|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
MANAGING
CALIFORNIA
'S NATURAL
RESOURCES
Water
more precious as state grows
Strong
feelings over dams: Not everyone agrees with governor that new
reservoirs are best way to prepare for dry years -- some experts wonder
if they'll even be needed
(04-14) 04:00 PDT
Maxwell, Colusa County -- From a ridge overlooking bucolic Antelope Valley, rancher Bob
Alvernaz can almost make out the banks of the Sacramento River about 15
miles to the east.
Somewhere in the
distance, he said, the state wants to build a canal and pumping system
to bring the river water across the rice fields and up the hills to the
valley, creating
Although the Sites Dam
project has been in the planning stage for years, it is still hard for
the 76-year-old cattleman and rice farmer to visualize the whole length
of the valley -- including his 5,000-acre ranch -- under nearly 2
million acre-feet of water.
And even after one of the
driest winters on record, he doesn't see the sense of it.
"The water won't be
for us," he said. "It will be too expensive. It's for the
cities down south.
"And they say it
will generate power, too -- but what about all the power it takes to get
the water up here? There's got to be more sensible places to build more
storage."
His concerns about the
$2.4 billion dam project cut to the heart of a bigger debate among water
resources experts and elected officials over the best way for
Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger has been pushing a $4 billion bond measure he wants to
put before voters next year that would help fund the Sites project, as
well as one other reservoir in the Central Valley -- a plan that U.S.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein endorsed just last week.
But a number of water
resources experts say water demand is not likely to increase
substantially, even with the population growth expected by 2030. They
say conservation programs, improvements in residential design and
changes in the economics of farming will likely offset increased demand
from a larger population.
Both sides agree that
climate changes are likely to produce smaller snowpacks and more
flooding in the future, but there is no agreement on how best to prepare
for those changes -- nor even if adding more storage facilities to
capture the runoff is the best approach.
"I think spending
money on new storage is grossly premature," said Peter Gleick,
president of the Pacific Institute, an Oakland-based think tank that
specializes in water and environmental issues. "There are other
options that are faster, cheaper and more environmentally sound. I think
that's supported by the state's own assessments."
Jay Lund, a professor of
civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis, said that during the
next 20 years, urban users are expected to continue to be more efficient
even as cities continue to grow. He said more farmland will be converted
to housing -- which will reduce water use as the state imports more
foods that can be grown cheaper elsewhere.
Under such a scenario,
some said, making good choices for water-project investments will be
critical.
"In order to make
decisions on billions of dollars of investments, we need to have a clear
understanding of all the costs and benefits and all the options. I've
not seen that study yet," said Bob Wilkinson, head of the water
policy program at UC Santa Barbara.
"As we allocate
scarce resources to meet our needs, what are the best investments?"
he asked. "Surface storage may or may not be there. But clearly,
efficiency strategies and recycling are very attractive from an economic
standpoint, and from a reliability standpoint, too."
Lester Snow, director of
the state's Department of Water Resources, disagreed that conservation
alone could sustain state through multiple drought years. He said the
governor also supports alternative strategies -- but new reservoirs must
be part of the plan.
"Our future droughts
are going to be worse, they are going to be longer and deeper, and our
flood peaks are going to be higher," he said. "People say,
'Let's just conserve more.' But conserving this year will not help you
in the eighth year of a drought, if you haven't stored the water
somewhere.
"And conserving
water will not reduce the height of a flood peak. That's why we've put
this on the table -- to deal with these kinds of uncertainties."
Snow said that state
forecasts show water demand will outpace supply by at least 2 million
acre feet by 2030 -- which requires the state to find more supply.
He pointed out that the
governor is not taking a reservoir-only approach. Snow said the state is
spending millions of dollars a year on conservation and noted that
Schwarzenegger last year supported passage of Proposition 84, which
provides $5.4 billion in bond money for a variety of water programs --
including conservation.
State Sen. Dave Cogdill,
R-Modesto, author of the legislation that if approved would put the dam
bond measure on the ballot, said reservoirs have traditionally served as
the best protection against drought.
"To me, it's always
been a common-sense issue," he said. "I don't claim to be a
hydrologist or water expert, but I have lived in this state for 56 years
and I know what happens during dry years. You can conserve all the water
you want, but during certain dry years, if you don't have enough water
in reservoirs, we're going to have real problems."
The Sites project has
been in the planning process since the early 1990s and would likely be
the first to be built if voters approve the bond measure. The other
project, called Temperance Flat, would be located on the
Cogdill and Snow pointed
out that both projects will require funding partnerships with other
agencies before work could begin. They also noted that feasibility
studies have not been completed, which could also disqualify either
proposal.
The biggest issue with
the Sites project is the amount of energy required to pump the water
into the reservoir.
Snow said that the state
is still looking at different ways of getting the water to the valley
and ways of generating power by releasing water from the dam during peak
usage periods to offset storage costs.
Gleick argued that while
there may be some good reasons for the Sites reservoir, power generation
is not one of them. "This reservoir will use more energy than it
produces -- that's a fact," he said. "That means that it's
going to be a producer of greenhouse gases because we will be using
fossil fuels to run the pumps."
Cogdill's bill, SB59, is
set to have its first hearing before a Senate committee later this
month. If approved by both houses and signed into law, the bond measure
would go before voters in the November 2008 election.
E-mail Tom Chorneau at
tchorneau@sfchronicle.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
Source:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/14/BAGT9P8QB51.DTL