Important Issues

Welcome to the Issues Update Page.

GOVERNOR PROCLAIMS DROUGHT, ORDERS IMMEDIATE ACTION TO ADDRESS SITUATION

Read Executive Order by the Governor of the State of California here

USDA PROPOSES CHANGES TO FRUIT FLY REGULATIONS

USDA has proposed regulatory changes that would remove certain restrictions governing the interstate movement of Hass avocados from areas under domestic quarantine because of Mexican fruit fly or sapote fly and those governing the importation of Hass avocados, in an attempt to achieve consistency in its policies. The basis for the Proposed Rule is scientific research by Dr. Martin Aluja, et al., that was published in the Journal of Economic Entomology in April 2004. USDA’s proposal would eliminate the need for bait spraying by U.S. Hass avocado growers situated in a Mexican fruit fly or sapote fly quarantine area, and remove trapping requirements for Anastrepha spp. fruit flies for Hass avocados imported from Mexico. The Proposed Rule is open for public comment through June 2, 2008. See the attached Federal Register notice for more information.

Click here to read the proposed rules

LIGHT BROWN APPLE MOTH UPDATES

RBCS - NewsFlash

Apple moth spraying halted in California

Spraying for the light brown apple moth in California was dealt a one-two punch last week as a Santa Cruz County Superior Court judge ordered completion of an environmental review before spraying can continue over the county, and, in a separate action, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced plans to postpone spraying until the "six-pack" toxicology test could be conducted, the San Jose Mercury News reported.

The state did not prove that the moth poses an immediate threat to life or property, Judge Paul Burdick ruled. Therefore, an emergency exception to complete the environmental review while the spraying continues was not warranted.

A.G. Kawamura, the state's agriculture secretary, expressed disappointment with the ruling and said his department will request an expedited appeal.

"The light brown apple moth is a serious threat not just to Santa Cruz, but to the entire state," Kawamura said.

A spokeswoman for the governor said Schwarzenegger's decision followed a meeting with Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, and other officials who expressed concerns about the eradication program. The toxicology tests will not be completed before Aug. 17, the newspaper reported.

Message from the Secretary of Agriculture

Should the State Spray Urban Areas?

Moths and Misinformation
By: A.G. Kawamura
April 16, 2008
http://www.sfgate.com/

The Bay Area is no stranger to protests and political demonstrations, and we should all embrace such activities as vital to our public discourse. However, we should all collectively draw the line when misinformation is spread and causes unwarranted fear. Unfortunately, I feel that has happened regarding the campaign to eradicate the pest known as the light brown apple moth.

For more than a year in the region, I have met - in an open, transparent manner - with citizens and local officials about the moth eradication plans of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the California Department of Food and Agriculture. And I remain committed to conducting this eradication program openly. But it's difficult to combat the steady supply of exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims that are already out there - including claims that the pheromone products are untested and that we are all going to be guinea pigs.

I choose, instead, to focus on facts, and the fact is: A pheromone is simply a chemical signal that resembles a scent. Pheromone treatments have been used in the United States and around the world in agricultural and urban areas (including residential areas of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin) for well over a decade, without incident. As recently as last year, more than 3 million acres in the United States were aerially treated with moth pheromone to disrupt the mating of gypsy moths.

For many years, environmentalists have urged farmers to develop alternatives to conventional, toxic, "kill on contact" pesticides. Pheromones are that alternative. These pheromones don't even harm the moths; they merely mimic a signal "scent" naturally emitted by the female moth, thereby distracting the males so they cannot locate a mate and reproduce.

Recently, the claim that residents got sick from past treatments has held the public's attention and has been the subject of demonstrations. Public health officials with three state departments thoroughly reviewed health claims submitted during and after the aerial pheromone treatments last year in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, and could find no link between the claims and the treatments.

As the governor said this week in Monterey, the spraying is safe, and "there is nothing that says otherwise."

There is no shortage of misinformation about the past treatments. I've heard that. Fortunately, due diligence has proven each of these claims false.

Reviews by UC Davis, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and the Department of Fish and Game have knocked down three more pieces of misinformation - that the treatments caused a red tide, poisoned the water, and even killed waterfowl. These scientific reviews confirmed that the pheromone treatments are nontoxic to marine life, and didn't contribute to an algal bloom ("red tide") or to the death of waterfowl.

I also hear a number of misleading and inaccurate references to describe a pheromone, including hormone, carcinogen, mutagen, endocrine disruptor and other scary-sounding descriptions. There is seemingly no end to the list of ailments supposedly caused by the treatments.

These unsupported claims conveniently overlook the fact that the federal Environmental Protection Agency and our state's Department of Pesticide Regulation have thoroughly reviewed and unanimously approved these products and their classification as a pheromone. Health agencies have found the same thing. In fact, the pheromone products we have used in this program are approved for treating organic crops - they are safe enough that the law states you don't even have to wait or wash them off after a treatment before you eat the produce.

