Dark predictions made at (Central California) water hearing

[Newsjock]

Source: Fresno Bee

A congressional subcommittee meeting in Fresno today heard dire predictions of what another year of drought could bring, along with a continuing litany of what the crisis has already spawned — rising crime, joblessness as high as 50% in one city and record high school expulsions.

Tom Birmingham, Westlands Irrigation District general manager, said if the drought continues into 2009, the crisis is certain to spill into urban communities south of the Delta, and he said farmers who receive federal water are likely to get “zero to 10%” of their full allocation.

Birmingham said it’s estimated that this year’s drought alone will mean 23% of full-time farmworkers will be laid off as farmers abandon crops or have turned to lower-value, less-labor-intensive crops.

Read more: http://www.fresnobee.com/updates/story/743002.html

[Earth_First]

1. Privitize the Great Lakes! n/t

[technotwit]

5. Water

I spent years doing broadcasts of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors for a local public radio station. They always used the phrase "wastewater" when talking about farming, the San Joaquin River, etc. For a long time I thought they must be talking about sewer treatment plant water or something. Finally I figured out that in farmer, local water management districts and regulatory body parlance they meant water that was flowing downstream and not being diverted for Agricultural purposes. The San Joaquin used to be a mighty river, now during most of the year in recent years 100% of the water is diverted for ag purposes. No water makes it to the sea.
There have been numerous court fights over water restoration for salmon, etc.

[WheelWalker]

2. < farmworkers = < food. QED

[XemaSab]

3. I smell a ploy to enlarge Shasta Dam

I already have 600 feet of water backed up behind my house, and I don't care to have 610 feet of water backed up behind my house. :P

[davidinalameda]

4. i had no idea you were in that area

not to be another bay area smug, but I'm sorry!

actually, desalinization needs to be looked at

the coastal areas wouldn't need the water from Sierras and other areas if desalinization plants were built

[Maestro]

9. I'm honestly not up-to-date on this

but aren't desalination plants huge air polluters or has the process been refined?

[davidinalameda]

12. thank goodness for google!

and wikipedia!

it appears that the plants themselves aren't the polluters but the process frequently uses excess energy from existing power plants to extract the salt from the water and those power plants are frequently the polluters

if one uses energy from a plant using renewable fuel, you'll cut the pollution

it does appear however that the cost per gallon is higher than what you'd pay for a gallon of non-desalinated water

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

[kineneb]

8. know the feeling

I lived in Redding for 19 years (was born there). My grandfather was one of the many workers who built the dam.

[doodadem]

6. Big Industrial Farms

Look at companies like Boswell here. They're monsters. How can anyone have ever thought that irrigation on this massive a scale was not going to affect everyone's water supply?

Glad we have a really good well, and up in the mountains where we get first shot at the melting snowpack. But even that isn't what it should be anymore, with global warming.

[blueoak]

7. Desalination is an energy hog

It takes a great amount of energy to desalinate any large quantity of water. I would say it's ok for potable water, not feasible for agriculture.Irrigation in the San Joaquin Valley requires amazing amounts of water, the evaporation transpiration rates (eto) are about .3" or more per day;2.1" or more per week, a crop growing 130 days would require 39" of water per acre!many fields are 500 acres or larger.

[MasonJar]

10. Federal water? Where does that come from?

[Xithras]

11. Westlands, Westlands, Westlands. You'll notice that they're all about that one district.

FYI, the Westlands district is owned by a couple hundred farmers who consume more water than the entire city of LA, and they're the only district in the state having this kind of problem right now. Why? Because they're the only irrigation district in the state that has no water source of its own and has to purchase its water from others. That's an issue when you're trying to irrigate a desert. When water supplies get tight like they are now, retail water buyers like Westlands are the first to get cut. That's unfortunate for the people of Mendota (the only real town in Westlands), but doesn't much impact the rest of the Valley.

Westlands has been carrying out a media campaign nationwide for the past several months to make it seem like their situation represents the valley as a whole (and to be clear, that's not even close to true...all of the farmers I know got their full allocations this year). Why? Because they want two things. 1. They want the Delta Diversion Canal built to bypass the delta for their water intake. They claim that they want to "protect" the delta by shutting off the pumps, but they really want to increase their delta outtakes. That will permit saltwater intrusion and kill the delta completely. 2. They want to have the minimum flow rules suspended to decrease discharges from the dams. Retail buyers like Westlands can only purchase "surplus" water that is left over after the mandatory allotments are given out to the rights holders. By court order, one of those rights holders happens to be the environment...the dams are required to release a certain amount of water to keep fish populations healthy and keep riparian wildlife alive. If Westlands can get that requirement suspended, it increases the amount of "surplus" water available to them.

Now, here's the kicker. None of this is even about ag. Westlands has been in discussions with several urban areas about SELLING off their water rights to support sprawl. The farmers in the Westlands have figured out that the water they're spreading on the desert is worth more money than the crops they're growing on it, and they want to do the Owens Valley thing again. Legally, Westlands has precedence over L.A. for surplus water buys (L.A. gets a fixed ration before Westlands, but can't pull any surplus water until after district like the Westlands have their fill), but there's nothing stopping Westlands from reselling those rights on a yearly basis to Southern California. Before any buyers will get onboard, however, Westlands has to improve the reliability of those water rights.

And that's what this recent media blitz has been all about.