What is so hard to understand about the

JamesH · Post by **JamesH** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:48 am

What is so hard for people to understand about the water issue? You can't sell a commodity that doesn't exist.... Farmers say "but I need water" I say "and I need new shopping centers to be built so that I can put my employees back to work" Looks like we're both S.O.L.
This isn't about being able to ride a waverunner in the Delta, it
is about responsible use of a resource. Look, as a business owner, I feel for the farmers and the farm workers but for them to expect to be able to draw from a resource that is already overdrawn just boggles my mind. We're not talking about protecting some rodent in the middle of a field, we are talking about an entire ecosystem.

As far as I am concerned, you can't put a pricetag on the Delta's ecosystem. It's PRICELESS....... Let's treat it that way!

James

BassManDan · Post by **BassManDan** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 am

A very good outlook on your part James...

Of course the public as a whole is coming to understand there is more to it than "topic X" or "topic Y" But you couldn't have explained things any clearer

Joe Bruce · Post by **Joe Bruce** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm

yea ! who needs food anyway !

maybe you should stop eating as a protest.

J.Rios · Post by **J.Rios** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:55 pm

Lead by example Joe!!

James,I think half the problem is that you can drive past the Sac river anywhere from Pittsburg to Sacramento ,and always see water. Yes it's there, but up to Rio Vista quality kinda sucks. Not much you can even water with it.My rancher friend hauls water in to his cattle on the west end of Sherman due to the salt intrusion.Now imagine if they draw as much water as they intend to off the Sac. Salt would probably be well up to Isleton.

Here is the outright kicker- They do not care.They would love to squeeze blood from the turnip. The people in power know there isn't any more to take yet they want anyway. Seems maybe they should have got more water when the delta was at flood stage a coupla years back.Oh wait! They won't pump if there is too much sediment in the water.They want only clean clear water.Maybe they should take when they can instead of when they want.

JamesH · Post by **JamesH** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:58 pm

Yea Joe, we all need to eat and there are solutions to the water shortage problem, just not building a canal to remove water that doesn't exist.
In Roseville, they have been talking about storing water in the natural underground aquifers that exist. Talk about forward thinking..... During years that water is plentiful they would actually pump water into wells for use during dry years, not sure if they have figured out exactly how to do it yet but I know they are working on it...
James

blkdog812 · Post by **blkdog812** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:58 pm

they are selling it. for big bucks too. most is going down south where the money and political pull is.
second with the loss of farm land to development, they are moving farms farther away from the water and have to have it pumped.
when the farmers ran the water boards things were going good, but since the politicians took over, well you know the story.
it comes down to one thing $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

long rifle · Post by **long rifle** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:20 pm

James, the eccosystem you are talking about was created a hundred years ago. It was created for water controll and farming in the "promise land". I was at MCB Camp Pendleton last week, and I have never seen a "dust bowl" in the "valley" like I saw. We need to work together to get through this. I love to fish and duck hunt, but the farmer is taking in the shorts. They are business owners also.

CN · Post by CN » Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:53 pm

I know all about Farmer's. I grew up in the Salinas Valley and still live there. Just today I watched them Harvest Lettuce.

They are probably 75' from my front door and it was fun watching them get the trailor's unstuck from the mud caused by the Catapiller's ripping with there 4' Jaw's when they hit a live pipeline.

I have a brown lawn but I will watch them grow Lettuce now and then only to rotate the dirt. Then it's all about Strawberry's

all you can eat,but they use alot of water.

long rifle · Post by **long rifle** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:30 pm

They should!!

Oldschool · Post by **Oldschool** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:34 pm

What makes anyone think water is a limited resource, 2/3rds of the earth's surface is water.
Water has become a politcal issue in CA since the 1900's, It has always been about how to transport water to dry areas.
The delta smelt issue stopped 1/3rd of the water supply being transported and that is a major issue, politically.
We have the technology to desalinate ocean water and generate nuclear power at the same time, we haven't ultilized the same systems that power and supply water aircraft carriers, why; polical issues.
We need leadership.
Tom

Jevans · Post by **Jevans** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:54 pm

To further confuse the issue - most of the produce (FOOD) you get at the market comes from Mexico. If you buy local, it comes from real local. Not exactly sure where all the Central Valley food goes.

A good history of California water issues is Cadillac Desert. In past times, when the population was much, much lower, water rights seemed inalienable. Driving down the I5 the things which depress me are 1. Many of those farms are owned by corporations, not individuals and 2. They do not employ the most efficient irrigation methods. On the later, nor does the state: just covering the aqueduct would prevent a huge amount of evaporation.

J.Rios · Post by **J.Rios** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:12 pm

Long Rifle the ecosystem you refer to was created long before the 100 yr mark you speak of.You think that because levees were erected the delta was created??The salmon,sturgeon,squawfish,etc. show diferrently.They have used the delta for thousands of years,and hopefully for more to come.Travelling up and down its course to spawn and return to the ocean. All the levees do is contain it from flooding the lower ground.

Perhaps it could be said that some of that land in so-cal never should have been cultivated in the first place?

