Ann Hayden is a Senior Water Resource Analyst at EDF.

When it comes to the future of California water, one thing appears fairly certain: imported water supplies from the San Francisco Bay-Delta and Colorado River to Southern California will only continue to become less and less reliable due to extended drought, environmental degradation of the Delta and a growing population.

In light of these significant challenges, the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation has produced a report for the Southern California Leadership Council that evaluates the potential of various water strategies to help maintain reliable water supply for Southern California. Nine different water strategies were evaluated, ranging from conservation to surface storage and ranked based on cost-effectiveness, environmental impacts and overall efficacy.

The LAEDC’s findings are what many environmentalists have been saying for decades. They point to water conservation, storm water capture, recycling and agricultural to urban transfers as the most promising strategies. Now it’s time to turn these findings into reality.

Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

We at the Environmental Defense Fund believe that sound economics is a cornerstone of good environmental policy. To be smart about how we manage any natural resource, it is important to "internalize the externalities", i.e. make sure the costs of pollution and environmental degradation are fully included in decision-making.

Under such a system, the famous "invisible hand" of economist Adam Smith would encourage rational use of limited resources without excessive environmental destruction. Water management in California and the west is the result, however, of a "first in time, first in right" policy that has little to do with economic efficiency.

As a result of California history and our water rights priority system, the price of water in our cities is between 10 and 100 times that in many rural areas. This differential is huge, even after accounting for the additional cost of moving and treating the water for urban consumption, and provides disincentives to efficient use. We'll provide some examples in future blog posts.

But today's LA Times, featuring a bipartisan editorial opinion crafted by Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Feinstein that encourages the legislature to put a $9 Billion "water infrastructure investment" bond on the November ballot, reminds us of our old battle cry "policy before plumbing" (are we wonks or what?). Does it really make sense to make a massive investment in infrastructure without making sure we are using our existing facilities as well as we could? Especially with a record deficit in the State budget?

As the legislature considers solutions for water management and restoration of our beleaguered fisheries, we urge them to bear in mind that it is critically important that we all have the incentive to manage water supplies prudently. Let's ask ourselves - "What would Adam Smith do?"

Cynthia Koehler is Senior Consulting Attorney for EDF.

It has been an interesting few weeks for water. The Governor has proposed a massive $9.3 billion water bond. PPIC has proposed building a peripheral canal. And we at EDF have released a paper and an opinion piece in the SF Chronicle, outlining our view of what California needs to do to get serious about salmon and environmental recovery.

Quoting Einstein, we note that insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. California has a lot of experience spending water bond money. It would be great to start using those resources in ways that actually get us to a place where our strained environment is capable of producing salmon on a sustainable basis.

After all, salmon aren't merely telegenic megafauna. They're also a crucial source of those all important omega-3 fatty acids. And they're quite tasty with a nice teriyaki sauce.

Laura Harnish is the California Regional Director.
…we couldn't have said it better ourselves. Read about California's water storage myth in Dave Zetland's commentary here.

Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

Currently, up to 6 million acre-feet of water - or about 15% of total statewide use, flows from the Sacramento River into the Delta and is then "exported" through huge pumps in the south Delta by the State and federal governments. This water is then distributed to cities in the central and southern parts of the State, and to farms in the San Joaquin Valley and Tulare basin. A peripheral canal, as proposed by PPIC and others, would divert the water from the Sacramento River before it ever gets to the Delta.

PPIC and its team of UC Davis authors have pointed out that the Delta's levees are notoriously weak and are susceptible to earthquake, flood and anticipated sea level rise. A peripheral canal would indeed ensure that water supplies from the comparatively wet Sacramento Valley could continue to flow south. The engineering is not simple and the cost is not cheap, but the benefit to the homes and businesses that rely on these supplies is clear.

Less clear is how a peripheral canal would affect the Delta, either as a natural environment or as a farming and rural community. Read more »

Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

The Public Policy Institute of California has released its long-awaited report on the Delta in which they endorse a highly controversial peripheral canal. PPIC's timing is excellent, coinciding with today's lead Opinion Editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle written by my EDF colleagues Laura Harnish and Cynthia Koehler which makes a compelling case for the link between environmental reliability and water supply reliability.

