, rather than everyone just going to their corners.
Three years of below-average precipitation have restricted water supplies for much of California. Drought conditions have particularly affected agricultural communities in the San Joaquin Valley, where more than 500,000 acres of cropland have been fallowed, further compounding existing economic struggles in this region.
I am deeply concerned about this crisis and the impacts it is having on agricultural communities in the San Joaquin Valley. That’s why Senator Feinstein and I joined to introduce the Water Transfers Facilitation Act of 2009. This legislation will facilitate voluntary water transfers among some water users in the San Joaquin Valley, improving flexibility in water management and providing water to those communities who need it most.
Panel to advocate for streamlining water transfers
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 21, 2009 at 8:43 amFrom the California Farm Bureau Federation:
“The state must streamline its system for voluntary, short-term water purchases and transfers in order for farmers on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to weather another dry year, according to members of a state panel who met in Fresno last week.
The meeting of the California State Board of Food and Agriculture Water Subcommittee featured consensus on water delivery woes and the uncertainty they have brought for farmers and bankers.
Al Montna, president of the board and a Sacramento Valley rice farmer, said the dire need for water is exacerbated because the state has not made it easy for short-term transfers to take place earlier.
“There is no reason we can’t have transfer contracts in place now,” he said. “There’s no reason it can’t be done today. It’s unacceptable. Water should be committed and ready to go. There are ready buyers and ready sellers. We need action now. We need to move.” …”
Read more from the California Farm Bureau Federation by clicking here.
Officials: Water transfers won’t increase: ‘Water is so scarce in California, when people have it they want to hang on to it’
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 25, 2009 at 7:39 amFrom the Capital Press:
“When Don Mills caught wind of the largest known water transfer to have ever happened in Kings County, he didn’t take it well.
A partner in a local farming operation had sold his share of state-allocated water to the Mojave Water Agency, which encompasses an area of growing urban development in the desert northeast of Los Angeles. The sale was significant for its permanence as well as its size. It would ultimately transfer 14,000 acre feet annually, the amount increasing by increments over an 11-year period beginning in 2010. The reported sale amount: $5,500 per acre foot.
It’s the kind of transfer that happens every once in a while in California, and tends to strike fear among locals that water will keep flowing away from agriculture as urban jurisdictions pay prices farmers can’t afford. …”
Read more from the Capital Press by clicking here.
Some Valley farmers are selling water to buyers outside region, but local experts say deal like one in Kings County unlikely to occur in Tulare County
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 19, 2009 at 7:35 amFrom the Visalia Times-Delta:
“While area farmers are struggling through a third year of drought, letting land lie fallow because they can’t afford to irrigate it, a large Kings County farm operator is a step away from a $73 million deal that would send 14,000 acre-feet of water to the Mojave Desert over 10 years.
The price, more than $5,200 an acre-foot, could be a record. Robert Cooke, chief of the State Water Project Analysis Office, said the most he’s ever heard paid for water was about $3,000 an acre-foot.
An acre-foot is the amount of water that would fill an acre 1 foot deep, or 325,851 gallons. The average household in the Visalia area uses about 290,000 gallons of water annually, according to the California Water Services Co.
The deal for the Kings County water, awaiting final approval by the California Department of Water Resources, is between Sandridge Partners, owned by the family of the late Silicon Valley real estate developer Stephen Vidovich, and the Mojave Water Agency, which represents water districts in more than 4,900 square miles of high desert along Interstate 15 in San Bernardino County, roughly between Victorville and Barstow.
Sandridge farms in southwestern Kings County, near Kettleman City, use water from the nearby California Aqueduct to farm 2,500 acres of almonds. Sandridge spokesmen were not available to say what would happen to the almonds.
Some reports say Sandridge intends to use some of its $73 million windfall to buy groundwater rights in Kings and Tulare counties.
That’s what worries John Roeloffs, a Tipton-area farmer and dairyman. “Heck no. I don’t like it. I think it’s a bad deal,” Roeloffs said. He pays about $100 an acre-foot for water. “Everybody who sells water thinks there’s water coming behind it, but that’s not true.” …”
Read more from the Visalia Times-Delta by clicking here.
