California Water Solutions Now

8/3/2019 California Water Solutions Now

1/44

CALIFORNIA WATER SOLUTIONS NOW

A Report

From Member Organizations of the

ENVIRONMENTAL WATER CAUCUS

August 2009

This report is dedicated to the memory of Dorothy Green

(1929-2008), a tireless advocate for common-sense

management of Californias water supply.


2/44

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The following Table of Contents provides a convenient listing of the StrategicGoals of the Environmental Water Caucus, which are the main subjects of this report.

Executive Summary 2

Preface 5

Implement Water Efficiency Targets 8

Reduce Delta Exports 14

Restore Flows to Rivers 22

Provide Fish Passage 24

Retain Cold Water for Fish in Reservoirs 27

Integrate Floodplains with Rivers 28

Eliminate Irrigation of Impaired Lands 29

Restore Water Quality 32

Maximize Regional Self Sufficiency 34

Fund Agencies with User Fees 37

Water Transfers 39

Acknowledgments 42

EWC Mission and Supporting Member Organizations 43


3/44

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

California is in the grip of a water crisis of our own making. Like all problemsthat humans create, we have the potential to use the crisis as an opportunity to makepositive and long-lasting changes in water management. The crisis is not a water shortage California has already developed sufficient water supplies to take us well into thiscentury the real crisis is that this supply is not used efficiently or equitably for allCalifornians nor is it used wisely to sustain the ecosystems that support us.

The opportunity and the basis for our positive vision is that economically andtechnologically feasible measures are readily available to provide the water needed forour future. Our vision includes providing clean water for families to drink, providingwater to improve the environmental health of our once-magnificent rivers, recovering ourfisheries from the edges of extinction, fostering healthy commercial fisheries and athriving agricultural industry, ensuring that all California communities have access tosafe and affordable drinking water, and contributing significantly to the states largestindustries: recreation and tourism. 12

This report makes the case that California has already developed enough watersupplies to satisfy our needs into the foreseeable future by utilizing existing infrastructureand existing cost effective technologies. The report documents numerous analyses ofwater efficient technologies and approaches that can save or reduce water consumption inurban areas by as much as 5 million acre feet a year by 2030 compared with currenttrends enough water to support a population growth of 29,000,000 people. Accordingto the California Water Plan Update 2009, the states population can be expected toincrease by 28,000,000 over the next 40 years if current population trends hold. Clearly,a well-managed future water supply to take us to 2050 is within reach with the currentsupplies and with an aggressive water conservation program. In addition, still largersavings can be expected from agricultural water efficiencies, and some of this savedwater could be available for urban consumption. All of the water conservation strategiesdiscussed in this report are much less expensive than the new surface storage andconveyance projects being contemplated by state and federal agencies.

We need to make significant changes in our water management practices in orderto provide the favorable outcomes that we describe in this report. These changes arebased on the following Principles for a Comprehensive California Water Policy,developed by the Planning and Conservation League and the Environmental JusticeCoalition for Water to guide California water policy reform.3 They instruct that:

1. California must respect and adjust to meet the natural limits of its waters andwaterways, including the limits imposed by climate change.

2. Every Californian has a right to safe, sufficient, affordable and accessibledrinking water.

1Californias Rivers A Public Trust Report. Prepared for the State Lands Commission. 1993. P. 47.http://www.slc.ca.gov/Reports/CA_Rivers_Rpt.html 2California Travel and Tourism Commission. California Travel Impacts by County. 2008 Preliminary State Estimates. Total directtravel spending alone was $96.7 billion in 2008. ES-2.http://tourism.visitcalifornia.com/media/uploads/files/editor/Research/CAImp08pfinal.pdf .3Aquafornia: the California Water News Blog of the Water Education Foundation. http://aquafornia.com/archives/8374 .


4/44

3

3. Californias ecosystems and the life they support have a right to clean water andto exist and thrive, for their own benefit and the benefit of future generations.

4. California must maximize environmentally sustainable local water self-sufficiency in all areas of the State, especially in the face of climate change.

5. The quality and health of Californias water must be protected and enhancedthrough full implementation and enforcement of existing water quality,environmental, and land use regulations and other actions and through new ormore rigorous regulations and actions as needed.

6. All Californians must have immediate and ready access to information and thedecision-making processes for water.

7. California must institute sustainable and equitable funding to ensure cost-effectivewater reliability and water quality solutions for the state where cost-effectiveincludes environmental and social costs.

8. Groundwater and surface water management must be integrated, and water health

and protection must be addressed on a watershed basis.9. Californias actions on water must respect the needs and interests of California

Tribes, including those unrecognized Tribes in the State.10.California must overhaul its existing, piecemeal water rights policies, which

already over-allocate existing water and distribute rights without regard to equity.

There are many competing solutions being put forward by various interest groupsto deal with these issues. The environmental community is frequently asked: What doesthe environment really need? Our responses to that question are the subjects of thisreport.

The Strategic Goals and Recommended Actions described in this report are

advocated by individual member organizations of the Environmental Water Caucus(EWC), which are listed at the end of the report. These are the strategic and on-the-ground actions that we recommend to all Californians to assure an adequate and reliablewater supply for the future and to simultaneously recover the health of our fisheries andaquatic systems.

The report is organized by our high priority Strategic Goals with a discussion ofeach Strategic Goal and its supporting data, followed by a set of Recommended Actionsassociated with each Strategic Goal. The Strategic Goals are:

1. Implement ecologically sustainable and cost effective water supply efficiencytargets that reduce demand or increase supply.

2. Reduce exports from the delta, minimize reverse flows in the Delta, and

increase Delta outflow.3. Restore instream flows, volumes and patterns for aquatic ecosystems.4. Provide fish passage above and below dams for all at-risk salmonid species.5. Retain cold water for fish in reservoirs for later downstream release.6. Integrate floodplains with rivers and streams.7. Eliminate State and Federal water deliveries to irrigate drainage-impaired

lands in the western San Joaquin Valley.8. Restore surface and groundwater quality.9. Maximize regional water self-sufficiency to include water for the

environment.


5/44

4

10.Fund sustainable environmental agencies, watershed restoration and sciencewith end-user fees.

A sampling of the reports 65 recommendations include: aggressive state-widewater conservation targets that provide adequate water for all Californians and precludethe need for major new surface storage projects, a reduction of exports from the BayDelta in order to protect this valuable resource and its fishes including strong concernsabout the potential for a Peripheral Canal around the Bay Delta to increase exports

instead, significant improvements to our valuable river habitats, elimination of watersupplies to irrigate impaired farmlands, improvements in water quality, regional self-sufficiency, and improved funding for environmental agencies.

The two recent federal Biological Opinions on Delta operations strongly reinforcethe recommendations of this report, which point out the need to reduce Delta exports, toprovide fish passage above dams, to provide increased stream flows and colder waters inorder to protect the health of the Delta. These actions will provide safeguards against theextinction of iconic fish species and give them a better chance of surviving the increasedseverity of the droughts and floods that are expected to accompany climate change.

The Recommended Actions that we propose will provide many benefits, inaddition to the environmental improvements. They will reduce the financial burden ontaxpayers and ratepayers, reduce impacts on the state budget, provide for greaterratepayer equity by reducing subsidies for water and require all businesses, especiallyagriculture, to pay for the true cost of the public resources they utilize. In addition, theproposed actions will bring state and federal agencies into compliance withenvironmental laws that they now routinely violate; they will force hard questions andhard decisions. In the end, these actions promote a positive, higher-quality legacy for ourchildren and grandchildren while providing for a thriving economic future.


6/44

5

PREFACE

There are several overarching issues that run through all our efforts to developsustainable, effective, and equitable water policies. They are: environmental justice, thepreservation of cultural traditions by Native Americans, climate change, periodicdrought, the precautionary principle, and population pressures. They are covered in thispreface to avoid repetition in each of the individual report goals.

Environmental Justice. It is imperative that water policies and practices are designed toavoid compounding existing or creating new disproportionately adverse effects on lowincome Californians and communities of color. Conversely, water policies and practicesmust anticipate and prepare for anticipated disproportionately adverse effects and toprovide equitable benefits to these communities, particularly those afflicted by persistentpoverty and which have been neglected historically. For example, the effects ofHurricane Katrina remain a vivid reminder that those who have the least suffer the mostand are the slowest to recover from storm and flooding impacts. We know that underconditions of climate change and drought, catastrophic environmental changes will occurin California. Environmental justice requires that water policies and practices designed toaccount for climate change and drought include a special focus on preventingcatastrophic environmental or economic impacts on environmental justice communities.Other, specific environmental justice water issues include:

Access to safe, affordable water for basic human needs. Access to sufficient wastewater infrastructure that protects water quality and

prevents overflows and other public health threats.

Restoration of water quality so that environmental justice communities cansafely feed their families the fish they catch in local waters to supplementtheir families diet.

Equitable access to water resources for recreation. Equitable access to statewide planning and funding to ensure that in addition

to safe, affordable water and wastewater, environmental justice communitiesbenefit equitably from improved conservation, water recycling and otherfuture water innovations that improve efficiency and water quality.

