Running Water

Barry Nelson, the director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Western Water Project, writes in this essay in the San Diego Union-Tribune, that ” a combination of water-use efficiency, water recycling, improved groundwater management and advanced urban runoff management” constitute a vast “virtual river,” our last untapped water source in California.

California’s future depends on another feat no less astounding than the dam-building projects of yore. Making the most of the virtual river will require a whole new mindset. It will require recognition that every water drop saved – whether by conservation, recycling or groundwater and storm water management – counts as water supply. Those drops add up to more than 7 million acre-feet of water a year. That is more than has ever been exported from the Delta – the largest single source of water in the state. It is larger than the American, the Merced and the San Joaquin rivers combined. Environmentalists and urban water agencies agree that no other future source comes close to the virtual river.

via Aquafornia

Paul Rogers has written an article about the District 2 race for today’s Mercury.

The Sacramento Bee (probably my all-time favorite newspaper name) has run a couple articles lately about rainwater harvesting. Columnist Dan Weintraub is the latest to weigh in on the subject. The previous article is here.

Rainwater harvesting, like greywater systems, is the kind of conservation that cities have to encourage through zoning laws. Big, expensive projects like advanced water recycling plants, certainly have their place, and, of course, can be built by big agencies with big ribbon-cutting ceremonies. But individual scale recycling is the more powerful solution, not least because of the large-scale change in attitudes and practices it would require.

Assemblymember Paul Krekorian, D-Burbank, is currently carrying AB 2153, which would require new development to mitigate new water use.

Krekorian’s measure would require developers to prove their projects have no net gain in water use or pay into a fund to finance conservation projects elsewhere, such as fixing leaky pipes, cleaning up groundwater and recycling.

…

The measure contains some exemptions: Projects that replace existing building would be exempt if they use less water. Affordable housing would not be subject to the law.

Meanwhile, the bill requires that at least 40 percent builder-financed conservation would have to be achieved in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Needless to say, builders and developers are against it.

“Accounting for every drop of water goes too far,” said Assemblyman Doug La Malfa, R-Willows, who worries that making developers responsible for even more conservation will “be used as an excuse” to abandon planning for new reservoirs for the entire state.

Los Angeles has already announced that it plans to accommodate future population growth with aggressive conservation and recycling programs.

We must do the same.

ETA: In case you missed it, here is an excellent half-hour video on water recycling.

The SF Chronicle has an article about the success of the Butte Creek salmon run, near Chico.

The number of spawning fish returning from the ocean to Butte Creek increased 10 percent from 2006 to 2007, Harthorn said. By the look of things, he said, even more fish are returning this year.

But the most dramatic resurgence occurred over the past 10 years, when an average of almost 10,000 salmon a year swam back up the creek, according to Harthorn, who co-founded Friends of Butte Creek in 1999 after years battling farming interests and Pacific Gas and Electric over its DeSabla-Centerville plant.

It is a minor miracle that there are any salmon at all wriggling their way up Butte Creek, given that only 14 fish returned to spawn in 1987.

The dismal return outraged environmentalists and prompted a desperate effort to save the fish. About $30 million was spent by the state on a variety of projects over the years, including the removal of six small dams, the building of fish ladders and the insertion of numerous screens to keep salmon out of water diversion pipes.

…

The construction of Shasta Dam on the Sacramento, Friant Dam on the San Joaquin, Folsom Dam on the American and Oroville Dam on the Feather River over the past century cut off huge sections of river, wiping out much of the spring run.

Numerous smaller dams were built on the various creeks that fed the rivers. Diversions of freshwater to cities and farms, pumping operations and exposure to pollutants all contributed to the reduction of the once-mighty salmon runs.

Fisheries experts and environmentalists throughout the Sacramento River system would like to duplicate the restoration work done on Butte Creek, but finding the money and navigating through the bureaucracy is always a problem, especially with so many competing interests, like PG&E and the various water contractors.

There has been limited success removing migration obstacles on smaller tributaries, but there is very little hope that any of the big dams will ever be removed and bypassing them would cost a fortune, according to state fisheries experts.

While it’s heartening that nature can overcome such huge odds, less so is the vanishing possibility that it will get a chance to do so.

