© 2011 Joshua Stark
Dan Bacher has an update on Delta issues - noting that federal representatives of the Delta and North Coast recently met with the new Delta Czar, Jerry Meral. Their reason: To let him know that they have "grave concerns" (Mr. Bacher's language) about the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. Add their voice to the many groups who've been involved for years fighting to make the Delta whole and healthy.
According to Mr. Bacher, the Reps.' concerns are over a peripheral canal. However, if you read the quotations, it sounds like those representatives are not as adamant about opposing a canal as is Mr. Bacher. This is too bad, and we constituents need to let them know that we want solid, explicit language opposing any conveyance around the Delta.
Make no mistake: Any peripheral canal would be an ecological compromise, at best; at worst, it would be an ecological and economic disaster for a fertile, diverse, unique region.
Everybody rips on the Delta, but the Delta is California's crown jewel, the source of our very life: from its water, the foods that come from its amazing soil (with no need to go against gravity), and its unique habitats. From the way it is talked about in the news and in so many watercooler conversations, you would think that it is a festering sore on the face of the Earth, a cesspool of pollution, devastation and death just waiting for a catastrophe to rip it wide open and spread famine everywhere. But, we have made ugly in concept something that is beautiful in fact - even now - and we do it because we do not understand our physical connection to it.
You, who drink water in Los Angeles, water that is pumped hundreds of miles and over an entire mountain range, you are connected to the Delta: It infuses your cells, hydrates your body, helps fire your synapses.
You, who spray water to ever-saltier flats on the West Central Valley, you are connected to the Delta: It lines your pockets, pays your kids' tuitions, keeps your workers happy.
And we, throughout the world, who buy California produce, we are all connected to the Delta: It grows the largest agricultural industry on Earth, it builds our muscles and bones, forms our staffs of life, grows our children's eyes and brains. We sanctify it, pray over it, cook it up, add it to our very selves. We are made of the Delta.
And this is good.
But if we are to continue to benefit from it, then we must treat it right. Many billions of other lives depend on the Delta, too, and the Delta, as any ecosystem, depends upon those lives for its own health. There is no separation of a wetlands habitat from its water without loss and significant change, and we, as Americans, have taken on the responsibility of caring for those creatures we have harmed.
Mr. Bacher notes a sad new record set this year: more Sacramento splittail minnows were killed at the pumps this year than any other. Nine million little lives lost for the pumps, while more water was pumped than ever before.
All of this that is the Delta - the devastation as well as the vitality, goes into those things we put in our bodies to keep ourselves whole.
So next time you start to think about the Delta as a horrible place, just remember: The Delta is You.
Showing posts with label California Delta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California Delta. Show all posts
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Sec. Salazar continues the time-honored tradition of promising California hydrological miracles
© 2011 Joshua Stark
Mike Tougher has a good article in the San Jose Mercury News about Interior Secretary Salazar's comments on pumping Delta water to Central and Southern California.
Last year, when I pointed out that Meg Whitman (remember when she ran for Governor?) promised more water, I gave her the benefit of the doubt and chalked it up to the pressures of a live debate (I'm sure I'd look like a complete moron in a live debate, so I'm always judging those events nicely). Secretary Salazar, when taking questions before the Commonwealth Club, might also get the benefit of the doubt. It was a live, well-respected audience.
But the comments Mr. Tougher reports show a man flirting with serious conflicts with physics. And believe me, physics always wins.
From Mr. Tougher's report: "Salazar said building a new aqueduct around the Delta might increase the flexibility of water operations in such a way that it could lead to more water deliveries."
The Delta needs x amount of fresh water each year. We aren't sure what x is, yet, but we know that in a typical year it is more than it now gets. If freshwater is diverted from the Delta, it will suffer an ecological decline.
Mr. Salazar later visited the new fish screens put up to protect fish from the South Delta pumps. Unfortunately, what Mr. Tougher failed to note is that the sucking up of fish into the pumps is only one of the ways they impact endangered and threatened species. Their overall impacts on the flow of water through the Delta also kills fish by confusing them and sucking them into predator pits.