As the PPIC authors acknowledge, the best thing for our embattled fisheries would be to take the pumps out of the Delta entirely. Considering that option isn’t too popular, it may well be that a canal of some kind would provide useful water supply benefits to south of Delta water users including improving water supply reliability, even with the explicit understanding that it might not increase the overall volume of supply. And, operated correctly and conservatively, it has the potential of causing less damage to fish than the existing pumps.

But we know enough about the system today to understand that protecting fisheries, including our salmon industry, will require substantially more than pouring concrete, and that safeguards, as we describe in the newspaper today, must be put in place prior to authorizing or constructing a canal. More on the PPIC report to follow in the coming days.

Ann Hayden is a Senior Water Resource Analyst at EDF.

On the Water Front took a short hiatus recently so that our EDF California water team could convene with others in our Center for Rivers and Deltas  for a retreat in Montana. We spent a few days up at the University of Montana’s Biological Station (FLBS)  on the shores of beautiful Flathead Lake, just outside of Glacier National Park.

In addition to an exciting float trip down the middle-fork of the Flathead River, one of the big highlights of the retreat was hearing from Dr. Jack Stanford, the Director at FLBS, on the important river restoration work he’s involved in. In particular, he has found innovative ways to use 3-D and remote sensing tools to better understand how riverine habitats move and interact over time and how that affects the quality and quantity of habitat (see an article authored by Dr. Stanford here (pdf).

Ultimately, this research can be used to help identify and prioritize those rivers with the greatest potential for high quality habitat and therefore the greatest potential to benefit species such as salmon.

His work resonated greatly with those of us keenly interested in restoring the health of California rivers and salmon populations. We can use all the help we can get to restore our imperiled salmon runs to their once abundant levels.

A big thanks to Professor Stanford and the folks at the Biological Station for their hospitality!

Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

Last winter, Governor Schwarzenegger proposed reducing urban water use, on a per capita basis, 20% by 2020. Assemblymember John Laird (Santa Cruz) has authored legislation, with assistance of our colleagues at the Natural Resources Defense Council, that would implement this proposal. The legislation, AB 2175, has been passed in the Assembly and is presently being considered by the Senate.

We at EDF strongly support this important proposal to improve water use efficiency in our cities. Urban water use, however, accounts for only about 20% of the developed water in California. The remaining 80% goes to farms. Let's pursue all aspects of water use efficiency, both in our cities and on our farms, so we can find fair and cost-effective ways to protect environmental values. Read more »

Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

The first draft of the Delta Vision's Strategic Plan was released on June 18, 2008, and is very clearly labeled as a “preliminary" product completed by the staff that has not been reviewed by the Blue Ribbon Task Force. Despite these cautions, the report has stirred considerable press interest, including an Associated Press article that cites a potential cost of up to $80 Billion.

We agree it will be expensive but think the cost will be far, far less. And the best way to keep the costs down is to ensure that they are fairly distributed among the beneficiaries of fixing the Delta. Accordingly, we have outlined a series of financial recommendations for the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force.

What is a bit of a surprise, at least to us, is that the staff is apparently suggesting that California’s Department of Water Resources be bifurcated into two agencies. DWR would continue to do statewide planning, flood management and other activities. A new agency, identified as the “California Water Utility” would operate the State Water Project. They further suggest that this utility might also encompass the federal Central Valley Project someday.

This proposal has an obvious appeal to those of us who sometimes think the State Water Project has too much influence at a Department of Water Resources that is supposed to represent public and environmental interests, not simply respond to the needs of the State Water Contractors. We look forward to the opportunity to investigate this proposal further.

Ann Hayden is a Senior Water Resource Analyst at EDF.

One of the more troubling bills to come around in a while will be heard today in the Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee. Senate Bill 994, sponsored by Senators Florez, Ashburn, and Steinberg and supported by powerful water interests, purports to restore the threatened Delta smelt by establishing a Delta smelt hatchery “mitigation bank” program.

In reality, however, this bill would significantly undermine the California Endangered Species Act by providing virtually unlimited coverage under the Act to “take” Delta smelt at the Delta pumps, which could be detrimental to the fate of the species. (See two sets of comments opposing this bill) Read more »