Author Archives: Francine

In dry California, water fetching record prices

7.2.14 – SF Gate by Garance Burke, Associated Press

 

In this May 1, 2014 photo, irrigation water runs along a dried-up ditch between rice farms in Richvale, CA.

In this May 1, 2014 photo, irrigation water runs along a dried-up ditch between rice farms in Richvale, CA.

Throughout California’s desperately dry Central Valley, those with water to spare are cashing in.

As a third parched summer forces farmers to fallow fields and lay off workers, two water districts and a pair of landowners in the heart of the state’s farmland are making millions of dollars by auctioning off their private caches.

Nearly 40 others also are seeking to sell their surplus water this year, according to state and federal records.

Economists say it’s been decades since the water market has been this hot. In the last five years alone, the price has grown tenfold to as much as $2,200 an acre-foot — enough to cover a football field with a foot of water.

Unlike the previous drought in 2009, the state has been hands-off, letting the market set the price even though severe shortages prompted a statewide drought emergency declaration this year.

The price spike comes after repeated calls from scientists that global warming will worsen droughts and increase the cost of maintaining California’s strained water supply systems.

Some water economists have called for more regulations to keep aquifers from being depleted and ensure the market is not subject to manipulation such as that seen in the energy crisis of summer 2001, when the state was besieged by rolling blackouts.

“If you have a really scarce natural resource that the state’s economy depends on, it would be nice to have it run efficiently and transparently,” said Richard Howitt, professor emeritus at the University of California, Davis.

Private water sales are becoming more common in states that have been hit by drought, including Texas and Colorado.

In California, the sellers include those who hold claims on water that date back a century, private firms who are extracting groundwater and landowners who stored water when it was plentiful in underground caverns known as water banks.

“This year the market is unbelievable,” said Thomas Greci, the general manager of the Madera Irrigation District, which recently made nearly $7 million from selling about 3,200 acre-feet. “And this is a way to pay our bills.”

All of the district’s water went to farms; the city of Santa Barbara, which has its own water shortages, was outbid.

The prices are so high in some rural pockets that water auctions have become a spectacle.

One agricultural water district amid the almond orchards and derrick fields northwest of Bakersfield recently announced it would sell off extra water it acquired through a more than century-old right to use flows from the Kern River.

Local TV crews and journalists flocked to the district’s office in February to watch as manager Maurice Etchechury unveiled bids enclosed in about 50 sealed envelopes before the cameras.

“Now everyone’s mad at me saying I increased the price of water. I didn’t do it, the weather did it,” said Etchechury, who manages the Buena Vista Water Storage District, which netted about $13.5 million from the auction of 12,000 acre-feet of water.

Competition for water in California is heightened by the state’s geography: The north has the water resources but the biggest water consumers are to the south, including most of the country’s produce crops.

The amount shipped south through a network of pumps, pipes and aqueducts is limited by the drought and legal restrictions on pumping to save a threatened fish.

During the last drought, the state Department of Water Resources ran a drought water bank, which helped broker deals between those who were short of water and those who had plenty. But several environmental groups sued, alleging the state failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act in approving the sales, and won.

This year, the state is standing aside, saying buyers and sellers have not asked for the state’s help. “We think that buyers and sellers can negotiate their own deals better than the state,” said Nancy Quan, a supervising engineer with the department.

Quan’s department, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the State Water Resources Control Board have tracked at least 38 separate sales this year, but the agencies are not aware of all sales, nor do they keep track of the price of water sold, officials said.

The maximum volume that could change hands through the 38 transactions is 730,323 acre-feet, which is about 25 percent of what the State Water Project has delivered to farms and cities in an average year in the last decade.

That figure still doesn’t include the many private water sales that do not require any use of government-run pipes or canals, including the three chronicled by the AP. It’s not clear however how much of this water will be sold via auctions.

Some of those in the best position to sell water this year have been able to store their excess supplies in underground banks, a tool widely embraced in the West for making water supplies reliable and marketable. The area surrounding Bakersfield is home to some of the country’s largest water banks.

The drought is so severe that aggressive pumping of the banked supplies may cause some wells to run dry by year’s end, said Eric Averett, general manager the Rosedale Rio Bravo District, located next to several of the state’s largest underground caches.