Unfortunately, there will always be misinformation, but I urge the public to seek out scientific studies and historical data. And I will do my best to make sure that good information is available. I also acknowledge the concern and understand the skepticism of those who recall the age of Agent Orange and DDT, or even malathion treatments to eradicate the medfly. But those cases and this pheromone are very, very different things.

Let me be clear: As a public official, I am sworn to protect not just agriculture but also the public, the environment and the ecosystems that make California agriculture such a uniquely productive and sustainable resource. I take that responsibility seriously, and I vow to pursue only the safest, most environmentally friendly means available. Only if I failed to meet that public duty could my department be considered negligent.

I implore everyone to rely on sound science and to shut the door on false information. The plans we have announced to eradicate the light brown apple moth, including aerially applied pheromone treatments, constitute the most health-conscious and environmentally sensitive eradication project we have ever undertaken in this state.

A.G. Kawamura is secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

10 SQUARE MILE AREA OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
ADDED TO STATE'S LIGHT BROWN APPLE MOTH QUARANTINE

VIEW QUARANTINE MAP HERE

For further information contact the Cooperative Light Brown Apple Moth Project in Santa Barbara at 805-563-9537

In Title 3, Division 4, Chapter 3, amend subsection 3434(b) to read:
Section 3434. Light Brown Apple Moth Interior Quarantine.

(b) Area Under Quarantine

(7) In the County of Santa Barbara, in the Carpinteria area: Beginning at the intersection of Foothill Road and La Mirada Drive; then, northeasterly along La Mirada Drive to its intersection with Paquita Drive; then, northwesterly along Paquita Drive to its intersection with Arriba Street; then, northeasterly and northerly along Arriba Street to its northern most point; then, northerly along an imaginary line to its intersection with the intersection of N34.433 degrees latitude and W119.550335 degrees longitude; then, easterly along N34.433 degrees latitude to its intersection with Carpinteria Creek; then, southwesterly, southerly, southeasterly, southerly, southeasterly, southeasterly, southwesterly, southeasterly,southerly, southwesterly, northwesterly, southwesterly, westerly, southerly, northwesterly, southwesterly, southeasterly, westerly, southwesterly, northwesterly, southwesterly, westerly, southwesterly, westerly, southwesterly, westerly and southwesterly along Carpinteria Creek to its intersection with the coastline of California; then, northwesterly, westerly and northwesterly along the coastline of California to its intersection with Arroyo Paredon Creek; then, northerly, southeasterly, northeasterly, southeasterly and northeasterly along Arroyo Paredon Creek to its intersection with Foothill Road; then, northwesterly along Foothill Road to the point of beginning.

Note: Authority: Sections 407, 5301, 5302 and 5322, Food and Agricultural Code Reference: Sections 407, 5301, 5302 and 5322, Food and Agricultural Code

03/14/08

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PDEP/lbam/situationreports.html#FEB08

http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/EXOTIC/lightbrownapplemoth.html

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/

WATER SUPPLY AND RATE OUTLOOK

Water-Starved California Slows Development
The New York Times - 6/7/08
By Jennifer Steinhauer

PERRIS, Calif. - As California faces one of its worst droughts in two decades, building projects are being curtailed for the first time under state law by the inability of developers to find long-term water supplies.

Water authorities and other government agencies scattered throughout the state, including here in sprawling Riverside County, east of Los Angeles, have begun denying, delaying or challenging authorization for dozens of housing tracts and other developments under a state law that requires a 20-year water supply as a condition for building.

California officials suggested that the actions were only the beginning, and they worry about the impact on a state that has grown into an economic powerhouse over the last several decades.

The state law was enacted in 2001, but until statewide water shortages, it had not been invoked to hold up projects.

While previous droughts and supply problems have led to severe water cutbacks and rationing, water officials said the outright refusal to sign off on projects over water scarcity had until now been virtually unheard of on a statewide scale.

"Businesses are telling us that they can't get things done because of water," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said in a telephone interview.

On Wednesday, Mr. Schwarzenegger declared an official statewide drought, the first such designation since 1991. As the governor was making his drought announcement, the Eastern Municipal Water District in Riverside County - one of the fastest-growing counties in the state in recent years - gave a provisional nod to nine projects that it had held up for months because of water concerns. The approval came with the caveat that the water district could revisit its decision, and only after adjustments had been made to the plans to reduce water demand.

"The statement that we're making is that this isn't business as usual," said Randy A. Record, a water district board member, at the meeting here in Perris.

Shawn Jenkins, a developer who had two projects caught up in the delays, said he was accustomed to piles of paperwork and reams of red tape in getting projects approved. But he was not prepared to have the water district hold up the projects he was planning. He changed the projects' landscaping, to make it less water dependent, as the board pondered their fate.

"I think this is a warning for everyone," Mr. Jenkins said.

Also in Riverside County, a superior court judge recently stopped a 1,500-home development project, citing, among others things, a failure to provide substantial evidence of adequate water supply.