JamesH · Post by **JamesH** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:28 am

long rifle wrote:James, the eccosystem you are talking about was created a hundred years ago. It was created for water controll and farming in the "promise land". I was at MCB Camp Pendleton last week, and I have never seen a "dust bowl" in the "valley" like I saw. We need to work together to get through this. I love to fish and duck hunt, but the farmer is taking in the shorts. They are business owners also.

That ecosystem is thousands of years old and has been around a lot longer than the farmers in the valley. You really think it is feasable to destroy one ecosystem to create another? That's what we are really talking about here. It's not really about hunting, fishing or recreating on the Delta.... It's about turning a fresh water estuary into a brackish lifeless saltwater estuary.... That's not acceptable.........Like Oldschool posted, there are other options. Let's explore them.

James

ash · Post by **ash** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:04 am

DeSalinization is a very real option that just inst being used in california and its incredible that its not. We have that big pacific ocean and dont use it

Oldschool · Post by **Oldschool** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:34 am

The history of CA is very interesting and everyone should make an effort to read and understand it.
SoCal's first water system was Mulhollands Ownes valley aquaduct; to bring water to the Los Angles area. The Amercian canal came after The Colorado river was damed and brought the Imperial valley to life. The feather river project brought NorCal water to SoCal.
Before the Feather river project, dams where biult to control the Kings and Kern rivers from flooding the San Joquin river valley.
Before the dams the valley would flood all then way to the delta.
You can't turn back time to suite your needs. You can develop water projects to meet your needs. Caifornia has a lot of water and vast dry areas with high populations that rely on water.
With the majority of the population near the coastal areas, ocean water desalinated into fresh water should be developed, it's too obvious to ignor.
Tom

fishnuts · Post by **fishnuts** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:24 am

...but then years after several desalinization plants are up and running there will be an outcry because the spiny backed dotted mackeral is being sucked up into the pumps at the plants and there will be a court order for them to be shut down.

High tide all along the Pacific coastline is now one inch lower than in previous years....stop the pumping, they are draining the ocean!!!

And so on and so on...

J.Rios · Post by **J.Rios** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:13 am

"

Caifornia has a lot of water

"

That is the misconception that people are't getting.

and fishnuts if you look at it, what drastic changes could you make harvesting ocean water?? If there is a species issue look ahead see it and take the precaution ahead of time instead of trying to band aid everything after the damage is done. That seems to be the major problems with the Colorado,Sac-San Joaquin,Klamath,and Columbia river modifications.

RichThiel · Post by **RichThiel** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:37 am

FOOD in the Valley, is mostly shipped overseas such as Japan, Korea, Tiawan, Phillippins etc....Over there in those countries they just don't have the space (population) nor the technology(s) that we have.

Right know, there are more containers going out of the Oakland/Richmond/Stockton Ports loaded with parachables(Sp) in refrig Container than are com'in in with appliances.

Think about it,,,Oranges, Apples, nuts, Rice, Cotton, kiwi, appricotes, corn, Beef, Poultry, Peaches, All grown here in California. Here is another clue....Where do you think all the bales of hay go and/or the alfalpha? Answer> Overseas

Jevans · Post by **Jevans** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:12 pm

RichThiel wrote:FOOD in the Valley, is mostly shipped overseas such as Japan, Korea, Tiawan, Phillippins etc....Over there in those countries they just don't have the space (population) nor the technology(s) that we have.

Right know, there are more containers going out of the Oakland/Richmond/Stockton Ports loaded with parachables(Sp) in refrig Container than are com'in in with appliances.

Think about it,,,Oranges, Apples, nuts, Rice, Cotton, kiwi, appricotes, corn, Beef, Poultry, Peaches, All grown here in California. Here is another clue....Where do you think all the bales of hay go and/or the alfalpha? Answer> Overseas

So we are essentially selling, at a tax payer subsidized rate, our water overseas?

fish_food · Post by **fish_food** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:32 pm

Jevans wrote:
RichThiel wrote:FOOD in the Valley, is mostly shipped overseas such as Japan, Korea, Tiawan, Phillippins etc....Over there in those countries they just don't have the space (population) nor the technology(s) that we have.

Right know, there are more containers going out of the Oakland/Richmond/Stockton Ports loaded with parachables(Sp) in refrig Container than are com'in in with appliances.

Think about it,,,Oranges, Apples, nuts, Rice, Cotton, kiwi, appricotes, corn, Beef, Poultry, Peaches, All grown here in California. Here is another clue....Where do you think all the bales of hay go and/or the alfalpha? Answer> Overseas
So we are essentially selling, at a tax payer subsidized rate, our water overseas?

Yep, the big corporate agricultural interests would have you believing the small "mom and pop" farmers are being robbed of their fair share of water, water which they say is used to feed you and your loved ones. It's corporate welfare, pure and simple.

How many people fall for the "Breadbasket of America/Heartland" type schmaltz of their PR campaigns? Agribusiness uses subsidized, below-market-price water to grow water-intensive crops like cotton (in the desert, no less) which in turn are exported to other countries--it's not for crops that "feed America." And as previously mentioned, one of the largest of the agricultural water users, the Westlands Water District, still owes 100+ million dollars for their share of the construction of the Central Valley Project--the taxpayers are totally taking it in shorts.