Officials concerned water sale sends wrong message
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 17, 2009 at 8:38 amFrom the Valley Voice Newspaper:
“Local ag interests say the sale of 14,000 acre feet of water by a Kings County farm might send the wrong message that agriculture is not hurting from a lack of water.
However, others point out the $77 million sale of what has become a precious commodity is just a sign of the times and a result of three years of below normal rainfall and decisions by the state and federal officials to cut water deliveries to farms and municipal districts.
Sandridge Partners, owned by John Vidovich, has agreed to sell the rights to 14,000 acre feet of water a year to the Mojave Water Agency. The sale would result in Sandridge fallowing 2,500 acres with the farm pulling out that many acres of almonds in Kings County. …”
Read more from Valley Voice Newspaper by clicking here.
Most valuable agricultural crop in the Valley? It’s water! says Bill McEwen
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 9, 2009 at 8:07 amFrom Bill McEwen of the Fresno Bee, this column:
“Farmers want water for crops, environmentalists want water for fish. Both are destined to end up losers because water always flows — not downhill, as is taught in school — but straight to cash.
In the West, suburban development is king, and it appears that nothing will change that fact. For every farmer with dirt under his fingernails, there is another willing to trade in his overalls for a suit and developer’s blueprints.
Or for a developer’s money.
Need some examples?
The Boswell family drained Tulare Lake, gained control of a large chunk of the Kings River, became the biggest cotton farmers in the world and developed the Arizona retirement town of Sun City. Now the Boswells wants to plant 10,000 homes east of Exeter in Yokohl Valley. …”
Read more of Bill McEwen’s column by clicking here.
From the blogs: Spreck Rosekranz, On the Public Record, and Aguanomics respond to $77 million water transfer from Kings County to Mojave Water Agency
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 3, 2009 at 8:20 amBeginning with Spreck Rosekranz at the Environmental Defense Fund’s On the Water Front blog, this excerpt from his post regarding the recent transfer of water from Kings County (Central Valley) to the Mojave Water Agency in San Bernardino County:
“This particular proposed water transfer is problematic for us at the Environmental Defense Fund, since we often support marketing of water that is already extracted from the natural environment. But it is difficult to support the permanent conversion of farmland, especially if the water goes to a desert community where per capita water consumption is far in excess of statewide average. We do believe that allowing the sale of water between willing sellers and buyers leads to vastly improved productivity and thus decreases the demand to increase the extraction of water from our rivers. We would far prefer, however, that agriculture to urban transfers take place only in dry years and with limited fallowing, as is the case with the agreement between Palo Verde Irrigation District and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Or, better yet, transfers within agriculture that involve investments in irrigation efficiency and allow buyers and sellers alike to grow the same crop on the same land.”
Read more of Spreck’s blog post by clicking here.
The transfer caught the eye of the On the Public Record blog. The blogger admits to imagining some vast conspiracy theory which turned out to be completely unfounded, but discovered some other things along the way:
“It was a good conspiracy fantasy, which is why I’m still telling you, even though the thing that caught my eye was wrong. Mojave Water Agency isn’t paying $5,500 per af-year (twice the cost of desal). I couldn’t find a citation for that, so I called the reporter. MWA is paying a lump sum up front for the water right. They’ll own all the future flows that water right can command for $77M, which might well be a decent price for water. I suppose it might actually be water for the stated purpose (subdivisions).
I only have a couple points to make, instead of the scandalous series of muckraking posts I’d hoped to do.
1. This tells me that farming corporations are pulling out of the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Assuming corporations are making cold, hard business decisions and not emotional decisions about “being a farmer”, they think the era is over. They are cashing out. I don’t know what factors they weight (Subsidy reform? Climate change predictions about less precip? Maybe they don’t think Obama will build them the West Side Drain? ) but they’ll trade their future on the west side for $77M. Can’t come a day too soon, says I, except for the cashing out part. …”
Find out what the other two points are in the rest of this post from the On the Public Record blog by clicking here.