In San Luis Obispo County, north of Los Angeles, the City of Pismo Beach was recently denied the right to annex unincorporated land to build a large multipurpose project because, "the city didn't have enough water to adequately serve the development," said Paul Hood, the executive officer of the commission that approves the annexations and incorporations of cities.

In agriculturally rich Kern County, north of Los Angeles, at least three developers scrapped plans recently to apply for permits, realizing water was going to be an issue. An official from the county's planning department said the developers were the first ever in the county to be stymied by water concerns. Large-scale housing developments in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties have met a similar fate, officials in those counties said.

Throughout the state, other projects have been suspended or are being revised to accommodate water shortages, and water authorities and cities have increasingly begun to consider holding off on "will-serve" letters - promises to developers to provide water - for new projects.

"The water in our state is not sufficient to add more demand," said Lester Snow, the director of the California Department of Water Resources. "And that now means that some large development can't go forward. If we don't make changes with water, we are going to have a major economic problem in this state."

The words "crisis" and "water" have gone together in this state since the 49ers traded flecks of gold for food. But several factors have combined to make the current water crisis more acute than those of recent years.

An eight-year drought in the Colorado River basin has greatly impinged on water supply to Southern California. Of the roughly 1.25 million acre-feet of water that the region normally imports from that river toward the 4.5 million acre-feet it uses each year, 500,000 has been lost to drought, said Jeff Kightlinger, the general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Even more significant, a judge in federal district court last year issued a curtailment in pumping from the California Delta - where the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers meet and provide water to roughly 25 million Californians - to protect a species of endangered smelt that were becoming trapped in the pumps. Those reductions, from December to June, cut back the state's water reserves this winter by about one third, according to a consortium of state water boards.

The smelt problem was a powerful indicator of the environmental fallout from the delta's water system, which was constructed over 50 years ago for a far smaller population.

"We have bad hydrology, compromised infrastructure and our management tools are broken," said Timothy Quinn, the executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. "All that paints a fairly grim picture for Californians trying to manage water in the 21st century."

The 2001 state water law, which took effect in 2002, requires developers to prove that new projects have a plan for providing at least 20 years' worth of water before local water authorities can sign off on them. With the recent problems, more and more local governments are unable to simply approve projects.

"Water is one of our most difficult issues when we are evaluating large-scale projects," said Lorelei Oviatt, the division chief for the Kern County Planning Department. In cases where developers are unable to present a long-term water plan, "then certainly I can't recommend they approve" those developments, Ms. Oviatt said.

As the denied building permits indicate, the lack of sufficient water sources could become a serious threat to economic development in California, where the population in 2020 is projected to reach roughly 45 million people, economists say, from its current 38 million. In the end, as water becomes increasingly scarce, its price will have to rise, bringing with it a host of economic consequences, the economists said.

"Water has been seriously under-priced in California," said Edward E. Leamer, a professor at the Anderson School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles. "When you ration it or increase its price, it will have an impact on economic growth."

The water authority for Southern California recently issued a rate increase of 14.3 percent, when including surcharges, which was the highest rate increase in the last 15 years. In Northern California, rates in Marin County increased recently by nearly 10 percent, in part to pay an 11 percent increase in the cost of water bought from neighboring Sonoma County.

Interest groups that oppose development have found that raising water issues is among the many bats in their bags available to beat back projects they find distasteful.

"Certainly from Newhall Ranch's standpoint, water was a key point that our opponents were focused on," said Marlee Lauffer, a spokeswoman for Newhall Ranch, a large-scale residential development in the works is Santa Clarita, north of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles, among others, has opposed the development.

To get around the problem, Newhall Ranch's planners decided to forgo water supplied through the state and turn instead to supplies from an extensive water reclamation plant as well as water bought privately. Other developers, like Mr. Jenkins, have changed their landscaping plans to reduce water needs and planned for low-flow plumbing to placate water boards.

Mr. Schwarzenegger sees addressing the state's water problem as one of his key goals, and he is hoping against the odds to get a proposed $11.9 billion bond for water management investments through the Legislature and before voters in November.

The plans calls for water conservation and quality improvement programs, as well as a resource management plan for the delta. Among its most controversial components is $3.5 billion earmarked for new water storage, something that environmentalists have vehemently opposed, in part because they find dams and storage facilities environmentally unsound and not cost effective.

The critics also point out that the state's agriculture industry, which uses far more water than urban areas, is being asked to contribute little to conservation under the governor's plans. As more building projects are derailed by water requirements, the pressure on farmers to share more of their water is expected to grow.

It's time for state to get serious about drought
The Sacramento Bee - 6/9/08
By Dan Walters

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's declaration that California faces drought is another reminder - as if we need one - that politics isn't just a gotcha game, but a process with consequences, either good or ill.

Make no mistake. Like California's chronic budget crisis, the state's looming water crisis is the product of head-in-the-sand decisions by voters and those they elect to office, not some natural calamity beyond our control.

