Posted by: Jan | September 13, 2010

Delta: A lake in the making

Excellent article in the Contra Costa Times today

Delta: A lake in the making

By Mike Taugher
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 09/12/2010 12:00:00 AM PDT

The toxic blue-green algae floating in the scientist’s jar is a symptom of a disturbing shift in the West Coast’s biggest estuary.

Common in lakes and reservoirs around the world, this kind of algae is less likely to be found in estuaries where rivers and ocean tides tangle in a restless ebb and flow.

But the slime has spread in an increasingly stagnant Delta.

After five years of studies, scientists are coalescing around the idea that diverting fresh water to farms and cities has led to a fundamental change in the Delta by slowing flows for most of the year.

Other factors are also at play, especially the dramatic conversion of a once vast tidal marsh into a network of deep channels and “islands” first built for farming.

In short, the Delta is becoming more like a lake or a lagoon, researchers say.

As a result, transplanted species — such as largemouth bass — that thrive in more stable, lake-like environments are outpacing native species, including salmon and smelt.

“You have this really important ecosystem and California is about ready to lose it if we’re not careful,” said Zeke Grader, a lawyer and head of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, a commercial salmon trade group. “We’ll lose the estuary and end up with an inland sea.”

Consider this: As California’s salmon fishers braced last spring for a third straight dismal year — a plight many of them blamed on water diversions — professional largemouth bass fishermen came to the Delta for 2010′s first Bassmaster Elite fishing tournament, during which 93 anglers caught more than 1 ton of bass over four days.

The tour then moved on to Clear Lake in Lake County and to other lakes across the nation, mostly in the South.

The new Delta “resembles a weedy lake,” said Anke Mueller-Solger, lead scientist for the Interagency Ecological Program, a 40-year-old state and federal research project in the Bay and Delta.

Changes?

On a recent trip aboard the research vessel Questuary, researcher Lindsey Sullivan was looking for tiny jellyfish, not the toxic algae she collected.

The postdoctoral researcher from Rhode Island and her team lowered over the stern a high-tech device that transmits to an onboard computer measurements of salinity, temperature and the depth of the water.

A plankton net, similar to the butterfly net that cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants uses to go “jellyfishing,” trailed behind the boat, collecting samples.

The estuary, which includes the Bay, the Delta and adjacent waterways, is reputed to be the world’s most biologically invaded.
So it was not much of a surprise when Sullivan held up a jar with hundreds of zooplankton native to China’s Yangtze River and a few tiny jellyfish from the Black Sea.

Or toxic algae, for that matter.

The algae, Microcystis, was first found here in 1999 and has spread aggressively in recent years. Its presence in the Delta, a significant source of drinking water, is a concern because it produces a powerful liver toxin.

Though increased ammonium discharges from Sacramento’s sewer treatment plant may have boosted it, Microcystis probably was able to take hold because of the central Delta’s unnaturally slow-moving water, according to a 2008 report.

But Sullivan, a jellyfish expert, was here for the jellies.
She wants to know whether they are undermining the food web by eating organisms that estuary fish such as Delta smelt need to thrive.

One of the theories about the decline of smelt, the Delta fish most in danger of extinction, is that the plankton it eats are no longer available, possibly because clams, jellyfish or something else is eating them.

Sullivan wants to examine whether the jellyfish invaders are eating enough plankton to affect the smelt.

When biologists discovered in 2005 that the Delta’s fish were in sharp decline, they began focusing on three areas: pollution, changes in water management and invasive species.

Over the next several years, they looked at culprits within those categories — Delta pumps, invasive clams, ammonium pollution, pesticides and others — but found no single suspect to blame for the ecological free fall.

Now, scientists have given up searching for a single cause and have turned to a more complex examination of how a dynamic environment has stagnated.

“It’s more of an ecosystem approach. Before it was more of a fish-centric approach,” said Mueller-Solger, the ecological group’s lead scientist.

A bit of history

The intense biological productivity typical of estuaries and the Delta’s immense size — 738,000 acres, or about the size of Yosemite National Park — make it one of state’s the most valuable ecosystems.