Mitigation of negative impacts from the inevitable reallocation of a portion of

the water currently used in agriculture the states biggest water use sector to water for cities and the environment. Reallocation will reduce irrigatedacreage, the number of farm-related jobs, and local tax revenues.

Mitigation of third party impacts, including impacts on farm workers,associated with land retirement.

Ideally, mitigation will be based on a comprehensive plan to transition localrural economies to new industries such as solar farms and other clean energybusiness models and provide the necessary job training and policies necessaryto enable environmental justice community members to achieve the transition.

Protection from the impacts of floods and levee breaks, including provisionsfor emergency and long-term assistance to renters displaced by floodwaters.


7/44

6

Native American Traditions. Many of California's Historical Tribes have a deep andintrinsic relationship with California's rivers, lakes, streams and springs. This

relationship goes to the very core of their origin, cultural, and spiritual beliefs. Many ofthe Tribes consider the fish that reside in these waters as gifts from their creator, and thefish are necessary to the continued survival of their people, culture and spiritual beliefs.Historically, California's water policy has failed to recognize the importance of the needsof one of its greatest natural and cultural resources - its Historical Tribes - and has onlysought to manage water for economic gain. California water policies and practices mustchange to provide sufficient water to support fisheries and their habitats for both culturaland economic sustainability, and provide for the restoration of and access to thosefisheries for its Native Peoples.

Climate Change. Climate models indicate that climate change is already affecting our

ability to meet all or most of the goals enumerated in this report and must be integratedinto the implementation of the recommendations. The main considerations are:

More precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow and will result in earlierrunoff than in the past.4

Less snow will mean that the current springtime melt and runoff will bereduced in volume.

Overall, average precipitation and river flow are expected to decrease. Arecent paper in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment5 predicts that theaverage Sacramento River flow will decrease by about 20 percent by the2050s.

Precipitation patterns are expected to become more erratic including bothprolonged periods of drought and greater risks of flooding.

Sea level rise will impact flows and operations within the Delta, endangerfragile Delta levees, and increase the salinity concentration of Suisun Bay andthe Delta, as well as increase the salinity concentrations of some coastalgroundwater aquifers.

These changing conditions could affect all aspects of water resource management,including design and operational assumptions about resource supplies, system demands,performance requirements, and operational constraints. To address these challenges, wemust enhance the resiliency of natural systems and improve the reliability and flexibilityof the water management systems. Specific recommendations are proposed as part of thisdocument.

Periodic Drought. Drought is a consistent and recurrent part of Californias climate.Multiple-year droughts have occurred three times during the last four decades.6 Increating a statewide drought water bank, there is a clear need for a long-term version ofa drought water bank.

4National Wildlife Federation and the Planning and Conservation League Foundation. On the Edge: Protecting Californias Fish and

Waterfowl from Global Warming. 10-11. www.pcl.org/projects/globalwarming.html .5Margaret A Palmer, Catherine A Reidy Liermann, Christer Nilsson, Martina Flrke, Joseph Alcamo, P Sam Lake, Nick Bond (2008)Climate change and the world's river basins: anticipating management options. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment: Vol. 6, No.2, pp. 81-89.6California Drought Update. May 29, 2009. P.5. http://www.water.ca.gov/drought/docs/drought_update.pdf.


8/44

7

Californias experience of multiple-year droughts should force state and localwater and land use authorities to recognize the recurrence of drought periods and to put inplace permanently more effective uses of water. The Governors current policy on water

conservation7 should be mandatory for all water districts and become a permanent part ofwater policy, rather than a response to current dry conditions. Only by educating thepublic, recognizing limits, and learning to use the water we do have more efficiently canCalifornians expect to reasonably handle future drought conditions.

The Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle states that: Where there isscientific evidence that serious harm might result from a proposed action but there is nocertainty that it will, the precautionary principle requires that in such situations action betaken to avoid or mitigate the potential harm, even before there is scientific proof that itwill occur.8 Numerous actions recommended in this report fit that criteria and theprecautionary principle is therefore applied throughout the report recommendations.

Population Pressures. Californias human population is expected to continue to increasefrom the current population of more than 37 million to 49 million by 2030 and 59 millionby 2050.9 In 2008, 75 percent of the population growth came from natural growth(births) and 25 percent came from immigration, both foreign and interstate.10 In each ofthe data sources utilized in this report, population increases have been factored into theconclusions, unless otherwise noted.

7 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan DRAFT, April 30, 2009. Executive Summary.http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/hot_topics/20x2020/index.shtml.8A. I. Schafer, S. Beder. Role of the precautionary principle in water recycling. University of Wollongong . 2006. 1.1.9

California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. 2009. Table 1.

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/#projections .10The Free Library by Farlex. From the Public Record, December 30, 2008. Bob Marra.http://www.thefreelibrary.com/New+report%3a+California+population+surpasses+38+million+while...-a01611779295 .


9/44

8

STRATEGIC GOAL # 1:IMPLEMENT ECOLOGICALLY

SUSTAINABLE AND COST

EFFECTIVE WATER SUPPLY

EFFICIENCY TARGETS THAT

REDUCE DEMAND OR INCREASE

SUPPLY.

California has developed hugeamounts of water for our cities andfarms. Urban users consume 8.7 millionacre feet of water, and agriculture uses34 million acre feet in a typical year.

(An acre foot of water is the volume ofwater required to cover one acre ofsurface area to a depth of one foot whichis 325,900 gallons.) California has 1,400major reservoirs with a combinedstorage capacity of 40 million acre feet,thousands of miles of canals andenormous energy-consuming pumps tomove the water around the state.

Despite all this abundance, thereare fears of monumental water shortages,

amplified by periodic drought conditionsand climate change. One-third of wateryears in California since 1906 areconsidered dry or critical by theCalifornia Department of WaterResources; since 1960, dry or criticalyears have occurred 37 percent of thetime, the increased frequency probablyreflecting effects of our warmingclimate.11 The worst and longest moderndroughts have occurred since 1976.

Farmers are concerned that they will bedriven out of business for lack of water.In response, politicians want to buildmore major dams and canals to store andmove more water at a time when climatechange will most likely make less wateravailable. More than 90 percent of our

11 California Data Exchange Center WSIHIST,Department of Water Resources.http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/iodir/wsihist

rivers have already been diverted for ouruse and publicly subsidized farm water

has created an insatiable appetite formore. In view of the critical nature ofwater supply, irrigating water-intensivecrops with huge amounts of water hardlyfits a 21st century definition of thebeneficial and reasonable use criteriacalled for in state law. How did we getso far out of balance? The fault lies inour wasteful and unsustainable uses ofthis valuable and limited public resource.

Overwhelming evidence shows that a

suite of aggressive conservation andwater efficiency actions will reduceoverall demand and provide costeffective increases in available andreliable water supply. These measureswill handle Californias water needs wellinto the foreseeable future and will do soat far less financial and environmentalcost than constructing more storagedams and reservoirs. This conclusion isreinforced by the current State Water

Plan (Bulletin 160-09), recent research,and actual experience in urban areas andfarms.

These water efficiency and wateruse reduction actions are:

Urban Water Conservation including installing low-flowtoilets and showerheads, high-efficiency clothes washers, retrofiton resale programs, rainwaterharvest, weather-based irrigation

controllers, reducing water forlandscaping via drip and xeriscape,more efficient commercial andindustrial cooling equipment, andtiered price structures.12 Under a

12 A detailed treatment of urban waterconservation is contained in Waste Not, Want Not:The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California,by the Pacific Institute.http://www.pacinst.org/reports/urban_usage/waste_not_want_not_full_report.pdf.


10/44

9

high efficiency scenario, urbandemand reduction by 2030 can begreater than 5 million acre feet per

year.13 A Los Angeles EconomicDevelopment Corporation reportfound that in Los Angeles, Orange,San Bernardino, San Diego,Riverside and Ventura counties,urban water conservation couldhave an impact equivalent toadding more than 1 million acre-feet of water to the regional supply(about 25 percent of current annualuse).14 The same LAEDC report

shows that urban conservation isby far the most economicalapproach, at $210 per acre-foot,and especially compared with newsurface storage at $760 to $1,400per acre-foot.

Urban Conservation RateStructures including theestablishment of mandatory ratestructures within the Urban BestManagement Practices that

strongly penalize excessive use andreward low water usage customerswith lower rates, with the lowestbeing a lifeline rate to providewater for low income and lowwater using ratepayers. Thesavings that result from pricingpolicies are included in the 5million acre feet cited above.

Agricultural Water Conservation including the continuing trend

towards use of drip, microsprinklers and similar highertechnology irrigation, reduced

13Pacific Institute. 2005. California Water 2030: AnEfficient Future. P. 34.http://www.pacinst.org/reports/california_water_2030/ca_water_2030.pdf.14Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation(LAEDC). 2008. Where Will We Get the Water? AssessingSouthern Californias Future Water Strategies. P 6.http://www.laedc.org/consulting/projects/2008_SoCalWaterStrategies.pdf.

deficit irrigation, transition to lesswater-intensive crops, reducedoverall farmland acreage,

elimination of the irrigation ofpolluted farmland, and tiered pricestructures. Conservation measuresalso include the elimination ofindirect water subsidies providedto agriculture for Central ValleyProject water, as called for in theCentral Valley ProjectImprovement Act. More equitablewater pricing will drive some ofthe efficiencies shown in Figure 1.

