WesternWaterBlog

Schwarzenegger signs water conservation bill in San Jose

By Paul Rogers - progers@mercurynews.com

SAN JOSE, CA - NOVEMBER 10: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signs With willow trees, migrating geese and local politicians as his backdrop, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday visited San Jose to sign a new water conservation law that aims to reduce urban use 20 percent statewide by 2020.

Schwarzenegger signed the bill, SBX7-7, at a ceremony at the Santa Clara Valley Water District headquarters in Almaden Valley.

The bill, authored by Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, is the fourth of five water measures Schwarzenegger has signed around California since the Legislature passed the package last week.

"This is something historic, not only because of its size, but because a lot of people who have always fought came together," Schwarzenegger said.

He and local leaders, including San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and water district chief executive Beau Goldie, hailed the new law as a landmark achievement when combined with the other bills, which include an $11 billion bond measure to build new dams and other projects that will be placed on the November 2010 ballot.

California now is the first state to set statewide targets for water conservation. The law also is expected to push cities such as Fresno and Sacramento — which still don't have water meters on all homes — to do more.

But critics note the law does not impose any fines on cities that fail to meet the 20 percent reduction.

Further, it imposes no numerical target on farmers, who use 80 percent of the water in California devoted to human use. Instead, it requires farm water districts by 2012 to measure the amount of water they deliver and set pricing based on the amount that farmers use.

Cities and farm water districts that don't follow the rules will be ineligible for state water grants and loans.

The new law also allows urban districts to measure the 20 percent by taking a 10-year average starting as far back as 1994 and comparing per-capita use then and in 2020. Because of population growth, agencies could meet the target while using more water in 2020 than today.

A version of the bill last year was tougher, but farm groups and water districts in San Bernardino and Riverside opposed it as too strict.

"We're big fans of conservation,'' said Jim Metropulos of the California Sierra Club. "But I don't think this will get even 10 percent savings. There are so many loopholes." Read more

Pork, water policy don't mix

By Steven Greenhut
Director of the Pacific Research Institute's Journalism Center in Sacramento

SACRAMENTO Advocates for government "solutions" for everything from health care to education argue that some aspects of life are just so darn complicated that only a centralized authority with taxing and spending power can handle such matters. Yet whenever we look at those areas of life dominated by the government, we find nothing but convoluted messes, political corruption and mismanagement.

And so in Sacramento last week, state legislators passed a water deal that will ultimately send a huge bond to voters for their approval. The deal, however, will satisfy no one, fix no significant problem and is awash in the wasteful pork-barrel programs people have come to associate with government spending.

For instance, the Sacramento Bee reported Wednesday that a "nonprofit tolerance center in midtown Sacramento, championed by state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, could get a vital economic boost from an unlikely source: a mammoth $10 billion water bond proposal." A tolerance center? Steinberg said he was proud of the pork project, but agreed to drop it when it became clear that it could jeopardize the bond measure in the Assembly.

California legislators just couldn't help themselves. And they couldn't help but ladle the legislation with big-government-style enforcement mechanisms and efforts to force urban residents to cut water usage by 20 percent. Just wait until the Water Police start cracking down on landscaping and carwashing, which already is happening to some degree.

Yes, it's perfectly legitimate to float bonds for capital expenditures that will outlast the term of the bonds. So much of this legislation is pork. And given the wastefulness endemic in the state's budget, it's reasonable to think a sensible budget could have accommodated the water infrastructure spending without having to take a loan for 30 years.

As OC Tax's Reed Royalty told the Register, it would also have been better to use revenue bonds and "pay as you go" financing from water agencies (rather than general-obligation bonds). But look how water agencies spend their money – their top priority seems to be dramatically hiking employee pay and pensions rather than doing the public's business, as a recent Metropolitan Water District fiasco makes clear.

Tell me again why government is the solution to this situation. The government agencies charged with maintaining the water supply have neglected it for decades as government has spent increasing amounts of money on its employees and on should-be-private programs such as tolerance centers. Government neglects infrastructure. It often uses its power to social engineer (use less water!, use transit rather than roads!, etc.) rather than meet the needs of the public. Yet no one in Sacramento has seriously raised privatization issues that offer hope for the future.

