Water For ALL!

Protesting Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Feinstein’s push for a November water bond, community groups throughout California rallied yesterday to expose the proposal’s failure to provide long-term and equitable solutions to California’s water problems. Community groups oppose the bond and are calling for immediate action from the Legislature to distribute existing bond funds that have sat unspent since 2006.

“Our communities are struggling as budget cuts dry up state support for our health, education and infrastructure programs. Now the governor is asking Californians to repay another $9.2 billion dollar water bond? We simply cannot afford to do that,” stated Debbie Davis, legislative analyst for the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water. “Ironically, this bond is called the ‘Safe Drinking Water Act,’ but it does nothing to address the drinking water crisis in thousands of communities in California.

"Our communities need funding for programs that help provide safe, clean drinking water. Despite a $9.2 billion dollar price tag, this bond doesn’t deliver.”

California’s recent drought has exacerbated water problems throughout the state, ranging from a lack of clean drinking water for rural communities to the collapse of the Delta ecosystem. Instead of creating new management solutions to old problems, the bond provides funding for the same types of projects that have already pushed California’s water system to the brink. Proposed dams and surface water storage would take decades to put in place, and most profit special interests.

“We have a water crisis today. This proposed bond wastes $3 billion on projects that will take decades to produce a drop of water,” said Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club California's Senior Advocate. "We don't need 19th-century solutions to today's problems."

Metropulos, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter staff and others called on the Legislature and the Governor to pass SB 1XX (Perata, Machado and Steinberg), releasing unspent funds from Proposition 84, passed in 2006. Over $800 million is being held hostage as leverage for a wasteful water bond.

The Legislature reportedly has until the end of this week to vote the water bond onto the ballot.

Information and images courtesy Environmental Justice Coalition for Water and Planning and Conservation League.

Water: The Choice Is Clear

Remember the end of "The Wizard of Oz" (spoiler alert!), where Dorothy, the lion and the scarecrow learn the answers to their problems have been there all along?

Something like that seems to be happening in California water policy. Two measures could help our state make great strides forward: SB 1XX (Perata) would spend money that Californians already voted to spend, in a way that would clean our aquifers, encourage better planning for our state's existing water resources and. and stimulate our state's economy. Meanwhile, AB 2175 (Laird) would set strong conservation goals for Californians, effectively giving us "free water."

Both Senate President Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass spoke out in favor of these proposals today, flanked by a sizeable turnout of California lawmakers. It was part of a response to last week's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposal for $9 billion in new water bond spending.

"It's imperative that we get to work immediately improving water conservation, water storage and water management -- and that's exactly what these two bills do," Bass said of the proposals. "This package sets a realistic target for boosting water conservation and uses already approved bond money to make big improvements in California's water system."

As Sierra Club California's Jim Metropulos has said, the governor's proposal represents more of the same for California. Instead of embracing 21st-century solutions, it looks to our dam-building past, proposing an expensive, unproven solution to our current water shortage.

Here's some recent coverage of California's water woes:

KCBS: Disagreement Over How Best To Conserve CA Water (LISTEN)

San Francisco Chronicle: Huge Bond Plan To Revamp State Water System

The Sacramento Bee: Governor, Feinstein Back Bond

Don't Build It, Dam It

Recently, the Los Angeles Times wrote that new Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and next year’s Senate President pro tempore Darrell Steinberg might consider building new dams as one way of getting water to the people.

California’s in the middle of two dry years, so it’s no surprise that California’s Assembly and Senate leadership want real solutions to provide water for homes, businesses and farms. But building more dams won’t solve today’s problem, tomorrow’s problem – or the problems that could arise five years from now.

Dams cost a lot of money to build, and we can’t be sure that they’ll even work the way they’re supposed to. We’re still several millions of dollars away from completed studies on the dams that special interests want us to build in the Central Valley – and we already have 1,400 dams in the state of California.

Instead, California’s leaders can act on other parts of the Governor’s proposal, supporting existing legislation that would require 20 percent reductions in water use, AB 2175 (Laird and Feuer). And we can continue to progress toward a solution in the delta that provides for the best use of water while protecting the delta’s natural resources.

Twenty percent isn’t much to ask. Think about it: It’s the difference between your kid throwing four water balloons and five at his birthday party – or between some new toilets and their predecessors.

If we apply conservation measures now, California won’t come up dry now, tomorrow and in the near future.

Water For Tomorrow

Today, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s declared a “State of Emergency” for the state’s dwindling water supply.

He's also called for Californians to cut back on the water they use. Right now, the California Legislature works to advance SB 2175 (Laird and Feuer), a Sierra Club California priority bill that would cut water use by 20 percent across the state via conservation.