Demand reduction of as much as 8million acre-feet per year could beachieved by 2030, according to thepreviously referenced PacificInstitute Report.

Recycled Water including thetreatment and reuse of urbanwastewater, gray water, and stormwater, and achievement of theState Water Resources Board goalof increasing water recycling by at

least an additional 2 million acrefeet per year by 2030. TheLAEDC report shows recycledwater costing $1,000 per acre-foot.

Groundwater Treatment,Demineralization and Desalination including the treatment ofcontaminated groundwater and theuse of groundwater desalination.The cost of groundwaterdesalination ranges from $750 to

$1,200 per acre-foot.Conjunctive Use including the

planned release of surface storedwater to recharge groundwaterbasins, although the impacts ofstoring and releasing water need tobe more fully understood.Conjunctive use has numerousmeanings; the main one is thatgroundwater aquifers are recharged


11/44

10

with surface water from reservoirsin order to provide future supplyfrom the recharged aquifers as

needed. While conjunctive usedoes not reduce water demand, itdoes reduce the need for costlynew surface storage.

Storm Water Recapture and Reuse The 2008 Scoping Plan forCalifornias Global WarmingSolutions Act of 2006 promotesstorm water collection and reuse.The plan finds that up to 333,000acre feet of storm water could be

captured annually for reuse inurban Southern California alone.15The LAEDC report also found thepotential for hundreds ofthousands of acre feet of waterfrom storm water capture and reusein Southern California counties.16The Los Angeles and San GabrielWatershed Council has estimatedthat if 80 percent of the rainfall thatfalls on just a quarter of the urban

area within the watershed (15percent of the total watershed)were captured and reused, totalrunoff would be reduced by about30 percent. That translates into anewsupply of 132,000 acre feet ofwater per year or enough to supply800,000 people for a year.17

15Climate Change Scoping Plan Appendices Volume I.December 2008. Pursuant to AB 32 The California GlobalWarming Solutions Act of 2006. C-135.http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/appendices_volume1.pdf.16Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation(LAEDC). 2008. Where Will We Get the Water? AssessingSouthern Californias Future Water Strategies. P 32-33.http://www.laedc.org/consulting/projects/2008_SoCalWaterStrategies.pdf.17California Department of Water Resources. Update 2005.California Water Plan Update. Bulletin 160-05. P..21-3.http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/previous/cwpu2005/index.cfm.

Based on data from the StateWater Plan (Bulletin 160-05),18 thePlanning and Conservation League

(PCL)19 and the Pacific Institute,20 thesavings that can be achieved from theseefficiency scenarios ranges from a lowestimate of 4.69 to 13 million acre feetper year (Figure 1). Perhaps the mostauthoritative report on the subject, thePacific Institutes California Water2030: An Efficient Futureshows thatoverall statewide water usage can bereduced by 20 percent below 2000 levels given aggressive efforts to conserve

and reduce usage with readily availabletechnology and no decrease in economicactivity.

18California Department of Water Resources. Update 2005.California Water Plan Update. Bulletin 160-05. V2 1-5.http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/previous/cwpu2005/index.cfm.19Planning and Conservation League. 2004. InvestmentStrategy for California Water. P. 8-11.http://www.pcl.org/projects/investmentstrategy.html .20Pacific Institute. 2005. California Water 2030: AnEfficient Future. ES-2.http://www.pacinst.org/reports/california_water_2030/ca_water_2030.pdf.


12/44

11

Figure 1 Projected Water Savings from Efficiency Measures

The urban water savings of up to5 million acre feet a year shown inFigure 1 is enough water to support apopulation growth of 29,000,000 people.According to theCalifornia Water PlanUpdate 2009, the states population canbe expected to increase by 28,000,000over the next 40 years if currentpopulation trends hold. Clearly, a well-managed future water supply to take usto 2050 is within reach with the currentsupplies and with an aggressive waterconservation program.

In order to translate theseaggressive efficiency measures intoactual demand reductions, we needheightened public awareness of thesetargets and focused state oversight andcoordination of local and statewideactions. Existing success stories fromurban communities and on-farmoperations reinforce the savingspotentials and the need for efficiency-driven policies; they are described indetail in a number of the references citedin this report. The Governors recentmandate for a 20 percent reduction inper capita urban water use by 2020 is thekind of action that will help this effort,

although it may prove insufficient inview of projected population growth.Under the Governors plan, per capitaurban use would be reduced from thecurrent 192 gallons per capita daily to154 gallons, resulting in an annualsavings of 1.74 million acre feet. Theprojected water savings shown in Figure1 are more aggressive than theGovernors plan. A similar mandateshould be extended to agriculture, sinceagriculture uses more than three-quartersof the states developed water supplies.Water savings through efficiencymeasures can result in direct reductionsin the volume of Delta exports sincemost of the savings would occur in citiesand farms south of the Delta. Thesewater savings are necessary to reduce theexports called for in Strategic Goal #2and to restore the stream flows called forin Strategic Goal #3.

The Natural Resources DefenseCouncils report Transforming WaterUse: A California Water Efficiency

Agenda for the 21st

Century cites thestates successes in energy efficiency asa model for water efficiency whilenoting that the state lags far behind in

PROJECTED WATER SAVINGS

0.8

4.5

0.6

4.09

8

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

AGRICULTURE EFFICIENCIES URBAN EFFICIENCIES

MillionAcreFeet

BULLETIN 160-05 PCL PACIFIC INSTITUTE


13/44

12

water efficiency policies, programs andfunding. A key component of thesuccess in energy efficiency has been the

development of a priority system calleda Loading Order.21 As applied to waterpolicy, a Loading Order is a system thatwould require demand reductionsthrough improved water efficiency to bethe first priority in addressing watersupply, that developing alternativesources including water recycling,groundwater clean up and conjunctiveuse programs would be second priority,and third would be the use of more

traditional supply options. A LoadingOrder approach, if applied to statewide,regional and local water plans, wouldshift the emphasis to the more efficientand cost effective approaches advocatedin this report.

Reducing water use throughconservation efficiencies or waterrecycling also has a favorable impact onenergy use, as pointed out byEnergyDown the Drain, a report produced by

the Natural Resources Defense Counciland the Pacific Institute.22 The reportmakes a strong case for the link betweenwater and energy efficiencies.

All of these conservation andefficiency methods are known toproduce available water at significantlyless cost than constructing new storagedams and reservoirsthe third option ina Loading Order. According to the LosAngeles County Economic Development

Corporation (LAEDC) report,23 water

21Natural Resources Defense Council. 2007. TransformingWater Use: A California Water Efficiency Agenda for the21st Century. P. 2.www.deltavision.ca.gov/BlueRibbonTaskForce/Feb28_29/Handouts/BRTF_Item_5A_HO2.pdf.22Natural Resources Defense Council and Pacific Institute.2004. Energy Down the Drain. ES-v.http://www.pacinst.org/reports/energy_and_water/index.htm.23 Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation(LAEDC). 2008. Where Will We Get the Water? AssessingSouthern Californias Future Water Strategies. P 32-33.

produced from the proposed Sites andTemperance Flat Reservoirs would cost$760 to $1,400 per acre-foot while

conserved or recycled water typicallycosts between $210 and $1,000 per acre-foot. New surface storage is by far thehighest cost alternative per acre-foot ofwater for all the alternatives examinedby the Legislative Analysts Office(LAO) report California Water: An LAOPrimer,24 while providing less totalannual yield than most alternatives. TheLAO report showed that new surfacestorage costs are more than $10,000 per

acre foot, while urban conservation costsranged from $1,000 to $3,000 per acrefoot. Statewide, the costs of all of theseefficiency measures will in allprobability not exceed the $20 billionestimate for the various Peripheral Canaland new surface storage proposals. Forall of these reasons as well as thehistorically ecosystem damaging impactsof major dams EWC memberorganizations oppose the construction of

Sites and Temperance Flat Reservoirsand the raising of Shasta Dam in favor ofthe more effective efficiency measuresdescribed above. Raising Shasta Damon the Sacramento River may also beillegal because of its impact on the WildRiver status of the McCloud River andthe damaging impact on WinnemenWintu sacred areas.

Groundwater supplies 30 percentof the states water in a typical year, yet

is not regulated or monitored at the statelevel, according to the LegislativeAnalysts report. The same reportrecommends a state-administered water

http://www.laedc.org/consulting/projects/2008_SoCalWaterStrategies.pdf.24Legislative Analysts Office. 2008. Californias Water: AnLAO Primer. P. 67.http://www.lao.ca.gov/2008/rsrc/water_primer/water_primer_102208.aspx.