We haven't made a major positive decision on water in this state for four-plus decades; instead, we saw voter rejection of a peripheral canal in 1982 after a very misleading political campaign, followed by sweeping declarations of good intentions by political figures that amounted to nothing.

Had a peripheral canal been constructed to carry water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, it would have solved many of the problems inherent in relying on the Delta as a water source, particularly deteriorating water quality that has depleted fish populations and led to judicial orders to reduce water exports from the estuary.

Those who opposed the canal for very shortsighted and very different reasons - environmental groups and San Joaquin Valley farmers - are responsible for the deaths of countless salmon and other fish and much of the state's water supply shortfall.

This problem is not going to go away. California's population has doubled since the last major water projects were built in the 1960s, and it probably will increase by another third by 2030. Having more people means more demand for water, even with the most stringent conservation programs.

Those who oppose water development seem to believe, against all evidence, that somehow curtailing supply will stop population growth, even though they largely belong to the same left-leaning ideological faction that opposes more stringent curbs on immigration, which is the source of virtually all the state's population expansion.

It is, moreover, the same ideological faction that raises alarms about global warming. Yet one of its predicted effects is that California will receive more of its winter precipitation as rain, rather than as snow. That means we will need more storage to capture winter runoff because the natural reservoir of the snowpack will shrink.

Another predicted impact of global warming is that sea levels will rise. The rivers and sloughs of the Delta, the source of drinking water for two-thirds of the state's population, will therefore experience more saltwater intrusion, rendering that water less fit for consumption.

If one believes that global warming is happening and if one believes that we shouldn't be closing down our borders, how, then, can one believe that we don't need a greater ability to store water and convey it around the environmentally degraded Delta? It simply makes no sense.

That's not to say that we shouldn't be conserving water. But we should also understand that about three-fourths of California's developed water is used for agriculture, one of the state's most important industries and one that benefits from increasing global food demand. The shrinkage of surface supplies leads farmers, out of sheer economic necessity, to pump more from underground aquifers that are, in many cases, already overdrawn.

It's time to get real about water in all its forms and uses. California is not a desert like Nevada or Arizona. It generates, year in and year out, many millions of acre-feet of water, a surprisingly modest portion of which is diverted to human use. We have the technical ability to capture enough water for our legitimate uses, convey it to users in environmentally positive ways, and treat wastewater to a high standard of purity.

What we have lacked is political will. It's time to grow up and find it.

#

Department of Water Resources
California Water News
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Delta smelt judge turns attention to troubled salmon
The Stockton Record- 6/7/08
By Alex Breitler, Staff Writer

FRESNO - The same federal judge who ordered historic water cutbacks to protect Delta smelt last year began trial-like proceedings Friday for an equally beleaguered, yet more beloved, fish: salmon.

And while it could be weeks before he rules, Judge Oliver Wanger indicated he will consider the economic impact of withholding water from farms and cities already parched from California's first drought since the early 1990s.

Endangered species are considered the first priority in conflicts such as these, under federal law.

"It's the law," Wanger said. "We can't just ignore the law because it's convenient or expedient."

But, he added, economic hardships "need to be on the table."

Wanger ruled in April that the federal government's guidelines protecting two species of salmon and steelhead were faulty and must be rewritten.

The new guidelines won't be finished until March. Wanger wants to know how imperiled the fish are and what if anything should be done this year to protect them.

That could mean even more changes in how much water is available for millions of Californians.

The salmon situation is considerably more complicated than the smelts'. Salmon are migratory, living most of their lives in the ocean and returning to inland rivers to spawn as adults.

Less water will be available this year for endangered winter-run chinook salmon, threatened spring-run salmon and threatened steelhead; what water the fish do have may be too warm for their eggs to survive.

Neither side of the legal dispute believes any of the three species are in danger of extinction prior to next spring.

But environmentalists argue the fish have been "beaten, exhausted and all but broken" by the state's vast plumbing system, which sends water from the Sacramento River and the Delta mostly to the south.

"The (water) projects chip away at the fish populations - 1 percent here, 2 percent there," said Michael Wall, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"These projects are slowly bleeding these species."

The fish in question are not to be confused with fall-run chinook, whose rapid decline triggered widespread publicity and fishing closures up and down the West Coast earlier this year. Fall-run salmon are not considered endangered.

The salmon and steelhead species do face similar risks, however: a lack of food in the ocean, water exports and water quality in the Delta, and predatory fish, among others.

The dangers are far worse in a drought year. Lake Shasta, the state's largest reservoir, is expected to lose its cold-water storage by the end of September, a blow for fish trying to spawn downstream. The number of winter-run salmon returning to spawn below the lake has already declined from 17,000 in 2006 to 2,500 last year, according to testimony Friday.

The federal Bureau of Reclamation has suggested strategies for the coming months, including conserving as much water as possible in Shasta for the sake of next year's salmon run while also adding 16,000 tons of gravel to rivers for salmon to spawn.

"My feeling is that those actions will be effective" in lessening the harm to fish, said Charles Hanson, a biologist testifying on behalf of water users.

