Social Droughts and Water Wars: The Never-Ending Californian Saga.

what pisses me off is when they tell us we have to cut back on water, i cant water my lawn because there isnt enough water to go around

then they build more homes in irvine, to spread the water across even more people

i know someone who works in a local water department and says thats exactly how they plan it. we use x amount of water per household, which means they will have trouble building new homes. so they tell existing homeowners that were in a drought so we have to have temporary cutbacks to y amount of water. people sacrifice and do it, then the developers say "now that the average household has y amount, we can support more residents"

irvine company pls stop


To be honest you shouldn't have a lawn. They are a massive waste of resources, water and a major source of chemical pollution. They are stupid.

California should be implementing drought tolerant landscaping and should be subsidizing artificial lawns. I am going to be putting in some beautiful artificial grass soon. It looks great and needs no fucking water.

And last time I visited my cousin in LA his neighbor sprayed his small driveway off with his hose. Every. Night.

lol

Just fucking LOL
 
OC Water District awarded $135M loan to expand wastewater recycling
By Martin Wisckol | [email protected] | Orange County Register | August 1, 2018



The Orange County Water District was awarded a $135 million federal loan Wednesday, Aug. 1, to expand its pioneering wastewater recycling program, which earlier this year set a Guinness World Record for the most wastewater turned into drinking water in a 24-hour period.

The district launched the toilet-to-tap program in 2008, working in coordination with the Orange County Sanitation District to purify wastewater to drinking quality and then pumping it into the groundwater aquifer. That aquifer is tapped into by 19 member water agencies in north and central Orange County, with this Groundwater Replenishment System reducing the need for more expensive imported water.

“All the water that the GWRS produces meets or exceeds drinking standards,” said Mehul Patel, OCWD’s executive director of operations. “It’s a safe, dependable source of water that has helped our region become less susceptible to droughts.”

Recycled water

The wastewater recycling accounts for about 25 percent of OCWD’s water, with roughly the same amount imported from northern California and the Colorado River.

The current daily production of 100 million gallons of converted wastewater per day is expected to increase to 130 million gallons — enough for 1 million people — with the planned expansion, according to the water district.

Imported water costs about $1,200 an acre-foot while the local aquifer water costs $525 an acre foot. An acre-foot is 326,000 gallons, enough for two small families for a year, according to OCWD.

Expansion of the GWRS plant is scheduled to begin in late 2019 and be completed in 2023. The federal loan is a key step in putting together funding for the work.

Federal Environmental Protection Agency officials were on hand at the Fountain Valley-based OCWD on Wednesday to make the announcement of the 3-percent loan, cheaper than the 3.8-percent figure the district would pay if it issued bonds to cover the amount.

The total project is slated to cost $282 million, with the district seeking state funding to cover the balance.

The expansion will allow recycling of 100 percent of the sanitation district’s reclaimable wastewater, according to Robert Thompson, assistant general manager of the sanitation agency.

Already, OCWD touts its wastewater recycling program as the largest of its kind in the world. That claim got a boost from Guinness on February 16, 2018, when it determined that the 1,008,000 gallons produced was more than any other such plant produced in a 24-hour period.

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/08/...ded-135m-loan-to-expand-wastewater-recycling/
 
Last edited:
Once the Colorado stops flowing, cali will be done.
Funny they haven't invested in desalination plants.
 
Wheres that poster that swears Cali is the best state ever, that all the other states should bow down because they provide food, and money for the rest of the country?
 
Didn't read the whole thread. So you're saying we're going to be drinking shit?
 
Trump, Jerry Brown make dueling claims on cause of California fires
By Alex Pappas | August 6, 2018

1533573591188.jpg

The president is pointing his finger at environmental laws. The governor is blaming climate change.

And both are getting hammered for their remarks.

As twin wildfires have destroyed more than 1,000 homes in Northern California, President Trump and California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown are both making claims – and provoking criticism – about why the fires continue to spread.

Trump tweeted Sunday claiming the fires are “being magnified” by environmental laws that stop water from being effectively used. He also called for clearing more trees.



He followed up Monday, "Governor Jerry Brown must allow the Free Flow of the vast amounts of water coming from the North and foolishly being diverted into the Pacific Ocean. Can be used for fires, farming and everything else. Think of California with plenty of Water - Nice! Fast Federal govt. approvals."



A spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection shot back, according to a reporter for BuzzFeed, saying the department has “no idea” what Trump is talking about.

“We have plenty of water for the firefight. The Mendocino complex is next to Clear Lake and the Carr fire has the Whiskeytown Lake and Lake Shasta,” the spokesman said.