Its watershed covers 40 percent of the state, and the estuary is an important stop on migratory birds’ Pacific Flyway and a critical nursery and migration route for California’s king salmon runs. It is home to about 50 species of fish and 300 mammals, birds and reptiles.

About 500,000 people live in the Delta — a triangle with corners roughly at Antioch, Sacramento and Tracy — and more than 23 million people around the state get at least some of their drinking water from it.

In an estuary, salinity levels naturally vary as the run of rivers and the tides push back and forth.

However, the sprawling network of dams and pumps that water managers use to supply farms and cities through the Delta are run to optimize water delivery without violating salinity standards meant to protect drinking water and habitat.

The result is that the Delta’s salinity today is both higher and less variable than it was historically, researchers say.

For 800 years, the water in Suisun Marsh and Suisun Bay — between Benicia and Pittsburg — was mostly fresh, according to the Contra Costa Water District, which supplies Delta drinking water to 550,000 people.

Beginning in about 1915, when rice farmers moved into the Sacramento Valley, the drain on the Delta’s fresh water allowed salt water to pour in from San Francisco Bay.

Salinity increased dramatically as water development continued in the 1920s.

“The other thing we found was that the nature of salinity intrusion changed,” said Greg Gartrell, assistant general manager at the Concord-based district.

Before the levees were built and the waterways were channelized, the Delta remained full of fresher water even in long droughts, when Suisun Bay was salty.

“That means it (salinity) is exacerbated not just by the diversions but also the draining of the marshes and channelization of the Delta that allowed the tides to accelerate intrusion,” Gartrell said.
As California’s thirst grew, draining more fresh water from the Delta, salty water pushed farther into it.

By the end of the 1990s, new reservoirs such as a complex of underground water banks in Kern County and Diamond Valley Lake in Southern California were in place.

Then, even in wet months and wet years, when the demand for Delta water was low, water managers could store excess Delta water that otherwise would have flowed out to sea, further interfering with the natural variations of healthy estuaries.

In recent years, the state and federal water projects supplying millions of acres of farmland and two of every three Californians have taken record amounts of water — as much as 6 million acre-feet. That is enough to irrigate about 3 million acres or supply nearly 50 million people — more than California’s population.

And it is about 1 million acre-feet more than the Bay and the Delta together can hold at any one time, said Bruce Herbold, a biologist at the Environmental Protection Agency.
So, in other words, if the impossible happened and no water flowed in from rivers or the ocean, the amount of pumping from the Delta in recent years has been more than enough to run the estuary dry.

Raising the alarm

In early 2005, annual surveys showed an alarming three-year drop in several populations of fish that could not be explained by weather patterns.

It was a mystery with lots at stake — namely, the health of an important estuary and the availability of water from the state’s most important water source.

Mueller-Solger, the ecology program’s lead scientist, in 2008 began prodding a team of researchers to consider whether the Delta’s changes showed it becoming more like a lake, according to Herbold.

About the same time, two leading experts at UC Davis were coming to similar conclusions about the Delta’s plight. In August 2008, Peter Moyle and Bill Bennett published their thoughts in a little noticed appendix to a report on Delta water policy.

“This shift presumably occurred as a result of the long-term (slow) process of steadily increasing pumping rates over time, which required the maintenance of freshwater conditions in the Delta during summer, as well as the relatively rapid invasion by Brazilian waterweed and other factors that favored (lake fish),” they wrote.

The meaning: An assortment of species more at home in stable environments — largemouth bass and the Brazilian waterweed they like to hide in, jellyfish, overbite clams and even a zooplankton called Limnoithona — are driving out and replacing the Delta smelt, longfin smelt, striped bass and the plankton on which they prey.

The new way of looking at the Delta does not lead to easy answers.

For example, if Microcystis is blooming more now because of the ammonium from the Sacramento sewage treatment plant, is the solution to reduce the pollution or to increase flows to dilute it and wash the toxic algae downstream? Or are both necessary?

The answer, in this and many other cases, probably is both.
“In an aquatic system, it does come down to water to some degree,” Mueller-Solger said. “On the other hand, all the other threats are real, too.”