But never forget that removing actual habitat (i.e., through a peripheral canal) is not the cure for pump impacts on tides and flows. The single greatest ecological and economic benefits for both the Delta and the rest of the Central Valley would come from farming the Westlands for solar power.
Physics can be our friend.
Mike Tougher has a good article in the San Jose Mercury News about Interior Secretary Salazar's comments on pumping Delta water to Central and Southern California.
Last year, when I pointed out that Meg Whitman (remember when she ran for Governor?) promised more water, I gave her the benefit of the doubt and chalked it up to the pressures of a live debate (I'm sure I'd look like a complete moron in a live debate, so I'm always judging those events nicely). Secretary Salazar, when taking questions before the Commonwealth Club, might also get the benefit of the doubt. It was a live, well-respected audience.
But the comments Mr. Tougher reports show a man flirting with serious conflicts with physics. And believe me, physics always wins.
From Mr. Tougher's report: "Salazar said building a new aqueduct around the Delta might increase the flexibility of water operations in such a way that it could lead to more water deliveries."
The Delta needs x amount of fresh water each year. We aren't sure what x is, yet, but we know that in a typical year it is more than it now gets. If freshwater is diverted from the Delta, it will suffer an ecological decline.
Mr. Salazar later visited the new fish screens put up to protect fish from the South Delta pumps. Unfortunately, what Mr. Tougher failed to note is that the sucking up of fish into the pumps is only one of the ways they impact endangered and threatened species. Their overall impacts on the flow of water through the Delta also kills fish by confusing them and sucking them into predator pits.
But never forget that removing actual habitat (i.e., through a peripheral canal) is not the cure for pump impacts on tides and flows. The single greatest ecological and economic benefits for both the Delta and the rest of the Central Valley would come from farming the Westlands for solar power.
Physics can be our friend.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Bad Science on levees makes it into the paper
© 2011 Joshua Stark
Alas, having an advanced degree in a field doesn't always mean you are always right all the time.
Take this op-ed piece in yesterday's Sacramento Bee. In it, a Dr. Lund from UC Davis, a man who is probably nearly a genius in his field, makes some very dubious claims about Central California's levees. Sadly, here he refers to no studies nor historical evidence to prove his position.
The professor's claim is that we should remove trees from all "urban" levees, per a requirement by the US Army Corps of Engineers, even though doing so may have bad impacts to riparian habitat and recreational values. He is concerned because trees may weaken levees, and hide burrows from workers checking them.
What does the professor use to support his claim? The fact that other parts of the world - namely, China, Japan, & the Netherlands - remove trees from their levees.
That's it.
He offers no studies in this article that have shown these levees to be superior to California's. He offers no examples of California levee failures (or any levee failures) due to trees. He offers no support whatsoever for such an environmentally devastating act, for an act that will forever change habitats and recreation on our levees.
After some research, I found Dr. Lund's article as a blog post where he actually does cite references. However, the references are largely skewed (most being from the Corps), or almost never support his position. For example, this Power Point presentation lists trees and vegetation that are more or less problematic according to their research on European levees. The list describes a host of bramble bushes - blackberries and such - as less problematic for levees. However, I daresay that a burrow would be harder to find in a blackberry bramble than under a valley oak.
Another example, from the Ca. Dept. of Water Resources link he cites: "... California asserts that the Corps’ strict enforcement of the ETL and PGL will adversely impact public safety."
An earlier report by the Sacramento Bee, about the lawsuit by environmental groups against the Corps for this horrid idea, did mention the science on levee failures:
"But it (the Corps) offers little scientific evidence for those conclusions (to remove trees). A 2007 symposium hosted by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) offered evidence for the opposing view: Tree roots may, in fact, strengthen levees by binding soils together."
