Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

Yesterday’s mega-hearing in the California Legislature included mostly productive discussion about how best to manage water in our state, especially that which flows through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Delta gets so much focus as the hub of our water system, it is sometimes hard to remember that exports from the Delta account for less than 15% of the water we use on our farms and in our cities statewide.

Understandably, today’s press coverage focused on Governor Schwarzenegger’s proclamation that he “will not sign anything that does not have above-the-ground, below-the-ground water storage”. The administration is especially keen on spending billions of dollars on reservoirs at Temperance Flat on the San Joaquin River and at Sites in the Sacramento Valley.

The focus on dams, and the billions of dollars they would cost, is an unfortunate distraction from the range of important legislative proposals put forth by the lawmakers, including Delta governance (Simitian and Huffman), a Delta Conservancy (Wolk), water conservation (Feuer/Huffman) and water use reporting (Pavley). There were not too many surprises, but the hearing was a very useful forum on the seriousness of our water issues that are all too often ignored.

This is not to say that water storage is not important. But it makes no sense to obstruct important policy reforms, which if done right would benefit cities, farms and the natural environment, by including a commitment to spend billions of dollars on storage projects. As we all know, the State is broke. And it is not clear how the benefits of the new storage would be distributed. Whatever happened to the “Beneficiary Pays” principle to which CALFED, the Delta Vision Task Force and even the administration’s Delta Vision Committee all agreed?

By the way, we often hear that no one has been developing storage in California. Not so. As identified in a recent blog, we have developed almost 6,000,000 acre-feet of storage at six sites alone over the last twenty years. These projects were all financed largely by their beneficiaries – just as it should be.

While we at the Environmental Defense Fund are pleased that the legislature is considering the suite of bills discussed yesterday, we do have substantial concerns with many of the various provisions. But we are committed to working with all parties to develop legislation for the benefit of all Californians. Insisting on dams being part of a legislative package, however, may well doom it to failure.

Ann Hayden is a Senior Water Resource Analyst at EDF.

It seems like not a day goes by when we don’t hear about another attempt to undermine endangered species protections in the Bay-Delta. The latest attack comes from the Pacific Legal Foundation. PLF is planning to hold a press conference this week to call for convening a federal committee, known colloquially as the “God Squad”, to eliminate Endangered Species Act protections in the Delta. PLF is seeking to collect 10,000 signatures by August 19th on its petition and has also filed suit to invalidate protections for Delta smelt. The group claims its action will help San Joaquin Valley farmers.

PLF has chosen to blame the Delta fisheries protections for reduced water deliveries that some farming communities have experienced. Instead, PLF should evaluate California’s historically-derived water rights system, which too often provides full supplies to some areas and leaves others dry. This has meant that water sells at under $8 per acre-foot on one side of the Valley and up to $600 per acre-foot on the other side. Read more »

Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

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

Read more »

Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

Over the last 20 years, water agencies have invested far more in groundwater storage projects than they have in surface storage. When discussing groundwater development, it is first and foremost essential to distinguish between drilling new wells simply to “mine” limited and unsustainable supplies and installing injectors, establishing recharge areas or other infrastructure so that aquifers can be deliberately replenished in wet years. The former is a huge problem; the latter is an opportunity and the subject of this blog.

As of 1980, large dams have collected the flow of all major streams in the Central Valley. Building additional surface storage would provide little additional supply in many watersheds as river flows, even in most wet years, would often be insufficient to fill a new reservoir. In addition, the best dam sites have already been used and additional sites would be more costly to develop.

On the other hand, new technologies have made it possible to replenish groundwater basins during wet years in many areas that were overdrafted throughout much of the 20th century. Read more »

 Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

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

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

The debate over storage is sometimes described as religious, with tree-hugging river lovers in opposition and self-described “water buffaloes” in favor. Read more »