Farther north in the long, flat Central Valley, others are drilling new wells to sell off groundwater.

A water district board in Stanislaus County approved a pilot project this month to buy up to 26,000 acre-feet of groundwater pumped over two years from 14 wells on two landowners’ parcels in neighboring Merced County.

Since the district is getting no water from the federal government this year, the extra water will let farmers keep their trees alive, said Anthea Hansen, general manager of the arid Del Puerto Water District.

Hansen estimated growers would ultimately pay $775 to $980 an acre-foot — a total of roughly $20 million to $25.5 million.

“We have to try to keep them alive,” Hansen said. “It’s too much loss in the investment and the local economy to not try.”

###

Read article at www.sfgate.com

Lawsuit Filed to Protect North State Farms, Fish and Communities


News ReleaseClick to view:

On 10 June 2014, AquAlliance and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) filed a lawsuit in federal District Court against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation USBR over its inadequate disclosure, avoidance of impacts, and mitigation of major water transfers from the Sacramento Valley through the Delta to the San Joaquin Valley. USBR proposes to transfer up to 175,226 acre-feet (AF) of Central Valley Project (CVP) surface water to San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority (SLDMWA). As much as 116,383 AF of that water may be in the form of groundwater substitution. Coinciding with the USBR transfer, the State Water Project (SWP) and private parties are proposing to transfer another possible 305,907 AF or more of water. The lawsuit asks the court to declare that USBR’s Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was arbitrary and capricious, ignored relevant new information and failed to meet minimum requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Depleting already stressed aquifers so that special interests can sell and export their surface water to the San Joaquin Valley directly threatens the environment, human health and economic wellbeing of the communities, businesses, and farms of the Sacramento Valley. Exporting massive quantities of water during periods of negligible Delta outflow draws the low salinity zone into the central Delta and exposes endangered delta smelt to lethal temperatures and entrainment in Delta pumps. This is especially critical as Delta flow and water quality standards have been weakened six times in less than 90 days and plaintiffs have discovered that state and federal agencies are grossly overestimating actual Delta outflows. USBR refused to consider the new information and revise the EA and FONSI.

AquAlliance Executive Director Barbara Vlamis explained, “Selling surface water and pumping groundwater places an extraordinary strain on the groundwater basins and streams of the North State that are already taxed by the very dry conditions, past transfers, and local agricultural demand. For years, USBR has relied upon quick-&-dirty Environmental Assessments and Findings of No Significant Impact instead of the required and long-promised full Environmental Impact Statement that would fully examine the adverse impacts of water transfers on the area of origin and Delta. It’s past time for USBR to comply with the law and factually analyze the enormous impacts caused by their water transfers to agricultural interests with junior water rights that chose to plant permanent crops in a desert.”

CSPA Executive Director Bill Jennings observed, “Last year, excessive water exports and low outflow drew delta smelt from Suisun Bay into the central Delta where they were butchered by lethal water temperatures. This year, with population levels hovering at historic lows: excessive transfers and exports, relaxed flow standards, high temperatures and negligible outflows may catapult the species into the abyss of extinction. On top of these threats, we were astonished to discover that the estimates of Delta outflow that state and federal agencies have reported and regulators have relied upon for years are wrong and significantly overestimate outflow in low flow conditions. Indeed, last month there was actually a minus 45 cfs net outflow to the Bay while DWR and USBR were reporting a plus 3805 cfs.”

The Net Delta Outflow Index (NDOI) used to assess compliance with required flow standards is based upon a formula of both actual and estimated data. Examination of tidally filtered outflow data from the U.S. Geological Survey’s state-of-the-art UVM flow meters on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and Three-mile and Dutch Sloughs reveals that actual Net Delta Outflow (NDO) in low flow conditions are considerably lower. These USGS sites capture all outflows from the Delta to the Bay. Incredibly, the state’s own evaluation of NDO with the NDOI, as reported on DWR’s Dayflow website and the Dayflow 2013 Comments, reveals that the NDOI significantly overestimates outflow in drier periods.