Trump did not specify what water policies he was referring to, but environmentalists have argued in the past that rainwater could be better harvested. A local fire official reportedly acknowledged various streams run into the Pacific Ocean, but said firefighters have enough water. The same official did say they will need to clear trees, though, “to not add to some of the fuel,” according to a local CBS affiliate. The official suggested forest growth is indeed contributing to the problem.

Meanwhile, Brown said during a press conference last week that climate change could be a factor. He spoke of climate change and said the “predictions that I see, the more serious predictions of warming and fires to occur later in the century, 2040 or 2050, they're now occurring in real time.”

"You can expect that — unfortunately — to continue intensifying in California and throughout the Southwest,” Brown said.

Conservatives, though, have pushed back, blaming policies including those to quickly put out smaller wildfires -- in turn allowing dry brush to build up.

"Brown does a disservice by attributing the huge and destructive fires such as we've seen in the past year to global warming, rather than to a combination of hot weather and mistaken government policies,” reads an editorial in Investors Business Daily.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...dueling-claims-on-cause-california-fires.html
 
Last edited:
The wildfire angle is a tangent in this ongoing thread about California water, so I do not see the need to merge the following thread here:
Trump blames California wildfires on environmental protection laws.

Two posts from that thread relevant to this thread:
Yeah I know exactly what he's referring to: policies in place that protect the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramento–San_Joaquin_River_Delta)
220px-Wpdms_usgs_photo_sacramento_delta_2.jpg


It's one of if not the most diverse ecosystem in North America and what Trump fails to understand is the ramifications if we stopped "diverting water to the Pacific Ocean". First and foremost, we can't divert water to a place it has been going naturally for 10,000 years. The Delta is a river system that spans hundreds of miles of waterways and is home to many different species of plants, animals, fish, and birds. It acts as a natural air purifier and air conditioner, passively cooling cities nearby and providing the famous "Delta Breeze" as far inland as Modesto and Lodi. As well as provides endless recreation and local activity- the Delta was a huge part of my upbringing and the impending destruction of it to please foreign businesses and politicians who live hundreds of miles away has me pissed the fuck off.

Jerry Brown, a cohort of sleazy politicians(both Dem and Repub), and the scummiest, greediest "investors" on Earth are hellbent on diverting all water out of the Delta. The plan is to install massive 33' in diameter tunnels that pump all of the snowmelt from the American River straight down south to water almond orchards and millions of lawns in the desert. Foreign and SoCal investment has been buying up dozens of islands in the Delta in order to drill for oil once the Delta has completely dried up.

If you want an idea of what their plan will result in Google 'Owens Lake/Valley'. Now consider that millions of people live within 1hr of the Delta while nobody lived within 3 hours of Owens Lake.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Below I will reprint my own because I put more work into it than most.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
I'm assuming it's some half assed reference to the fact that there are environmental regulations for how much water (in terms of cubic feet per second) has to flow through certain rivers by the time they enter the ocean. Which is incredibly important to anyone who is employed as a fisherman or anything related to that.

Confirming that Trump is a fucking idiot.
Which depends on how much rain we get. That's why these same lakes-- Shasta and Whiskeytown-- were nearly exhausted just several years ago. Lowest they'd been in decades. Then we got the heavy rains which caused the floods that tore the Oroville Dam apart (further to the south).

If rain and snow-pack are low for a year, we slowly drain our lakes to keep up that river flow so the salmon and trout don't die (generally speaking, because sometimes we retain more water as in the Shasta Dam to keep it cold enough for the salmon to survive, but that's only an issue because the Dam is there in the first place). If rain and snow-pack are high, we end up releasing water intermittently as a precaution to avoid less controlled flooding that could wipe out towns and infrastructure because an unexpected torrent of precipitation pushes the water level over the dam, and suddenly you're not in control anymore. This is partly what contributed to them needing to release so much water so quickly that exacerbated the "unknown" structural flaw in the Oroville Dam, and caused it to blow out.

Meanwhile, back when it was parched, we already stopped damming the river in several places, and while they pitched it as a way to save the fish populations, it actually has more to do with necessary diversions (during these times of drought) to our agriculture locally, and further southwest towards central California in the West Sac valley. This is why they selected dams in sparsely populated areas like Red Bluff to shut down instead of, you know, the Shasta Dam itself. This less populated stretch of the river doesn't get to hold all that extra water during crucial summer months (which is used for river recreation). In the meantime, Shasta Lake draws a lot more recreation dollars, and crowns a county to the north with much more political and economic pull.

See how this played out:
Red Bluff sues Canal Authority over plan for agricultural pumps (2008)
Red Bluff Daily News said:
On Tuesday, the council directed City Attorney Richard Crabtree to file a lawsuit in federal court challenging the adequacy of the Bureau or Reclamation’s Environmental Impact Statement and the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority’s Environmental Impact Report, according to a press release issued by the city late Thursday.