Last month, a powerful state agency adopted a report that found California’s farms and cities are using far more Delta water than is good for the estuary — roughly twice as much.

That report has no regulatory teeth and officials of some water agencies have said the report should be effectively ignored while the separate Bay Delta Conservation Plan being pushed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is written.

But the call for more water to flow through the Delta may challenge that plan’s direction: Its authors risk damaging the conservation plan’s credibility if they do not acknowledge new limits on water supplies.

Options limited

There is no way to restore the estuary to pre-Gold Rush conditions; the shallow marsh spreading through the Central Valley is gone forever.

The invaders feel quite at home. Voracious filter feeding clams carpet parts of the Delta bottom. Bass tournaments produce better fishing than native salmon runs.

Increasing the flow of water, while controversial and costly, may be one of the most effective ways to improve conditions, if only because other threats are irreversible.

One researcher considers the loss of flow a distant third on the list of estuary threats — behind the Delta’s channelization and the introduced species.

But restoring the landscape or eradicating invaders are next to impossible.

That leaves increasing water flows as the next best option, said Wim Kimmerer, director of San Francisco State’s Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies and Sullivan’s faculty adviser. And he is not convinced that will help.

“There are a whole bunch of problems and they are linked together somehow, and there are only some we can work on,” said Kimmerer, who described himself as being more skeptical than many of his colleagues studying the Delta. “I’m skeptical flow (increases) will do what we’re hoping.”

Others are more confident, though.

“We can make it better habitat,” Herbold said. “Right now, we’re making it just ideal for the introduced species. It would behoove us to do what we can.”

Though many of the changes in the estuary are permanent, researchers say that adding water might help, at least a little.

Mike Taugher covers the environment. Contact him at 925-943-8257.

Posted by: Jan | September 3, 2010

Legislation to help manage our water

Legislators concerned about the state water issues have just sent a bill (AB 301) to the governor’ desk. If passed, this legislation would force water bottlers to reveal exactly how much of our water they are taking. This is commonsense legislation for a state with huge water problems — after all, how can we begin to properly manage our water resources if we don’t know how much industry is taking?

Some water bottlers are are taking their water directly from our municipal water supply and others are drawing from springs on private land that can also impact local water sources and wells.

Click here to go to the Food and Water Watch form to encourage the governor to weigh in on the side of water and not bottlers.

Posted by: Jan | August 27, 2010

AJR-38 and 2-Gates Update

AJR-38 passed the Senate (1 Nay vote) – to the Governor for sign-off
We posted on August 16th that the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water revised the 2-Gates bill, AJR-38 and removed the request to prioritize the 2-Gates project and instead only to complete the study to determine whether or not to go forward with 2-Gates. That change was sufficient for all of the members of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee to vote yes.

On August 18, the Assembly reviewed the Senate revision. Assembly comments:

    1) Acknowledged that from 2007 to 2009 California experienced water
    management challenges due to a severe drought and, to a lesser
    extent, the need to prevent the extinction of Delta fish

    populations protected by FESA, CESA, or both and that drought,
    recession and other hardships contributed to the economic
    dislocation of rural farming communities
    on the west side of the
    San Joaquin Valley.

    2) Recognized the Two-Gates Project as an experiment that proposes
    to install barriers and gates across two Delta rivers with a
    hypothesis that this would reduce the loss of Delta smelt at the
    SWP/CVP pumps and an inference that such a reduction would allow
    greater SWP/CVP export water deliveries.

    3) Requested USDOI to complete the Two-Gates Project study.

Isn’t something missing here?
The assembly recognized that the main water issues were “due to a severe drought” and only “to a lesser extent, the need to prevent the extinction of Delta fish.” They also recognized that it’s a combination of “drought, recession and other hardships”, not Delta fish that impacted farming communities (and as we now know, most of the hardships were in the construction business). This is an “experiment”. Yet this resolution moves forward to complete the study of the 2-Gates.

The recent State Water Board Delta Flows report stated the crisis in the Delta is too much water being extracted and the legislators are saying they want “greater SWP/CVP export water deliveries.” We say reliable exports, yes. More water exported, no.