Any new water transfers will be in addition to the 1500 cfs of water exports already allowed by State Water Board emergency orders. The total amount of water transfers by the USBR, SWP and private parties is unknown. The State Water Board has been routinely approving virtually all transfer requests without environmental review.[1] This present transfer project is the fourth in a series of water transfers for which the USBR has issued a FONSI and refused to prepare an EIS. Other FONSI’s were issued in 2009, 2010-2011, 2012 and 2013. In 2010, USBR issued a notice of its intent to prepare an EIS for a long-term water transfer but, after three scoping meetings, never issued a draft EIS.

The failure of USBR to conduct a full environmental review means that there has never been a comprehensive analysis of the potential adverse impacts of water transfers on surface water, water quality, groundwater, fisheries, vegetation and wildlife, special status species, geology and soils, land use, air quality, climate change, cultural resources, noise, recreation, energy, visual resources, socioeconomics, and Indian trust assets, as well as environmental justice and cumulative impacts associated with water transfers.

AquAlliance and CSPA are represented by:

  • Tom Lippe, Law Offices of Thomas N. Lippe APC: 415-777-5604 x 1
  • Michael Lozeau of Lozeau/Drury LLP : 510.836.4200 ext 103

Contact:

  • Barbara Vlamis, AquAlliance: 530-895-9420; cell 530-519-7468
  • Bill Jennings, CSPA: 209-464-5067; cell 209-938-9053

___________________________________________________________

AquAlliance is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit public benefit corporation established to defend northern California waters and to challenge threats to the hydrologic health of the northern Sacramento River watershed to sustain family farms, communities, creeks and rivers, native flora and fauna, vernal pools and recreation. www.aqualliance.net

The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit public benefit conservation and research organization established in 1982 for the purpose of conserving, restoring and enhancing the state’s water quality, wildlife and fishery resources and their aquatic ecosystems and associated riparian habitats. www.calsport.org

 

 

 

Groundwater in the future, water transfers and water rights, all topics at local forum

Where we are, where we may go and how we disagree

By Heather Hacking – 05/24/2014 – Chico Enterprise-Record

Water rights, water transfers and water reports were among the topics of a forum Thursday night in Chico that included an update on groundwater levels.

Each speaker was allowed to give a presentation, with the main disagreement over water transfers, specifically transfers that involve groundwater.

Barbara Vlamis, of AquAlliance.net, said transfers “year-after-year” continue without adequate environmental review, especially the cumulative impacts.

“The impacts on groundwater are unknown,” she said.

Farmer Bryce Lundberg said leaving land unplanted for a year can be good for farming, to allow the land to rest. Also, water districts spend the money on needed projects, including those that help the environment, he said.

Glenn County’s largest surface water irrigation district has also made the decision not to pump groundwater this year, said Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District manager Thad Bettner.

Wells will go lower this year, Bettner said, but it won’t be because of Glenn-Colusa, which is often an “easy target” for criticism.

MORE STATE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT

Changes are underway for how the state watches over groundwater, explained Paul Gosselin, director of the county’s Department of Water and Resource Conservation.

Butte County currently keeps track of groundwater levels, with details on 125 wells.

In recent documents, the state has said local agencies should take care of groundwater management, and if that doesn’t take place the state will serve as a “backstop.”

“Whoever comes through (locally) will need a groundwater management plan and 20-year planning horizon,” with updates every five years, Gosselin explained.

The target would be “safe yield and monitoring.”

Currently, groundwater use is not reported.

Some of the ideas being discussed at the state level include more groundwater metering, tiered pricing to encourage surface water use, limits on installation of new groundwater wells and careful watch of land use, Gosselin noted.

“The question is what role will the state play. How will they oversee,” groundwater management and “not create a huge bureaucracy?”

Communities in the Sacramento Valley “have some issues to collectively work on,” Gosselin said, “and figure out amongst us what is the best means to sustain and manage for the long haul.”

“We can take care of our own. We have in the past.”

GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT

The mountains hold only 10 percent of the normal snowpack, said Christina Buck, the county’s water resource scientist.

Rainfall is down, runoff is down, water storage is down and this year has been projected as a critically dry year.

As of reports in March, the average well depth has decreased four feet from last year, Buck said, with several at historic lows.

As would be expected, areas where pumping occurs have the greatest groundwater decrease, and areas crops receive surface water are doing better.

