State officials address mounting water ‘crisis’

TATIANA PROPHET
Victorville Daily Press

James Quigg / Staff Photographer
Water flows through the California Aqueduct Tuesday. Several state officials are predicting a water crisis in California's future.

The Victor Valley’s future water supply is in danger — facing an onslaught by drought, global warming, aging infrastructure and a requirement to preserve a little fish called the Delta smelt.

The crisis has not yet percolated to the Victor Valley, but it puts at risk the water supply coming over the California Aqueduct. That water is a key component of the Mojave Water Agency’s plan to recharge the region.

“I’m extremely concerned ... about what could very quickly become a real crisis for this state,” said state Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, who has proposed a $9 billion plan to address the weaknesses in the system.

Cogdill was speaking at a news conference broadcast by telephone. He was joined by Lester Snow, director of the Department of Water Resources.

Last year, snowpack was at its lowest level since 1988, Snow said. Because of the drought, levels in state reservoirs are down 40 percent from last year, he added.

“We combine that with the vagaries of climate change ... and know that the forecast is pretty clear, that our droughts are going to be much worse in the future,” Snow said, referring to the wide swings in future weather that global warming presents. “This could be the second year of a 10-year drought, or the highest flood flows we’ve seen in the state.”

On top of that, in August a federal judge imposed limits on water flow from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to protect the endangered Delta smelt, whose habitat lies in the area of the Delta’s massive pumps. The same judge, Fresno-based Oliver Wanger, is scheduled to hear a companion case today aimed at protecting salmon.

Locally, the Mojave Water Agency has stored Aqueduct water underground since 1991, for a total of 114,205 acre feet. An acre foot is said to supply a family of four for one year.

The amount of water pumped in the entire region was unavailable, but for perspective, the former Victor Valley Water District, now the Victorville Water District, pumped about 22,000 acre feet in 2005.

For two years, the MWA has been heralding its plan to recharge the Victor Valley’s sub-basin through its Regional Recharge and Recovery program — using Aqueduct water.

While the MWA is allotted 75,800 acre feet per year, it remains to be seen whether the state will be able to provide its court-mandated annual allotment.

Michael Stevens, spokesman for the MWA, said he could not comment on the future of the agency’s water entitlement. But he did acknowledge that the situation is a crisis.

“It could have a huge impact if these issues are not addressed,” he said, referring to drought and Delta problems. “We should not be in a panic, but don’t become complacent. Because the state is in a crisis, it could impact our situation if things continue the way they are.”

Snow and Cogdill encouraged the state’s investment in “regional self-sufficiency,” which involves local agencies pursuing ways to avert a crisis themselves.

Such measures include surface water storage, desalinization, conservation and reclaimed water.

“But these measures by themselves can’t solve our problem,” Cogdill said.

“We won’t be able to rely on the Sierra any longer, it appears,” he added. “We think it’s crucial that we move forward (on the bond proposal).”

In the meantime, officials from the retail districts to the state water agencies are pushing conservation above all.

For more information on the state’s water crisis, go to www.calwatercrisis.org

A resort town thirsts for solutions

Drier than its name would suggest, Borrego Springs braces for an impending water shortage. Big changes may be in store.

The most conspicuous indication of groundwater decline in Borrego Valley is a graveyard-like forest of dead and dying mesquite trees on the valley floor.(Annie Wells / LAT)

By Alison Williams, Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times

BORREGO SPRINGS, Calif. -- In a flat desert valley filled with cholla, creosote, citrus and golf, far from any major highway or state water project, residents are struggling to deal with an impending water shortage, highlighted by the failure of a public well this past spring.

Borrego Springs is a small unincorporated resort, retirement and agricultural community in northeast San Diego County, surrounded by 600,000-acre Anza-Borrego Desert State Park.

Aside from the 6 inches or so of annual rainfall, the sole water source is an aquifer whose groundwater has been declining by 1 to 2 feet a year for more than half a century and has an expected useful life of only 30 more years.

At that point, according to the Borrego Water District, the water will be half gone, and pumping from the district's 12 working wells and other private wells will become much more expensive and less productive. More recent studies this spring by the California Department of Water Resources worsened the prognosis: "There may be substantially less water in storage in Borrego Valley groundwater basin than previously interpreted.

"Preserving this area's way of life may require dramatic changes, and water experts say some of the choices facing Borrego Springs -- whether to fallow farmland that uses most of the water or allow desert flora to wither and die, starving wildlife -- will increasingly be confronted elsewhere in the state as water sources become less reliable.