Water policy, indeed, is horrifically complicated. I do not know how to privatize the system, although there are many ways that market mechanisms can be included in the process – such as a system whereby farmers can sell their water rights to urban users and thus divert water to its highest and best use without confiscation of water rights. I do know that in the current world, powerful constituencies, such as environmentalists and developers, hijack the decision-making process for their own ends. That's politics. Government projects are, by nature, political projects, in that decisions are made in the political arena by interest groups and politicians rather than by economics and consumers. Therefore resources are squandered, and great needs go unmet. Political decisions are rarely noted for their long-term thinking – long term means the next election.

Lots of things are complicated – food production, air travel, the printing of newspapers. No individual can grasp how to make all these moving parts come together at the right time. There's a great old libertarian book, "I, Pencil," which explains the surprising complexity involved in bringing a simple writing implement into being. Same goes for water. We don't know exactly how a market-based water system would work, just as we don't know for sure how a market-based education system or health care system would come into being. But we do know that those areas of life where the market is freest are those areas of life where the products are the finest, the consumer is king and the prices keep heading downward as quality goes up.

It is those areas of life dominated by government where crucial investments are ignored, scarcity is most pronounced, quality is shoddy, and prices (taxes and debt) keep getting higher. In all market systems, there is a limited but crucial role for the government (enforcing contracts and maintaining the rule of law, for instance), but the key word is limited.  Read more

My View: Chromium 6 still threatens California's drinking water

By Erin Brockovich  - Special to The Sacramento Bee

Polluters who contaminate drinking water and make people sick shouldn't get off easy. That has been the focus of my work for two decades, and I'm not planning to stop now.

My work focused the attention of the world on a carcinogen called hexavalent chromium (hex chrome). In 1996, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. – a multibillion-dollar corporation – paid $333 million in damages to the people of Hinkley for contaminating their drinking water and covering up the problem for decades while people got sick and died. This victory was immortalized in film. But the story doesn't end there.

More than 500 California communities and 30 million state residents drank water contaminated with hexavalent chromium at levels above safe levels between 1998 and 2003. Hex chrome has been detected in nearly 60 percent of the drinking water sources sampled in California.

These problems are especially widespread in the Central Valley and the Inland Empire. The PG&E-Kettleman case settled in 2006 for $335 million. Another PG&E site in Topock affected the Colorado River – a drinking water source for millions. In Burbank, contamination by Lockheed Martin affected thousands, and in Riverside, TXI Corp's cement kiln contaminated the soil. Even Disney is responsible for chromium contamination in the San Fernando Valley.

Communities all over the United States and around the world have been poisoned by this chemical. I am currently working on a case in Midland, Texas, with enormous levels of hexavalent chromium in well water. Chromium polluters include a Who's Who of major corporations. It doesn't take a genius to know that these polluters don't want people to realize the extent of the problem, since they'd be on the hook for an expensive cleanup.

So it doesn't surprise me that five years after California regulatory agencies were required by law to set an up-to-date enforceable standard for hex chrome in drinking water, consumers are still not protected. I've fought these powerful interests for years, and I know firsthand how good they are at delay tactics.

The good news is that Cal-EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment – the public health agency that the governor tried unsuccessfully to eliminate in the last budget cycle – has just come out with a proposed drinking water level that would protect Californians.

The new assessment uses research from the National Toxicology Program to identify the levels of hex chrome that cause cancer and then calculates a safe level for vulnerable populations including children. There was a public meeting in Oakland last week to accept comments on this proposal; written public input is welcome until Nov. 2.

I read through the 140-page Cal-EPA document with mixed feelings. On the one hand I felt vindicated, but I also felt saddened. The National Toxicology Program concluded in a 2007 study that hexavalent chromium is considered carcinogenic not only by inhalation but by ingestion. Gosh, who knew? Maybe if someone had believed all these people in Hinkley many years ago, many more lives would have been saved.

I was saddened by the descriptions of liver and kidney degeneration, blood abnormalities including anemia, testicular damage, infertility, miscarriage, fetal toxicity, chromosomal abnormalities and a litany of cancers. The clinical descriptions in the Cal-EPA document weren't abstract to me – they brought back the names and faces of people who I know who have lived and died with these illnesses.

Roberta Walker, the original client in the movie, was poisoned by Chromium 6. PG&E recently tested her new well at her new home and found levels of hexavalent chromium at 1.26 parts per billion, well over the proposed level of 0.06 ppb.