For the Chico urban area, which relies on wells, the groundwater levels have dipped 9 feet, she said.

When compared to droughts in the 1970s and 1990s, groundwater decreases are at the lowest point since records have been kept, she said, showing charts to the audience.

CONCERNS ABOUT WATER TRANSFERS

Vlamis, of AquAlliance, said her “group is deeply concerned about water transfers out of the area.”

When water rights were established 100 years ago, farmers grew annual crops, she said. But today, trees are a dominant crop and need water even when it is scarce.

Vlamis has long been asking for environmental review of the cumulative impacts of water transfers over time.

In state documents, there is a misrepresentation that groundwater levels in Northern California are fine, Vlamis said, and the state promotes groundwater transfers from the valley. Yet, the records kept in Butte County show groundwater declines, she said.

“For these people to say there is not an impact to groundwater is unconscionable,” Vlamis said.

A LEGACY OF WATER RIGHTS

Water rights play a key role in the way of life of the Sacramento Valley, said Lundberg, who helps runs Lundberg Family Farms and is president of the board of the Northern California Water Association.

Farmers of more than 100 years ago should be “remembered and revered for their foresight and ingenuity.”

“They brought water from the rivers to farmland to protect ag, the environment and groundwater.”

“Without water rights, water in Butte County would flow south,” and would not be available for the local economy and wildlife, he said.

Also, surface water used locally replenishes groundwater. “What would our aquifer look like if Butte County used only groundwater?” he asked.

“It’s often referenced that California agriculture uses over 80 percent of California’s water,” Lundberg said.

However, this is developed water. If water used by the environment – for fish and plants – is factored in, the environment uses 59 percent, he said, and agriculture 37 percent, with urban water use at 4 percent.

AN EYE ON SITES RESERVOIR

Surface water storage has taken a hit this year, noted Bettner, and groundwater pumping is up.

All trends are toward less water supply in Northern California, he continued.

Bettner’s water district is among the members of the Sites Reservoir Joint Powers Authority,http://www.sitesjpa.net.

Flows from the Sacramento River comes primarily from rain, not snow, he said, and the reservoir would store 1.8 million acre-feet of water.

One acre-foot of water is 325,851 gallons, or about as much water as used by four people in Chico in a year.

Bettner said the project shows great potential for storing water, allowing flexibility in water releases from existing reservoirs, and timely releases of cold water for fish.

The forum was sponsored by Butte County, the city of Chico and AquAlliance.

Contact reporter Heather Hacking at 896-7758 or hhacking@chicoer.com.

The Conversation: A controversial water transfer worth millions

Sacramento Bee, May 25, 2014 by Mariel Garza

JOIN THE CONVERSATION: Should groundwater be regulated by local agencies or by the state? Or, should groundwater remain unregulated?

To write a letter to the editor of the Sacramento Bee, please click here.. Or go to their Facebook page.  Read the full article here. 

Merced County resident Rose Marie Burroughs made her position clear by holding a sign at the County Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, May 20, 2014. Seated next to her left is Stephen Smith of the Turlock Fruit Co. who stands to make millions from the groundwater sale.

Merced County resident Rose Marie Burroughs made her position clear by holding a sign at the County Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, May 20, 2014. Seated next to her left is Stephen Smith of the Turlock Fruit Co. who stands to make millions from the groundwater sale.

If you want to put a human face on California’s epic drought, Ken Tucker’s will do.

The Central Valley farmer has 400 acres of thirsty almond trees that are in real danger of dying.

Tucker stood before the Merced County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday pleading with the five officials and his fellow farmers not to try to stop a controversial water transfer deal that will ship groundwater from Merced County across the county line north to farmers in Stanislaus.

“I’m here as a farmer today begging for a little water just to keep my trees alive. I’m hoping that the board will see that we need help, and we tried to look at other sources and we cannot find any other water,” he said.

At that point, Tucker paused and turned around to face the sea of plaid shirts and jeans in the audience, his voice emotional and face pained.

“I’m just like the rest of you here, trying to make a living,” he said. “I can’t find any other water sources, and I’m asking for a little help.”

Farmers in Merced County are sympathetic but not inclined to help. They’ve got their own worries: severely reduced water deliveries; wells going dry and the land sinking as groundwater is sucked out.