Robert Glennon, a University of Arizona law professor and the author of "Water Follies," calls the Borrego Valley a microcosm of California. Agriculture, which "is a small part of the overall California economy, uses something like 80% of the water," he said. "If you expect to have water for high-value uses in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, you have to figure out how to reallocate the water."

In the Borrego Valley, neither the state park nor the fields of citrus have shown many signs of distress thus far. The most conspicuous indication of groundwater decline is a forest of dead and dying mesquite trees. Farmers, most of whom do not live in the area, are particularly anxious about their future. They accuse community leaders of conspiring with developers to turn Borrego Springs into a bedroom community for San Diego.

County officials have "decided that the only thing they're interested in is removing agriculture from the valley," said Reuben Ellis of Ellis Farms. "I really do believe that part of what is behind the emphasis on decreasing water use in Borrego Springs is the desire of certain development and regulatory interests to move farmers out of the way."

In fact, Aaron Barling, a San Diego County planner, said that in most places, the county strives to preserve agriculture by lowering residential density. But in Borrego Springs, he said, "the community" has asked for a higher allowed residential density on farmlands to make it more profitable for farmers to sell out.

But merely replacing farmland with houses won't solve the water problem if there are no curbs on population growth, experts warn. Glennon pointed out that predicted growth in San Diego may lead more people to discover the area -- "and then you've really got trouble."

The Borrego Water District estimates that agriculture uses 70% of the water, golf courses 20% and residences 10%. In addition, agriculture and most of the golf courses depend on private wells, meaning the water district cannot regulate their use.

The aquifer's total yearly overdraft, or how much more water is pumped out than is replenished by rain or snowmelt, is about 14,000 acre-feet. Coincidentally, agriculture -- mostly citrus farms -- uses about that much water. (One acre-foot is roughly equivalent to the amount of water a family of four uses in one year.)

The water district has adopted a measure designed to allow growth while protecting the aquifer. For every acre-foot of new water to be used, two more must be found, whether through recharge projects or the fallowing of farmlands. If this cannot be done, an in-lieu fee of about $4,000 per house must be paid to the district to assist in its efforts to obtain more water.

But recharge projects, which would involve capturing surface runoff, could have a serious effect on natural areas of the park and valley, which depend heavily on runoff from rain, said David Law-head, an environmental coordinator for the California Department of Parks and Recreation.

Several years before the community well ran dry, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Supt. Mark Jorgensen wrote a letter to the district warning that the overdraft could spell trouble for the park's wildlife, including several species of toads and frogs and the endangered least Bell's vireo and peninsular bighorn sheep. Jorgensen was out of the country and could not be reached for comment.

Lane Sharman, a San Diego computer scientist who is related to one of the area's pioneer farming families, has formed the Borrego Water Exchange, in part to formulate a "sustainability" ordinance that would enable a public agency to require certain water use reductions each year, even from private well owners.

Still, Sharman and others believe the valley must find new sources of water -- no easy task in a state gripped by drought.

One possibility is nearby Clark Dry Lake, but tests have showed limited water of poor quality. Another long shot -- finding a source somewhere in Northern California, exchanging it through the Metropolitan Water District and sending it through the Imperial Irrigation District from the Colorado River -- is not only complicated but, for now, too expensive for the district even to study.

A third option would be to store other people's water in the Borrego aquifer in exchange for a portion of the water. The district tried to do that a few years ago with the San Diego County Water Authority, but the lack of local infrastructure put it at a competitive disadvantage with other districts.

Sharman and others worry that public apathy may be an even bigger obstacle.

Eleanor Shimeall, a water district board member, said that despite the well failure, many people are still unaware of the problem. The area, she said, is filled with older "ultraconservative Californians who move away to the desert to not be bothered."

Nonetheless, Robert Mendenhall, president of the water district board, remains optimistic: "If I was discouraged," he said, "I would probably resign tomorrow."

State Wants Firms to Get Share of Water Funds

Critics say 2-year-old Prop. 50 allows only nonprofits and public agencies to benefit.

By Nancy Vogel, Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times

SACRAMENTO - California health officials are preparing to reverse a long-standing state policy by letting private companies tap voter-approved water bond money that has historically been restricted to public water districts.

Several public agencies and consumer groups are fighting the move, arguing that voters had no indication that for-profit firms might benefit when they passed Proposition 50, a $3.4-billion water bond measure, two years ago.

State health officials are just now drafting rules for dividing up the Proposition 50 money and are being heavily lobbied to make sure procedures allow private firms to compete for shares. The firms gained the support last year of a key lawmaker who presides over state water issues.