David Zetland of the Aguanomics blog has some observations:
“It’s clear that money talks as far as water is concerned. Although farmers are complaining of a “dust bowl” (and the media is STILL eating up Westlands agit/prop), what they are really complaining about is an increase in the cost of doing business. I guess that Westlands (et al.!) would rather lobby Feinstein and Vilsack than pay money for more water.*
I wonder about the details of the contract. Does the price change if less than 14,000 af/year are available? Seth — the reporter on the original story — says that the seller received an average of 50 percent of its contracted deliveries/rights in the past. …”
More observations and Zetland’s bottom line from Aguanomics by clicking here.
Water sales = $6.8 million; SSJID windfall allows more water conservation
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 27, 2009 at 6:40 amFrom the Manteca Bulletin:
“Aggressive conservation efforts by South San Joaquin Irrigation District ditch tenders and farmers has helped free up 30,000 acre feet of water to assist other regions hard hit by California’s third straight year of drought.
The SSJID board this week completed transactions that will send 4,000 acre feet to the City of Stockton for municipal water uses and 1,000 acre feet to the East Stockton Water District for agricultural purposes. That is in addition to 25,000 acre feet that was part of an emergency deal to the San Luis-Delta Mendota Water Agency that is helping keep thousands of acres of permanent crops alive in the water starved western side of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. …”
Read more from the Manteca Bulletin by clicking here.
Afternoon update: Westside farmer sells water for $77 million
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 26, 2009 at 1:53 pmFrom the Hanford Sentinel:
“Forget gold. In Kings County, water gets most of the attention. More specifically, it’s the prospect of losing local water rights to outside entities that gets everybody’s dander up.
That’s why the Kings County Water Commission spent a good chunk of a Monday night meeting talking about a Westside landowner who plans to sell 14,000 acre-feet of water a year to the Mojave Water Agency in San Bernardino County for $5,500 per acre-foot.
That’s $77 million of the wet stuff headed out of the county for likely urban development (an acre-foot is enough water to supply a typical home for a year, according to Wikipedia).
The tradeoff is that the unnamed landowner — a member of a Bay Area company called Sandridge Partners, based in Sunnyvale — plans to cut down 2,500 acres of his almond trees along Interstate 5 near Kettleman City. …”
Read more from the Hanford Sentinel by clicking here.
State dragging feet on crucial water transfer to help keep crops alive
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 10, 2009 at 7:08 amFrom the Manteca Bulletin:
The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority that serves 2.1 million acres is in a world of hurt due to lack of water. The South San Joaquin Irrigation District wants to help by selling them 25,000 acre feet of water that district farmers have helped them conserve through prudent water practices.
The only problem is the State of California is holding up the transaction.
It was less than three months that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a statewide emergency due to a third year of drought and called upon Californians to help others by conserving and sharing water.
The SSJID board is frustrated since it has been more than two weeks since they’ve asked for state approval of the water transfer. Not only did Schwarzenegger promise nimble responses to such transfers by appointing a water czar, but the board which is comprised primarily of farmers understands how dire the situation is for the growers and workers dependent on ag production elsewhere in the Northern San Joaquin Valley.
Read more from the Manteca Bulletin by clicking here.
Bureau of Reclamation releases draft EA for public comment on the transfer of non-CVP water from the Placer County Water Authority to the San Diego County Water Authority
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 20, 2009 at 7:03 amFrom the Bureau of Reclamation, this press release:
The Bureau of Reclamation has released a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for public review and comment on a proposal to enter into a reservoir refill agreement and a 1-year temporary Warren Act Contract to facilitate the movement of up to 20,000 acre-feet of Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) water rights water (non-Central Valley Project [CVP] water) from their facilities on the Middle Fork of the American River to the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) service area.
The Draft EA analyzes the impacts of transferring up to 20,000 acre-feet of this non-CVP water from PCWA to SDCWA during July, August, and September 2009. The purpose of the transfer is to help replace the SDCWA member agencies’ short water supplies caused by the drought. The project area includes the Middle and North Forks of the American River, French Meadows and Hell Hole Reservoirs, the Lower American River, Folsom Dam and Reservoir, Lake Natoma and Nimbus Dam, the Sacramento River, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the SDCWA service area.
After the transfer water is released from Folsom Dam and Reservoir to the American River, it would flow to the Sacramento River and on to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It would then be pumped by the California Department of Water Resources at its Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant and conveyed to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) using State Water Project facilities. Metropolitan would then convey the transfer water to SDCWA using its water conveyance facilities.