Now this: Two of their fellow county landowners are about to get very rich by selling the water right out from under them to the Del Puerto Water District, which serves 45,000 acres of farmland – including Tucker’s 400 – mostly in Stanislaus County.

I was at the supervisors meeting last week because this particular deal stinks even to a non-water expert like me. Not since “Chinatown” did a water grab seem so clear cut. How could one person or, in this case two, stick straws in the ground, suck up an increasingly precious resource, and then sell it at fabulous profit to non-locals?

The answer, I found out, is as simple as it is appalling: Because they can.

Unlike every other dry Western state, California doesn’t have rules for groundwater – the unseen pools and rivers and aquifers deep under the ground. If you own the property above it, it’s pretty much yours to use. If that sounds a lot like the Wild West, then Merced would be Dodge City.Other counties and regions, particularly in Southern California, have rules for sustainably managing groundwater basins, a product of previous droughts. Neighboring Stanislaus County, for example, has an ordinance that severely restricts the transfer of water out of the county.

Merced does not.

That fact is a godsend to the Del Puerto Water District, which serves mainly agricultural users in Stanislaus County north of Merced, and relies solely on surface water – rivers, dams, lakes – said Anthea Hansen, general manager of the district. This year, the district’s allocation of water from the Central Valley Project is zero. The district and its farmers are pretty desperate for water, especially those with almond trees who could lose a multiyear investment if they can’t keep the trees alive.

Enter Steve Sloan of 4-S Ranch Partners LLC and Stephen Smith of SHS Family Limited Partnership, two Merced County landowners with wells that are still pumping plenty of water. They are negotiating with Del Puerto to sell up to 23,000 acre-feet of their well water a year, for two years – with a possible two-year extension. They won’t confirm the terms of the deal, since it’s still being worked out, but Sloan did concede that it would probably be somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 to $600 an acre-foot. In other words, many millions of dollars.

The wider world might never had heard this tale at all if weren’t for Amanda Carvajal, executive director of the Merced County Farm Bureau. She got word from a grower but didn’t want to send up an alarm until she had proof that a well-water-for-money deal was in the works. Proof wasn’t likely. There’s no easy way to monitor whether people are selling water from their wells.

This time, however, there was hard evidence of a transfer because of the unusual manner of moving the water.

The deal involves 13 wells pumping water nonstop for eight months. The water will be sent down the San Joaquin River and through the Delta-Mendota Canal. Down the line about 32 miles, Del Puerto will collect the water for its users. Some of it will be stored in the San Luis Reservoir for later use.

This arrangement needs approval from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (motto: “Managing Water in the West”). Because of this, the federal agency was required to look at environmental impacts and hold a public comment period, expedited to just about two weeks in this case because of the emergency nature of drought-stricken farmers. The comment period ended Monday.

Merced County Supervisor Deidre Kelsey heard about the deal from Carvajal and rushed to get it onto the board’s Tuesday agenda and procured a one-day extension of the comment period. Later, it came out that board Chairman Jerry O’Banion did know about the pending deal sometime before the meeting, but evidently it didn’t strike him as problematic.

After a long and emotional meeting Tuesday afternoon, the board voted to send a strongly worded letter to the Bureau of Reclamation raising its concerns about the groundwater transfer. That’s the best supervisors can do; the county just doesn’t have the authority to stop so-called groundwater mining. They have only slowed it down.

Sloan dismissed the hubbub after the meeting, saying he’s been selling well water for years. He has pumped twice as much as what is proposed in the Del Puerto deal and it hasn’t affected the water table so far. He notes that since his wells are so shallow – just 37 feet – and fairly isolated, they haven’t hurt anyone else. Indeed, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, shallow well pumping isn’t the cause of land subsidence seen across the Valley.

Besides, Sloan said, the deal involves plenty of monitoring; if the operation starts to hurt neighbors, “then we stop pumping.”

Perhaps, but as Supervisor Kelsey put it to me: “When you pump, it comes from somewhere.” She can tick off wells that have gone dry. The bureau, in the draft environmental documents for the water transfer, seems to support this: “additional pumping of the well field would decrease groundwater levels as well as increase movement of groundwater into the aquifer underlying the properties beyond what has occurred historically.”

