COMMENTS: 7
California at a Crossroads, Faces Biggest Drought Year Yet
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Water headlines via email.
California has a water crisis but, contrary to what many believe, a tiny fish is not the cause of this ongoing problem. There simply isn't enough rain and snow in a dry year, like this one, to meet projected demands for water.
We've known for years that water exports from the Bay-Delta cannot continue growing to meet California's water needs. Both the law and the science were settled awhile ago: we've diverted too much water from the Delta for too long, as the Governor's Delta Vision Task Force recently concluded. And with climate change, the ecological crisis in the Delta, the closure of California's salmon fishery, and the potential for a catastrophic levee failure, if we don't change our ways, the future looks grim for both people and fish.
That's why it isn't surprising that the California Department of Fish and Game today considered water pumping restrictions in the Bay-Delta to protect longfin smelt from being sucked into the export pumps of the state and federal water projects. The longfin smelt was historically one of the most abundant fish species in the Bay-Delta, but in the past several decades its population has been plummeting and is now at risk of extinction (joining a long list of species that are declining as a result of unsustainable actions in the estuary). This review was triggered by DFG finding the fish near the export pumps (you can see a map of where the fish currently are here). The regulatory process is designed to keep these the fish from being sucked into the pumps, which has been a significant source of mortality: DFG estimates that more than 1.5 million adult and juvenile longfin smelt, and millions more larvae, have been killed by the water projects since 1993.
We hope that the Department is right that current operations will prevent significant numbers of longfin smelt from being sucked into the pumps, and we expect that DFG will closely monitor the situation and take prompt action in future weeks if there is a problem. But whether today or a month from now, there's a good chance that restrictions will be imposed to prevent a problem from occurring, whether because of longfin smelt or because of one of the other endangered and threatened fish that the pumps put at risk. Today's action is a reminder that our water resources are fragile and we need to continue to invest in new ways to replenish our water supply without relying on the Delta.
In fact, reductions of water exports from the Delta are inevitable. In the early 2000s, water exports were at historically high levels (5 of the 6 highest levels of water exports in the history of the CVP and SWP occurred in the past 8 years). For the foreseeable future, we're likely to have to return to water export levels seen in the 1990s.
Bottom line: California is at a crossroads; it can either follow its old course toward drought, failed crops, failing fisheries, and an insufficient drinking water supply - or it can commit to a new, smart-water solution for the 21st century.
We cannot continue to meet California's water needs the way we have in the past.
Fortunately, there is a solution. We can obtain real water from a Virtual River of water efficiency, trimming water waste, recycling wastewater, and capturing rainwater in urban areas before it flows into storm drains. There's more water available from these sources than we've ever exported from the Delta.
Stay up to date with the latest Water headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: avila on Jan 30, 2009 5:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
New construction in water starved areas can promote this. Rainwater is great for plants--better than the chlorinated-at-a-great-cost drinking water used by all now. What a waste!
Also, what gives with restrictive regulations on gray water that can be used, re-used. safely, sparing that costly drinking water for coffee, not car washing.
Give us tax credits, utility company rebates, inexpensive turn key plans--we will do it. It only makes sense!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» great idea...when it RAINS !!
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JFlagg on Jan 31, 2009 9:40 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you look for solutions promoted by the State government where are the proposals to develop these new water sources that have no environmental impacts? They don't exists. It is the same answers as our last drought cycle. Conserve (which is great) and pay the state for the water through the pipeline.
What a joke, if there is no water, the State doesn't have it to sell us anyway. Four desal plants along the coast would reduce the demand on inland water for the large populations of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Ventura.
Santa Barbara built a desal plant and took it down after completion. Why? Jobs and water could come out of developing water sources that do not depend on rain or snow.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mnstra on Jan 31, 2009 1:05 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was driving around lake Elsinore in Nov and saw a suburbanite watering off his already spotless sidewalk with a hose. Now I ask you-- Why does the state continue to allow such lunacy?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 1, 2009 8:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Denial is not a river in Egypt- it is a city of 7 million in a location with native water resources sufficient for a population of 30,000 in California. That would be Los Angeles- the only city known to have stolen an entire river (The Owens) and was granted political cover from an 'Environmental' Republican President to do so (Theodore Roosevelt).
The state is a basket case. So many non-native speakers that the schools cannot keep up, gangs running whole sections of major cities, public universities too expensive for most to afford, a state bureaucracy that makes the Feds look efficient, in debt up to the eyeballs...
All built in a desert on land prone to earthquakes, landslides and all the rest.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davidzet on Feb 2, 2009 11:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read my blog (aguanomics.com) for more.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jgogek on Feb 11, 2009 10:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let's talk about California's biggest user -- agriculture.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: avila on Jan 30, 2009 5:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
New construction in water starved areas can promote this. Rainwater is great for plants--better than the chlorinated-at-a-great-cost drinking water used by all now. What a waste!
Also, what gives with restrictive regulations on gray water that can be used, re-used. safely, sparing that costly drinking water for coffee, not car washing.
Give us tax credits, utility company rebates, inexpensive turn key plans--we will do it. It only makes sense!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» great idea...when it RAINS !!
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JFlagg on Jan 31, 2009 9:40 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you look for solutions promoted by the State government where are the proposals to develop these new water sources that have no environmental impacts? They don't exists. It is the same answers as our last drought cycle. Conserve (which is great) and pay the state for the water through the pipeline.
What a joke, if there is no water, the State doesn't have it to sell us anyway. Four desal plants along the coast would reduce the demand on inland water for the large populations of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Ventura.
Santa Barbara built a desal plant and took it down after completion. Why? Jobs and water could come out of developing water sources that do not depend on rain or snow.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mnstra on Jan 31, 2009 1:05 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was driving around lake Elsinore in Nov and saw a suburbanite watering off his already spotless sidewalk with a hose. Now I ask you-- Why does the state continue to allow such lunacy?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 1, 2009 8:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Denial is not a river in Egypt- it is a city of 7 million in a location with native water resources sufficient for a population of 30,000 in California. That would be Los Angeles- the only city known to have stolen an entire river (The Owens) and was granted political cover from an 'Environmental' Republican President to do so (Theodore Roosevelt).
The state is a basket case. So many non-native speakers that the schools cannot keep up, gangs running whole sections of major cities, public universities too expensive for most to afford, a state bureaucracy that makes the Feds look efficient, in debt up to the eyeballs...
All built in a desert on land prone to earthquakes, landslides and all the rest.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davidzet on Feb 2, 2009 11:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read my blog (aguanomics.com) for more.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jgogek on Feb 11, 2009 10:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let's talk about California's biggest user -- agriculture.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Water Heist: Corporations Are Targeting Cash-Strapped Cities for Control of Their Public Water
Is Schwarzenegger's Big Drought Over?
Is New York's Budget Deficit Leading it to Adopt Natural Gas Drilling Practices That Threaten Drinking Water?