Both environmental reviews are required as part of the process for the Canal Authority’s Fish Passage Improvement Project, which would install a series of pumps along the Sacramento River to divert water for agricultural use.

That would replace the current system, in which gates are lowered into the river creating a seasonal lake that feeds the irrigation canal.

The city and the canal authority had in some respects shared similar interests until recently regarding an Endangered Species Act suit filed in the U.S. District Court regarding three species of salmon.

Both sides had hoped a federal judge would allow operations of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam to continue unchanged.
This last part is a lie. Only the city wanted dam operations to continue as they were before. I guarantee you the TCCA was part of the effort to undermine this, and to sway the below judge to the other ruling. They wanted their pumps. Read on.
But last month, Judge Oliver Wanger ruled the dam’s operations were jeopardizing the salmon, leaving a dim future for the dam’s current operations and the existence of Lake Red Bluff...

The canal authority has relied on the dam to supply water for a multimillion-dollar agricultural community and the city benefited from the recreational lake created by the dam....

The project [to put in the new pumps] was given the final go-ahead in July and is estimated to be completed in three years. Once in place, the pump project would leave only the city with an interest in seeing the dam s operation continue unchanged.

The city’s lawsuit challenges the adequacy of the review regarding failure to analyze the impacts from the loss of Lake Red Bluff on the Sacramento River and fisheries, and challenges the public review process for both reports drafts.

The city will ask the court to direct the Bureau of Reclamation and the canal authority to adequately analyze those impacts and adopt sufficient mitigation measures for those impacts.

Such mitigation measures could include a financial obligation, compensating the city for its financial losses. The city has estimated it will lose $4 million annually if the lake is drained for good.

The Canal Authority estimates its management of irrigation leads to a $250 million direct annual economic benefit and $1 billion overall benefit to the area.
Those two figures juxtaposed above sort out everything that is confusing about the mess. Read on.
http://www.sacriver.org/aboutwaters...-bluff-diversion-dam-fish-passage-improvement
Sacramento River Watershed Program said:
Sacramento Valley Region
Red Bluff Diversion Dam Fish Passage Improvement
  • Location: Sacramento River at Red Bluff
  • Project Sponsor: Reclamation, TCCA
  • Time Frame: 2010–2012
  • Cost: $220 million (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Reclamation, TCCA)
  • Project Objectives:
    • Improve reliability to safely pass anadromous fish and other species of concern
    • Improve reliability and reduce cost of water diversion to TCCA district users
This is all that anyone every talked about in the press. This is the angle they pushed. This is how you get rural Californians to go along with something against their interests without any political resistance; without glancing just a bit upriver, or asking questions.

This is the real reason they "reclaimed" that temporary seasonal water diversion. The drought is over, but "reclamation" isn't going away. They don't want to be at the mercy of seasonal underflow, and times of drought. Ag wants to pull that liquid gold out of the river every year regardless of how much water nature is giving back. They wanted their pumps.

Yeah, the Memorial Day boat races never came back to Red Bluff. No ribbons were cut. The impact on local summer recreation was catastrophic. They're never lowering that dam again. Oh well. Small town, and $4m ain't shit. That's how the cookie crumbles. The problem is...the fish weren't doing any better toward the tail end of that drought over half a decade later in 2015.

Why would they? The Red Bluff Diversion Dam displaces a tiny amount of water compared to the Shasta Dam, and only seasonally. Tangentially, neither of these dams is part of the Feather River tributary which accounts for over 3/4 of our commercial ocean salmon industry, and roughly 2/3 of our recreational industry. That is the true spawning ground. Furthermore, those pumps they installed so the fish would no longer have to pass through the arduous locks of the dam turned out to be even more lethal, and didn't contribute anything to helping the Salmon.

Measures to Boost Salmon Are Working, but Some Fear They Could Backfire
Water Deeply said:
The successful fishing caught fishers by surprise, especially after the drought conditions and sloppy management of reservoir outflows killed millions of fertilized salmon eggs in 2014 and 2015. There was every reason to expect a generational gap in the adult salmon population.
Guess what those "reservoir outflows" refer to?
Fish Without a River

While enhanced efforts to produce salmon in hatcheries are proving successful, Smith warns that they don’t solve the underlying issues that have made the Sacramento River – once an astoundingly productive Chinook salmon river – such a hostile environment for small fish.

Frequent water shortages, driven by human demand, have compromised upstream spawning habitat, while in the middle reaches of the Sacramento River system, farmers have converted critical floodplain habitat, where fish find food and refuge, into orchards and fields. In the southern Delta, powerful pumps that send large volumes of water to farms and cities have contributed to the decline of numerous native fish species, according to scientists. The pumps sometimes reverse river flows so that young salmon trying to reach the sea end up lost in remote backwaters instead, where they are often eaten by predators. In fact, research has shown that few naturally born salmon escape the river system most years.