What’s also missing is legislative recognition of the impact the 2-Gates will cause to Delta communities. Besides 1) above, there should be a 1B:

    1B) Acknowledged that the installation of these 2 Gates would cause
    economic and other hardships to the Delta Communities and to all
    those that use the South Delta waterways, cause safety issues,
    and are likely to negatively impact Delta fish and wildlife.

And then, if they would acknowledge these facts, wouldn’t the resolution logically be killed and the study stopped?

Only 4 Assembly members voted no in May 2010 when the resolution was first voted on. The Assembly vote was 63-4 with Nay votes from the Discovery Bay Assemblymember representative Joan Buchanan plus Gaines, Niello, Yamada. Only one Senator voted no last week. Mark DeSaulnier the senator that represents Discovery Bay and other Delta communities was the lone “NO” vote.

Today the Delta Stewardship Council released the Final version of their Interim Plan. It lists as the first responsibility under the DWR:

  • “Efforts to cooperate in the construction and implementation of the Two-Gates Fish Protection 21 Demonstration Project by December 1, 2010″.

The study hasn’t been completed, the DWR and many others know it is not a good idea. Why is there still an aggressive implementation date?

Sometimes it seems people are starting to listen to reason and rational thought concerning the Delta. The DWR understood the issues and concerns when they wrote their Dec. 22, 2009 letter putting 2-Gates on hold for more scientific analysis. The Obama Adminsistration and EPA called for additional environmental analysis. Newspapers are now reporting more about water issues and exposing private special interests. Then the senate passes AJR-38. We’ll have to see what happens next.

An interesting article in the L.A. Times last week:

“A lawsuit by water agencies and environmental groups contends the Kern Water Bank transaction was essentially a gift of public property to private interests and therefore violates the state constitution.”

“That’s the theme of a lawsuit filed a few weeks ago alleging there’s something smelly about how a group of private interests — notably a huge agribusiness owned by the wealthy Southern California couple Stewart and Lynda Resnick — got control of an underground water storage project the state had already spent $75 million to develop.”

It will be interesting to see how this lawsuit progresses. Their goal is to return the Kerns Water Bank “into the state’s water management plan, so a precious and dwindling natural resource can serve everyone in the state, not just a few powerful farm companies and real estate developers.”

To read the entire L.A. Times article, click here.

Posted by: Jan | August 16, 2010

Bottled Water and Privatization

Please view this video:

Nestle Steals Water; excerpt from FLOW, an excerpt from the 2008 Sundance Film Festival documentary “For the Love of Water”. The message is pertinant because, as we reported in the post Sacramento has Excess Water? earlier today, Nestlé just signed a 10-year agreement with Sacrmento to open a new bottling plant which will use Delta water to bottle. This film shows what happened when Nestlé opened a bottling plant in Massachusetts (very scary) and raises the question of who owns water and who gets to make decisions about water.

It’s not just in Massachusetts – there is a YouTube video from Ontario, Canada about Nestle collapsing the groundwater aquivers

“We have fundamental problems with profiting from water, which is a public resource,” said Emily Wurth, water-program director at Food and Water Watch, a Washington, D.C., research and advocacy group that opposes privatizing water utilities and bottling water.

We need to make it illegal for water rights to be privatized.

To view the FLOW video, click here.

Posted by: Jan | August 16, 2010

Sacramento has excess water?

“Excess” tap water in Sacramento, Calif., is helping supply a new Nestlé bottling plant.

The new bottling plant initially will bottle up to 150 acre-feet of water annually, purchased from the city of Sacramento and from nearby private springs.

The bottler signed a 10-year lease with options to extend. That’s another water contract state agencies have signed continuing the process of over-committing water we don’t have.

This may have been a wet year, but has everyone forgotten the past four years of drought or the July 20th State Water Report that says the Delta needs more water flowing through it than is currently allowed due to excess water exports?

If Sacramento has excess water, why do they need four new pumps? The four new Freeport pumps near Sacramento are anticipated to go on-line in 2011. The pumps are a joint project by the Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) of Oakland to supply 85 million gallons of water per day from the Sacramento River to customers in central Sacramento County and the East Bay area of California.

