Less Water, Fewer Problems

More efficient use of water by agriculture could produce as much water as between 3 and 20 new dams would – while producing more crops, a new report by the Pacific Institute has found.

This report supports what we’ve been saying all along: conservation, not dam construction, is the best answer to the Delta’s dismal problems. Essentially, by applying proven conservation measures, we can do “More with Less,” as the report’s title urges.

About 80% of the Delta’s water flows to agricultural uses. Here are some of the think tank’s ideas for turning down the spigot for agriculture – without turning off agriculture’s production:

• Better Irrigation Scheduling: Watering at key times actually benefits a crop more than simply giving the crop additional water, the study says.


• Shifting Some Crops: Farmers could trade high-water-demand crops, such as field crops, for crops that use less water, like vegetables.


• Improved Crop Management: Giving certain crops less water actually can increase production, the report states.


• More Efficient Water Technology: Drip irrigation and sprinklers are a better bet for most California crops than traditional “flood irrigation,” according to the report.

A national leader in agricultural production, California grows an estimated 15% of the nation’s entire agriculture export. Wouldn’t it be nice to lead the nation in agricultural water efficiency as well?

READ MORE:

SF Chronicle: Study Finds California Can Cut Farm Water Use

AP: Farmers urged to save water, shift emphasis

New Water Bond Idea Is All Wet

(previously published in California Progress Report)

The California Legislature’s ongoing debate over a water bond (ABXX 8, Huffman, Caballero, Wolk) seems to echo discussions going on in houses across California: Should we put big purchases on a credit card and pay them off, or should we be more prudent with our money?

It’s great that our state’s leaders want to take on our state’s water woes, and that the California Assembly has dived into this issue with enthusiasm. But right now, they are talking about spending $10 billion for water – and essentially putting that charge on a “credit card” of more bond-money borrowing. Annual payments on existing borrowing already represent the fourth-largest expenditure in the state’s budget.

Rather than address our problems as a one-time purchase, we need to come up with a steady “stream” of financing that we can use to take on the big, ongoing problems facing our state’s water systems:

- A collapsing Delta capable of delivering an unprecedented shock to the 23 million Californians who drink its water;

- Worsening water quality, as bacteria, trash, pharmaceuticals, plastic byproducts and nitrates poison our rivers and streams;

- Costly, unnecessary dam proposals that would cost billions to build and benefit only a few;

- And a complete failure to regulate groundwater, which plays an increased role in drinking water supplies during droughts.

A one-time water bond won’t do enough to address those problems, and it definitely doesn’t provide a consistent, stable source of funding for water.

We’re not alone in wanting this sustainable funding. Our colleagues with the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, the Planning and Conservation League, California Coastkeeper Alliance, Clean Water Action, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, California Sportsfishing Protection Alliance and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation all agree how important it is to end the spending drought for funds already approved by voters.

Together, we’re asking the California Legislature to rethink its entire approach to funding water policy. We’re also standing up for disadvantaged communities and individuals: those who must fish to feed their families, agricultural workers who can’t drink the water that comes out of their tap. We’re fighting to make sure that these families and workers get a fair share of any bond. Along with our disappearing fish species, they have suffered the most from decades of water policies that rewarded special interests without improving water quality or supplies for these low-income communities.

We have the tools to start making a difference in those communities right now. More than half of the funds from previous bonds already approved by California’s voters, Propositions 84 and 1E, still needs to be appropriated and invested in California’s water resources. As we strategically invest those dollars to clean up dirty aquifers and help low-income Californians, we will have some more time to take a more critical look at our state’s water future.

Right now, the California Legislature has a chance to begin making a real, permanent change to California’s often-shortsighted water policy. It’s time to put down the credit card, and start planning for a sustainable future.

image courtesy DWR

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.

And The Winner Is...

Grassroots lobbying is more important than ever.

That's what Senate President Pro Tempore Don Perata, D-Oakland, told a group of volunteer lobbyists who donated their Sunday and Monday to assist Sierra Club California's senior staff in advocating key legislation.

Perata, who won Sierra Club California's first-ever Byron Sher Award for Outstanding Environmental Achievement by a Public Official in recognition of his tireless efforts on behalf of the environment, encouraged these volunteers to continue to maintain their presence in the State Capitol. Because of term limits, he said, California's legislative leaders won't have the experience to push forward major pieces of legislation like the Global Warming Solutions Act - unless the people in their district hold them to it.

"If you can talk to someone where they live, where they shop, that's going to be how we get these bills passed," he said. "[You must] maintain your vigilance, and maintain the priority you place on the environment in your daily lives."

He also warned that some Republican representatives of the Legislature want to build more dams and roll back environmental protections.

But it wasn't all seriousness. After warning the Club members to stay aware of legislation, he brought warm laughter with an aside:

"Of course, asking Sierra Club members to be more vigilant is crazy," he joked.

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.