It's also a common practice for those who bought their allocated shares of below-market-price water to sell them off to urban water entities at a large profit instead of using it for ag purposes.

bigstick · Post by **bigstick** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:11 am

Joe Bruce wrote:yea ! who needs food anyway !

maybe you should stop eating as a protest.

It's not about food.

Maybe you should find out the facts before you post!

Joe Bruce · Post by **Joe Bruce** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:07 am

read the post that started this thred. is it about farmers ?

how much water came threw the delta between aug and dec every year before we "screwed up the eco system" with all our dams pumps and canals ?

and how much more silt washed down the mts before the lakes were built ?

J.Rios · Post by **J.Rios** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:17 pm

Enough water to maintain a robust salmon population(fall and winter run) Enough to maintain the spawning grounds temperature which is critical and enough to keep the gravel of the spawning areas clear of silt. Those spawn areas are long gone now under a dams worth of water with no access for returning fish ,so now we have hatcheries to maintain the population.

Lots more silt came down from the moutains along with it tons of nutrient which created the rich land of the delta to begin with.

NOW,whats your point.

Robert F · Post by **Robert F** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:47 pm

I am sure all the people that live close to the sun are blind just like you guys have water-logged brains. Filling underground aquifers? Yeah, that sounds efficient. How do you keep this water corralled for future use?

Sounds like a sales job.

Rios, I see you live where the Delta used to flood. Maybe you and your neighbors should get off the Salmon's land.

I am sure the pesticides and fertilizers you and your neighbors spread on your green lawns have nothing to do with a decline in Salmon, Smelt or any other boutique species that you find critical to your existence this week. Sea Lion food is all I see swimming those waters.

When you consider YOUR lakes like Oroville, Folsom, Shasta, etc. were built by the whole state, actually Country, not just Northern California for water storage maybe you can understand why the Farmers and Southern residents expect something from those supplies and why those supplies dry up in the fall.

DeSal has been trying to come out of the ground but too many waterlogged brains down here are trying to use microscopic shrimp as plaintiffs in project stalling lawsuits. What we do need is common sense. There are too many people living through crazy legal defenses and stalling possible fixes for the problem.

If you guys that are "so close to the sun" want to lead by example. Stop watering YOUR lawns like we have been forced to do. Stop building new houses and growing food using the estuary land. Allow the flooding that used to occur and slowly distribute the fresh water from the estuary's water table instead of flowing at a high, wasteful rate to the sea during the winter months. The levees leave the dry summer flows insufficient to keep the salt intrusion out. It is not just the Farmers that have created the Delta's problem.

What if the California residents at the turn of the century were as blind as you guys? There would never be a Shasta, Folsom or Oroville. Maybe this canal is the next great fishing structure in Northern, Central Cali. I fish Northern Cali waters more than I do Southern so I too want to see the fishing protected but common sense needs to prevail. Dumping water in to the ground sounds foolish. Work with the planners and maybe all can benefit. Flood gates in the river are part of the plan? Maybe that is the salt water solution. You guys need to step back too and consider the water issue as a State problem.

fish_food · Post by **fish_food** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:29 pm

Robert F wrote:When you consider YOUR lakes like Oroville, Folsom, Shasta, etc. were built by the whole state, actually Country, not just Northern California for water storage maybe you can understand why the Farmers and Southern residents expect something from those supplies and why those supplies dry up in the fall.

The reservoirs you mentioned were built primarily for conveying water to agricultural interests to "green" the desert and for other water entities down south. Westlands Water District, one of the largest consumers of water sold through the Shasta-Oroville-Folsom system (that "conveyance system" known as the Central Valley Project) still owes us over 100 million dollars for its construction. Many times the water boards allot them more water than is actually available, and at taxpayer subsidized prices. It's ridiculous the way big ag fleeces taxpayers and abuses the public's water...

Robert F · Post by **Robert F** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:47 pm

fish_food wrote: still owes us over 100 million dollars for its construction.

Who are "we"? I am sure the "we"s made some deal that covered that payment. Probably selling that over quota water? That money goes somewhere. Maybe it was used to keep water meters out of everybody's yard in Nor. Cal. for many years?

I do not think you guys are completely wrong about Agri corps taking advantage of the situation. I do think Nor. Cal. residents have taken advantage of the water situation as well. I do not see meters on any of those pumps hanging over the levees in the Delta.

*Edit* found this in a GAO report from 2008.
In addition, according to Reclamation, Westlands alone is
responsible for repaying the cost of the district's water distribution
system--about $179 million--under a separate repayment contract. As of
September 30, 2006, Westlands had paid $131 million, leaving
$48 million to be repaid.
Looks like the numbers that are being floated are a bit inflated. They also have to 2030 to repay the full costs. If you guys want to have your issues taken seriously you should throw accurate information. Better to not act like this is a world against Nor. Ca. issue as I am sure you and your neighbors were the recipients of that 179 million that Westlands agreed to spend.

mm · Post by mm » Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:12 pm

I`ve been sitting back and watching alot of guys poking at the users of the Central Valley Project water.
As with most all disputes, the truth and solution to the matter will lye somewhere in the middle of the wants and needs of the parties involved.
We all need to be patient with this matter, this is something that didn`t happen overnight and its not going away that way either.
If it rains like hell next two or three years then what? Is everyone here still going to be on the " hate farmers and so. cal water users bandwagon"?? I wouldn`t be suprised either way.
I don`t really think the canal is the solution at this time, but does anyone really expect the farmers and so. cal water users to just pick up all their cards and go home?
What do we think the CVP was put here for anyway????
Farming is a source of business in this state that needs to be here just as bad as our recreational things like fishing and water activities.
I think Robert F is close to being on target with his post.
Oh, by the way, I love the delta and farming. Is that bad???