They will not save all the fish, Hanson said. But he doesn't believe the species overall is at immediate risk of extinction, in part because salmon live more than one year, with some age classes in the ocean and safe from the inland dangers.

Environmentalists, however, will ask Wanger for stronger action, including additional cuts in the amount of water pumped out of the south Delta when juvenile fish are nearby.

They originally sued over the water operations in 2004, when the National Marine Fisheries Service ruled that the bureau's plans to increase water deliveries would not jeopardize salmon and steelhead.

Wanger ruled otherwise in April.

The salmon hearings are expected to resume Tuesday.

#
http://www.recordnet.com/

Fight over fish could cut water: Protecting steelhead, salmon could further reduce Valley supply

The Fresno Bee- 6/6/08
By John Ellis

Nearly two months ago, a Fresno judge invalidated part of a federal water plan because it did not adequately protect Central Valley steelhead and two species of Chinook salmon.

Now, the question is what -- if any -- action should be taken to correct the problem.

Attorneys representing environmentalists and the agencies that oversee and depend on the massive Central Valley Project for their water on Friday began what promises to be an extensive debate on that key question.

In a week that saw Gov. Schwarzenegger proclaim a statewide drought and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation officials announce water-allocation reductions from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the ultimate answer could mean even more cutbacks for water users that depend on the Central Valley Project.

U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger -- who in April invalidated a key part of the federal water plan because he said it violated the Endangered Species Act by not adequately protecting winter-run Chinook salmon, spring-run Chinook salmon and the Central Valley steelhead -- will first decide if any steps need to be taken to protect the fish.

That will likely be decided late next week. If Wanger finds something must be done to protect the three fish species, the trial will then turn to that matter.

Environmentalists are seeking four primary measures to address the issue: Increase cold-water releases from Lake Shasta to make the Sacramento River's temperature lower at a point farther downstream. That would assist in salmon spawning.

Maintain 1.9 million acre-feet of water in Shasta.

Keep a diversion dam on the Sacramento River near Red Bluff open longer.

Maintain higher water flows in Clear Creek, a salmon-spawning waterway that flows into the Sacramento River.

Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Kate Poole, who participated in Friday's hearing, said the three fish species are being pushed to the edge of extinction.

"It's not clear they will be able to survive these critically dry years," she said. "We need to make sure they get a fighting chance to weather this drought."

The government and its water agency allies think Wanger should do nothing.

Currently, they say, the National Marine Fisheries Service is rewriting a biological report on the Central Valley Project's effects on the steelhead and two salmon species that Wanger invalidated. That should be done by next spring and should address the environmentalists' concerns.

They're also baffled by the environmentalists request to release more water from Shasta, but also maintain 1.9 million acre-feet, said attorney Daniel O'Hanlon, who represents the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, which represents water districts -- including Westlands -- covering more than 2 million acres of farmland.

"We can't make sense of that," he said.

Many of the issues -- as well as the participants -- were similar to those in Wanger's courtroom last year in a case involving the tiny delta smelt.

Wanger threw out a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opinion on management of the delta smelt. Ultimately, his order resulted in less water being sent south from the delta pumps.

But government and water-agency attorneys on Friday argued that while many of the legal issues may mirror that of the delta smelt, there are different issues with the steelhead and salmon species.

One key issue is life span. The delta smelt lives one year, so a population crash could imperil the species. But salmon live four to five years, so while a generation could be wiped out, the long-term viability of the species could still remain intact.

Another issue is the Pacific Ocean and whether it is contributing to troubles being experienced by the three species -- trouble in which the Central Valley Project plays no role.#

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/652990.html

Editorial
Cotton versus salmon
Eureka Times Standard- 6/9/08
By Aldaron Laird

The governor has declared that California is in a drought. Generally, there are two solutions: Build more dams to store water (one of the governor's proposals) or reduce our use of water. But it takes a long time to build new dams, so that plan will do nothing to help us during this drought. We need to prioritize water use.

Of all the usable water behind dams, urban water users consume 20 percent and agricultural users 80 percent. The governor would like to see a 20 percent reduction in urban water use; this would yield only a 4 percent savings in the amount of water now being consumed.

Much more water can be saved by achieving a similar 20 percent reduction in agriculture water use. That saving would be 16 percent!

California needs its agriculture, but farmers need to become much more efficient water users. California can no longer afford the water demands of the status quo. Our climate is changing, and how we use water must change, too.

It is now popular to consider the carbon footprint generated by the energy demands of our way of life and the goods we consume. We need to do the same for water by accounting for how much water is used when we live wherever we choose, and when we grow whatever and wherever we choose.

The water we Californians consume also requires lots of energy to pump, filter, clean and deliver. Depending on where and how we secure that energy, water use has a significant carbon footprint. For example, it takes much more water and energy to keep a 100-square-foot lawn green in Anaheim than it does in Arcata.