“Barging is just a band-aid,” Smith says. “The river still has to flow in the right direction.”

He says “a fine line” separates solutions to the problems plaguing the state’s salmon fishery and the forces – mainly related to human water use – that threaten it.

“It’s a double-edged sword,” he says. “If you promote the barging as the way to have a productive fishery, the water agencies might feel they can take more water. We have to keep in mind that the barging doesn’t make a healthy river again.”
...and...
Salmon Still Under Threat Due to Mechanical Issues at Shasta Dam
A temperature control device at Shasta Dam is designed to ensure cold water is released downstream for fish, but the device doesn’t appear to work properly when lake levels are low.

Water Deeply said:
Environmentalists have argued that, even in 2014 and 2015, the federal agency could have avoided the huge mortality events experienced by the winter-run Chinook – even in spite of the leaking TCD.

“We know when these fish come back, we know where they spawn, we know how much cold water they will need to spawn, and we know it gets hot in the Central Valley,” says Jon Rosenfield, a senior scientist with the Bay Institute. “The bureau has a big reservoir to store this water,” he said, but instead the agency released too much water to its customers early in the year and failed to retain enough cold water in storage.

He believes there simply isn’t a will within the agency to protect fish. Rosenfield and other environmental advocates say the agency’s top priority is delivering water to farmers even though the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and other laws make very clear that fish and ecosystem protection must be at least as high on the Bureau’s priority list.
Yep, and if you read about this, they have known about it since 2004. But Shasta needs that lake for recreation and tourism in the summer, and those downstream farmers need the bureau to bleed them water (even in winter)-- salmon be damned.

If you talk to old timers around here who lived before the Shasta Dam was installed they speak of walking across the shallows of the Sacramento River in Red Bluff during those summer months, prior to any of this damming, and literally having to pick their steps because the salmon were so thick they could barely find a footing. Dams aren't about fish, they're about food and floods. So what is really happening is that piece by piece the claims to California's fresh water is being staked before we ultimately reach a cultural event horizon where there isn't enough to go around, and the actual fighting arrives alongside that scarcity. They are slicing up California water like the Godfather sliced up Cuba as a cake. Red Bluff was one of the first, and the poorest, to be cut out.

So I guess my grand point to all this, and what I really want to say is....what in the blue fuck does any of this have to do with wildfires, Mr. President?
 
They really need to stop growing shit in the middle of the desert. It's seriously ridiculous. They grow a ton of almonds up here in Nor Cal too but we actually have water. I honestly wish Nor Cal was it's own state. So Cal can fuck right off.

Here's some good news for you guys (and the fishes) in NorCal. Quite frankly, I'm astonished that the State Board actually sided with wildlife over the Valley farmers, consider how much money is at stake in this water war.​

Not sure how Jerry Brown's $17 Billion Delta Tunnels gonna work now that there are less water from the North to fill them though.


California has a new plan for allocating its water, and it means less for farmers
By Dale Kasler | July 06, 2018

IMG_IMG_3355_2_1_MQ7R16O3_L213733500

A federal pumping plant near Tracy delivers water to the San Joaquin Valley from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
State officials Friday proposed leaving more water in the Delta to help fish populations, leaving less for humans and farms.

State regulators proposed sweeping changes in the allocation of California's water Friday, leaving more water in Northern California's major rivers to help ailing fish populations — and giving less to farming and human consumption.

By limiting water sent to cities and farms and keeping more for fish, the proposal by the State Water Resources Control Board's staff likely will ignite a round of lawsuits and political squabbles. Critics immediately pounced on the plan, saying it will take some of the nation's most fertile farmland out of production and harm the Central Valley economy.

But the state board said more water must be devoted to fish to prevent environmental disaster. Several major species of fish are nearing extinction, and increasing river flows will help them survive, the board said.

"We've simply taken too much water out of the system for the natural ecosystem to survive," said board Chairwoman Felicia Marcus in a conference call with reporters. She said the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the hub of the state's elaborate water-delivery network, "is on the verge of collapse."

The board, made up of five regulators appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown, plans to vote on the proposal in August.

The proposal could put California on a collision course with the Trump administration, which earlier this year released a plan to "maximize water deliveries" from Northern California to the south state. President Donald Trump has promised to bring more water to San Joaquin Valley farmers, who supported him during the 2016 election.

At the same time, the water board's proposal raises new questions about Brown's controversial $17 billion plan to build two tunnels beneath the Delta. He says the tunnels would fix the estuary's plumbing, enabling water deliveries to the south to proceed more smoothly and with less harm to fish.