J.Rios · Post by **J.Rios** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:38 pm

Robert f
why don't you ask Metropolitan water district why they have been pumping their reserve supply into the aquifer for some time now,and where exactly do you think its going to run off to.It is actually a very efficient way to store.Think -no above ground storage required,little construction and natural filtration.
The technique is almost the same the oil companies use to pump foreign export oil back into the ground for storage in Texas and Oklahoma.You think the federal reserves sit out in the open for anyone to take a shot at.

As for where I live the delta never flooded here.So get your history correct. Marsh creek used to flood that's why they built stone house dam ,and enlarged the creek channel.I'm third generation here. My grandfather and father had a lot of cool stories about it. The salmon still use the Big break end of the creek every year.
I also use an absolute minimum of pesticides and fertilizer on my green lawn. I water from a small well that has been used on this place since the mid thirties and I pay the average going power rate for doing so. I use no city water,no ebmud water or ECCID water.
I'm really doubting I have much effect on salmon ,smelt or anything alse.Can you say the same??

Sea Lion food is all I see swimming those waters.

I'm not sure where your coming from with this.We used to have a world class commercial salmon producing river.Now thanks to increased water diversions(per the recent published biological opinion) we have no season at all.This only took approx 6 yrs. to accomplish.So let me see what your saying is it doesn't matter if anything swims out there at all?PLZ remove head now and breathe the fresh air.

mark poulson · Post by **mark poulson** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:33 am

Oldschool wrote:What makes anyone think water is a limited resource, 2/3rds of the earth's surface is water.
Water has become a politcal issue in CA since the 1900's, It has always been about how to transport water to dry areas.
The delta smelt issue stopped 1/3rd of the water supply being transported and that is a major issue, politically.
We have the technology to desalinate ocean water and generate nuclear power at the same time, we haven't ultilized the same systems that power and supply water aircraft carriers, why; polical issues.
We need leadership.
Tom

Amen!

Dom · Post by **Dom** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:20 am

Here is a real simple solution QUIT ZONING AG to RES !!!! I have lived in Tracy for 16 years and just in the last 6 years they have sold so much farm land to build Houses no one could afford or they thought they could and now lost sitting empty! WHAT A WASTE! refer to Moutain House Project I hate the way Tracy has grown hell I use to walk into the DMV know everyone by first name now we walk in and take a number !!!! We have sold all the farm land to build just STOP it Grow food where water flows and I will truck it to where it needs to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave Wilson · Post by **Dave Wilson** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:25 am

O.K. desalination fans, keep in mind that it is a super expensive technology on a large scale, and that it has a few very challenging environmental issues- like where, oh where, does all the brine go??
My simple solution is to move LA to Oregon or somewhere there's lots of water............ My city has its own water from wells and a lake locally- thank God(and we're right on the ocean)

BassManDan · Post by **BassManDan** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:45 am

Lets just establish some simple facts:

Desalinization: Expensive, Highly efficient, Difficult to get past environmental groups.

Aquifer Recharge: Relatively in expensive, moderately efficient, already being practiced and could easily be expanded upon.

More Dams: Expensive, efficient (if the water is there) Difficult to get past env. groups

Peripheral Canal: Expensive, Efficient (only in getting more water to So. Cal, not in helping the problem) Highly supported by the state gov't.

Wastewater reuse: Relatively inexpensive, Highly efficient, SUPPORTED by environmental groups, VERY LOW public appeal.

Just some stuff to consider.

J.Rios · Post by **J.Rios** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:55 am

I had to stop last nite to get some well needed sleep.Now back to Robert F's comments.

You would have us stop growing food on estuary land??? What! Are you stoned or just stupid. You would have the water transported 400 to 600 miles to water crops in the desert instead?? Think about that,and I mean really think about that statement. The estuary land you speak of will grow the same things in direct proximity to existing water supplies ,and you want to waste power by pumping it south??

Allow the flooding that used to occur and slowly distribute the fresh water from the estuary's water table instead of flowing at a high, wasteful rate to the sea during the winter months.

Obviously you don't know that they will not pump sediment heavy water.Never have ,and probably never will.That high wasteful rate to the sea you refer to is required now to push high salinity levels back west of the Carquinez strait. This effect also helps clear montezuma slough which supplies a great deal of the suisun marsh with water.This includes much of the grizzly island NWR which along with the rest of the delta is a major stopover point for migrating waterfowl.
The levees actually help focus flow. Its the lack of water that allows the salt intrusion plain and simple.(Maybe they should set a line at Benicia and say no salt levels higher than X beyond this point.Seems like that would be easier to monitor)

So I have to ask why should nor- cal folks bend over and take it from corp-ag and cities of the south at the risk of losing the great area we currently inhabit.You make it sound like CVP doesn't get their fair share.Where they probably get more than they should. Why doesn't So-Cal,and CVP put their money where their mouth is and build some kind of water storage down there without delta assistance instead of being parasites.( Those giant concrete ditches that run through LA were meant to carry something. Water would be my guess.WOW talk about wasteful.)