14/44

13

rights system for groundwater and waterquality permitting to the same extent assurface water. In many California

locales, merely measuring andmonitoring water usage has the effect ofreducing water usage. The current StateWater Plan points out that groundwaterresources will be affected by climatechange and that more efficientgroundwater basin management will benecessary to avoid additional overdraftof groundwater supplies.

Californias state water agenciescannot report on how much water is

actually being used, where it is beingused, where it is being diverted to, howmuch is being diverted, or how manydiversions are illegal. Where it doeshave such data, the State Water Boardestimates that the number of illegaldiversions may be over 40 percent of thenumber of active permits and licenses,the use of which also fails to complywith the law in many cases.Enforcement authority and resources are

extremely limited, and violations rarelyif ever receive a meaningful stateresponse. Water rights enforcementmust increase if we are to police theillegal use of Californias waters andensure its beneficial use, in accordancewith the state Constitution.

THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONSto achieve this Strategic Goal are:

Establish a statewide oversight unit

responsible for the coordination ofthe supply enhancements anddemand reductions called for in thisreport, as well as the State WaterPlan and the Governors 20/2020mandate. This measure can beaccomplished with little additionalcost to the state by utilizing some ofthe existing Department of WaterResources (DWR) staff,

supplemented with additionalfunding to coordinate the waterefficiency program targets.

Pass legislation and provide fundingto establish a California waterefficiency education and publicityprogram, similar to the health andsafety programs that are sponsoredand publicized by the state. Theprogram must ensure the equitabledistribution of conservationinvestments among rural and lowincome communities.

Adopt the Natural ResourcesDefense Councils recommendationsto the Delta Vision Commissionregarding a water efficiency LoadingOrder. The recommendations aresummarized as follows:o Adopt a Loading Order policy

through the State Water ControlResources Board, the StatePublic Utilities Commission andthe Legislature that establisheswater use efficiency as the top

priority.o Establish a public goods

surcharge on every acre-foot ofwater delivered in California,with the proceeds used to fund orsubsidize efficiency programs.

o Standardize and increase theevaluation and monitoring ofwater efficiency programs toensure the delivery of savingsand benefits.

Support legislation to implement theGovernors call for a 20 percent percapita reduction in water use by2020. Also require implementationof best management practices andwater management planning byagricultural water users. TheCalifornia Water Plan Update 2005

as well as the draft California WaterPlan Update 2009identifiesurban


15/44

14

water conservation as the watermanagement strategy that will bemost effective at matching supply

and demand.

Oppose the construction of Sites andTemperance Flat Reservoirs and theraising of Shasta Dam.

Implement statewide mandatorymultiple tiered conservation ratestructures as part of Urban BestManagement Practices.

Support legislative efforts to promoteWater Neutral Development andincreased water recycling.

Revise Central Valley Project (CVP)contracts to reflect a repaymentschedule for agricultural users thatwill meet legal requirements andreduce indirect water subsidies toCVP contractors

Pass legislation to monitorgroundwater usage throughout thestate as a first step in improving theuse of groundwater supplies.

Take actions or pass legislation toreform the current water rightssystems, to comply with stateconstitutional provisions related tounreasonable use of water, beneficialuse of water, use-efficiency, and thepublic trust doctrine.25 Thisrealignment would free up asignificant amount of water thatcould be made available for otherwater-efficient uses. This type oflegislation is strongly recommendedby the most recent LAO report onCalifornia water.26

25Californias Rivers A Public Trust Report. Prepared forthe State Lands Commission. 1993. Foreword xxii.http://www.slc.ca.gov/Reports/CA_Rivers_Rpt.html 26Legislative Analysts Office. 2008. Californias Water: AnLAO Primer.http://www.lao.ca.gov/2008/rsrc/water_primer/water_primer_102208.aspx.

STRATEGIC GOAL # 2:REDUCE

EXPORTS FROM THE DELTA,MINIMIZE REVERSE FLOWS IN

THE DELTA, AND INCREASE

DELTA OUTFLOW.

EXPORTSNumerous scientific and legal

investigations have identified Deltaexport pumping by the state and federalprojects as one of the primary causes ofthe decline of the health of the SanFrancisco Bay Delta estuary and its fish.They include the California Fish and

Game Commissions 2009 listing oflongfin smelt under the EndangeredSpecies Act; the US Fish and WildlifeServices 2008 Biological Opinion fordelta smelt; the National Marine ServiceJune 4, 2009 Biological Opinion on CVPand SWP Operations, the State WaterResources Control Boards Bay-DeltaWater Quality Control Plan and WaterRights Decision 1641; the CALFEDBay-Delta Programs 2000 Ecosystem

Restoration Program Plan; and theCentral Valley Project ImprovementActs Anadromous Fish RestorationProgram.

The long-term decline of theDelta smelt coincides with largeincreases in freshwater exports out of theDelta by the state and federally operatedwater projects, (Figure2). CALFEDsEcosystem Restoration Program remindsus that the more water left in the system

(i.e., that which flows through the Deltainto Suisun Bay and eventually theocean), the greater the health of theestuary overall; there is no such thing astoo much water for the environment.27

27CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program. 2008. Stage 2Implementation Draft. P. 23.http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/erp/reports_docs.asp


16/44

15

Central to the issues of managingthe Delta is the lack of an independent,

Figure 2

Source: Environmental DefenseFund.28 Original source isCalifornia Data Exchange Centerand California Department of Fish& Game Midwater Trawl Data

public domain, and science-basedprocess for determining the accuracy forwater supply and water demandforecasts. In contrast to the independentprocess for assessing electrical supplyand demand used by the EnergyCommission since the late 1980s,Californias water selling agencies arestill in charge of telling the public howmuch water there is, and who should

have it. The Energy Commission foundthat the electrical utilities estimates forenergy demands were consistentlyhigher and that the utilities estimates ofexisting energy supplies wereconsistently lower than those developed

28Environmental Defense Fund. 2008. Finding the Balance.P. 3.http://www.edf.org/documents/8093_CA_Finding_Balance_2008.pdf

by independent scientists. The public,the Delta smelt, and migratory salmonwould be greatly assisted by a

transparent and independent accountingof Delta water inflows and outflows.

Delta smelt are an indicator ofthe health of the entire Delta ecosystem,and are representative of a much largerdecline in native and non-native Deltafisheries, including salmon, steelheadtrout, striped bass, longfin smelt, andthreadfin shad. Prior to the operation ofthe State Water Project pumps in the

1970s, exports through the CentralValley Project pumping were at or below2.5 million acre feet per year; the Deltawas in good health at that level ofexports. Beginning with the installationof the State Water Project, exportpumping exceeded 2.5 million acre feetper year and the Delta smelt and otherfish species began their declines thatcontinue to this day as illustrated in

Historic Delta Exports and Estuarine Fish Populations

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

1968-

1971

1972-

1975

1976-

1979

1980-

1983

1984-

1987

1988-

1991

1992-

1995

1996-

1999

2000-

2003

2004-

2007

FishAbundance

(asapercentof1968-

197

1)average)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

AverageAnnualDeltaExports(millionsofacr

feet

Exports S triped Bass (Young of Year) De lta sme lt long fin sme lt


17/44

16

Figure 2. Both the federal CentralValley (CVP) Project and the StateWater Project (SWP) are required by

their permits and existing law to operatewithout harm to listed threatened andendangered species; the projects havebeen out of compliance for decades.

The SWP has never been able todevelop or deliver all the water supplieson which its export program and originalcontracts were based. The main input tothe Delta the Sacramento River whichprovides 70 percent of Delta inflow inaverage years29 does not provide

sufficient water for all the presentclaimants except in wet years, andclimate change is expected to decreaseflows in the future. The system cannotprovide full delivery of water to the mostjunior holders in most years. Recentcourt-ordered water export restrictionsthat protect endangered fish species, thecontinuously deteriorating Delta earthenlevees and the potential adverse effectsof climate change on water supplies

combine to make Delta water supplyreliability a roll of the dice.

According to the recent NationalMarine Services Biological Opinion, theproposed actions by the CVP and SWPto increase export levels will exacerbateproblems in the Delta.30 We do notbelieve that the water exporters goals ofmaintaining or increasing Delta exportsare attainable; neither are the juniorwater rights holders expectations that

they should have a full water supplyeach year.

29Delta Vision Final Report. 2008. State of CaliforniaResources Agency. P. 41.http://deltavision.ca.gov/BlueRibbonTaskForce/FinalVision/Delta_Vision_Final.pdf.30National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region.June 4, 2009.Biological Opinion And Conference OpinionOn The Long-Term Operations Of The Central ValleyProject And State Water Project. Page 629.http://swr.ucsd.edu/ocap/NMFS_Biological_and_Conference_Opinion_on_the_Long-Term_Operations_of_the_CVP_and_SWP.pdf.