I congratulate the hard work of attorneys who fought on behalf of those poisoned and I applaud agencies and scientists for overseeing, setting and hopefully enforcing stricter standards. My fight for the people of Hinkley isn't over. To bring this dark chapter of history to a close, California must adopt a legally enforceable and truly health-protective standard for hex chrome in drinking water. Read more

Editorial: Water reform package is worth saving

Sacramento Bee  - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers came very close earlier this month to a historic pact aimed at restoring the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and ensuring the future of California's water supply. They should get back to work and close that deal.

The package that died at the end of the legislative session was like a glass half full. It was missing some crucial elixers – the result of some hasty, last-minute bartending. But now there is time to finish the job and give the proposals the public vetting they deserve. Why wait?

This package included some attractive elements, including provisions for conservation and groundwater management. The bills would set a statewide goal of reducing water consumption by 20 percent by 2020, and they would expand the state's role in monitoring the overdrafting of groundwater.

The package includes proposals for governing the Delta that improve on the status quo. But certain parts of the state could potentially be harmed by decisions made by this new governing board. They need assurance that they will have reasonable representation on that panel.

Under the legislation that died, a proposed Delta Stewardship Council with wide power over the region's future would include just one member from the area. That's not enough.

We like the proposals for a Delta Conservancy to watch over the environment, a science board to ensure that the Stewardship Council's decisions are based on facts, and a single water master to focus decision-making and accountability for the movement of water through the Delta.

The legislation also would require the State Water Board to study how much water is needed for fish and wildlife in the Delta. The same board would be one of several agencies with authority to issue or deny permits for a proposed canal to move water around or through the Delta to the south.

One condition of those permits would be that sufficient water remains in the Delta to preserve and enhance its habitat. That's a good idea, so long as water sufficient to protect upstream tributaries – such as the American River – is part of the deal.

The financing plan is the weakest link in the package. The governor and Republicans in the Legislature have, oddly enough, pushed for more than $10 billion in general obligation bonds to finance Delta protections and, possibly, two new dams and reservoirs. When they are all sold, these bonds would drain nearly $1 billion a year from the state's general fund.

A far better way to pay for these improvements would be to assess a fee on the users of the water that is moved, stored or diverted from the Delta.

This kind of user-pays system is more equitable and smarter than bonds because it would provide an incentive to encourage conservation. In the case of proposed reservoirs, it would also ensure that these controversial new projects get built only if there are people who need the water they would store and would be willing to pay for it.   Read this

As California Legislative Session Ends, Lawmakers Push for Water Package

By Jack Phillips

Water pours into an irrigation canal on April 17, 2009 near Firebaugh, California.
California's State Legislature will close this Friday after a nine-month session which has been largely bogged down by the budget crisis. Issues ranging from the ailing prison system to the water crisis have now been pushed to the forefront. Lawmakers hope to make some crucial breakthroughs by the end of the week.

The state's water issues are taking precedent, with a special committee meeting last Tuesday, which included representatives from both the Republican and Democratic parties. The committee hopes to etch out a bill before the session closes.

The water plan would include proposals for new reservoirs, waterways, and stricter water conservation measures. Also included in the bill are provisions for building more dams and canals, which some environmentalists say damage the environment and the natural landscape as well as being overly expensive.

Estimates for the bill's cost ranges from $15 billion to over twice that amount. A major question raised on the House floor was how, and who, would be paying for the proposed measures with the mounting state debt.

Many House Republicans denounced the proposed bill. Assemblyman Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murrieta) called it a “dog and pony show.” Other Republican members claimed that the bill would not get any results and that it is being pushed through without bipartisan support in such a short time frame.

As to whether the bill can be passed in time, Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said, “By Friday, it is my hope that we will have a full package, one big bill that will be ready to vote upon.”

The current water system has not been updated in many years to keep pace with the burgeoning population in California, which tops 36 million.

Last week, Governor Schwarzenegger sent a letter to the White House, asking for federal aid to help deal with California's water crisis, a request which was rejected by the federal government. Furthermore, progressively less snowpack in the Sierra Nevadas has made lawmakers feel the pressure to create a new water plan, which has not come to fruition in the past several years.