But building more dams – the other part of his proposed solution– isn’t the most cost-effective, sustainable way to address the state’s shrunken snowpack and dwindling runoff reserves. And it's not the best way to make sure there's enough water for future generations.

We don’t even know exactly how much the dams the governor wants to build will cost, how much water they will produce, who will receive and pay for the water and how they will affect our environment.

Governor Schwarzenegger said he wants to revive last year’s water bond proposal, which focuses on expensive water projects that would serve agribusiness and accommodate big growth in the Central Valley. Since the multi-million-dollar studies of the proposed dams aren’t done yet, Californians can’t be sure whether the multi-billion-dollar dams will safely serve California’s communities without harming our precious natural heritage.

Conservation is still the cheapest, most certain water supply available to California.

We must focus state money on forward-thinking water conservation programs, water recycling and cleanup of polluted underground stores. The state also must adopt a holistic, long-term strategy for protecting the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta before making major investments there or for new dams upstream of the Delta.

The governor has said he doesn’t want to make water into a political issue, and neither do we. We can address the state’s water shortage with low-cost, smart solutions available to us right now.

We need to embrace tomorrow’s solutions, instead of building yesterday’s monoliths.

State of the State Address Misses Opportunities

While we had hoped that Governor Schwarzenegger would use the State of the State to roll out important new programs regarding green chemistry and better fire planning, the speech was largely devoid of details.

As expected, the Governor led with last Fall’s tragic Southern California wildfires. One of the key lessons from those fires is that we need to get smarter about how and where we build. If local governments continue to approve building projects in areas where the state is expected to provide fire protection, costs and loss of life will continue to increase. Rather than describing a vision of proactive planning to protect lives as well as wildlands, the Governor focused exclusively on thanking the heroes. We join in lauding the Californians who stepped up during the crisis, but we were hoping for more proactive planning to prevent future crises.

Unfortunately, Schwarzenegger continues to push for the building of more expensive dams as a solution to California's water problems. The Governor's insistence on new dams has lead to a stalemate with the Legislature, which favors investments in water conservation, water recycling and groundwater cleanup. We hope that the Governor will work with the Legislature on solutions to our state's water problems that do not involve new dams.

On the bright side, environmentalists are always pleased to hear the Governator repeat his promise to sue the Bush Administration as often as necessary to obtain the waiver necessary for California’s clean-car standards to take effect.

Environmentalists who had heard that new initiatives to address toxins in consumer products or the plastics choking our oceans might appear in the State of the State speech were disappointed, as Schwarzenegger missed an opportunity to put those problems high on his agenda. The Governor did make a general promise to put forward “many” legislative proposals on energy and the environment, but offered no specifics as to what they may be. (During his four-plus years in office, Schwarzenegger has so far made very few legislative proposals of his own, preferring to respond to the bills initiated by legislators.)

The Governor’s proposal for a Strategic Growth Council has the admirable purpose of bringing together his administration’s economic development programs with its environmental sustainability concerns; during this and previous administrations, growth and sustainability have too often been considered in isolation from each other. But the administration needs to provide more details on how this council will allocate bond funds, and needs to make sure that it respects the wishes of the voters who approved the bonds and that it works with the Legislature on appropriating the money.

Special Session on Water coming to a Boil: SBX2 3 - Governor Schwarzenegger’s Water Bond Proposal is all Wet

SBX2 3 by Senator Cogdill is Governor Schwarzenegger’s recently introduced water infrastructure proposal for the Second Extraordinary Session. It includes $5.1 billion that could be used to fund all or some of the following projects: the construction of Sites Reservoir, the construction of Temperance Flat Reservoir, and the expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir. It also includes $1.9 billion for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem programs.

The Governor’s Water Bond Proposal focuses on expensive water projects for big farms and to accommodate big growth in the Central Valley. Sierra Club California urges the Governor to focus state money on programs for water conservation, water recycling, and the cleanup of underground water basins. We also believe that the state must have a completed long-term strategy for protecting the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta before making major investments there or for new dams upstream of the Delta.

New dams are not needed. Water conservation and recycling can easily meet our future water needs at a fraction of the cost. The 2005 California Water Plan by the Department of Water Resources states that four million acre feet of water could be saved by additional water efficiency and recycling programs.

New dams and large reservoirs are wasteful. California’s major reservoirs loose 500,000 acre-feet of water in a year from evaporation (about the same amount of water produced by the Governor’s new dams).