Strategic alternatives to the

recent high levels of Delta waterexports should now be one of the

highest priority considerations for the

states water planning especially in

tandem with aggressive water use

efficiency measures. The two are

closely linked.Again, using the existing Energy

Commission process as an example,once a range of reasonable supply anddemand forecasts from various partieshave been peer-reviewed andestablished, then the process of scenario

development based upon the acceptedrange of supply and demand forecastsare initiated. The utilities present onlyone voice in this management scenariodevelopment and evaluation process. Incontrast, in the water policy world,California water purveyors dominate thewater management scenariodevelopment and evaluation process.Independent scientific peer reviews ofthe water purveyors water management

alternatives (and the merits of otheralternatives such as replacing exportsfrom the Delta with other regional andlocal water supplies) are routinelyexcluded or ignored.

When independent reviewsbecome available, they usually provideimportant policy insights. For example,according to the recent LegislativeAnalysts Office report, the Deltaprovides less than 15 percent of the

states overall water supply; theremaining 85 percent is provided bylocal groundwater, local projects, reuseand recycling, and the Colorado River.The Delta may provide a smallerpercentage of water for central andsouthern California in the future due tothese new Delta water supply realities:

Reductions in Delta exports maybecome permanent due to the latest


18/44

17

requirements to sustain endangeredfish species. The current reductionsare aimed only at avoiding

extinction, not for the necessaryrecovery of species under state andfederal law.

Southern California may becomemore locally reliant and lessdependent on future export increasesfrom the Delta as indicated in thereferenced Los Angeles CountyEconomic Development Corporationreport. A water portfolio that reliesmore heavily on local water self

sufficiency will also be a cost-effective investment, especially inthe near term.

Drainage-impaired farmlands in thewestern San Joaquin Valley andTulare Lake Basin could be taken outof production south of the Delta (SeeGoal # 7), freeing up significantsupplies of water for other beneficialuses.Changing the infrastructure will not

solve the problem of a shrinking Deltawater supply. A vigorous debate is nowunderway over whether a new isolatedconveyance facility a revised versionof the Peripheral Canal or dualconveyance to move water around theDelta should be constructed. Even thosewho support a new facility (and dualconveyance) as a solution to improveenvironmental conditions and watersupply reliability, including the Public

Policy Institute,31 the Delta Vision BlueRibbon Task Force, and someenvironmental groups, do not believethat constructing this new facility willgenerate any new water. Whether or nota new conveyance facility is approved

31Public Policy Institute of California. 2008. ComparingFutures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. P. 123-124.http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_708EHR.pdf

and built, the inexorable trend will be forthe reliability of north-to-south watertransfers through or around the Delta to

decline, and for water users whocurrently rely on Delta exports to seekalternative sources of supply and toincrease their conservation and reuse ofthat supply.

According to the Bay DeltaConservation Plan draft, the proposedPeripheral Canal would have thecapacity to export up to 15,000 cubicfeet of water per second (112,000gallons per second) from an intake on

the Sacramento River north of the Delta;this almost exactly matches the existingcapacity of the combined state andfederal pumps. The current approach ofmanaging the Delta for water supply willalmost certainly lead to intense pressuresto make increased exports the major goalof a Peripheral Canal while the health ofthe Delta will be a lower priority. Witha future scenario that places lessemphasis on the Delta as a water

supplier (See Strategic Goal #9), morewater can be left instream, and theenvironmental and water quality effectsof exporting water whether through oraround the Delta can be dramatically

reduced. Diverting those SacramentoRiver inflows intended for exportwithout significantly increasing theamount of fresh water flow dedicated toreaching San Francisco Bay will onlydegrade water quality and habitat

conditions and aggravate the negativeimpact on Delta smelt, salmonid andother native fish populations.

The Environmental WaterCaucus signatories to this report believethat it is premature to make anydecisions or to allocate bond revenues tobuild a Peripheral Canal. There arenumerous scientific, environmental,financial and governance issues that


19/44

18

need to be resolved prior to any decisionrelated to a Peripheral Canal. Keyquestions and issues are:

What are we trying to accomplishwith additional conveyance throughor around the Delta?

If we are trying to resolve urbansupply issues south of the Delta,what other solutions are available,either in conjunction with or as analternative to new conveyance?This question is especiallypertinent in view of SouthernCalifornias move toward self-reliance.

If we are trying to resolveagricultural water supply problemssouth of the Delta, what othersolutions are available, either inconjunction with or as analternative to new conveyance? Isfuture farming acreage going to besignificantly reduced south of theDelta (See Strategic Goals 1 and7)?

If we are trying to solve fisheryand habitat problems, what othersolutions are available, either inconjunction with or as analternative to new conveyance?Will reduced exports alone be akey ecosystem contributor? Canthe Delta ecosystem truly be abeneficiary of additionalconveyance? Even if a newconveyance would benefit theecosystem, would reducing exportsand improving Delta flows still benecessary and assured? What flowregimes quantity, direction,temperature, turbidity and otherwater quality parameters areneeded in various locations atdifferent times of the year and indifferent types of water years torestore native aquatic species that

spend all or part of their life stagesin the Bay Delta estuary?

Do the reduced export limitations ofthe recent Biological Opinionsnegate the need for additionalconveyance?

Will water intake alternatives beoperable and feasible in view ofthe impacts of climate change onsea level rise?

Will the beneficiaries ofadditional conveyance be clearlyidentified and be willing to payin accordance with their benefitsand the projected costs withoutshifting costs to theenvironment.

The current system for governingthe Bay Delta is clearly broken,as evidenced by the overallocation of water rights andcontracts and by the role of waterexporters as the key drivers ofDelta export decisions. Waterallocation decisions which mustbe transparent-- must considerthe Public Trust and must not becontrolled by water exporters.Will an acceptable governanceapproach along these lines beagreed to before any decisionsare made related to future exportfacilities?In summary, scientifically

supportable and reasonable financial andgovernance solutions must be thoroughlyaddressed and agreed to prior to anydecision to go forward with a PeripheralCanal type of solution for the Delta.


20/44

19

REVERSE FLOWSThe powerful pumping plants in

the southern Delta have a major

detrimental effect on stream flow in theDelta, the San Joaquin River and onDelta smelt and other fish populations,including juvenile salmon. Duringperiods of low water flow and highwater export levels, the Delta pumpsactually reverse the flow of the SanJoaquin River, forcing it to flow southtoward the pumps instead of west towardSan Pablo Bay. The pumps also alter theoutflow of the Sacramento River, forcing

it south toward the pumps rather thanwest toward San Pablo Bay. These"reverse flows, diagrammed in Figure3, have numerous negative effects onboth resident and migratory fish.Reverse flows disrupt migration ofsalmon and steelhead, delaying theirpassage up or downstream, exposingthem to less favorable habitat conditions,and causing them to be destroyed by thepumps.32 Populations of resident species

like Delta smelt can be virtually wipedout as they move into the zone ofinfluence of the export pumps. Reverseflows also draw salty ocean water furtherinto the Delta, contributing to degradedwater quality and reducing the area ofhigh quality estuarine habitat for aquaticorganisms. According to US Fish andWildlife Service, reducing or at timeseliminating negative (reverse) flows inthe Old and Middle River branches of

the San Joaquin is an essential ingredientin preventing Delta smelt take at theCVP-SWP pumping facilities. Reducingexport pumping is the single mostimportant factor in reducing reverseflows.

32National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1997.Proposed Recovery Plan for the Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon, Aug. 1997. SW Regional office. II-11.http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/recweb.htm

Figure 3: Flows in the Delta

Source: Original Diagram from theSacramento Bee. Flowarrows added.

DELTA OUTFLOWSThe vast majority of the research

on the relationship between freshwaterflow and fish and wildlife populationabundance in the Bay Delta estuarypoints to a clear conclusion: freshwater

flow has a powerful, significant,consistent, and widespread positiveeffect on productivity of many fishspecies and their prey. In particular,flows through the Delta to San FranciscoBay (Delta outflows) are highlycorrelated to the abundance of numerousestuarine fish and other aquaticorganisms and strongly influence habitatand water quality conditions downstreamof the Delta.


21/44

20

Over time, annual Delta outflowshave been reduced on average by onehalf, 33 with associated declines in native

fish abundance. Export pumping fromthe Delta is a major cause of reducedoutflows, but not the only one.Diversions for CVP contractorsupstream of the Delta, combined withnon-project (that is, non-federal, non-state) diversions, account for asignificant portion of the reduction inoutflow. In fact, 31 per cent of upstreamwater is diverted annually beforereaching the Delta.34 In the 1990s, under

the threat of federal intervention,California increased the required outflowto the Bay, but not enough to restore theDelta ecosystem or prevent furtherdeclines.

Because the science underlyingthe outflow-abundance relationships isso strong, new requirements thatimprove outflow should be a foundationof any new management regime for theDelta. These requirements should be met

not only by Delta exporters; there arewater management practices throughoutthe Sacramento and San Joaquin Riverregions that can be implemented toreduce water waste, eliminateunreasonable uses of water, improvepublic trust resources, and protect thewatershed functions of rivers,floodplains and wetlands in the areas ofwater origin.

THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS toachieve this Strategic Goal are:

Support and defend the Delta exportrestrictions contained in the US Fishand Wildlife Service Biological

33CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program. 2008. Stage 2Implementation Draft. P. 21.http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/erp/reports_docs.asp34CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program. 2008. Stage 2Implementation Draft. P. 20.http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/erp/reports_docs.asp

Opinion for Delta smelt35 and theexport reductions called for in theNational Marine Fisheries Service

Biological Opinion on CVP andSWP operations.36 The guidelines ofthe Fish and Wildlife BiologicalOpinion require reduced pumping inorder to minimize reverse flows andthe resultant fish kills during times ofthe year when Delta Smelt arespawning and the young larvae andjuveniles are present. The guidelinesof the National Marine ServiceBiological Opinion reduce Delta

exports by 350,000 acre feet per yearin order to assist in preventingextinction of Chinook salmon andsteelhead.

In keeping with the PrecautionaryPrinciple, the Department of WaterResources and the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation should reduce Deltapumping immediately, monitor theresults, and feed that learning backinto the decision making process.

Using an approach similar to the oneCalifornia has adopted to reducecarbon emissions, the Governor andthe state legislature should set apolicy goal of reducing north-to-south water transfers through oraround the Delta by 20 percent by2020 and 50 percent by 2050.

The Department of Water Resourcesand the U.S. Bureau of Reclamationshould reassess and modify all long-

35U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008.Biological Opinion: Proposed Coordinated Operations of theCentral Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP)to the threatened delta smelt and its designated criticalhabitat. P. 279-285.http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/documents/SWP-CVP_OPs_BO_12-15_final_OCR.pdf.36National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region.June 4, 2009.Biological Opinion And Conference OpinionOn The Long-Term Operations Of The Central ValleyProject And State Water Project. Page 570.http://swr.ucsd.edu/ocap/NMFS_Biological_and_Conference_Opinion_on_the_Long-Term_Operations_of_the_CVP_and_SWP.pdf.


22/44

21

term water service contracts toreflect sustainable levels of exportthrough or around the Delta, to

reflect the restrictions imposed bythe recent Biological Opinions, andto incorporate independent scientificassessments of water supplyreliability.

The State Water Resources ControlBoard should revise the Bay-DeltaWater Quality Control Plan toinclude more protective Deltaoutflow requirements and adoptother measures necessary to meet the

nine scientifically designed targetsrecommended by The Bay Institute37for the Delta Vision process. Theserecommendations address:

Delta fish species abundance Habitat improvements Ecological processes (outflows) Fish kill limits Water quality

The State Board should issue a new

water rights decision requiring allinter-regional water projects (SWP,CVP, SFPUD, EBMUD) in the Bay-Delta watershed to contribute theirfair share to meeting Delta outflowrequirements based on theintersection of three key provisionsof the States Water Code and theState Constitution: the Public Trustdoctrine, the Constitutionalprohibitions against waste and

unreasonable uses of water

38

and theArea of Origin protections for theDelta and the headwaters regions ofthe state.

Before decisions are made by state orfederal agencies and before any bond

37The Bay Institute. 2008. Key Elements Of A StrategicPlan To Implement The Delta Vision. P 9-15.http://www.bay.org/KeyElements.pdf.38California Constitution.Article 10, Section 2.http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_10

monies are allocated for constructionof a Peripheral Canal or dualconveyance system, the questions

raised in this report must bethoroughly and publicly addressed.The Precautionary Principle must beapplied in this situation, andlegislative attempts to pre-approve aPeripheral Canal prior to this kind ofdetailed analysis includingNational Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) and CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA)analysis must be vigorously

opposed by the public andenvironmental organizations.

New institutional arrangements thatshift responsibility for water projectoperations from water suppliers andtheir contractors to an independentpublic trustee entity must bedeveloped and adopted by thelegislature and administration.Similarly, water project operationsmust be consistent with the master

plan for the Delta recommended bythe Delta Vision process, and likelyto be mandated by the legislature,and subject to continuing oversightby any new Delta governancecouncil.

All future federal and stateenvironmental impact reports relatedto the Delta should address a 2.5-million acre feet per year pumpinglimitation as one of the alternatives

to be considered, per NEPA andCEQA requirements.

Support litigation, such as theCalifornia Sportfishing ProtectionAlliance (CSPA) and CaliforniaWater Impact Networks (C-WIN)Seven Actions lawsuit, or similaractions, against DWR, USBR andSWRCB. This is in keeping with the


23/44

22

above recommendations for reducingexports and reverse flows.

Develop protections for thesubsistence fishing community in theBay Delta while cleanup efforts,particularly for mercurycontamination, are under way.

STRATEGIC GOAL # 3: RESTORE

INSTREAM FLOWS, VOLUMES

AND PATTERNS FOR AQUATIC

ECOSYSTEMS.

Healthy ecosystems require

healthy river flows. A healthy river flowmimics, as closely as possible, thenatural seasonal high and low flowpatterns of a particular river, includingperiodic flooding and dry conditions. Amore natural flow regime is able tosupport a variety of native plant, animaland fish species, and it also offers atime-tested recipe for river restorationand protection.

A reduction of instream flows

always results from building dams anddiverting water from streams.Particularly important from anecological sense is the loss of peak flowsthat maintain river-forming processessuch as channel maintenance and graveldistribution in rivers. In most cases, theamount of water released from storage orhydropower dams is so small that therivers below dams become graveyardsfor fish, creating stagnant pools, altering

water temperatures, degrading waterquality and preventing fish migration.For example, downstream of Friant Damon the San Joaquin River, the riverbedcompletely dries up each year for asixty-three mile stretch in FresnoCounty. The effect of a dam ondownstream ecosystems and species isalways negative.

Peter Moyle, a nationally knownUC Davis professor of conservationbiology, recently authored a study

warning that 20 of the 31 species ofCalifornia native salmon, steelhead andtrout will face extinction by the end ofthe century unless actions are taken toprovide adequate cool freshwater andhabitat.39

California law provides aframework to protect these resources.The California public trust doctrineprotects navigable streams and theirtributaries for a variety of uses including

fishing and habitat for fish. CaliforniaFish and Game Code Section 5937requires that the owner of any dam mustallow sufficient water to pass over,around, or through the dam to keep fishin good condition at all times. Goodcondition has been clearly defined inmodern ecological terms by Dr. Moylein legal cases and testimony before theState Water Board.40 Since 1959 theWater Code has expressly recognized

that the use of water for recreation andfor preservation and enhancement of fishand wildlife are beneficial uses of water(Water Code 1243 and 1257).

The federal and state agenciesresponsible for dam and wateroperations have belatedly recognized theimportance of natural stream flows andthe importance of determining the flowsneeded to protect beneficial uses. Thestate constitution, through the Public

Resources Code (PRC), directs the Fishand Game Department (F&G) to identify

39Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California,Davis. 2008. Salmon, Steelhead, and Trout in California. P.4.http://www.caltrout.org/SOS-Californias-Native-Fish-Crisis-Final-Report.pdf.40Moyle, Peter. Written Testimony before the State WaterResources Control Board. October 14, 2003. P. 2-3.http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/hearings/cachuma/.


24/44

23

streams throughout the state for whichminimum flow levels should beestablished in order to assure the

continued viability of stream-related fishand wildlife resources.41 The latest StateWater Plan (Bulletin 160-09) carriessimilar recommendations, while alsorecognizing the paucity of informationrelated to stream flows statewide.

As a result of a lawsuit by theCalifornia Coastkeeper Alliance, the

Fish and Game Department was requiredto provide the Water Board with flowsassessments to date, to create aprioritized list of streams orwatercourses for which they planned todo flow assessments over the nextseveral years, and to begin work onthose flow assessments. This re-starteda long-stalled but essential program.Progress by F&G on these requirementssince the 1989 mandate has been

minimal. In December 2008, F&Gsubmitted a list of 21 streams that havehad instream flow studies completedsince 1983; some of the data are knownto be outdated and unusable by the StateWater Board. In some cases, onlyminimum flows are prescribed.Significant rivers that contain at-risk

41 California Public Resources Code, Sections 10000-10005.http://law.justia.com/california/codes/prc/10000-10005.html.

salmonid species are largely absent fromthe list.

At a minimum, all rivers in the

state, including Delta waterways thatformerly supported or now support at-risk salmonid species should haveprescribed stream flows as well as themonitoring necessary to insurecompliance by water managementoperators. The challenge for rivermanagement in California is to betterbalance human water demands with thewater needs of rivers themselves.42 TheAnadromous Fish Restoration Program,

which is charged with the doubling offish populations in Central Valley rivers,has partially accomplished this goal; therivers that remain to be studied includethe Cottonwood, Calaveras, Tuolumne,Yuba and San Joaquin.

The California HydropowerReform Coalition lists 125 hydropowerprojects that are to be relicensed over thenext 15 years. The relicensing processprovides the opportunity to establish

improved stream flows and similar riverimprovements. That process, while slowmoving, has yielded benefits for riversand fish and should be supported by thepublic.

Assembly Bill 2121(2004)43directed the State Water Board to adoptguidelines for maintaining instreamflows for certain Northern Californiacoastal streams. That effort is nowunderway, and similar legislation is

needed for other California streams withat-risk salmonid species.