Robert if you look at it the Ca Residents were blind at the turn of the century. They failed to see the consequences of their action and now we have their mess to deal with.They had a time of plenty. Now that time is over,and many refuse to see it.Somehow we need to set a hardline that should not, and will not be crossed.Real life does not use negative numbers (save that for the mathematicians) yet they are trying to do that with water.Allocating more than they actually have is not a sustainable practice ,and they know it.[/quote]

fish_food · Post by **fish_food** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:20 pm

Robert F wrote:*Edit* found this in a GAO report from 2008.
In addition, according to Reclamation, Westlands alone is
responsible for repaying the cost of the district's water distribution
system--about $179 million--under a separate repayment contract. As of
September 30, 2006, Westlands had paid $131 million, leaving
$48 million to be repaid.
Looks like the numbers that are being floated are a bit inflated. They also have to 2030 to repay the full costs. If you guys want to have your issues taken seriously you should throw accurate information. Better to not act like this is a world against Nor. Ca. issue as I am sure you and your neighbors were the recipients of that 179 million that Westlands agreed to spend.

The 2030 deadline is actually an extension because they were too slow in their payments. Additional details from the Contra Costa Times and Fresno Bee:

Irrigation District Owes Millions, Report Finds
Contra Costa Times â€“ 1/18/08

By Mike Taugher, staff writer

Forty years after it started farming the west San Joaquin Valley, the nation's largest irrigation district -- and one of the richest -- has repaid only 15 percent of what it owes taxpayers for a massive water delivery project, according to a congressional watchdog agency.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, in its first update in a decade on the debt repayment status of the Westlands Water District and several smaller irrigation districts, concluded Westlands still owes $372 million, the bulk of the $449 million owed by the districts. The debt, which dates to the late 1960s, carries no interest.

"If they were homeowners, they would be foreclosed on," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, one of three lawmakers who requested the report.

The report was commissioned to help lawmakers evaluate a proposal from Westlands and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that would turn ownership of pieces of the Central Valley Project over to the water district and forgive the debt. In exchange, Westlands would develop its own drainage disposal plan and relieve the federal government of its obligation to drain irrigation water from the region.

Miller said the GAO report showed the exchange, the details of which are still in flux, would probably be a bad deal for taxpayers.

"They want more forgiveness from taxpayers," Miller said. "It's a flat-out abuse of the taxpayer."

A layer of clay that underlies most of the Westlands district inhibits drainage and causes polluted water to build up, potentially into the root zones of crops. Before the district's drain was plugged in the 1980s, the polluted water emptied into the Keterson National Wildlife Refuge, causing a wildlife disaster of deformities and deaths in birds.

Without a place to dispose of its drainage, Westlands sued and in 2000 won a court order that requires the federal government to fix the problem.

The reclamation bureau has estimated the cost of draining the land at $2.7 billion, which is why Westlands has said the exchange would be a good deal for taxpayers: the government would not have to build the expensive project.

But if the government does have to deal with the drainage problem, Westlands would have to repay that $2.7 billion, or at least a substantial portion of it, although it might be under terms highly favorable to the water district.

Frustrated by Westlands' slow repayment of the original debt, Congress in 1986 passed a law that set a 2030 deadline for Westlands and the other, smaller, west San Joaquin Valley irrigation districts to repay.

But 22 years after that law was passed -- and 22 years before 2030 -- Westlands still has repaid just 15 percent of the total.

Westlands and the reclamation bureau say the 2030 deadline to repay the interest-free loan could be met with a balloon payment or with some other financing plan.

"There are reserves in Westlands to pay that," said district spokeswoman Sarah Woolf.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation spokesman Jeff McCracken said the details of debt repayment fall to Westlands.

"How they do that is really up to them," McCracken said. "They are meeting their contractual obligations and they have until 2030 to repay the capital costs."

The districts' debt is for their share of the San Luis Unit, the last piece of the massive Central Valley Project, a sprawling water delivery system that began with construction of a canal from the Delta to the Contra Costa Water District in the late 1930s and 1940s.

The amounts owed by Westlands and the smaller San Luis districts are the irrigation districts' share to build San Luis Dam, a major canal, water distribution works, pump plants and other facilities.

Under a separate repayment contract, Westlands has repaid $131 million of the $179 million cost of building the water distribution system within the district, the GAO reported. #

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_8007 ... ck_check=1

Valley Growers Owe $497m for Water Projects, Audit Shows
Fresno Bee â€“ 1/18/08

By Michael Doyle, Bee Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- San Joaquin Valley farmers still owe the federal government almost $500 million for dams and canals built in the 1960s, according to a new audit that will help frame the next round of decisions about California water.

Farmers in the giant Westlands Water District and three other smaller irrigation districts south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta owe $497 million, the Government Accountability Office found. The money must be paid by 2030.

It's no surprise that the farmers owe money. They've been gradually paying it back as part of their long-term water contracts with the federal Bureau of Reclamation.