I am no levee engineer. However, a quick google search of images from the last major levee failure on the California Delta, at Jones Tract in 2004, are telling; do you see any trees? Also, think back to times when you've noticed tree roots, perhaps sticking out of the side of a cut-bank on a road or a creek. Think about the dirt and rocks sticking to it, and how it and the land touching it stick way out from the eroded places around it, places that only had short grasses growing on it.
Last, I want to make a point about Dr. Lund's tone (and nearly everybody else talking publicly) when talking about levees: It is super-easy to make dire predictions, because nobody wants to have been the Pollyanna the day one fails, and because the old saw about there being two types of levees (those that have failed, and those that are about to) is true. But I would like to point out that this year we have experienced well over double our average runoff, and have had no major levee breech.
It may be time to reconsider a push for drastic actions to redesign a system that has been working pretty well for quite a while. Eventually, a levee will fail. Far less likely will multiple levees fail, and the event that would cause multiple failures will also likely go beyond what we actually accomplish to protect them now, regardless of the current wild-eyed rhetoric. Perhaps we should look at smaller-scale solutions to a recurring issue, rather than panicking about a potential catastrophe.
And for the record, I was born and raised on the Delta, and I live on the Delta now, as do my parents, a sister, and a nephew.
Alas, having an advanced degree in a field doesn't always mean you are always right all the time.
Take this op-ed piece in yesterday's Sacramento Bee. In it, a Dr. Lund from UC Davis, a man who is probably nearly a genius in his field, makes some very dubious claims about Central California's levees. Sadly, here he refers to no studies nor historical evidence to prove his position.
The professor's claim is that we should remove trees from all "urban" levees, per a requirement by the US Army Corps of Engineers, even though doing so may have bad impacts to riparian habitat and recreational values. He is concerned because trees may weaken levees, and hide burrows from workers checking them.
What does the professor use to support his claim? The fact that other parts of the world - namely, China, Japan, & the Netherlands - remove trees from their levees.
That's it.
He offers no studies in this article that have shown these levees to be superior to California's. He offers no examples of California levee failures (or any levee failures) due to trees. He offers no support whatsoever for such an environmentally devastating act, for an act that will forever change habitats and recreation on our levees.
After some research, I found Dr. Lund's article as a blog post where he actually does cite references. However, the references are largely skewed (most being from the Corps), or almost never support his position. For example, this Power Point presentation lists trees and vegetation that are more or less problematic according to their research on European levees. The list describes a host of bramble bushes - blackberries and such - as less problematic for levees. However, I daresay that a burrow would be harder to find in a blackberry bramble than under a valley oak.
Another example, from the Ca. Dept. of Water Resources link he cites: "... California asserts that the Corps’ strict enforcement of the ETL and PGL will adversely impact public safety."
An earlier report by the Sacramento Bee, about the lawsuit by environmental groups against the Corps for this horrid idea, did mention the science on levee failures:
"But it (the Corps) offers little scientific evidence for those conclusions (to remove trees). A 2007 symposium hosted by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) offered evidence for the opposing view: Tree roots may, in fact, strengthen levees by binding soils together."
I am no levee engineer. However, a quick google search of images from the last major levee failure on the California Delta, at Jones Tract in 2004, are telling; do you see any trees? Also, think back to times when you've noticed tree roots, perhaps sticking out of the side of a cut-bank on a road or a creek. Think about the dirt and rocks sticking to it, and how it and the land touching it stick way out from the eroded places around it, places that only had short grasses growing on it.
Last, I want to make a point about Dr. Lund's tone (and nearly everybody else talking publicly) when talking about levees: It is super-easy to make dire predictions, because nobody wants to have been the Pollyanna the day one fails, and because the old saw about there being two types of levees (those that have failed, and those that are about to) is true. But I would like to point out that this year we have experienced well over double our average runoff, and have had no major levee breech.
It may be time to reconsider a push for drastic actions to redesign a system that has been working pretty well for quite a while. Eventually, a levee will fail. Far less likely will multiple levees fail, and the event that would cause multiple failures will also likely go beyond what we actually accomplish to protect them now, regardless of the current wild-eyed rhetoric. Perhaps we should look at smaller-scale solutions to a recurring issue, rather than panicking about a potential catastrophe.