Where you grow plants matters. Hotter and drier areas evaporate more water from the soil, the irrigation system and the plant. Cotton, one our state's major crops, needs a lot of water to grow, yet one of the largest cotton-growing areas in California is located in the hot, dry, southern portion of the Central Valley, an area called Westlands.

The water imported to raise cotton in Westlands comes from the Trinity River, which is a major tributary of the Klamath River. If water used to raise cotton was instead allowed to remain in the Trinity, the recovery chances of the threatened salmon fisheries of the Klamath would be much improved.

In this age of climate change, we have our priorities wrong. Perhaps the water in the Trinity should be used to recover and raise a bountiful crop of salmon on the North Coast, not cotton in the Westlands desert.

Raising cotton in a hot dry environment can waste as much as 41 percent of the irrigation water due to evaporation (www.waterfootprint.org). How many salmon could have been raised with that water?

Reassessing our water use priorities will be difficult, but the status quo cannot be maintained and with our climate changing right now, we have no choice. We have no time or water to waste, and California needs leaders with the vision to face the water crisis of the 21st century.

Aldaron Laird is on the board of directors for the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District. He lives in Arcata.

#

http://www.times-standard.com/

Editorial
Another view: Delta ecology complexities need study
The Sacramento Bee- 6/8/08
By Mary Snyder

Mary Snyder, district engineer for the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, is responding to the June 1 front-page article "Ecosystem decline tied to ammonia."

All residents of the Sacramento region know the value of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta – not only to Northern California but the entire state. The Delta is a key water source and provides a multitude of recreational and fishing opportunities. It is also a complex ecosystem and habitat. Similarly, the decline of fish species in the Delta is a complex and difficult issue.

As we all search for answers to the decline, some – as reported in The Bee – are looking at ammonia from the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District's wastewater treatment plant discharge as the possible culprit. Yet there is no proven link to confirm this, and a more holistic and scientific examination of the Delta decline needs to continue.

The district is a highly responsible agency focused on environmental stewardship. Our commitment to the environment is demonstrated by our excellent regulatory compliance record and our collaborative efforts with regulators and stakeholders to ensure the long-term sustainability of the entire Sacramento River Watershed.

There is wide agreement that numerous factors affect the Delta ecosystem. The list is significant: invasive species, water diversions, food web disruption, habitat degradation, predation, disease, turbidity, salinity and pesticides may also have a role. For example, the invasion of the overbite clam alone – and its resulting disruption on the Delta smelt's food source – requires much more rigorous study.

To attach the Delta's problems to ammonia from the district's discharge is a tremendous oversimplification. Of more than 70 studies being conducted by the Interagency Ecological Program investigating this issue, only a few involve ammonia. To imply the "simple fix" is to construct and implement a treatment method to remove ammonia from wastewater – not knowing whether it will solve the ecosystem problems – would be bad public policy and a poor use of public funds.

The issues confronting the Delta are complicated and politically charged. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has created an independent "Blue Ribbon Task Force" to develop a Delta Vision and Strategic Plan to address the Delta crisis. However, any solutions developed for the Delta must incorporate sound science and consider all the various factors affecting the ecosystem.

We are encouraged that The Bee is interested in this important issue and suggest continuing investigation to provide readers with a more balanced perspective of all the factors that could be contributing to the decline of the Delta ecosystem.

#

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/995475.html

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES UPDATE OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS

Spring 2008 is turning out to be extremely dry. The current 8-Station Index for Water Year 2008 indicates:

Seasonal total of 33.7 inches is now less than last year's seasonal total of 34.4 inches at this time.
October through April total of 33.7 inches is the 22nd driest year out of 88 years of record.
March 2008, with a precipitation total of 1.6 inches (23% of average) was the sixth driest March of 88 years of record.
April 2008 was also the sixth driest April on record.
Combined March and April total precipitation is only 2.3 inches, the driest on record (since 1921).

Other points of interest include:

Large water supply reservoirs received some inflow from Spring storms; however, much of the precipitation fell as snow.
Because precipitation was significantly below average last year, dry hydrologic conditions still prevail.
Storage in most of the major water supply reservoirs is still well below average.
The latest National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center (CPC) long-range weather outlook for May 2008 is forecasting below average precipitation for Northern and Southern California. Average precipitation is forecasted for Central California.

METROPOLITAN 2009 WATER RATE UPDATE

WATER SUPPLY UPDATE, MAY 2008

Agricultural Water Pricing – Voter Survey, January 2008

Agriculture’s Response to Frequently Asked Questions about the IAWP

IAWP Presentation to the Metropolitan Water District, January 2008

Click here to view the latest Newsletter from the Southern California Agricultural Water Team:

NOVEMBER 2007 AG WATER NEWSLETTER

RIVERSIDE COUNTY AG WATER OUTLOOK 2008

A judge says the report failed to account for effects on endangered salmon and steelhead trout.

Los Angeles Times – 4/17/08
By Eric Bailey,staff writer

SACRAMENTO -- A federal judge Wednesday invalidated a plan that justified boosted water exports from Northern California, ruling that it failed to account for the effects on endangered salmon and steelhead.