Tunnels opponent Doug Obegi, of the National Resources Defense Council, said the state board's proposal undermines the governor's promises of what the tunnels could accomplish. Because of the proposal, much more water will have to flow naturally out of the Delta and into the ocean, reducing the amount that can be pumped to the south state.

As the latest tug-of-war unfolds, the water board's proposal is a stark reminder of how California's water supply, a year after the historic drought officially ended, remains stretched perilously thin. Even in good years, when rain and snow are plentiful, there isn't enough to meet all of the state's needs.

The state water board, which referees California's complicated water-rights system, also is in charge of policing the quality of the water that goes through the Delta. Several years ago, the board began studying water flows into the Delta from the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers, saying standards hadn't been updated since 1995 and were long overdue.

The plan released Friday addresses flows in the San Joaquin River system. The San Joaquin is perhaps California's most overused river system, and state officials say as little as 20 percent of the river even reaches the Delta. The proposal released Friday would increase those so-called "unimpeded flows" to a range of 30 percent to 50 percent.

That could reduce water deliveries to a wide range of water users that pull water out of the San Joaquin and its tributaries, including the cities of San Francisco, Modesto and Merced and hundreds of farms in the San Joaquin Valley. According to a staff report, the board's proposal would take an average of 288,000 acre-feet of water away from those users. An acre-foot is 326,000 gallons.

Separately, the state board released a preliminary plan for re-allocating more of the Sacramento River watershed's flows to fish. That plan calls for increasing the unimpeded flows to 45 percent to 65 percent. Currently, less than half the water on the Sacramento reaches the Delta because of diversions by farms and cities along the way. A more detailed proposal on the Sacramento River will come later this year.

Marcus said some irrigation districts are talking with top state officials about alternatives to the higher flows, such as restoring fish habitats or eliminating the predators that are wiping out endangered species. However, she acknowledged that those talks, which are being brokered by the California Natural Resources Agency, might fail.

"It may be wishful thinking that California's storied water wars could yield to collective efforts," she said.

Re-allocating the flows on the Sacramento and San Joaquin watersheds is aimed at restoring fish populations that have struggled mightily in the past decade or so. The numbers of Chinook salmon haven't rebounded since the drought was declared over, and the tiny Delta smelt continues their possibly irreversible march toward extinction.

In its plan for the San Joaquin, the board said it "recognizes that reduced diversions can create financial and operational challenges for local economies." It estimated that the Valley could lose up to 1,300 jobs.

But farm groups said the state doesn't grasp the enormity of the problems. The California Farm Water Coalition said the job loss would total 6,500.

The state's plan "is just not achievable without staggering human costs," said Chris Scheuring, counsel at the California Farm Bureau Federation. "This ... is just going to break the system at some point."

Scheuring said the proposal will almost certainly lead to farmland being taken out of production — just as farmers are trying to figure out how to comply with new state-imposed rules regulating how much groundwater they can pump.

"We're hit from behind and we're hit from the front," he said. "Obviously there's not enough (water) to go around here."

Commercial fishermen, however, welcomed the proposal.

"No one can deny we've heavily damaged the natural function and benefits of the rivers by over-diversion," said John McManus of the Golden Gate Salmon Association. "Salmon runs in the three major San Joaquin River tributaries have fallen from 70,000 in 1984 to 8,000 in 2014. This has hurt fishing families and coastal communities. The state water board has taken a historic first step to address this problem."

https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article214437104.html
 
Last edited:
I'm not comforted by any of that.
 
If Delta ‘tunnels’ are built, we’re the biggest losers

BY THE MODESTO BEE EDITORIAL BOARD
April 07, 2018 05:20 PM

A million people live in the Northern San Joaquin Valley. If Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to siphon water to Los Angeles is completed, all of us are going to suffer.


In building two tunnels under Brown’s California WaterFix, the state will be forced to confiscate ever more of the Tuolumne, Merced and Stanislaus rivers. We are resolutely opposed to this plan and have been since it was first hatched.


That position now puts us in direct opposition to our big-sister newspaper, The Sacramento Bee. In an editorial published Sunday, The Sacramento Bee endorsed – albeit, tepidly – the WaterFix, saying one of its centerpiece twin tunnels beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta would be a “welcome” part of the solution.

We’re not alone in our opposition. The San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Stockton Record and The Fresno Bee all have said the tunnels are a bad idea. Not one major newspaper north of Bakersfield sees the wisdom in building a pair of 40-foot diameter tunnels capable of sending the entire Sacramento River under the Delta.

The Sacramento Bee even disagrees with itself. In 1982, it editorialized against Brown’s original water grab – Proposition 9’s Peripheral Canal. The tunnels are basically the same plan, just wrapped in concrete and buried 150 feet. This time, The Sacramento Bee likes the idea.