The Draft EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and is available for a 15-day public review. It may be viewed at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=3972. If you encounter problems accessing the document online, please call 916-978-5100 or e-mail ibr2mprpao@mp.usbr.gov.
Written comments should be provided by close of business Thursday, July 2, 2009, to Mr. Robert Schroeder, Bureau of Reclamation, 7794 Folsom Dam Road, Folsom, CA 95630 or to e-mail rschroeder@usbr.gov. To request a paper copy of the Draft EA, please contact Ms. Chelsea Stewart at 916-989-7155 or cstewart@usbr.gov.
On the Waterfront blog: The drought as tipping point for California’s broken water policy
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 11, 2009 at 7:24 amFrom the Environmental Defense Fund’s On The Water Front blog, this post by Laura Harnish, California Regional Director:
California’s drought, now in its third year, is getting plenty of attention – both in-state and beyond its borders. This attention is deserved because in 2009, reduced water supplies are affecting our cities, farms and natural environment.
Comments made at a recent congressional hearing may have outshone the fundamental facts but certainly conveyed the drama building around this issue. Our current water policy is broken—right now, we cannot adapt to the most predictable of droughts nor operate with the flexibility needed to respond to the needs of our ecosystem. We believe there is an alternative—we can create a robust, resilient water system that provides reliability in drought and water for fish. Before we get there, let’s take a closer look at where we are now:
In early February, low reservoir levels prompted State and Federal water project operators to abandon legally-required outflow from the Bay-Delta. This summer, cities throughout the State, especially in urban southern California will undergo mandatory rationing.
Read more from the On the Waterfront Blog by clicking here.
Spreck Rosekranz of the EDF: Water transfers can help balance limited supplies
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 4, 2009 at 6:19 amFrom Spreck Rosekranz of the EDF’s On The Waterfront blog:
As California is experiencing a third consecutive dry year, in 2009 less water will be available for our cities, farms and natural environment. Due to our “first in time, first in right” water laws, however, some areas of the state will have plentiful supplies while others will suffer severe shortages.
The latest water supply update from the Bureau of Reclamation illustrates the wide range of reliability in water supply that exists in California. The Bureau’s Central Valley Project expects to deliver 100% of contractual supply to its “water rights” contractors along the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, 85% to its Friant Division contractors, but zero to its south-of-Delta “Contract Agriculture” customers, including Westlands Water District.
For more than three decades, Environmental Defense Fund has advocated for the use of transfers – the purchase of water supplies between willing sellers and buyers – as a tool for ensuring that water is available for its most productive uses. We believe that increased availability of transfers can provide supplies where they are needed without building additional dams or increasing diversions from the natural environment.
Read more of Spreck’s blog post by clicking here.
Major hurdles loom for any water transfers
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 1, 2009 at 6:25 amFrom the California Farm Bureau Federation:
In a drought, moving water from those who can spare it to those who need it sounds logical. But in practice, the procedure is so complicated that water-short California farms and cities may not find water transfers much help this year.
The state established a Drought Water Bank last fall to help ease the impact of the water supply crisis. The idea is to buy water from willing sellers, primarily from irrigation districts upstream of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and sell it to those short of water to the south using the state and federal water project to move the added supplies.
After six months of effort, DWR says it has the “potential” commitment of about 400,000 acre-feet of water. The amount that actually would be available, however, is still uncertain. Many farmers north of the delta who might have fallowed land or relied more heavily on groundwater to meet their crop needs have now made other plans for their water. Farmers in the south are still trying to figure out how to keep permanent plantings alive through the heat of summer.
“Even with the 2009 Drought Water Bank, getting the water to those who need it and who may have paid for extra supplies is challenging,” said Danny Merkley, California Farm Bureau Federation water resources director. “There are no guarantees it will be delivered. That’s primarily due to the impact of environmental protections for the delta smelt (which resulted in severe cutbacks in pumping water through the delta).”
Water officials say that because there’s so much uncertainty about contract requirements and environmental limitations, the actual amount of water that could be transferred south may be much less than the 400,000 acre-feet initially hoped for.