Perhaps the most promisingprospect for restoring a significant riverwith adequate stream flows is the SanJoaquin River. Once an abundant

42 Postel, Sandra. Richter, Brian. 2003. Riversfor Life. Island Press. P 4.http://islandpress.org/bookstore/details.php?sku=1-55963-444-843 Assembly Bill 2121. North Coast Stream Flows. 2004.


25/44

24

salmon river and major tributary to theDelta, the salmon are gone, and thediminished river flow is polluted with

agricultural return water, which flowsinto the Delta. Federal legislation toprovide for the restoration of the SanJoaquin River, spearheaded by theNatural Resources Defense Council, hasrecently been approved by Congress.Restoration of the San Joaquin will be amajor step toward restoration of theDelta.

THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS to

achieve this Strategic Goal are:Develop legislation similar to AB

2121 (2004) which would direct andfund the State Water Board and F&Gto develop, implement and monitorinstream flows for California riversthat contain at-risk salmonid species.

In the absence of legislation, theState Water Board should determinethe priorities for statewide instreamflow studies and the F&G

Department should conduct thosestudies. At a minimum, the firstpriority list for the upcoming yearsshould include all major rivers thatcontain at-risk species.

In keeping with the BeneficiaryPays principle, the costs forconducting, implementing, andmonitoring the prescribed streamflows should be financed by theentities receiving water diversions

from a specific river, since they arethe beneficiaries of the stored water.

Where multiple competing beneficialuses exist in a watershed underconsideration for water permitmodification, higher priority shouldbe assigned to instream beneficialuses where threatened or endangeredspecies are listed, until such time as

recovery efforts have successfullydown-listed or delisted the species.

Support the implementation of theSan Joaquin River RestorationSettlement Act.

Support local and regionalorganizations that are negotiatingimproved stream flows as part of theFERC or other relicencing orpermitting processes.

STRATEGIC GOAL # 4: PROVIDE

FISH PASSAGE ABOVE AND

BELOW DAMS FOR ALL AT-RISK

SALMONID SPECIES.

Dams have made California awell-watered paradise for most of itshuman inhabitants. Dams are alsokillers of river habitats. AlthoughCalifornias vast system of waterstorage, hydropower and flood controldams has provided enormous economicbenefits, it is not without downsides.Dams have been a major factor - in

many cases the major factor - in thedecline and extinction of numerous fishspecies, especially anadromous fishesthat migrate to and from the ocean andmust have access to the more favorableupper reaches of rivers to spawn and rearthe next generation.44 Every salmon andsteelhead run in Central Valley rivers iseither extinct, endangered, or in declinedue to the overall habitat destruction anddegradation caused by dams.45

44National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region.June 4, 2009.Biological Opinion And Conference OpinionOn The Long-Term Operations Of The Central ValleyProject And State Water Project. Page 660.http://swr.ucsd.edu/ocap/NMFS_Biological_and_Conference_Opinion_on_the_Long-Term_Operations_of_the_CVP_and_SWP.pdf.45Friends of the River. 1999. Rivers Reborn: RemovingDams and Restoring Rivers. P 4-16.http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/site/DocServer/RiversReborn.pdf?docID=224&AddInterest=1004 .


26/44

25

The most serious fishery problemcaused by major dams is the blockage ofmigratory fish passage. Over 95 percent

of the historic salmon and steelheadspawning habitat in Central Valley riversystems has been eliminated by theconstruction of large dams on everymajor river. Fish passage was not aserious consideration in the early part ofthe last century when most of the majordams were built; there were noEndangered Species Act or NationalEnvironmental Policy Act considerationsat the time. California Fish and Game

Code Section 5937, which mandates thatdam operators keep fish in goodcondition below dams has largely beenignored outside the Mono Basin. Theconstruction of Friant Dam on the SanJoaquin River resulted in the extinctionof the largest spring-run chinook

population in the state. The damblocked upstream spawning grounds thatwere known to be the best of the Central

Valley rivers. Figure 4 shows the long-term downward trend for Chinooksalmon in the Central Valley.

There are numerous solutionsavailable that can provide fish passagearound dams. They include constructionof fish ladders or upstream fish channels,fish elevators, trap and truck operations,downstream bypasses, removal ofsmaller fish barriers, and dam removal.All of these techniques have been used

at multiple locations with varyingsuccess rates. Some of the larger damson the Columbia River system have beenoperating fish ladders for many years.

Figure 4: Central Valley Chinook Salmon Population

CHINOOK SALMON COUNTS ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

YEAR

COUNTS

WINTER RUN SPRING RUN

Source: California Fish & Game Department46

46California Department of Fish & Game, Native Anadromous Fish & Watershed Branch. GRANDTAB Data Sets.http://www.calfish.org/IndependentDatasets/CDFGFisheriesBranch/tabid/157/Default.aspx


27/44

26

While the costs of many of the

techniques are substantial, theeconomics of industries and recreationalactivities that depend on healthy riversand fish stocks can justify theinvestment. The appropriate comparisonby which to measure such costs is thesum of agricultural, industrial andmunicipal benefits that accrue via thediversion of tens of millions of acre feetof water annually. Tourism andrecreation is now Californias largest

industry at more than $96 billionannually, and river recreation is a largepart of that industry. Recreational fishinggenerates $1.5 billion annually in retailsales and provides up to 27,000 jobs.47

Removal of dams is an obvioussolution for fish passage and it hasapplicability due to the age and obsoletenature of some California dams. Damremoval also has a hugely significantbenefit of restoring the natural ability of

rivers to transport gravel, sediment, andnutrients and to restore the natural flowand water temperature of formerlydammed rivers. The prospect ofremoving four dams on the KlamathRiver is a case in point; dam removalwill restore approximately 300 miles offavorable habitat for salmonids and hasturned out to be the most economicalalternative for the Klamath dam owners.Additionally, removal of dams on the

Klamath will restore an historic resourceand ancestral land for the Karuk Tribe.Removal of dysfunctional dams onseveral smaller coastal streams likewisewill provide historic spawning and

47Restore the Delta. April 7, 2009. Press Release.http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs062/1102037578231/archive/1102546423830.html .

rearing habitat above them (e.g., Matilija

and Rindge Dams).An important aspect of fish

passage above dams is the benefits toNative American Tribes in gainingaccess to historic cultural resources andancestral lands. These would include:the Winnemen Wintu on the UpperSacramento, McCloud and Pit Rivers;the Karuk Tribe on the Klamath; and theCalifornia Valley Miwok and Maidu onthe American and Feather Rivers.


Support and defend the NationalMarine Fisheries Service BiologicalOpinion on CVP and SWPoperations that recommends fish

passage pilot program plans andanalysis for dams on the Sacramento,American and Stanislaus rivers.48

48National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region.June 4, 2009.Biological Opinion And Conference OpinionOn The Long-Term Operations Of The Central ValleyProject And State Water Project. Page 660.http://swr.ucsd.edu/ocap/NMFS_Biological_and_Conference_Opinion_on_the_Long-Term_Operations_of_the_CVP_and_SWP.pdf


28/44

27

The State Water Board should directthe controlling agency of eachCentral Valley rim dam to study thefeasibility of fish passage for eachdam that blocks the passage of listedsalmonid species, similar to theNMFS Biological Opinion. Inkeeping with the fundingrecommendations of this report (SeeStrategic Goal #10) the costs shouldbe borne by the dam operators sincethey are the main beneficiaries.

Support the current potential plans toremove four dams on the KlamathRiver.

Support the removal of other damsthat block the passage of at-riskspecies and which have outlivedtheir usefulness. This list includes atleast the Englebright, Daguerre,Rindge, Matilija, and San Clementedams.

STRATEGIC GOAL # 5: RETAIN

COLD WATER FOR FISH IN

RESERVOIRS FOR LATER

DOWNSTREAM RELEASE.

Salmon, steelhead and trout needcold water for their existence. AsCalifornia has grown in size, the damsthat have been built on virtually everymajor river have significantly changedboth upstream and downstream riverflows; high downstream watertemperatures are one of the damaging

results. Temperatures of 57-67 degreesFahrenheit (F) are typically ideal forupstream fish migration and 42-56degrees (F) are ideal for spawning.Water temperatures over 70 degrees (F)can be lethal to anadromous fish but arecommon on major rivers in the summer.

Some fish populations have beenable to adapt and carry on spawning andrearing below these major barriers,

though in much smaller numbers thanpreviously. Because farms need themost water in the summer, water behind

reservoirs is low by the fall when manyof the remaining populations ofmigrating fish return to the rivers. Atthat point the lack of cold water is aclear threat to their survival. Many ofthese fish species are now listed underthe federal Endangered Species Act(ESA), and maintaining watertemperatures suitable for survival hasbecome a critical part of the actionsrequired under the ESA.