There is one other major difference. In 2018, Brown won’t risk asking voters for permission. He wants southern California’s gargantuan Metropolitan Water District and south Valley farmers to pay for his WaterFix tunnels, even if they have to build them one at a time. That plan could doom it. We hope so; this awful idea will hurt us and the Delta.

That’s because the Sacramento River provides 80 to 85 percent of the water flowing into the Delta. Divert significant portions south, and salty San Francisco Bay water will come rushing deep into our Valley. The only thing capable of holding back all that salty water would be far greater flows from the San Joaquin River.

This is where we come in. Without our rivers, the San Joaquin is a trickle. So, in Phase I of the WaterFix the state already is demanding that twice as much water – sometimes three times more – flows down the Tuolumne, Merced and Stanislaus rivers into the Delta. The state says it’s all for the sake of salmon. But their insistence that only greater flows can save salmon is laughably inaccurate.

Peer-reviewed studies have shown the key to more salmon isn’t more water, but better habitat, more wetlands, less predation and facilitating natural migration signals only the salmon understand. Others have called the Delta a “killing field” for salmon, admitting that simply flushing more water through the Delta – without first fixing it – will be a waste.

Speaking of waste, a single tunnel will cost at least $12 billion. But that’s chickenfeed compared to our region’s cost of losing so much water.

For 130 years, residents in Stanislaus, Merced and San Joaquin counties – with the enthusiastic blessings of the state – have been building dams, digging canals and sloughs, creating reservoirs and installing turbines to generate millions of kilowatts of electricity. What good are dams without water behind them?

If the tunnels aren’t built, there’s a better possibility the state will actually focus on its promise to “restore the Delta.” Today, the Delta is an engineered system of armored sloughs and channels; it resembles nothing like the marshes and wetlands of 130 years ago. Non-native species eat virtually all the Delta smelt and juvenile salmon.

The WaterFix says the state will restore 30,000 acres of marsh and wetlands – down from 67,000 acres which was reduced from 100,000 acres originally planned. Still a great start, but why not do that before ruining our region.

Modesto residents get half their drinking water from the Tuolumne River; 8,400 farmers use it to generate $3 billion in food products – almonds, milk, walnuts, grapes, melons, peaches, apples, apricots, cherries and much more.

In adjoining south San Joaquin and Merced counties, similar percentages of the Stanislaus and Merced rivers serve the same purpose – providing water for drinking and growing food worth a combined $5 billion.

Crops are processed in dozens of wineries, canneries, drying sheds, ice cream and candy factories and hulling facilities. These thousands of jobs don’t pay well by Bay Area standards, but they keep the wolves away from the doors of some of the most industrious, but poorest, people in California.

After generations of investing in water infrastructure, ag land in our counties sells for 10 even 20 times the price of ag land in water-poor areas. Crush that tax base, and see public services from law enforcement to education ruined.

The state knows all this, admitting farmers won’t even be able to make up for diminished irrigation flows by pumping groundwater. The state also knows less irrigation water means switching from highly profitable tree crops – which Modesto-area farmers pioneered – to annual crops that can be abandoned when water is scarce. The state’s response: Tough.

When irrigation water first flowed to our fields, in the 1890s, it was called a miracle. Excursion trains carried San Franciscans to “Paradise Valley” to marvel at it.

By building the tunnels and taking our water, the state will make the finest irrigated farmlands in California resemble the fields now so common to the south: drier, dustier and sinking as water is sucked from beneath. This isn’t just a water grab, it’s an attack on the state’s most powerless people.

It’s a matter of social justice and economic survival.

Legions of state bureaucrats try to justify this water grab, and now The Sacramento Bee considers it a good idea. The tunnels won’t save the Delta, but they will hurt us. Don’t build even one.

https://www.modbee.com/opinion/editorials/article208277279.html
 
Last edited:
I'm not comforted by any of that.
Yeah, no shit. If all goes according to Moonbeam Brown's plan, there will be a full blown water right's war with a year or two.

Local San Joaquin Valley farmers vs Corporate So Cal/South San Joaquin Valley farmers
Environmentalists/Sport fishermen vs Bay Area and So Cal municipalities


Here's some good news for you guys (and the fishes) in NorCal. Quite frankly, I'm astonished that the State Board actually sided with wildlife over the Valley farmers, consider how much money is at stake in this water war.​

Not sure how Jerry Brown's $17 Billion Delta Tunnels gonna work now that there are less water from the North to fill them though.