“We’re still getting proposals in from potential, willing sellers so we don’t have a number on how much water is actually going to be available for sale,” said Teresa Geimer, DWR’s Drought Water Bank manager. “We have a list of potential sellers and we’ve listed maximum amounts and that’s the best number we have right now.”
Read more from the California Farm Bureau Federation by clicking here.
Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District profiting from drought, water sales
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 1, 2009 at 6:09 amFrom the Anderson Valley Post:
While California’s drought is leaving many farmers and irrigation districts dry, the Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District (ACID) stands to profit over $220,000 through the sales of water rights to such dry districts, according to ACID Director Stan Wangberg.
ACID has contracted sales to districts in Shasta Lake City, Bella Vista, and Shasta Community Services District according to Wangberg. ACID was on the verge of completing a deal Friday with Kanawha Water District, near Willows. Sales to the district would net about $139,000 of the $220,000 listed above. The amount of water sold to Kanawha amounts to less than three days supply to the ACID district.
Although the ACID was curtailed by 25 percent by the Bureau of Reclamation earlier this year, Wangberg said Monday that the district was upgraded to receive 100 percent allotment. The ACID owns a settlement contract containing pre-1914 water rights, which predate the Central Valley Project.
Although the irrigation district has extra water to sell, it does not come out of ACID customer’s share.
Read more from the Anderson Valley Post by clicking here.
Riverside to sell some water to Western Municipal
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 28, 2009 at 6:55 amFrom the Riverside Press-Enterprise:
The city of Riverside has agreed to sell some of its groundwater to Western Municipal Water District, a deal worth about $1.8 million, officials said.
The agreement gives Western an alternative to the more expensive imported water from its wholesaler, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Because of drought and limited pumping out of Northern California, Metropolitan is expected next month to impose rationing and rate increases to customers such as Western.
Western supplies supplemental water to Corona, Norco, Riverside and western Riverside County, and to several retailers in Jurupa, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta and Temecula. Riverside Public Utilities serves customers within the city limits.
Their new pact transfers 6,000 acre-feet per year of water from aquifers in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons — enough to supply two to four families for a year.
Read more from the Press-Enterprise by clicking here.
When you start pricing water, you see why people fight over it
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on February 15, 2009 at 8:12 amFrom the Modesto Bee, this column by Mike Dunbar:
Experts are saying an acre-foot (325,000 gallons) will cost $500 or more by spring. Some say it could reach $1,000.
Last month, the Napa Register reported that the city of Napa agreed to pay $3.45 million for permanent rights to 1,100 acre-feet of state water allotted to Yountville. Some years, Napa will get the water and some years — like this year — it probably won’t. No one knows water’s true value because there is no real market, just separate deals overseen by the state.
So what’s water worth around here [Central Valley]?
Irrigation rates have not been finalized, but farmers in Turlock likely will pay somewhere around $6 an acre-foot. Modesto Irrigation District staff is recommending around $10 an acre-foot for a base allocation of 30 inches. Oakdale farmers pay by time, but it works out to around $5 an acre-foot.
There’s a catch: Area farmers are limited in how much water they can get … just like everybody else.
For instance, the Marin County town of Bolinas says 150 gallons a day is all you get; use more and your water will be shut off.
The mayor of Los Angeles is asking for cutbacks and insisting on penalties for watering lawns more than twice a week. And the Metropolitan Water District, which provides water for 19 million Southern Californians, wants more pricing tiers. In the highest, users would pay $5 for 750 gallons — or $2,400 an acre-foot.
Farmers south of us probably would pay that cost — if they could get the water. The federal Central Valley Project, which provides water to more than 215 districts, cities and utilities, has signaled that most of its customers won’t get any water this year — due partly to drought and partly to “higher” claims on the water. That caused Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, to declare that “we get to watch the fall of modern civilization in the San Joaquin Valley.”
Read more from the Modesto Bee by clicking here.
New report from Pacific Research Institute: Go with the Flow; Why water markets can solve California’s water crisis
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 24, 2008 at 7:26 amFrom the Pacific Research Institute:
California should lift bans and restrictions to help alleviate the water distribution problem, according to Go with the Flow: Why water markets can solve California’s water crisis, a Pacific Research Institute report released today.
