Resource needs to
be managed and surface water storage added
Bob
Krauter
Capital Press
California Editor
July 28, 2006
If opinions
about how to best manage water in California were measured in acre feet,
they would fill Shasta Lake to overflowing.
Over the years, water thinkers have advocated building more dams. Some want
to tear them down. Others want more on-farm conservation and to divert more
water from farms to cities and the environment. Some want to establish a
free market for farm water - to buy and sell this liquid asset. Some talk of
dire shortages, while others take a less alarmist tone.
The latest opinions, expressed in two studies, address some of the distorted
views that exist about managing California's water future.
One report by the state Department of Water Resources, answers the question:
What is the cost of draining Hetch Hetchy Reservoir? The other report, by
the Public Policy Institute of California, sounds the alarm about future
water shortages as the state's population grows inward into hot, dry inland
areas. It concludes Californians' zeal for lush green lawns could spell
disaster.
It may seem incomprehensible to many why groups like Restore Hetch Hetchy
want to tear down O'Shaugnessy Dam and drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, the
source of 85 percent of the Bay Area's water supply. Their aim is to
continue the quest of John Muir and keep the Hetch Hetchy Valley a la
natural. They argue that water is available elsewhere to satisfy the demands
of San Franciscans.
Fortunately, DWR number crunchers concluded that the costs to dismantle
O'Shaugnessy Dam and drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir could range from $3
billion to $10 billion, require massive investments in new water and power
infrastructure for Northern California and put the Bay Area's water and
power reliability at risk.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein chimed in after the study's release, and stated,
"The California Department of Water Resources report confirms that
dismantling O'Shaugnessy Dam and draining the Hetch Hetchy reservoir are
unwarranted and the cost is indefensible, particularly given the tremendous
infrastructure needs facing our state.... I hope this report lays to rest
any further consideration at the state and federal level of dismantling
Hetch Hetchy -a truly remarkable system which provides exceptionally
high-quality, reliable water to 2.4 million residents in the San Francisco
Bay area."
It is doubtful Feinstein's wish for the issue to die will come to pass.
Environmental advocates will likely keep banging the drum to tear down dams
even as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pushes his aggressive agenda
to rebuild the state's infrastructure of levees that failed the test in last
winter's heavy rains and flooding.
The fact is California has a serious water management problem. Yes, levees
need to be fortified to contain potentially damaging floods, but as the
state's late July heat wave illustrates, California can be a dry, arid
place.
The Public Policy Institute of California study picks up on that fact and
sounds the alarm bell that the rush of new residents into inland areas of
the state will accelerate outdoor urban water use, especially if there is a
proliferation of single-family homes compared to multi-family homes. The
institute projects that at least half of the 11 million additional residents
expected in California by 2025 will live in inland locales.
"Do the math," said PPIC economist Ellen Hanak, co-author of the
study. "We're facing the prospect of many more people, with more lawns
and gardens, in the state's hottest, driest regions - that adds up to a lot
of water."
Hanak intimates - the news release touting the study even uses the words
"sucking sound" to describe the effect of urban lawn water use -
that inland residents are water wasters. Her suggestion? Greater density of
multi-family housing and replacing lawns with less-thirsty plants and other
landscaping.
Discouraging people who want to live in single-family homes with lush yards
is like urging California cotton and rice farmers to cultivate less
water-intensive crops.
Changing land-use patterns or encouraging more water efficient agriculture
are admirable goals. But green lawns and farmers are not the water hogs in
California's water future.
It is discouraging that more studies don't focus on the real crisis facing
the state: Developing additional water storage to capture more runoff.
Total consumption of water in the state for human uses amounts to about 43
million acre feet, a fifth of the roughly 200 million acre feet that
traverses through rivers and streams.
Each wet winter than comes along, significant water volume can flow
unimpeded to the Pacific Ocean. During the peak of flows on the Sacramento
River last winter, more than 1 million acre feet of water each week flowed
to the ocean.
The demand for water will grow as the state's population rises. And, no
doubt, efforts will continue to tear down dams, drain reservoirs and promote
convoluted studies on what we should do to avert a future water crisis.
Lush lawns, healthy fish populations, swimming pools and production of
high-quality, affordable food are all be possible if water is managed for
the future. Each wet winter that passes without additional storage
represents an opportunity wasted.
There's more than enough water - for urban and rural dwellers, food
production, recreation and the environment - if it is managed wisely.
Bob Krauter is the Capital Press California editor based in Sacramento.
Reach him via e-mail at bkrauter@capitalpress.com.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