We’re in a state water crisis! We need to be importing bottled water into California from water-rich states. There is no “excess” water here.

Posted by: Jan | August 15, 2010

Senate Committee votes YES on 2-Gates Study

The Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water voted a unanimous “YES” this week on 2-Gates AJR-38.

AJR-38 says “This measure would request the United States Department of the Interior to prioritize completion of its study of the Two-Gates Fish Protection Demonstration Project in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. … The project should be expeditiously analyzed … and, if viable, implemented.”

The unanimous senate committee vote means passage by the Senate is likely. Even committee member Senator Lois Wolk, typically a strong supporter of the Delta voted YES. This is after the senate committee analysis clearly stated the objections the Delta communities have raised:

    “Opponents argue that the science does not support moving forward with the project. They question why the state would attempt to restart a project determined not to be viable and one that has serious impacts on the Delta and its communities. In particular, they note that the project, by blocking Old River and Connection Slough, would pose serious navigation problems, not just for recreational boaters, but for emergency marine response crews as well.”

Hearing our grave concerns, why would the legislature even consider continuing this study?

The legislature needs to push for real solutions, not spending money to study projects that should never be implemented.

Sounds like the special interest water groups have more pull on our legislators than common sense.

The list of those who are pushing AJR-38:

    Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
    Southern California Water Committee
    Association of California Water Agencies
    Chambers of Commerce Alliance (Ventura & Santa Barbara Counties)
    City of San Diego

Those who oppose it:

    Contra Costa County
    Sacramento County
    Solano County
    Yolo County
    Recreational Boaters of California

If you are concerned about a re-start to the 2-Gates Project, copy the paragraph below referencing the AJR-38 Analysis Report opposition statement into your Senator’s “Contact Me” comments section (or replace with your own words) .

For Discovery Bay residents, go to Mark DeSaulnier’s Website.

    The Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water reported that there is serious opposition to AJR-38 including that the science does not support moving forward with the project. Opponents question why the state would attempt to restart a project determined not to be viable and one that has serious impacts on the Delta and its communities. In particular, they note that the project, by blocking Old River and Connection Slough, would pose serious navigation problems, not just for recreational boaters, but for emergency marine response crews as well. I urge you to vote “NO” for AJR-38.

Click here to view the complete analysis.

UPDATE 8/16 from Senator Wolk’s office: Senator Wolk agrees with the analysis of AJR 38 [which pointed out the concerns and issues Delta communities have with AJR-38] and made many of those points in Committee. The Author agreed to take some amendments during the hearing which made Senator Wolk more comfortable with the bill. The amendments effectively stripped AJR 38 of the provision requiring “prioritization” of the study. Now the language simply states that the study should be completed. It’s now just like any other proposal that comes before the Bureau, and will be prioritized based on merit (which as we understand it, this project has very little merit).

Posted by: Jan | August 11, 2010

Water Bond Bill Delayed to 2012

Even though organizations concerned about the Delta, newspapers, and others were clammoring for the legislature to NOT vote yes on AB-1265 to take the Water Bond off the ballot in November, on Monday, the Legislature voted to postpone the water bond to 2012. Said Food & Water Watch’s Elanor Starmer. “In the interest of all Californians, legislators should take this opportunity to repeal the bond and start anew, not postpone it.” However, since the backers of the water bond knew it was unlikely to pass this year, rather than revise it to provide a reasonable initiative voters could approve, they chose to remove it and hope in two years everyone forgot the issues with the measure.

The Senate backed postponement from the outset, voting 27-7. I’m happy to report that our local Senator DeSaulnier joined the always pro-Delta senator Lois Wolk in voting no. The Assembly took several votes, with Jared Huffman (Chair of the Assembly on Water) arguing to keep the measure on the ballot or pull it altogether and revise it, leaving the ballot date open. It took until 9:35 p.m. for the last Assembly holdouts, Assembly Member Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara) and Assembly Member Sandre Swanson (D-Alameda), to respond to pressure from legislative leadership and vote to postpone. Again, happily our own Joan Buchanan voted on the “NO” side.