I haven’t experienced SCVWD budget workshops before, but the ones this week are, by the Board’s report, much more detailed than in the past. So detailed, in fact, that three extra days this past week were not enough to cover everything. Yesterday afternoon, the Board decided to postpone accepting the draft budget and setting the groundwater charges until a special meeting on 9 June in the afternoon, starting at 1:30 pm. This puts San Jose Water Company at least nine days behind in setting its own water rates, since investor-owned utilities must file their proposed charges with the Public Utilities Commission 30 days in advance, and 1 July was the deadline that they had been working with.

The Board did take several cost-cutting actions in what they’ve done so far. They’ve directed staff to cut requested overtime by 50%, to cut the $5.2 million requested for temporary staff by $1 million, and accepted staff-proposed reductions in requests for consultants by $3.8 million out of $42 million, with the instructions to look for further savings, especially in use of consultants in operations, during the year. They’ve reduced the amount requested for travel, as I posted about before, and given general direction to streamline the hiring process and forego the use of temporary staff in what should be permanent positions.

The Board has also taken action lately that has added about $1 million to the proposed budget: $280,000 for the boat inspection program and $825,000 for early implementation of the FAHCE agreement.

In general, I’ve noticed that it’s been easier for the Board to ask for reductions in areas that involve smaller amounts of money. The requested overtime budget was $2.4 million, and Director Estremera quickly made a successful motion to cut that in half. The requested budget for consultants used in operations, however, is $17 million. Director Kwok proposed cutting that in half, based on both a philosophical disagreement with using consultants for operations, as well as on the fact that the District has only so far spent $8 million out of the $20 million it budgeted for operations consultants last year. The rest of the Board, however, was reluctant to go along with this, and ended up accepting staff’s suggestion for slightly less than a 10% reduction in the whole consultant budget.

The next meeting is after the election, but I’ll be there, no matter what happens 3 June.

The Nevada Appeal (I love newspaper names) is running a series of articles on invasive mussels, in particular, their threat to Lake Tahoe. The first article is here. (From Aquafornia.)

The SCVWD Board discussed the issue for two hours yesterday (as reported here in the Merc) and then finally voted unanimously to pay half of the cost of the boat inspection program, matching the County’s contribution. That share is $280,000, not $200,000, as I erroneously posted before. I was again impressed by Director Estremera’s eloquent argument for the position that, while a strict reading of the contract between the County and the District could put the entire onus for the program on the County, the District owed it to the residents of Santa Clara County to take an equal role.

I am honored to have received the editorial endorsement of the San Jose Mercury News.

After having read Paul Rogers’ article in yesterday’s Mercury about raises to the District Counsel and Clerk of the Board, Assemblymember Ira Ruskin pulled AB2122, the amended District Act.

Saying he no longer wanted “to be associated with the board” of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, state Assemblyman Ira Ruskin on Wednesday pulled a bill aimed at changing the way the district elects its board members.

Ruskin, D-Los Altos, said he was disappointed by the board’s unanimous vote Tuesday to boost the salaries of top staffers as board members voiced their opposition to placing a measure on the November ballot subjecting them to term limits.
…
Ruskin said Wednesday he still thought seven members was an “ideal number,” but decided to withdraw his bill because he felt the board was being insensitive by raising salaries during tough economic times, in addition to “prejudging” the term-limit issue.

And, while it really does pale in comparison to that news, I’m proud that Scott Herhold has endorsed me.

Best bet: Foss. With a background in science and a commitment to curbing excessive spending, the Willow Glen resident offers the best chance for badly needed change at the Golden Spigot.

This morning, taking advantage of the day off from the SCVWD budget discussion, I volunteered at the Guadalupe River Park & Gardens Water Wizard Festival. What a great event! Three hundred local third-grade students (chosen by lot from over 1000 who applied) came for a morning of educational activities about watersheds, water quality and wildlife.

It was pretty windy, and we lost a couple awnings, but otherwise, it was a beautiful day to be outside.

After the presentations, the kids ate their lunches and enjoyed a wonderful performance by Zun Zun a Santa Cruz-based musical duo who perform more than 30 instruments between them. The performance was sponsored by Watershed Watch, who is also bringing them to local schools for assemblies. I’m going to talk to my kids’ school to see if we can have a show; it was very well-done

Here are the kids doing the high tide-low tide limbo.