The challenge for the Golden State is to move water from areas with abundance to areas with high demand, and to do so in the most efficient manner. Dr. Amy Kaleita, PRI Environmental Studies fellow and author of the study believes that there are more cost-effective strategies for providing water for Californians than continued centralized management and investment in massive infrastructure. The water problem in California is not insufficient supply but uneven distribution and convoluted management explains Dr. Kaleita.
The report analyzes California’s water resources and offers key policy solutions such as the need for more accurate water pricing to encourage conservation, the facilitation of water transfers by removing bureaucratic red tape, and legislation to enable the creation of fully functional statewide or regional water markets.
Among the issues discussed include a costly $9.3 billion water bond plan promoted by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senator Diane Feinstein to provide funds for California’s water storage and conveyance infrastructure. Dr. Kaleita explains that it is more cost-effective to avoid construction and instead invest in policies that encourage conservation, reducing water consumption in a number of sectors. “California needs a policy that allows water consumers the flexibility to implement technology and management strategies best suited to their situation,” she said.
Read the report by clicking here. Find out more about the Pacific Research Institute by clicking here.
Note: This report will be added to Aquafornia’s Research and Publications page under the heading “Water Markets”.
Water banks, the ESA and the Public Trust Doctrine
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 10, 2008 at 11:00 pmFrom High Country News’s GOAT blog:
Matt Jenkin’s article “Liquid assets” in the October 27th edition is a good introduction to Water Banking – a concept which westerners are likely to hear used increasingly if predictions of diminished water supplies resulting from climate change are accurate. But the article only scratches the surface of a subject which West-watchers will want to know a lot more about. And – because taxpayer funds are often involved in financing the operation of water banks as well as in some cases the water purchases themselves – it can be argued that everyday citizens need to better understand what is involved.
Fortunately, there is a goodly amount of information readily at hand. Most of the information on water banks aims to educate farmers and ranchers, many of whom have been encouraged by property rights extremists to view water banks as a socialist plot designed by government bureaucrats and environmentalists to undermine water rights. On the other side of the spectrum some river advocates view water banks as part of an attempt to turn what were intended as use rights into property rights that are not attached to specific uses. If water rights become like other property rights, these folks assert, the Public Trust Doctrine will have been all but destroyed with respect to water resources. From this perspective water banks are seen as part of a world-wide movement to privatize water resources.
Part of the confusion over water banks is the result of the fact that the term has been used to describe institutional arrangements that are radically different and which have different legal implications.
Read more from the GOAT blog by clicking here.
Placer water heading south to Westlands Water District to ease shortage
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 30, 2008 at 5:17 amFrom the Sacramento Bee:
The Placer County Water Agency recently sold up to 20,000 acre-feet of water to a water district serving Fresno and Kings County farmland.
The water will be moved to the Westlands Water District through the Bureau of Reclamation canal system to the San Luis Reservoir, where it could be used immediately or stored for later use, according to the California Farm Bureau Federation.
The transfer is scheduled for November and December, and is the latest indicator of water shortages throughout the state, a farm bureau e-newsletter states.
The Placer County water agency’s Board of Directors also recently approved increasing water rates for cities and local water companies it supplies, and will consider similar increases for the agency’s ratepayers during the board’s November meeting.
Read more from the Sacramento Bee by clicking here.
SSJID sells surplus water for $224,000; Conservation allows district to help two neighbors
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on September 28, 2008 at 5:55 amFrom the Manteca Bulletin:
South San Joaquin Irrigation District has helped two neighbors out and received $224,000 for their efforts. The district had 4,800 acre feet of water left from its Bureau of Reclamation allocation after filling Woodward Reservoir so they could have another irrigation run prior to Oct. 15 as well as take care of municipal water needs through next spring and handle of early 2009 irrigation runs for SSJID farmers.
SSJID General Manager Jeff Shields said the board had numerous offers to buy the water from up and down the state but opted to keep it within San Joaquin County.
The Central Irrigation District north of French Camp took 1,600 acre-feet for agricultural uses at $20 per acre foot. The Stockton East Water District bought 1,600 acre feet at $20 per acre foot for agriculture and another 1,600 acre feet for urban uses in Stockton at $100 per acre foot.
Read more from the Manteca Bulletin by clicking here.