The dollar amount, though, draws attention on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are considering expensive proposals such as restoring the San Joaquin River and cleaning up irrigation drainage. The proposals address problems spawned by the construction of dams and canals.

On the Valley's west side, a lack of natural drainage allowed irrigation water to accumulate, creating concentrations of dangerous elements leached from soil.

"Taxpayers paid for these water projects decades ago, taxpayers paid for the cleanup of some of the projects' worst environmental consequences over the years, and now the taxpayers are still waiting to be repaid," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez.

Miller is the former chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee and a longtime critic of Central Valley irrigation contracts. He helped request the GAO study, the latest in a long line of related audits.

In 1992, Miller used earlier GAO audits in his campaign to direct more Central Valley water to environmental protection. Miller sought the latest audit to shape the debate over irrigation drainage problems on the Valley's west side.

"Drainage is needed ... because a layer of clay prevents natural drainage, trapping salt and water in the root zones of crops and reducing the region's agricultural productivity," the GAO report issued Thursday stated.

The Bureau of Reclamation estimates one drainage option would cost the government $2.7 billion, for a combination of land retirements, evaporation ponds and soil treatments. A second option would transfer responsibility to the water districts. They would fund the drainage solutions in exchange for having their construction debt forgiven.

Water district officials and state and federal representatives have been meeting to discuss irrigation drainage options, but no solution appears to be imminent. Westlands representatives could not be reached to comment Thursday.

All told, the new audit notes, the federal government spent about $3.4 billion on the Redding-to-Bakersfield system of dams and canals known as the Central Valley Project. The CVP's San Luis Unit serves the Westlands, Pacheco, Panoche and San Luis water districts, which stretch as far north as Merced County.

A separate proposal has been made to restore water flows and salmon population to the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam. The dam, which is not part of the San Luis Unit, is blamed for drying up the once-teeming river.

Though the irrigation drainage problems primarily affect the Valley's west side and the river restoration primarily affects the east side, taken together they illustrate the scope of the water problems facing the region.

On Thursday, reflecting the ongoing river struggle, Friant Water Users Authority Chairman Kole Upton said he would not run for re-election. Upton once praised the river restoration deal reached with environmental groups, but he now believes it could harm farmers by taking away too much irrigation water.

"This 'Neville Chamberlain' strategy of capitulation and surrender will doom the Friant service area to 20 years of hardship and involuntary land retirement," Upton wrote Thursday in a message to other water officials.

Democratic Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, and other Friant-area water district directors contend the river settlement is the best long-term solution, offering certainty for both fish and farmers.

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/332338.html

froggin77 · Post by **froggin77** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:00 pm

JamesH wrote:What is so hard for people to understand about the water issue? You can't sell a commodity that doesn't exist.... Farmers say "but I need water" I say "and I need new shopping centers to be built so that I can put my employees back to work" Looks like we're both S.O.L.
This isn't about being able to ride a waverunner in the Delta, it
is about responsible use of a resource. Look, as a business owner, I feel for the farmers and the farm workers but for them to expect to be able to draw from a resource that is already overdrawn just boggles my mind. We're not talking about protecting some rodent in the middle of a field, we are talking about an entire ecosystem.

As far as I am concerned, you can't put a pricetag on the Delta's ecosystem. It's PRICELESS....... Let's treat it that way!

James

How is it hard to understand that with population growth there will be a higher demand for water supply? California is growing at an increase of 1.5% each year. Last year population growth increased by 490.000 people to about 38 million people living in this State. It is predicted that by 2032 the population for the State will be around 50 million.

You say you want more shopping malls to put people to work, but in order to build shopping malls you need growth of an area to justify building the new developments. With our population growth and when an area is developed, that means more water will be needed and food has to be grown to sustain the population.

The way I read your post pretty much says that farmers are the ones to blame for the current state of the ecosystem of the delta. Ever occur to you that you are part of the problem as well? You take water from it and you eat food grown from that water that is supposed to go to that ecosystem. Now that there is a water issue people like yourself feel the need to attack the farmer and blame them for this mess.Ever think that you eat food that is grown from this ecosystem? Ever think you drink water or water your lawn or swim in a pool that was supposed to go to this ecosystem?

As long as you keep that mentality of the â€œ As long as I get my share then we need to protect the restâ€

Robert F · Post by **Robert F** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:01 pm

Ol' George needs to take his arms off that tree and quote the REAL numbers in the report. Here it is; http://www.gao.gov/htext/d08307r.html
His 400 and something mill. number is for all of the districts not just Westland per the report. The 3 billion number is for work NOT DONE. Certainly George has nothing to gain being on the other side of the fence and stumping for a 6 figure job. Did he happen to be up for re-election last year?

Irresponsible reporting misquoting a report that is so accessible.

Robert F · Post by **Robert F** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:13 pm

froggin77 wrote: I feel this whole thing is turning into a $$$$ game driven by politicians that need to see the whole picture and have yet been able to. Pointing the finger at farmers is not going to do anything and is the easy way out.