Another hot topic is what to do with the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which provides two-thirds of California's water .  See this arcticle

California Conference Committee on Water Charged with Solving States Water Woes

By: Logan Andrews/Sacramento Citizen
Email: SacCitizen.LoganAndrews@gmail....  
 
 With only a matter of days left in the 2009 legislative year, lawmakers have formed a Legislative Conference Committee on Water. The conference committee is charged with creating a series of reforms that help reform and shape California’s antiquated water system and lead to a reliable supply of water for the state's water users.

On Wednesday Senate Republican Leader Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murrieta) and Republican Senators Huff, Cogdill and Aanestad, along with members of the Legislative Conference Committee on Water, joined by the Carpenters´ Union and Latino Water Coalition held a news conference to point out the need for a serious and comprehensive water package to solve California's growing water crisis.

"We must have a comprehensive solution that reflects the importance of water to our state´s economy. Senator Cogdill has been leading the effort for years to invest in our water infrastructure and we are hopeful we can complete this quickly, and provide the water Californians desperately need," said Senator Hollingsworth.

While some local water agencies have built regional projects to increase local water supply and storage, California’s state and federal water systems have not seen any major upgrades since the State Water Project was completed in 1973, despite the addition of nearly 14 million residents.

According to population projections, the state’s total population will increase to 60 million people by the year 2050, an increase of over 56% from the 2000 census numbers. As the state’s population continues to grow, this is putting strain on our existing water supplies, as well as bringing into question the ability to accommodate this expected future growth.  Read more  http://legwaterconferencecommittee.blogspot.com/

 

The denominator problem: Misleading use of water numbers

By Dr. Gleick, Pacific Institute

I'm a believer in the power of facts and numbers to help make public policy. I believe that without good science and without good numbers, it is difficult to make good public policy. And it is impossible to make good public policy with bad numbers.

The good news is that most policy makers understand this. The bad news is that there are people and groups (on both the left and the right) who work to produce or disseminate bad numbers as a way of influencing policy decisions in their favor. I've addressed these broad questions of the misuse of science in testimony to the U.S. Senate in 2007 and the Institute launched an Integrity of Science Initiative in 2005 to explore case studies of the abuse and misuse of science. We've described a number of remarkable abuses over the years.

Often, the generation and use of bad numbers comes down to what I describe as the "denominator problem." Numbers are often represented as a percentage or fraction or ratio of something: for example, a new "high efficiency" toilet uses around 20% (or 1.2 gallons divided by 6 gallons) of the water used by an old, pre-1994 toilet. Or the average American uses around 1500 gallons of water each day (calculated by dividing the freshwater used for everything nationwide by the total number of Americans).

But the choice of the denominator has a huge influence over the end result, and there are a growing number of examples where the choice is made for political purposes, to come up with a result more favorable to a particular political position.  Read more

For Immediate Release: Aug. 18, 2009
Media Contact:  Jennifer Bowles ∙ (951) 826-8480 ∙ jennifer.bowles@BBKlaw.com

Conference to tackle climate change, water banking and Colorado River

      Las Vegas _ Eric Garner and Roderick Walston of Best Best & Krieger, a California law firm, are co-chairing the 16th annual CLE International Western Water Law Conference this month that will examine key issues plaguing water supply across the West.

The event marks the fourth straight year that BB&K attorneys have chaired the conference. Garner and Walston designed this year’s program to address impacts to water supply
from climate change, endangered species and the drought-stricken Colorado River, shared by California, six other states and Mexico.

“These are the most significant issues facing the West today,” said Garner, a well-known water law expert and author of  “California Water II,” a leading text on the history, policy and law surrounding the state’s most precious natural resources.

In addition to hosting duties, Walston will give a talk: “The Clean Water Act, the Rapanos Aftermath and Constitutional Standing: Are the Supreme Court and Congress on a
Collision Course?”

Walston's talk will focus on a bill making its way through the Senate that would amend the Clean Water Act.

“This might be the most significant development in water law in recent years if Congress does in fact pass this bill,” said Walston, former acting solicitor for the U.S. Interior Department.
“It would expand federal jurisdiction over water far beyond any limits that the U.S. Supreme Court has ever recognized.”

Walston and Garner, chair of the International Bar Association’s water law committee, will be joined by several experts at the two-day conference – including BB&K’s Stefanie Hedlund, who will talk about ethical considerations related to water and other environmental practices. 