State and federal agencies knowwhat water levels are necessary toprovide for fish in the fall. They shoulduse the Precautionary Principle whenbalancing water deliveries for the year,allowing releases of water, but retainingenough to provide adequate water tosupport migrating, spawning and rearingfish. Absent this equity, two thirds ofCalifornias salmonid are doomed toextinction by the end of this century

Because of continued declines inthe population of winter run Chinooksalmon on the Sacramento River (Figure4), the federal agencies listed them asendangered in 1990. Following therelease of the recovery plan a year later,mandatory recovery actions began. Oneof these was to reserve water in Shastareservoir for release later in the year tosupport the returning fish. Atemperature curtain was installed on the

dam in 1996 to allow better control ofthe temperature of released water. USFish and Wildlife Service required waterof 67 degrees (F) or lower to bemaintained downstream to Red Bluff toprovide for holding and spawninghabitat. Similar requirements are neededon other main river systems.


29/44

28


Support and defend the NMFSBiological Opinionrecommendations49 for cold waterreleases on the Sacramento,American, and Stanislaus rivers.

Mandate through regulations andlegislation the retention of sufficientwater in other major reservoirs tosupport fish populations in riversbelow dams.

STRATEGIC GOAL # 6:INTEGRATE FLOODPLAINS WITHRIVERS AND STREAMS.

Floodplains benefit the people ofCalifornia in numerous ways.Floodplains are extremely productiveecosystems that support high levels ofbiodiversity and provide valuableecosystem services.50 Studies haveshown that healthy floodplains can havean extremely high monetary value due tothese ecosystem services, which includeflood attenuation, fisheries habitat,groundwater recharge, water filtrationand recreation. However, to functionproperly, floodplains must, by definition,periodically flood.

The extent of functionalfloodplains in California has beendramatically reduced from historicalconditions because levees, dams, floodcontrol projects and development have

reduced or eliminated connectivitybetween rivers and floodplains. To

49National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region.June 4, 2009.Biological Opinion And Conference OpinionOn The Long-Term Operations Of The Central ValleyProject And State Water Project. Pages 590-620.http://swr.ucsd.edu/ocap/NMFS_Biological_and_Conference_Opinion_on_the_Long-Term_Operations_of_the_CVP_and_SWP.pdf.50Postel, Sandra. Richter, Brian. 2003. Rivers for Life.Island Press. P 20-21.http://islandpress.org/bookstore/details.php?sku=1-55963-444-8.

reverse these losses, numerous agenciesand organizations have spent significantresources to restore floodplains while

simultaneously minimizing future floodrisk.

The way water moves throughfloodplains has been extensivelymodified by poorly planned landdevelopment and by the construction oflevees, concrete channels and dams.This unfortunate combination has causedwidespread decreases in water quality,loss of rivers and floodplains and estuaryspecies; in many places flood risks have

been severely increased. We havecreated a false sense of security andencouraged high-risk floodplaindevelopment that is jeopardizing thesustainability of many communities,economies and ecosystems. Low-

Figure 5

During an experiment comparing the growth ofjuvenile Chinook in floodplain and river habitats ofthe Cosumnes River, fish reared in the floodplain

(right) grew faster than those reared in the river(left). T.R. Sommer et al. 2001.

Photo by Jeff Opperman; from Cosumnes Riverfield study by Carson Jeffres


30/44

29

income and communities of color areparticularly at risk, as they represent adisproportionate share or residents in

floodplains. The impacts on thesecommunities are magnified becausemany are not homeowners, so receivelimited emergency or long-termassistance when their homes areflooded.

Levees disconnect rivers fromtheir floodplains and prevent naturalflooding. Interconnectedness andperiodic floods are an essential part ofinsuring a healthy watershed system.

Floodplains store floodwaters thatrecharge groundwater supplies, maintainproper instream flows, prevent bed-bankscour, are a source of organic carbon,and support a healthy population ofaquatic species essential to bothecosystems and our economy. (SeeFigure 5.51) Healthy floodplainstypically improve water quality byproviding natural purification in theiradjacent or abutting wetlands.

Additionally, the periodic floodingsupplies floodplains with rich nutrientsimportant to maintain productiveagriculture lands. Rivers and floodplainsmust be connected where practical andallowed to interact in order to providethese valuable ecosystem and economicbenefits.

With climate change, we canexpect to have less snowpack, quickerspring snow melts and increased flood

pressures. Establishing naturalfloodplains connected with our riversand avoiding development in floodplainswill become more critical to communitysustainability in the future.

51Sommer T.R., Nobriga M. L., Harrell B., Batham W.,Kimmerer W. J. 2001. Floodplain rearing of juvenile chinooksalmon: evidence of enhanced growth and survival. CanadianJournal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. P. 325-333.http://iep.water.ca.gov/AES/Sommer_et_al_2001.pdf

THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONSto achieve this Strategic Goal are:

Where possible, remove or at leastset levees back from riverbanks toallow for floodwaters to expandinto the floodplain.

Where it is not possible to removelevees, they should at least bevegetated with native riparianvegetation to provide themaximum achievable ecosystemsfunctions.

Make the purchase of floodplainsor flowage easements a top priorityfor flood control agencies andprevent new levees from beingconstructed and development infloodplains.

Ensure that low-incomecommunities impacted byfloodplain restoration are involvedin the development of restorationplans, and that any impacts ofrestoration are fully mitigated.

STRATEGIC GOAL # 7: ELIMINATE

CVP AND SWP WATER

DELIVERIES TO IRRIGATE THE

MOST DRAINAGE-IMPAIRED

LANDS IN THE WESTERN SAN

JOAQUIN VALLEY (WSJV),IMPROVE DRAINAGE

MANAGEMENT ON OTHER LANDS,

AND USE THE SAVED WATER FOR

PROTECTION OF ENDANGEREDDELTA SPECIES AND HABITATS.

Since the late 1960s and late1970s, the State Water Project andCentral Valley Project have beensupplying water to approximately 1.3million acres of drainage-impaired landon the west side of the San JoaquinValley; we believe this is a clearviolation of the State Constitutionsprohibition against unreasonable use of


31/44

30

the states water. Eliminating orreducing the irrigation of this land wouldsave up to 3.9 million acre feet of water

annually, in addition to the 4.69 to 13million acre feet in overall urban andagricultural efficiency savings discussedunder Goal #1.52

The western San Joaquin Valleyis an ancient ocean bed. As the ancientbay muds and wetlands of the time driedup, minerals, metals and saltsconcentrated in the soils. Selenium,boron, molybdenum, mercury, arsenicand various other salts and minerals are

highly concentrated in the soils of theDelta-Mendota Service Area and the SanLuis Units of the CVP, as well as in theKern and Tulare basins served by theSWP. Descriptions of these soils arepresented in the 1990 joint federal andstate report known as The RainbowReport.53

Irrigation of this land with waterfrom the Delta adds enormous amountsof salts to the soils in the western San

Joaquin Valley. The area receives anaverage of 4,000 tons of salts daily fromirrigation water (the equivalent of 40railroad cars); yet only 1,700 tons ofsalts leave the basin daily in runoff to theSan Joaquin River. Plants take upirrigation water throughevapotranspiration, leaving salt behindin the soil. To continue farming, up to0.5 acre foot of water per acre must beadded to the land to leach salts and

boron out of the root zone in a processcalled pre-irrigation. This process alsomobilizes selenium, molybdenum,

52Pacific Institute. 2008. More with Less: AgriculturalWater Conservation and Efficiency in California. P.7.

http://www.pacinst.org/reports/more_with_less_delta/index.htm.53U.S. Department of the Interior, California ResourcesAgency. September 1990. A Management Plan forAgricultural Subsurface Drainage and Related Problems onthe Westside San Joaquin Valley. P. 2-3.http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/docs/RainbowReportIntro.pdf

arsenic and other toxins that naturallyoccur in the soil. This pre-irrigationcauses downward and lateral percolation

of salty water toward open waterwayslike wetlands, the San Joaquin River,and its tributaries. The percolating wateralso collects above subsurface claybarriers, which underlie the western SanJoaquin Valley, causing the water tableto rise. Left unmanaged, salty waterreaches the root zone and the land turnsalkali. Once this happens, the land is nolonger suitable for farming. In someareas of the valley, the clay barrier does

not exist and contaminated drainagewater percolates into aquifers thatprovide drinking water to many valleyresidents.

The San Luis Act of 1960requires a drain system as a condition ofapproval of the San Luis Unit CVPcontracts, which includes the WestlandsWater District. Initially, the State ofCalifornia and the Bureau ofReclamation planned to build a San Luis

Master Drain to the Bay-Delta fromthese lands, but construction of the drainto the Delta was stopped after 93 mileswere completed to the KestersonReservoir near Los Banos. The USGeological Survey recently estimatedthat even if the San Luis Drain werecompleted, irrigation of the San LuisUnit of the CVP were halted, and 42,500pounds of selenium a year weredischarged into the Bay Delta, it would

take 65 to 300 years to eliminate theselenium already built up in valleygroundwater.54

Farmers and water districtsthroughout the Western San Joaquin

54Presser, Theresa S. and Samuel N. Luoma. 2007.Forecasting selenium discharges to the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary: Ecological effects of a proposed San LuisDrain Extension.The US Geological Survey,ProfessionalPaper 1646. Abstract P. 1.http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1646/

Documents

California Water Solutions Now