Dams are not a solution to global warming. Experts agree that our existing comprehensive system of dams can be operated to adjust for global warming. Large reservoirs created by new dams will produce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

Why should the taxpayers pay for these dams? Not one water agency in California has offered to pay even a small share of the multi-billion dollar cost to build these dams.

Dam studies are not completed. We don’t really know yet how much these dams cost, how much water they will produce, who will receive and pay for the water, and their environmental impacts.

A copy of Sierra Club California’s letter of opposition can be found here.

The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will hold a hearing on SB2X 3 on Monday, October 8th, at 1:00 pm or upon the call of the Chair in room 4203 at the State Capitol.


September 27, 2007

Senator Darrell Steinberg, Chair
Senate Natural Resources & Water Committee
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Second Extraordinary Session: Oppose SB 3 XX (Cogdill)-Governor’s Water Bond


Dear Senator Steinberg and Members of the Committee:

Sierra Club California opposes SB 3 XX (Cogdill & Ackerman), The Water Supply Reliability Bond Act of 2008. This proposal has many flaws but we focus specifically on the provision of the bond that includes $5.6 billion proposed for water storage. Sierra Club California does not support any proposal that provides funding for the construction of new dams or surface storage in California.

SB 3 XX is Governor Schwarzenegger’s recently introduced water infrastructure proposal for the Second Extraordinary Session. It includes $5.1 billion that could be used to fund all or some of the following projects: the construction of Sites Reservoir, the construction of Temperance Flat Reservoir, and the expansion or Low Vaqueros Reservoir. SB 3 XX also includes $500 million for funding other local surface water storage projects.

First, more dams or new surface water storage in California is unnecessary. Even with predicted economic and population growth, if investments are directed toward water efficiency, water reclamation and recycling, and additional groundwater storage, water demand will decrease. Already in the past 40 years, per capita consumption of water has been cut in half. Scenarios analyzed in the 2005 California Water Plan have shown that by conserving and reclaiming water the overall demand for water will fall, as there will be more water available. The 2005 plan also detailed how another four million acre feet of water could be saved by additional efficiency and recycling programs. One more preferable alternative that has already begun to be established is underground water storage, which has already gained 6 million-acre feet of storage in the last 20 years. Surface storage also degrades the natural flow of water and effects ecosystems in irreparable ways which can be avoided simply by using less of the water we already have.

Another reason why surface storage is unwise is that it is too wasteful. The Sites and Temperance Flat facilities for surface storage were projected to produce less water than is lost through evaporation in a year from California’s major surface storage reservoirs. The two projects would have produced about 470,000 acre-feet of water annually. In comparison, a DWR study found that the current major surface storage projects in California lose approximately 500,000 acre-feet in a year through evaporation. More evaporation loss can be expected as new surface storage reservoirs are built.

Additionally, the costs of surface storage are increasing which is an important aspect when considering the debt California is presently attempting to eliminate. Costs of these huge projects will continue to rise when taking into account environmental mitigation and interest is added into the price.

Moreover, the best and most cost effective dam sites in California have already been used. New additional dams produce much less water at a higher cost than more environmentally beneficial alternatives such as urban water use efficiency and recycling. Due to lack of funding, we unfortunately currently achieve about 20% of the reasonable water savings target that could be met if more money was invested into water use efficiency. Investing billions of dollars in environmentally damaging and inefficient new surface storage is irresponsible when limited state funds could be spent on less costly and more effective efficiency and reclamation programs.

Finally, despite arguments by proponents of these projects, dams are not a solution to global warming. Most experts agree that California’s 1,200 existing major dams can be operated in a manner to adjust to possible changes in run-off caused by global warming. The single largest use of electricity in California is storing and moving water to where it is needed. Building new surface storage will most likely result in increased energy use and greenhouse pollution to run these facilities and transport water. Also, existing large surface storage reservoirs are known sources of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane. To build more surface storage to preserve water supply seems unwise when it will simply add to the pollution that causes global warming. One precious resource cannot be traded for another, especially when there are better solutions to preserve both.

During this Second Extraordinary Session, the state can choose to invest millions in efficient water use technologies and programs that we know will reduce demand or we can choose to invest billions in costly and environmentally destructive dams. Sierra Club California asks that the Legislature invest in water use efficiency, water reclamation and recycling, and underground water storage rather than building new dams. These investments will produce more water at less cost and with fewer impacts to the environment. We oppose SB 3 XX and will encourage voters throughout California to reject any water bond that substantially funds new dams. Therefore, we urge you to reject any funding for dams or surface water storage and provide a more economical and environmental approach to sustaining California’s water system.


Sincerely,


Jim Metropulos
Legislative Representative

cc: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Senate President pro Tem Don Perata
Speaker Fabian Nunez