California has a new plan for allocating its water, and it means less for farmers
By Dale Kasler | July 06, 2018

IMG_IMG_3355_2_1_MQ7R16O3_L213733500

A federal pumping plant near Tracy delivers water to the San Joaquin Valley from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
State officials Friday proposed leaving more water in the Delta to help fish populations, leaving less for humans and farms.

State regulators proposed sweeping changes in the allocation of California's water Friday, leaving more water in Northern California's major rivers to help ailing fish populations — and giving less to farming and human consumption.

By limiting water sent to cities and farms and keeping more for fish, the proposal by the State Water Resources Control Board's staff likely will ignite a round of lawsuits and political squabbles. Critics immediately pounced on the plan, saying it will take some of the nation's most fertile farmland out of production and harm the Central Valley economy.

But the state board said more water must be devoted to fish to prevent environmental disaster. Several major species of fish are nearing extinction, and increasing river flows will help them survive, the board said.

"We've simply taken too much water out of the system for the natural ecosystem to survive," said board Chairwoman Felicia Marcus in a conference call with reporters. She said the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the hub of the state's elaborate water-delivery network, "is on the verge of collapse."

The board, made up of five regulators appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown, plans to vote on the proposal in August.

The proposal could put California on a collision course with the Trump administration, which earlier this year released a plan to "maximize water deliveries" from Northern California to the south state. President Donald Trump has promised to bring more water to San Joaquin Valley farmers, who supported him during the 2016 election.

At the same time, the water board's proposal raises new questions about Brown's controversial $17 billion plan to build two tunnels beneath the Delta. He says the tunnels would fix the estuary's plumbing, enabling water deliveries to the south to proceed more smoothly and with less harm to fish.

Tunnels opponent Doug Obegi, of the National Resources Defense Council, said the state board's proposal undermines the governor's promises of what the tunnels could accomplish. Because of the proposal, much more water will have to flow naturally out of the Delta and into the ocean, reducing the amount that can be pumped to the south state.

As the latest tug-of-war unfolds, the water board's proposal is a stark reminder of how California's water supply, a year after the historic drought officially ended, remains stretched perilously thin. Even in good years, when rain and snow are plentiful, there isn't enough to meet all of the state's needs.

The state water board, which referees California's complicated water-rights system, also is in charge of policing the quality of the water that goes through the Delta. Several years ago, the board began studying water flows into the Delta from the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers, saying standards hadn't been updated since 1995 and were long overdue.

The plan released Friday addresses flows in the San Joaquin River system. The San Joaquin is perhaps California's most overused river system, and state officials say as little as 20 percent of the river even reaches the Delta. The proposal released Friday would increase those so-called "unimpeded flows" to a range of 30 percent to 50 percent.

That could reduce water deliveries to a wide range of water users that pull water out of the San Joaquin and its tributaries, including the cities of San Francisco, Modesto and Merced and hundreds of farms in the San Joaquin Valley. According to a staff report, the board's proposal would take an average of 288,000 acre-feet of water away from those users. An acre-foot is 326,000 gallons.

Separately, the state board released a preliminary plan for re-allocating more of the Sacramento River watershed's flows to fish. That plan calls for increasing the unimpeded flows to 45 percent to 65 percent. Currently, less than half the water on the Sacramento reaches the Delta because of diversions by farms and cities along the way. A more detailed proposal on the Sacramento River will come later this year.

Marcus said some irrigation districts are talking with top state officials about alternatives to the higher flows, such as restoring fish habitats or eliminating the predators that are wiping out endangered species. However, she acknowledged that those talks, which are being brokered by the California Natural Resources Agency, might fail.

"It may be wishful thinking that California's storied water wars could yield to collective efforts," she said.

Re-allocating the flows on the Sacramento and San Joaquin watersheds is aimed at restoring fish populations that have struggled mightily in the past decade or so. The numbers of Chinook salmon haven't rebounded since the drought was declared over, and the tiny Delta smelt continues their possibly irreversible march toward extinction.

In its plan for the San Joaquin, the board said it "recognizes that reduced diversions can create financial and operational challenges for local economies." It estimated that the Valley could lose up to 1,300 jobs.

But farm groups said the state doesn't grasp the enormity of the problems. The California Farm Water Coalition said the job loss would total 6,500.

The state's plan "is just not achievable without staggering human costs," said Chris Scheuring, counsel at the California Farm Bureau Federation. "This ... is just going to break the system at some point."

Scheuring said the proposal will almost certainly lead to farmland being taken out of production — just as farmers are trying to figure out how to comply with new state-imposed rules regulating how much groundwater they can pump.

"We're hit from behind and we're hit from the front," he said. "Obviously there's not enough (water) to go around here."

Commercial fishermen, however, welcomed the proposal.