U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger of Fresno found that a 2004 study by the National Marine Fisheries Service didn't adequately address global warming, the loss of habitat and other factors that could hurt the fish.

But the effect of his 151-page opinion on water exports for farms and Southern California cities won't be decided until further court hearings starting late this month.

"This decision should prove very big for the fish," said Michael Sherwood, an attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit law firm representing commercial and recreational fishermen, environmental groups and the Winnemem Wintu tribe of Mount Shasta.

Wanger's ruling is the second setback in the last year for federal biologists and California's water managers. In August, the judge ordered a shift in operations that could cut water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta by 30%.

The decision comes days after federal regulators canceled the 2008 salmon fishing season because of a sharp decline in the Sacramento River's fall-run chinook salmon, the backbone of the commercial industry.

Wanger's decision addresses an ongoing crisis for two other chinook salmon species, the winter and spring runs, and Central Valley steelhead trout. Once collectively numbering in the millions, the three endangered fish have seen their populations plummet -- in the case of the winter-run chinooks to fewer than 200 returning adults in 1994. The fish have been hit hard by water pollution, predators and dams that have blocked spawning grounds and boosted river temperatures.

Though the judge's decision might further curb delta exports, a more likely result is operational changes 250 miles to the north at Shasta Dam, experts on both sides said.

Cradling the state's biggest reservoir, the dam traditionally releases most of its water down the Sacramento River and onward to the delta in late summer and fall. But environmentalists have pushed for more cold-water releases to help the struggling runs of salmon and steelhead.

Sherwood of Earthjustice said the ruling could mark "a turning point" in operations by the state and federal water projects, which redid the California landscape in the 20th century to move water from the wet north to farms and communities in the south.

Jeff McCracken, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates Shasta Dam as part of the federal water project, said it was too soon to decipher the decision's fallout.

"There will be no impacts until the judge tells us we have to do something differently," he said. "At this point we haven't gotten there."

Laura King Moon, assistant general manager of the nonprofit State Water Contractors, said the ruling underscored the importance of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, an effort underway in Sacramento to spotlight ways to heal the delta while fixing the water delivery system.

"We can't continue to have the water system of our state remain at the mercy of every individual endangered species," she said. "We need a comprehensive plan."

Lester Snow, state Department of Water Resources chief, agreed that the ruling was "further evidence that the delta is teetering on the brink of collapse," noting that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had proposed a slate of solutions.

Among the fixes being eyed is construction of the long-debated Peripheral Canal, which would divert water around the delta and onward to Southern California. The proposal has been condemned by environmentalists and others who say it would rob the delta of the water it needs for fish to survive.

This spring's dry weather has already cut state water reserves. The Metropolitan Water District, the state's largest, is calling on residents to step up conservation efforts such as not watering their lawns one day a week.

http://www.latimes.com/news/

Read the updates below for the latest information provided by the Commission about California avocado water resources.

Summary of IAWP Reduction Guidelines, August 2007

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

Summary of Proposed Conditional Waiver No. 4 - Discharges from Agricultural and Nursery Operations

The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) is proposing a Basin Plan Amendment to renew and issue Revised Conditional Waivers of Waste Discharge Requirements for Specific Types of Discharge within the San Diego Region. It has published a draft Technical Report (July 6, 2007).

The proposed conditional waivers are categorized into 11 discharge classifications. The new waiver will become effective January 1, 2008. Requirements for all agricultural related activities are combined into one category "Proposed Conditional Waiver No. 4 - Discharges from Agricultural and Nursery Operations".

The Water Board is giving growers time to prepare for monitoring and reporting requirements by proposing a two-phase implementation approach. Phase I (2008 - 2012) focuses on educating growers on their responsibilities and forming monitoring coalition. Growers will begin monitoring and reporting in Phase II (2012 - 2016).

Click here for a Summary of Proposed Conditional Waiver No. 4.

Water Quality Runoff Management & Agricultural Waiver Workshop for Nurseries and Agricultural Businesses

On March 27, 2008 the San Diego Farm Bureau held a workshop and growers were treated to lunch. The workshop was intended to provide better understanding of water quality runoff management and inform growers about the new irrigated agricultural waiver and how it will affect your operation. Workshop agenda included:

Water Quality Regulations – Dr. Valerie Mellano from the University of California, Cooperative Extension discussed the Best Management Practices and pollution prevention measures to control runoff from Ag properties. She explained the four management options for horticultural crops in San Diego:

Irrigation Management and Water Quality
Nutrient Management
Pest Management
Erosion Management

Dr. Mellano introduced workshop participants to the “Runoff & Nonpoint Source Polution Self-Assessment” form. This is a site self-assessment form which you can use to determine if your operation is in compliance with regulatory requirements.

Irrigated Agricultural Waivers – San Diego Water Board staff, Wayne Chiu and Peter Peuron discussed the conditional waiver for discharges from agricultural and nursery operations that became effective on January 1, 2008. The Water Board staff stressed the message of “working together”, that the purpose of the Ag waiver is to obtain water quality data from agriculture to help improve water quality not to point to Ag as a culprit.