Carvajal worries that this deal will set a precedent and will encourage others to tap into the groundwater and sell it for profit, an operation some call “Digging for Dollars.” And who could blame them? It seems a better bet than farming these days.

Although the county ultimately has no say over this deal, it did a public service by bringing the water transfer to the public’s attention. Not just to get buy-in on water management plans, but to offer the rest of us a crystal-clear illustration of how the failure to regulate the state’s groundwater in any sane way allows exploitation by a few and injury to many.

The good news is that the state’s current water crisis has brought new urgency among local and state legislators and the governor to start regulating groundwater, and it very well may happen this year. Gov. Jerry Brown’s May revise of the 2014-15 budget includes money to assess groundwater resources. And there are at least three bills pending in the state Senate and Assembly that would allow for better monitoring and regulation of water, and expectations are high that something will pass this year.

Let’s hope so. If not, what happened last week in Merced County may just be a preview of what’s to come across the state if this drought doesn’t end soon.

– end –

 

Letter to Editor: Do all you can to preserve north state’s water

 Chico Enterprise-Record 5.14.14:

Whether you are a farmer or an environmentalist, love gardening or hunting, are conservative or liberal, are an atheist or Catholic, we all have something in common. We live in a beautiful area that is made so by water.

Our water tables have dropped dramatically due to previous water transfers as well as the drought. However, despite protests from groups and individuals, in June, the government plans to transfer 195,000 acre-feet to the south. This will drastically affect our oak trees, our spring-fed creeks and our wells — well water we need for our crops and our daily lives. The only way this can be stopped is in court. AquAlliance is in the process of filing a lawsuit. However they lack the funding to continue. Please consider making a donation at www.AquAlliance.net (it is tax deductible) and tell your neighbors, friends and coworkers.

Also, please do your bit to conserve our precious water. Turn the shower water off while soaping up and collect the water in a bucket to use for flushing the toilet. Convert part or all of your thirsty lawns to plants with drips. Don’t overwater, sending it down the storm drain, or water when it is raining (something businesses in particular are guilty of). Let’s all work together on this one common goal!

— Linda Calbreath, Chico

Forum May 22 to Update Public on Ground & Surface Water

News ReleaseButte County’s Ground and Surface Water ~~ Spring 2014 Update

Butte County, the City of Chico, and AquAlliance will host a forum on May 22, 2014 to provide public with an update on state local ground water monitoring, surface water supplies, and the challenges and opportunities to sustain our water resources. The main feature of the program will be the current ground water conditions compiled from over 100 wells monitored on a quarterly basis. Speakers will provide some historical, political, and policy perspectives from the vantage point of local government, agricultural surface water districts, ground water dependent farmers, and non-governmental organizations.

Speakers include:

  • Paul Gosselin, Director of the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation
  • Christina Buck, PhD., Water Resource Scientist for Butte County
  • Bryce Lundberg, Lundberg Family Farms and Thad Bettner, Glenn Colusa Irrigation District
  • Barbara Vlamis, AquAlliance
  • Ed McLaughlin, former Butte County Supervisor and Durham farmer

“With the continuing dry conditions in 2014, we want our residents to have the most current information on the status of Butte County ground and surface water and how our communities, economy, and the environment may be impacted,” stated Butte County Supervisor Maureen Kirk.

What: Butte County Ground Water Forum
When: Thursday, May 22, 2014 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Where: Chico City Council Chambers, 411 Main Street in Chico
Who: Butte County, City of Chico, AquAlliance

Contact:
AquAlliance
Barbara Vlamis, Executive Director
(530) 895-9420
info@aqualliance.net

Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation
Paul Gosselin, Director
(530) 538-4343
BCWater@buttecounty.net

Background

To view the press release, please click here.

To view the post-forum press coverage, please click here.

New AquAlliance ad: Stop the Desert Ag water piracy!

Help us stop the June water transfers! We need to act now or 195,000 acre-feet of our NorthState water will head south.

Stop the Water Piracy! (May 2014)

May 2014: Click image for larger view

The US Bureau of Reclamation intends to send NorthState water to desert growers south of the Delta who signed contracts agreeing they would get no water in dry years — and now they want us to bail them out with water that we need for our own crops, communities and economy.