"No one can deny we've heavily damaged the natural function and benefits of the rivers by over-diversion," said John McManus of the Golden Gate Salmon Association. "Salmon runs in the three major San Joaquin River tributaries have fallen from 70,000 in 1984 to 8,000 in 2014. This has hurt fishing families and coastal communities. The state water board has taken a historic first step to address this problem."

https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article214437104.html
In a nutshell Central Valley farmers will be forced to purchase water from the Metro Water District based 300 miles south in Los Angeles because they will lose their allocations of water that flows naturally just miles from their farms in the Tuolumne, Stanislaus, Merced, and San Joaquin rivers. This restriction is due to the fact that the Delta needs a steady outflow of fresh water to maintain water levels for recreation, keep the fish alive, and to prevent salt water from destroying agriculture and wildlife. With the WaterFix tunnel project the plan is to ship virtually all(currently less than 50% reaches the Delta) of the water from the Sacramento River(fed by the American River and Lake Shasta) straight down south to So Cal. This massive diversion of water means the Delta will have to receive its water from somewhere and that's where North Valley farmers come in- they lose their allotment so the aforementioned Central Valley rivers can pick up the slack.

It's a complete crock of shit. MWD is lying their fucking asses off saying they won't take more water than they already do(they're not spending billions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts), as well as "promising" to not gouge Nor Cal farmers when selling water.

This makes for an interesting assortment of support and opposition of the project:
Opposition
Local farmers(Republican)
Environmentalists(Democrat)
Sport fishermen(R)
Residents from most Bay Area counties(D)
Residents from Central Valley counties(D&R)
Fish and Game(Federal)


Support
Corporate farmers- Wonderful Co. (No overt political affiliation)
Jerry Brown(State/D)
LA County(D&R)
Kern County(R)
Santa Clara County(D)
Most SoCal residents(mixed party affiliation)


No side is yet willing to budge on the matter but I'll venture to guess that if there's one party willing to take a bribe it's the more prominent valley farmers- they're generally sleazy assholes who control most of the North Valley agriculture. As long as they get their water they don't care if it means millions go without potable water or the completer destruction of an ecosystem.
 
Editorial: ‘So what?’ attitude at root of water wars
By Editorial Board | July 12, 2018

70907-full.jpg

The Los Angeles Aqueduct winds through the Owens Valley in the Eastern Sierras


A sequence of events over that last week may explain why California is endlessly locked in water wars.

Last Friday, the State Water Resources Control Board released a final plan for the San Joaquin River and the framework for an upcoming plan on the Sacramento River, which will require less water be diverted from those waterways and their tributaries.

Four days later, the Metropolitan Water District in Southern California voted to spend $11 billion — the bulk of the $17 billion cost — to put two tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

The tunnels are supposed to make the water supply flowing from the north to the south more reliable, proponents would tell you.

Coming so soon after release of plans that would make less water available for the pipes, it would make you think the Met board hadn’t been paying attention before it voted. That’s a lot of money to spend to get less water, no matter how much more reliably.

But of course the Met board knew what the Water Board had done. It just didn’t care. It would proceed with its initiative, and will support the inevitable legal battle against the Water Board’s plans. And if the plans end up being upheld, you can bet there will be a new offensive mounted to see that the south gets the water it wants.

The Water Board has been working on the river plans since about 1994, and everyone knew what was coming. Yet the Trump administration this year began working on a plan to maximize water deliveries from the federal Central Valley Project, and that the State Water Project would coordinate with the process. That’s in direct opposition to what the Water Board has been working toward for more than 20 years. The federal attitude: So what?

Add into that the notion that the feds would assume one part of the state government would assist in opposing the actions of another part of the same state government, and you can see how peculiar this has gotten.

No one pays attention to what anyone else is doing.

This happens with everything involving water in California. The feds make a deal to save the fish in the Klamath and Trinity rivers, and farmers in the San Joaquin squawk that’s their water. The state tells the feds they can’t raise Shasta Dam because it would flood the McCloud River, and the feds announce they’ll be awarding construction contracts to raise the dam.

It all ends up in court, and only the lawyers win. And all that’s happened in the last few days is that a few new battlegrounds have been staked out in the endless water war.

https://www.chicoer.com/2018/07/12/editorial-so-what-attitude-at-root-of-water-wars/
 
To be honest you shouldn't have a lawn. They are a massive waste of resources, water and a major source of chemical pollution. They are stupid.

California should be implementing drought tolerant landscaping and should be subsidizing artificial lawns. I am going to be putting in some beautiful artificial grass soon. It looks great and needs no fucking water.

And last time I visited my cousin in LA his neighbor sprayed his small driveway off with his hose. Every. Night.

lol

Just fucking LOL
Well, you don't need an artificial lawn. There's plenty of low-maintenance options that do not include fake grass.
 
Back
Top