And for the record, I was born and raised on the Delta, and I live on the Delta now, as do my parents, a sister, and a nephew.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Water Politics and Physics
© 2010 Joshua Stark.
Okay, so with little exception, the California debates for governor and senator ran their courses as expected. And for all the listening I did, I only found one environmental reference worthy of note, but not in a good way.
I'm sure you've all heard that Meg Whitman employed a woman to work in her house for 9 years, and it turns out that the woman didn't have her papers in order to work here. I'll brush past that, except to say, "duh!" I think it's obvious that wealthy people hire undocumented housekeepers as a status symbol.
But on to the environmental comment. In the first Whitman-Brown debate, Ms. Whitman stepped into a time-honored tradition in California politics: offering the promise of more water.
That's right, Meg Whitman promised more water.
I believe it was about two-thirds through the debate, when one of the moderators brought up the Peripheral Canal. Ms. Whitman took it and ran with it right in the direction I knew she'd go. She said that the Central Valley's current economic woes were due to the overzealous environmental regulations (or some such thing), and that the peripheral canal was a perfect example of a jobs-building, environmental savior. Then, she contracted something, a condition I've heard called "diarrhea of the mouth", in which she couldn't stop herself from explaining the benefits of this grand scheme. She worked herself up into such a state that she had to finish where she did, as horrific as I'm sure it had become in her head. She ended by claiming that the peripheral canal would provide more water for the environment and more water for agriculture.
I can imagine the little voice in her head, "okay, you've made a great point about jobs (although it isn't true, and the poor Central Valley will always be a feudal state), so wrap it up. Okay, bring it in bring it home... wait, wrap it up! Arrghh! Stop talking! No, don't promise them more wa... well, crap."
Ms. Whitman is surely smart enough to realize that a new river bed, no matter how it is designed, will only provide the water that runs from its sources, and cannot provide any new water. Ms. Whitman has got to be cognizant of the fact that weather and climate determine precipitation, and that one concrete conveyance cannot do one thing to increase our rainfall and snow pack.
It would have been one thing to say that the Central Valley needs the jobs that more water provides. I'd have slammed it, but at least it is within the realm of physics. But to promise a magical transformation? Pretty bad, pretty amateurish, and perfectly, politically, Californian.
Okay, so with little exception, the California debates for governor and senator ran their courses as expected. And for all the listening I did, I only found one environmental reference worthy of note, but not in a good way.
I'm sure you've all heard that Meg Whitman employed a woman to work in her house for 9 years, and it turns out that the woman didn't have her papers in order to work here. I'll brush past that, except to say, "duh!" I think it's obvious that wealthy people hire undocumented housekeepers as a status symbol.
But on to the environmental comment. In the first Whitman-Brown debate, Ms. Whitman stepped into a time-honored tradition in California politics: offering the promise of more water.
That's right, Meg Whitman promised more water.
I believe it was about two-thirds through the debate, when one of the moderators brought up the Peripheral Canal. Ms. Whitman took it and ran with it right in the direction I knew she'd go. She said that the Central Valley's current economic woes were due to the overzealous environmental regulations (or some such thing), and that the peripheral canal was a perfect example of a jobs-building, environmental savior. Then, she contracted something, a condition I've heard called "diarrhea of the mouth", in which she couldn't stop herself from explaining the benefits of this grand scheme. She worked herself up into such a state that she had to finish where she did, as horrific as I'm sure it had become in her head. She ended by claiming that the peripheral canal would provide more water for the environment and more water for agriculture.
I can imagine the little voice in her head, "okay, you've made a great point about jobs (although it isn't true, and the poor Central Valley will always be a feudal state), so wrap it up. Okay, bring it in bring it home... wait, wrap it up! Arrghh! Stop talking! No, don't promise them more wa... well, crap."