Aquafornia's Information Desk
Aquafornia's Photos on Flickr
Recent Posts
- This just in from the State Water Contractors: New analysis reveals massive water supply restrictions in attempt to protect fish
- and this …. Statement regarding State Water Contractors’ new analysis of water supply impacts due to biological opinions
- Dept. of Interior announces increased water supply allocations in California; Additional water supplies to be made available south of Delta
- This just in … State Water Project delivery forecast remains at 15% despite CVP increase
- This just in … Feds increase CVP allocations
- Tuesday’s top of the scroll: National Geographic on Plumbing California
- More salmon coming back: Good news for fish and farms?
- The water wars: California’s salmon vs. agribiz interests: Taking re-spawnsibility
- On the Water Front blog: How much water does the Delta need? State board set to hold hearing
- Aquafornia slideshow of the Lower Colorado River Tour
- State Water Contractors: The Multiple factors contributing to Delta decline
- Alex Brietler: Supporting the bond? Just fill in the blanks
- Cleaner air may raise water costs: SoCal agencies stack up against AB 32
- Valley solar plant would be among world’s largest
- Interview with a native plant pioneer Jeff Hart: revegetating levees in the Delta
Aquafornia's Mission
Aquafornia's mission is to educate readers about the complex and often controversial issues surrounding water in California.
Aquafornia is affiliated with the Water Education Foundation, an impartial non-profit organization, whose mission is to create a better understanding of water issues and help resolve water resource problems through educational programs.
E-mail Newsletter
To receive email announcements from the Water Education Foundation, sign up here.
Web Resources
Agriculture
Climate Change & Water
Conservation
Delta Resources
Employment & Water
Environmental Organizations
Fishing Blogs
Investing & Water
Landscaping
Legal Blogs
Los Angeles River
News
Salton Sea
Twitter Feeds
Water Agencies
Water Blogs
- Aguanomics
- American Water Resources Assn. Blog
- Barry Nelson at the NRDC Switchboard
- Chance of Rain
- Chronicles of the Hydraulic Brotherhood
- EDF’s On The Waterfront
- Food and Water Watch Blog
- Great Lakes Law Blog
- H2ONCoast Blog
- Inkstain – jfleck
- On the Public Record
- Peter Gleick’s City Brights blog
- Spouting Off – Mark Gold of Heal the Bay
- Thirsty in Suburbia
- Water Cooler Blog
- Water SISWEB
- Water Words That Work
- Waterblogged
- WaterCrunch
- WaterWired
- Western Water Blog
Water Information
News Article Archives
- Agriculture
- Aquafornia Exclusives
- Biofuels
- Bottled water
- Climate change & water supply
- Commentary
- Conservation
- Delta Issues
- Desalination
- Drinking Water
- Drought Tolerant Landscaping
- Drought, Weather & Snowpack
- Events
- Flood Control
- General Water Issues
- Geothermal Energy
- Grandiose water plans
- Great Green Ideas
- Groundwater
- Hydropower
- Indian Water Rights
- Infrastructure
- International Water Issues
- Invasive Species
- Levees
- Monterey Agreements
- National water news
- Oceans and Beaches (all)
- Odds and Ends
- People in the News
- Rainwater Harvesting
- Recycled Water
- Regional Water Issues
- All-American Canal
- Antelope Valley
- Bakersfield
- Bay Area
- Central Coast
- Coachella Valley
- Colorado River Basin
- Imperial Irrigation District & Imperial Valley
- Lake Tahoe & the Sierra's
- Las Vegas & Nevada
- Los Angeles River
- Northern California
- Orange County
- Owens Valley & Mono Lake
- Riverside – San Bernardino
- Sacramento
- Salton Sea
- San Diego
- San Joaquin Valley
- Southern California
- Southwest Water Issues
- Westlands Water District
- Stormwater & Urban Runoff
- Uncategorized
- Water & Development
- Water & Energy
- Water & Investing
- Water & Population
- Water & the Environment
- Water & Wildlife
- Water Agency News (all)
- Water Banking
- Water History
- Water Legislation
- Water Quality
- Water Rights
- Water Storage
- Water Supply
- Water Technologies
- Water Transfers
- Weather Modification
- Weird & Wacky Water News