Great post Froggin. What a better target than the "big bad guy" that lives out of your town. Create an enemy then act like the only guy that can save the town. If necessary twist the numbers to make the problem seem larger than it really is. Who will check the facts? Not fishermen. They are too busy playing on the water.

jcruz · Post by **jcruz** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:07 pm

Political Reality 101. The only reason the Peripheral Canal didn't get approved by voters in the 80's was because of central valley Ag interests sided with N. Californians and Governor Moonbeam and contributed a few million of dollars to help defeat the state wide ballot measure. Those individual family farms are all but gone now and have been replaced by agri-business who are now jumping into bed with Southern California water and energy providers. Now they are using one broad stroke to paint all Nor Cal fisherman, NIMBY's and enviro's as nutty, uninformed and self serving, and we are guilty of taking the bait Hook, Line and Sinker (shameless plug) The majority of this states electorate lives and votes in Southern California, the majority of the Legislature represents Southern California. The only thing preventing a state-wide water bond with Delta Restoration, two surface storage facilities and a canal from hitting the ballot is a bad economy. Brace yourself folks, there is a political deal in the works -- there always is!!. We as Northern and Central valley fisherman, outdoorsman and family farm interests have to be sure we have a seat at that table when the pie gets divided. I have worked in Sacramento long enough to know you will never be taken serious if you oppose everything and never offer any real alternatives -- and sorry water conservation isn't the water panacea. [/i]

rickd · Post by **rickd** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:36 pm

Itâ€™s not to tough to understand gentlemen.

This is one fact from another bill that the good guys won recently, not my words.

These â€œfarmersâ€

CN · Post by CN » Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:52 pm

Let's see we have two major drainage's in California.

One come's from North to south called the Sacramento.The other is the San Joaquin. Both catch allmost all of the Sierra River's along the way or correct me some may dump directly into the DELTA.

If I have to hear another poor old

JamesH · Post by **JamesH** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:51 am

Froggin,

So you say the "Farmers" aren't to blame. Ok, lets go with that. So you must agree that there is a problem if you want to talk about who is to blame. That's great, it's a good place to start.

Now that we agree that there is a problem with the water quality in the Delta we can talk about two things:
1.) How do we resolve the water quality issues in the Delta?
2.) How does building a new canal to draw water away before it reaches the Delta helpt with issue number 1?

Robert F,

Underground aquifers are efficient and proven method and for someone who likes to call people stupid, maybe you should turn on your filter before you type. I know from our previous PM's that you are an intelligent person so why resort to name calling?

James

Robert F · Post by **Robert F** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:23 pm

Underground aquifers have no boundaries and there is no way to keep the property owners above from tapping that water. When people talk about making sure the "Farmer" pays for the water they use why would you indiscriminately distribute it under his land to freely tap? How do you know the water is staying within the district boundaries? How do you keep track of inventories? At least reservoir levels can tell us of impending shortages. 20 years ago we (Southern California) concreted our delivery canals. Why? Because of the loss of water to seepage. Time to be more efficient with the water distribution up there.

I know Politicians lie and it may not be what happens but the canal is supposed to be an excess supply vehicle? Let's MAKE SURE that is what happens. Maybe that water can be used to backflow the Delta in the summer to make sure the proper water quality is maintained. Winter quality is OK? That excess flow should go to storage as I believe it does.

JamesH · Post by **JamesH** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:24 pm

Robert,

All aquifers have natural boundaries and there is a lot of information available on the internet if you would like to educate yourself to it's value and validity.

Here is an excerpt from one such article and the link to the article if you would like to start your education.

http://www.evergladesplan.org/docs/asr_whitepaper.pdf

ASR facilities have been used in the United States for over 30 years and they were first
operational in Florida in 1983. Currently, there are seven ASR facilities operating in
Florida and at least twelve undergoing operational testing. The facilities are being used to
inject and recover treated and untreated groundwater, partially treated surface water, and
reclaimed wastewater. In general, the public poorly understands this technology and
many people have questions regarding the application of ASR as a water resource
conservation tool. However, ASR is not an unknown and untested technology.

Here's another link and a couple of quotes from a State of Washington site.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/asr/asr-home.html

Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) involves injecting water into an aquifer through wells or by surface spreading and infiltration and then pumping it out when needed. The aquifer essentially functions as a water bank. Deposits are made in times of surplus, typically during the rainy season, and withdrawals occur when available water falls short of demand.

ASR Benefits
Some recognized benefits of Aquifer Storage and Recovery are:

â€¢Substantial amounts of water can be stored deep underground. This may reduce the need to construct large and expensive surface reservoirs.
â€¢ASR systems are considered to be more environmentally friendly than surface reservoirs. They also offer more protection from tampering.
â€¢ASR may restore and expand the function of an aquifer that has experienced long-term declines in water levels due to heavy pumping necessary to meet growing urban and agricultural water needs.

Now I understand that this system most likely wouldn't work in the South because it is desert and posseses no suitable aquifers but it would work in the North and then we would have more water to fight over.

James

jcruz · Post by **jcruz** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:20 pm

According to to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Central Valley aquifers boundaries are beeing pushed out -- see story.

Feds document shrinking San Joaquin Valley aquifer

PUBLISHED MONDAY, JUL. 13, 2009

California's San Joaquin Valley has lost 60 million acre-feet of groundwater since 1961, according to a new federal study. That's enough water for 60 Folsom reservoirs.