Ms. Whitman is surely smart enough to realize that a new river bed, no matter how it is designed, will only provide the water that runs from its sources, and cannot provide any new water. Ms. Whitman has got to be cognizant of the fact that weather and climate determine precipitation, and that one concrete conveyance cannot do one thing to increase our rainfall and snow pack.
It would have been one thing to say that the Central Valley needs the jobs that more water provides. I'd have slammed it, but at least it is within the realm of physics. But to promise a magical transformation? Pretty bad, pretty amateurish, and perfectly, politically, Californian.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Ah, the Fresno Bee and water...
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Of course they are horribly, horribly biased, especially when the big farmers around them lose out, like yesterday.
However, comments like this...
"It's the latest loss for farmers and other water users in the decades-long battle over moving water through the state. That battle continues today when water users and environmentalists square off in Wanger's court in what promises to be a pivotal case."
Really should be in the realm of crappy opinion, not sold off as real news.
First, not all water users lost. Second, environmentalists are water users.
This is fully ridiculous.
Of course they are horribly, horribly biased, especially when the big farmers around them lose out, like yesterday.
However, comments like this...
"It's the latest loss for farmers and other water users in the decades-long battle over moving water through the state. That battle continues today when water users and environmentalists square off in Wanger's court in what promises to be a pivotal case."
Really should be in the realm of crappy opinion, not sold off as real news.
First, not all water users lost. Second, environmentalists are water users.
This is fully ridiculous.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
A good article on the Delta, but something's missing
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Like most articles and expertise claimed about the Delta, local voices are missing from this story at the Oakalnd Tribune.
I find especially distasteful the "rural vs. urban" battle which the city-slicker farmers in the Central Valley have fed to the media, and which the media is happy to portray. Dichotomies are easier to write about, especially when they lack the nuance of reality.
Not to mention I think the whole urban-rural-wild distinction is an unhealthy myth.
Like most articles and expertise claimed about the Delta, local voices are missing from this story at the Oakalnd Tribune.
I find especially distasteful the "rural vs. urban" battle which the city-slicker farmers in the Central Valley have fed to the media, and which the media is happy to portray. Dichotomies are easier to write about, especially when they lack the nuance of reality.
Not to mention I think the whole urban-rural-wild distinction is an unhealthy myth.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Proposed Solar on the Westlands, Feinstein gets good science, and the RNC throws vote-trading accusations
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Here is a great, short document on the value of the Westlands Irrigation District to California... as a solar generator.
flx1247rg
The author, Bill Powers of Powers Engineering, explained in these comments to the California Energy Commission that 5% of the Westlands could provide 5,000 MW of solar energy to the state.
Wouldn't it be great if we converted, say, 1/3rd of the Westlands to solar, 1/3rd we restored to native habitat (for water and air quality improvements, too), and kept 1/3rd in ag. production?
Meanwhile, the L.A. Times reports that the National Academy of Sciences has weighed in on the California Delta issue, per Feinstein's request, and found that water export cuts are completely justified.
I hope this settles the issue for our senator, but based on this conversation (including Feinstein telling a reporter that Lake Shasta is spilling over the top right now), I doubt it.
Meanwhile, California Watch reports that the Republican National Committee is accusing San Joaquin Valley Democrats and the Obama Administration of trading a "yes" vote on health care for more water. It's not outside the realm of possibility, but it doesn't look like it from my vantage point right now. Here is a link to the DOI statement of water allocation increases. Note that everybody is getting increases, because of the amount of water currently in the mountains. The important number is for flows South of the Delta to secondary water rights' holders, which DOI is increasing from 5% of allocation to 25%. I fully expected this increase, so again, the accusation seems flimsy to me right now.
Here is a great, short document on the value of the Westlands Irrigation District to California... as a solar generator.
flx1247rg
The author, Bill Powers of Powers Engineering, explained in these comments to the California Energy Commission that 5% of the Westlands could provide 5,000 MW of solar energy to the state.