            Where: Mandalay Bay Resort, Las Vegas

When: Aug. 27-28

Details: CLE Web site

                                                           

Central Valley continues marathon fight for clean drinking water

By Susan Ferriss sferriss@sacbee.com

David McNeir is a bishop of his church and a man of faith. But he has found himself banging his hand on a table more than once when negotiating with public health authorities for clean drinking water.

 

"We've always had bad water," said McNeir, a cannery employee who lives in Monterey Park Tract, an area southwest of Modesto flanked by dairies and farms. "We've been on a list for a project now for four or five years. We've applied for every kind of grant there is."

Up and down the Central Valley, the frustration is palpable.

After years of effort by community activists, politicians and even young teens, the state's progress toward clean water for all is dwarfed by discoveries of more problems. Residents continue to rely on groundwater tainted by pesticides, nitrates, industrial chemicals and arsenic.

Californians have voted twice for bond money to ensure clean water, with $230 million in grants and loans aimed at mostly small and disadvantaged communities.

The state also receives annual federal money for clean-water projects, this year totaling $67 million. And, thanks to the federal stimulus plan, the state's getting another $160 million bump.

But a 2007 federal study estimated it will take $39 billion over 20 years to improve California's drinking water quality.

Adding to delays is the fact that budget problems forced the state to stop taking applications for bond money in December.

"Having money frozen is 10 steps back," said Susana De Anda of the Community Water Organization in Visalia.

De Anda's group has decided it's time to try a new tack: Pass a state law declaring clean water a human right.

A grass-roots movement

Joanna Mendoza, a 13-year-old in the Tulare County town of Cutler, said families are tired of receiving official warnings that their water contains a pesticide linked to cancer.

Residents spend money every month to buy bottled water, on top of paying for what comes out of the tap.

"The only thing that ever changes on those notices is the date," said Mendoza, who belongs to Youths for Water, a group of Central Valley teenagers who are urging their water districts to find ways to improve water quality.

Two decades ago, Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers Union rallied farmworkers in the Central Valley to demand better drinking water. As awareness and testing for contaminants grew, water districts and even entire communities have joined the call for action.  Read more

 

 

WATER TALKS: State might partner with Mexico

By HENRY BREAN - LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL 

If Mexico begins harvesting drinking water from the sea some day, Nevada also might get a taste.

Talks are progressing among officials from both sides of the border over new joint efforts to squeeze more water out of the arid region.

One idea being discussed is U.S. investment in Mexican desalination plants along the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of California.

The jointly funded plants would supply drinking water to growing coastal communities south of the border and thirsty U.S. cities, including Las Vegas.

Mexico might be the new frontier for the seven Western states that share the drought-stricken Colorado River, said Pat Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

Early this week, Mulroy traveled to San Diego for two days of talks with state and federal officials from both countries.

She said "jointly funded desalt projects in Mexico" are only one element of the discussions. Nevada might find additional opportunities to partner with Mexico on conservation initiatives, such as lining leaky irrigation canals south of the border to save water diverted from the Colorado.

Mexican officials also are interested in cooperating to protect the delta wetlands where the diminished river trickles into the Gulf of California.

"This administration has a huge environmental agenda," Mulroy said, referring not to the Obama White House but to the government of Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

Desalination holds the most promise for Nevada.

For example, if Mexican officials built a desalination plant for the growing city of Rosarito, south of Tijuana, the Southern Nevada Water Authority could buy a piece of that plant in exchange for a portion of Mexico's allocation of Colorado River water, Mulroy said.

Water wholesalers in Phoenix and Los Angeles could strike similar deals, she said.

The major problem with the arrangement, however, is it works only if the Colorado River has enough water to allow an exchange.

"If there's nothing in the river, there's nothing to swap," Mulroy said.

The cross-border water talks were convened in March 2008 by the International Boundary and Water Commission, a bilateral panel that administers the boundary and water treaties between the two nations.

Representatives have been meeting every other month or so to discuss the development of new water resources, the conservation of existing resources, and related operational and environmental issues.

The discussions were dealt a blow in September when the boundary and water commission's top two men, U.S. commissioner Carlos Marin and Mexican commissioner Arturo Herrera, were killed in a plane crash. Read more