Politically-connected water districts south of the Delta have already destroyed their own aquifers and their actions will put ours in danger. In the last year, aquifer levels dropped 19 feet in Butte County and 32 feet in Glenn County. Deepening wells can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Why should NorthState farmers pay for the bad business decisions of desert growers?

AquAlliance is the only group now prepared to act to stop this piracy. The courts are the only branch of government left where we can still make a difference.

Together we can stop this! Please donate now to our Water Defense Fund – send a check to PO Box 4024, Chico, CA 95927 or click here to donate online. Consider hosting a meeting of your friends and neighbors to inform them of this serious water threat. For more information, phone AquAlliance at 530-895-9420.

The Politics of Drought: California Water Interests Prime the Pump in Washington

Last year, as California endured one of its driest years on record, the Westlands Water District made it rain 3,000 miles away — on Capitol Hill.

The nation’s largest agricultural water district, located in the Central Valley, spent $600,000 on lobbying efforts, according to an analysis by KPCC in partnership with the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That’s by far Westlands’ biggest annual expenditure for lobbying — about six times what it spent in 2010.

The lobbying comes as Congress and federal agencies consider how to respond to three years of drought conditions that have cut water supplies across the state and ratcheted up political pressure from the hard-hit agricultural sector, including many of Westlands’ customers.

Click here to read the article.

4.10.2014 OpenSecrets.org – by Kitty Felde & Viveca Novak

Article is a collaboration between Southern California Public Radio and the Center for Responsive Politics

 

California drought: Central Valley farmland on its last legs

Poor drainage3.24.14 — SF Gate, by Carolyn Lochhead:

Even before the drought, the southern San Joaquin Valley was in big trouble.

Decades of irrigation have leached salts and toxic minerals from the soil that have nowhere to go, threatening crops and wildlife. Aquifers are being drained at an alarming pace. More than 95 percent of the area’s native habitat has been destroyed by cultivation or urban expansion, leaving more endangered bird, mammal and other species in the southern San Joaquin than anywhere in the continental U.S.

Federal studies long ago concluded that the only sensible solution is to retire hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland. Some farming interests have reached the same conclusion, even as they publicly blamed an endangered minnow to the north, known as the delta smelt, for the water restrictions that have forced them to fallow their fields.

The 600,000-acre Westlands Water District, representing farmers on the west side of the valley, has already removed tens of thousands of acres from irrigation and proposed converting damaged cropland to solar farms.

Many experts said if farmers don’t retire the land, nature eventually will do it for them.

Click here to read the full article

 

California could be in for century-long megadrought

Lynn IngramBERKELEY, CA, By Ben Tracy, CBS News, March 6, 2014 — Government forecasters predicted Thursday that the weather system known as El Nino could return this year. It could bring much-needed rain to the West. Ninety-five percent of California is in drought, and some scientists are now warning of a megadrought.

Scientist Lynn Ingram uses sediment cores inside tubes to study the history of drought in the West.

“We’ve taken this record back about 3,000 years,” Ingram says.

That record shows California is in one of its driest periods since 1580.

While a three-to-five-year drought is often thought of as being a long drought, Ingram says history shows they can be much longer.

“If we go back several thousand years, we’ve seen that droughts can last over a decade, and in some cases, they can last over a century,” she says.

The evidence of these so-called “megadroughts” is found in San Francisco Bay. Ingram and her team at the University of California Berkeley remove the sediment from the bay and nearby marshes.

“What you notice is that the vegetation shifts to more salt-tolerant type vegetation,” she says.

California drought threatens coho salmon with extinction

That’s because during drought, there is less fresh water runoff into the bay. Tree rings on ancient tree stumps tell the same story: narrow or non-existent rings during decades of drought.

“These patterns tend to repeat themselves,” Ingram says. “I mean, we can expect that this will happen again.”

Scientists say their research shows the 20th century was one of the wettest centuries in the past 1,300 years. During that time, we built massive dams and rerouted rivers. We used abundant water to build major cities and create a $45 billion agriculture industry in a place that used to be a desert.

Even after several inches of rain last week, the drought continues. Ingram believes California should be prepared for an eventual 100-year-long dry period.

View video at CBS News website.

#