Wouldn't it be great if we converted, say, 1/3rd of the Westlands to solar, 1/3rd we restored to native habitat (for water and air quality improvements, too), and kept 1/3rd in ag. production?
Meanwhile, the L.A. Times reports that the National Academy of Sciences has weighed in on the California Delta issue, per Feinstein's request, and found that water export cuts are completely justified.
I hope this settles the issue for our senator, but based on this conversation (including Feinstein telling a reporter that Lake Shasta is spilling over the top right now), I doubt it.
Meanwhile, California Watch reports that the Republican National Committee is accusing San Joaquin Valley Democrats and the Obama Administration of trading a "yes" vote on health care for more water. It's not outside the realm of possibility, but it doesn't look like it from my vantage point right now. Here is a link to the DOI statement of water allocation increases. Note that everybody is getting increases, because of the amount of water currently in the mountains. The important number is for flows South of the Delta to secondary water rights' holders, which DOI is increasing from 5% of allocation to 25%. I fully expected this increase, so again, the accusation seems flimsy to me right now.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Wonder why I opposed something called the Delta Stewardship Council?
© 2010 Joshua Stark
The Contra Costa Times reports that Karen Bass appointed a "member of the board of directors of Southern California's largest water wholesaler" last week before stepping down as Speaker. The seven member board will be responsible for developing a Delta Management Plan by 2012.
The Contra Costa Times reports that Karen Bass appointed a "member of the board of directors of Southern California's largest water wholesaler" last week before stepping down as Speaker. The seven member board will be responsible for developing a Delta Management Plan by 2012.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Quick update on the Delta
© 2010 Joshua Stark
It's always difficult for me to write about Delta issues, because I'm so close to it, emotionally and physically. However, it's important, as our treatment of the Delta has a huge impact on our view of nature and natural processes, and learning just how and where we fit in.
So, some quick notes:
flx1247rg
About 60 land owners are banding together in the Delta, refusing to let the Ca. Dept. of Water Resources onto their property. They are gearing up for a legal fight, and good luck to 'em. Personal note: We bought some potatoes and kettle corn from Zuckerman's farmers market stand last Sunday in Sacramento. Good stuff.
Meanwhile, a deal that was agreed to by a number of environmental groups up in Tejon Ranch goes ahead with its development, even though the water it would need may not be available when they are done. That's because it's Delta water. Now, Tejon says it could get water from somewhere else, and I'd like that.
Today I found a website dedicated to developing the idea of a Delta National Park. I haven't read through it all, but I'm intrigued, especially since I'd done some work in that realm for a bit (and came to a slightly different conclusion).
I recommend, for folks interested in Delta issues, Restore the Delta's website for information from a very biased source.
Editor's note: I accidentally published this with the wrong date, so I've moved it forward into its proper place.
It's always difficult for me to write about Delta issues, because I'm so close to it, emotionally and physically. However, it's important, as our treatment of the Delta has a huge impact on our view of nature and natural processes, and learning just how and where we fit in.
So, some quick notes:
flx1247rg
About 60 land owners are banding together in the Delta, refusing to let the Ca. Dept. of Water Resources onto their property. They are gearing up for a legal fight, and good luck to 'em. Personal note: We bought some potatoes and kettle corn from Zuckerman's farmers market stand last Sunday in Sacramento. Good stuff.
Meanwhile, a deal that was agreed to by a number of environmental groups up in Tejon Ranch goes ahead with its development, even though the water it would need may not be available when they are done. That's because it's Delta water. Now, Tejon says it could get water from somewhere else, and I'd like that.
Today I found a website dedicated to developing the idea of a Delta National Park. I haven't read through it all, but I'm intrigued, especially since I'd done some work in that realm for a bit (and came to a slightly different conclusion).
I recommend, for folks interested in Delta issues, Restore the Delta's website for information from a very biased source.
Editor's note: I accidentally published this with the wrong date, so I've moved it forward into its proper place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)