This is among the findings in a massive study of groundwater in California's Central Valley by the U.S. Geological Survey. It helps shed light on the mysteries and dangers of California's groundwater consumption, which is mostly unregulated.

According to the study, groundwater pumping continues to cause the valley floor to sink, a problem known as subsidence. This threatens the stability of surface structures such as the California Aqueduct, which delivers drinking water to more than 20 million people.

The Central Valley is America's largest farming region; it's also the single-largest zone of groundwater pumping. About 20 percent of groundwater pumped in America comes from under the Central Valley, said Claudia Faunt, the study's project chief.

In the Sacramento Valley, the study found groundwater levels have remained stable. Virtually all of the groundwater loss has occurred in the San Joaquin Valley, where aquifer levels have dropped nearly 400 feet since 1961, she said.

The current drought has aggravated this problem.

"In most years, especially in the San Joaquin Valley, the groundwater pumping exceeds the recharge," said Faunt, a USGS hydrologist. "With recent times, those groundwater levels have dropped back down close to historical lows."

The study is part of a project by the USGS to update groundwater data around the country that dates to the 1980s. USGS chose to begin in the Central Valley because the region is so important to the nation's food supply. The study took five years and cost $1 million.

California is the only state in which groundwater use is almost completely unregulated. California well owners are not required to report pumping or consumption patterns.

The study relied, in part, on indirect measurements. State monitoring wells provide a peek at regional groundwater behavior. Researchers also tapped into more than 8,500 well-drilling records dating back to 1900, as well as land-use patterns and surface water recharge data.

After 1900, when large-scale farming began in the Central Valley, water tables dropped significantly as wells were drilled to feed crops. Aquifers eventually dropped about 400 feet compared with pre-1900 levels. This was part of the impetus to build the state and federal canal systems in the 1960s that divert water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Switching farms to this new surface water supply allowed aquifers to recover.

Then drought came in the late 1970s, and surface water diversions were cut back, as they have been during the current three-year drought. In both periods, farmers relied more heavily on groundwater, and aquifers declined again.

Between 1961 and 2003, the period covered by the new study, groundwater levels in the San Joaquin Valley fluctuated depending on drought, Faunt said. The current drought has caused aquifers to drop again by nearly 400 feet, to near the historic low.

"Overall, there's a loss in groundwater," she said, amounting to about 60 million acre-feet since 1961.

An acre-foot of water is enough to serve two average California households for a year. That groundwater lost from the San Joaquin Valley was enough for every California household for 10 years.

One consequence has been land subsidence over vast areas of the San Joaquin Valley. The most severe drop is about 29 feet near Mendota, which occurred before the canals were built, said Al Steele, an engineering geologist at the state Department of Water Resources in Fresno.

"That's a three-story building, almost," he said.

The land generally does not recover from this subsidence, and the compacted aquifer often loses its ability to store water.

It was assumed that subsidence had stopped after about 1970. But both Steele and Faunt said it has continued because of periodic droughts.

This threatens the 444-mile California Aqueduct, built in part to address groundwater shortages in the San Joaquin Valley.

As the Associated Press reported last week, officials recently learned that the canal may be subsiding due to modern groundwater pumping. As land subsides, the canal drops with it. This slashes the canal's water capacity by creating low spots, which reduce flow rate. It also could crack the structure.

"There's incomplete data that shows subsidence during periods when there is increased groundwater pumpage is alive and well," Steele said. "It's still occurring."

He said Caltrans land survey data shows highways 198 and 152 near Fresno have subsided "a number of feet" in the past four decades. How much the canal has subsided is unclear.

To find out, DWR hired USGS to monitor the canal by satellite.

The new USGS study also includes a mathematical modeling tool that can help water officials manage groundwater. This could help target the best locations for new groundwater banking projects and also could prevent land subsidence.

Officials could use the model to determine where and when groundwater pumping most threatens the canal. The state could then manipulate surface water delivery in those areas to prevent groundwater pumping.

Another option might be to stop farming in threatened areas.

J.Rios · Post by **J.Rios** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:39 pm

Saw a blurb about this report tonight on the news. Very interesting. Guess they should of pumped when they had the water a few winters back. Silt or no silt they could have started adding back to the groundwater tables,but as usual
if it doesn't line their pockets they turn the blind eye. May end up bankrupting a lot of people.Long term damage from aquifer collapse really throws some unknowns in the game.

JamesH · Post by **JamesH** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:41 pm

So let me see if I can summerize that article. Farmers in the Central Valley use more water than is naturally available in the area thus depleting the source, causing unreperable damage to vast expanses of land, one such area sinking 29 feet...... Sounds like we need to build a big canal from the Delta to the central valley to fix the problem......

James

Robert F · Post by **Robert F** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:52 am

.............and pump it in to the ground so the guys sitting over it with water rights attached to their land can pump it out unmonitored for free. Was somebody complaining about how little the Farmer pays for the CVP water? When they pump it in to the ground how much is lost to other issues? Possibly areas inaccessible to recoup? Surrounding water users?

JamesH · Post by **JamesH** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:39 pm

I don't know Robert, why don't you read the articles I posted and enlighten us all on the pros and cons of ASR.

James

Tags

Notice