Supporters to delay the Water Bond to 2012:

Association of California Water Agencies
California Building Industry Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Municipal Utilities Association
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Friant Water Authority
Helix Water District
Kern County Water Agency
San Diego County Water Authority
WateReuse California
Western Municipal Water District

Posted by: Jan | August 6, 2010

Controversy over the State Water Board Report

In our post last week, State Releases Delta Flows Report, the recent report released by the State Water Board had a key central conclusion: Significantly more water must be left to flow through the Delta. Now groups that rely on delta water are beginning to take positions on what this report means.

Those who are concerned about the Delta are pleased to have an official report on delta flow requirements. “This [report] is something that some of us have been awaiting for more than two decades,” said Zeke Grader, executive director of a trade group for commercial salmon fishermen, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. The conclusion was unsurprising to many given evidence developed during the 1980s and 1990s during similar proceedings but which were ignored under political pressure. “This doesn’t have the (regulatory force) those other two processes had, but the science has finally been liberated,” Grader said.

The San Jose Mercury News reported that water agencies sought to dismiss the report as “pie in the sky.”

  • It was “an interesting theoretical exercise” and “not a useful resource” said the State Water Contractors, an association that represents the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Kern County Water Agency and a handful of water agencies in the Bay Area.
  • Thomas Birmingham, general manager of the Westlands Water District, the nation’s largest irrigated farm district, called the report “immaterial” and urged board members not to adopt it.

Although water agencies have long been able to define how much water they need, the report marks the first time specific numbers could be put on the environment’s side of the scales, said Gary Bobker, program director at The Bay Institute.

The study found that about 75 percent of the rain and snowmelt in the Delta watershed should be allowed to flow uninterrupted to the bay and ocean. Currently only about half the water flows through to the bay. To meet the report’s recommendations, Delta water use would have to be cut in half.

Posted by: Jan | August 6, 2010

SF Chronical Water Bond Article

A great article in the SF Chronicle today

By: Elanor Starmer | August 06 2010 at 03:48 PM

Here’s an excerpt:

“Supporters of the water bond, which would cost California taxpayers $22 billion over 30 years, hope that in two years voters will forget how bad it is. That will also give bond supporters time to gather the millions of dollars needed to push their message out statewide. We shouldn’t be fooled: a vote to postpone this bad bill is a vote to keep it on life support.

“While pulling the plug on the water bond now and starting anew is the best thing for California, the second best option is to let Prop 18 go to the ballot in November. If our Bay Area legislators want to do right by the public, they will vote against A.B. 1265, the bill to postpone the water bond to 2012.

“The battle over the bond has been framed in many circles as a battle between farmers and fishermen, or between Northern and Southern California. But a report released by Food & Water Watch yesterday suggests that the real battle is between private and public interests, with private interests across the state set to gain measurably if the bond is passed. Peter Gleick’s post on Tuesday highlighted what Proposition 18 actually says and does. Now with this report, we know who stands to benefit most from the bloated bond and it’s not the general water-drinking public. That will continue to be the case two years from now.

“That puts the bond’s cheery title, the “Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Act of 2010 (or 2012)” in a whole new, and suspect, light. And it makes the fact that the bond would be paid for out of the same pot that funds essential public services like education, public safety, and health care seem positively reprehensible.

“It shouldn’t be surprising that over half of the contributions to pro-bond PAC have come from the construction industry, agribusiness, and developers. An additional 20 percent came from Governor Schwarzenegger’s California Dream Team (e.g. $35,000 from billionaire Steward Resnick, owner of Paramount Farms).

“[With] interest, the bond would shoulder California taxpayers with an additional $22 billion in debt, to be paid off over 30 years at a cost of some $800 million per year. That’s enough to pay for 13,000 teachers’ salaries or four years of the Healthy Families program, which insures 900,000 children in the state.

“The findings of this new report are clear. The bond is a continuation of failed policies that have funneled California’s public water to private interests that overuse, pollute, and profit from it.

“Check out the video No on AB-1265 and share it with your neighbors. “

Read the entire SF Chronical article here: click here

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Categories