Growers were informed about enrollment, enrollment options, and important dates. Growers are encouraged to enroll as a group, where costs and responsibilities can be shared with other growers in the group. The Water Board staff also explained the distinction between a conditional waiver and the more stringent Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permit.

Storm Water Quality Issues – Nancy Appel from County of San Diego explained the scope of the County’s Agricultural Water Quality Program. She reviewed the elements of a typical inspection and talked about the most common non-compliances that are found at inspected facilities.

Federal Assistance – Victor Smothers, a soil conservationist from USDA/NRCS explained the role of the NRCS in assisting growers to develop conservation management plans and explained the Best Management Practices that would help growers comply with water quality regulations.

San Diego Irrigated Agricultural Waivers

San Diego’s new irrigated agricultural waiver became effective January 1, 2008. The San Diego Water board is using a phase approach to avoid resistance from the Ag community. The new Ag waiver will be in effect for five years and it will require growers to monitor water quality on their property for one whole year during 2012 and submit a report at the end. Currently, the San Diego Water Board does not have any water quality data from Ag operations. With this Ag waiver, the Water Board’s intent is to reach out to the Ag community, obtain water quality data, and give the Ag sector an opportunity to show that discharges from Ag operations are not a problem or are not as big a problem as initially believed.

The California Water Code requires that any person who is discharging waste to the water of the state (other than to a community water system), which could affect the quality of the waters to file a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) with the Regional Water Board. In certain circumstances, this requirement may be waived. Compared with WDRs, waivers are more simplified, less stringent and expensive and it may be the most effective way to regulate discharges and runoff from Ag operations. Below is a comparison between the WDR and the new San Diego Ag waiver.

Water Discharge Requirements versus Irrigated Agricultural Waivers

WDR	Ag Waiver
File Report of Waste Discharge	File Notice of Intent
Annual fee ($800/yr)	No annual or enrollment fee
Cannot discharge until WDRs issued	Can discharge as long as in compliance
Annual monitoring & reporting	One year monitoring (2012) & one monitoring report
WDR do not have to be renewed	Expire every 5 yrs. Renewal expected with new conditions

Overview of New Ag Waiver

Under the new Ag waiver, the San Diego Water Board requires growers to enroll and file a Notice of Intent (NOI) either as a group or as an individual. As of now there is no annual fee or enrollment fee. Growers are required to prepare a water quality Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan (MRPP) and a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Growers are required to conduct water quality monitoring for one year during 2012 and submit a report at the end of 2012. The waiver is effective for five years (January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012). After the five year period the waiver is likely to be renewed with new conditions.

Ag Waiver Conditions

The new Ag waiver includes seven conditions. The first four are intended to promote best management practices at Ag operations in order to minimize or eliminate nonpoint source pollution in the form of excess sediments, nutrients, salts, pesticides, or pathogenic organisms. The other conditions address administrative requirements. The seven waiver conditions include:

Facility Design and Management
Green Waste Composition
Application of Compost to Soil
Application of Product
Education and Enrollment
Inspection and Reporting
Specific Conditions

Education – The waiver condition requires two hours of training annually to keep growers up-to-date with water quality management issues. This training can be in the form of classroom education or workshops. Training is offered through UC Cooperative Extension and USDA/NRCS. The Water Board also encourages growers to conduct onsite self-assessment to check if they are following the BMPs. For example, UC Cooperative Extension, Ag Water quality Program has created a “Runoff & Nonpoint Source Pollution Self-Assessment” form aimed at greenhouses and nurseries as part of the new storm water regulations. This self-assessment provides a basis for assessing runoff and nonpoint source pollution on a grower’s property.

Enrollment – Growers are required to enroll in the waiver program no later than January 1, 2011. Growers can choose to enroll as a group or as an individual. The San Diego Water Board encourages growers to form monitoring group. The requirements are the same whether you enroll as a group or as individual. However, as an individual the grower will bare all costs and responsibilities whereas as a group growers can share responsibility and costs of water quality monitoring and preparation of all submittals. Contact the San Diego Farm Bureau for information on forming a monitoring group.

Group versus Individual Enrollment

Group	Individual
Notice of Intent	Notice of Intent
MRPP & QAPP	MRPP & QAPP
Monitoring Program Report	Monitoring Program Report
Cost can be divided among members	Costs are sole responsibility

Inspection and Reporting – The Water Board will inspect Ag properties to check compliance. The Water Board stressed that its role is to work with the Ag community to improve water quality not to be a water police as the Water Board staff said “Everyone is trying to do the right thing”.

San Diego Ag Waiver Important Dates

Action	Due Date
Enroll and File Notice of Intent	January 1, 2011
Contact Water Board about MRPP & QAPP	March 31, 2011
Submit MRPP & QAPP	January 1, 2012
Monitoring Report	December 31, 2012