"We have a multifaceted water system in California that runs the gamut from public to private," said state Sen. Mike Machado (D-Linden), who heads the Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee. "So we have to try to deal with all aspects of it."

Officials at the state Department of Health Services say they are inclined to agree. Next week the department is expected to complete guidelines that will allow private companies to compete for $485 million in Proposition 50 money.

Machado said he would try to make sure the rest of the bond money was similarly available to investor-owned companies.

In 2002, proponents heralded Proposition 50 as a way to protect, expand and clean California's water supplies and to preserve river parkways and wetlands. The official state voter guide included the statement that bond money "would be available for expenditure by various state agencies and for loans and grants to local agencies and nonprofit associations."

Previous water bond measures in California, including those passed in 2000 and 1996, limited grants of the bond money to public agencies and nonprofit groups, although private companies have been able to get loans through a fund for safe drinking water.

"Water in California is enshrined in our state Constitution as a public trust," said Juliette Beck, coordinator of the "Water for All" campaign of Public Citizen, a national nonprofit consumer advocacy group. "We think it's imperative that public funds go to support public water systems and never end up in the coffers of multinationals or private companies, period."

Officials with the private water companies, however, argue that their customers are taxpayers too, and therefore should be entitled to the benefits of a statewide bond issue that all taxpayers will be paying back over the next 25 years.

"Twenty percent of the state's population is served by these utilities; everybody pays for the bonds, so everybody should be able to compete fairly," said Christine Frahm, a lobbyist for Southern California Water Co. in San Dimas. The company would like to use Proposition 50 money to help pay for the replacement of main water pipes in Norwalk and Artesia, she said.

Stan Ferraro, a vice president with California Water Service Co., which serves 460,000 people from Los Angeles to Chico from its headquarters in San Jose, is also interested in getting Proposition 50 grants for his company. He said state aid would help keep customer rates from rising.

"It purely is saving our ratepayers from us having to go out and borrow the money," Ferraro said.

But public agencies and consumer advocates argue that taxpayer-financed water bonds should not be used to aid investor-owned companies, some of which are subsidiaries of large, European-based corporations. There is not enough money available to pay for all the worthy projects sought by public agencies, they argue.

The state health department's original draft guidelines on distributing Proposition 50 money banned private water company applications.

But the agency reversed itself after private water firms — which have spent more than $800,000 on lobbying in 2003 and so far in 2004 — stated that the Proposition 50 language passed by voters did not unequivocally restrict the money to public agencies.

"Unless there's some specific section that prohibits the funding to go to private entities, since the private enterprises provide water to consumers and it improves water quality, our read of it is, it's acceptable," said Rufus Howell, assistant chief of the department's Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management.

That position is supported by a legal opinion issued Feb. 27 by the state legislative counsel's office at Machado's request.

Unlike previous water bond measures, Proposition 50 was not written by the Legislature, but largely by Joe Caves, a Sacramento attorney who has worked for various environmental groups. Many lawmakers, as well as public and private water purveyors, supported the bond issue, and private water companies donated $52,500 to the "Yes on 50" campaign.

"We didn't put in a prohibition," Caves said. "We just didn't speak to the issue."

Last year, Machado introduced a bill that would make private water companies eligible to tap Proposition 50 funds.

His bill would also open the bond money to mutual water companies, which are not-for-profit water districts owned by customers.

Machado said the bill had nothing to do with the $25,000 in campaign contributions he accepted last year from private water companies, including $20,000 from Southern California Water.

"It's a question of health and safety," he said. Many private water companies serve poor communities, he said, especially in eastern Los Angeles County and the southern Central Valley. "I realized we weren't addressing the needs of all the constituents who were supporting the bonds."

Machado's bill is stalled in the Assembly, but he said it was no longer necessary, given the pending health department guidelines for distributing bond money. He said he would try to ensure that the Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board and other bond-disbursing agencies that have yet to write guidelines would also allow private water companies to compete for the money.

The health department's proposed guidelines are less restrictive than Machado's bill. His legislation includes provisions to ensure that the California Public Utilities Commission prevent private companies from earning a profit from any bond-funded improvements, such as a water treatment plant. The PUC regulates 144 investor-owned water companies and sets the rates they can charge.

Public water agency officials expressed concern that mere administrative rules would be more lax than what Machado proposed.

The senator expressed certainty that the PUC would oversee the use of any bond money a private company might be awarded and guarantee that shareholders and corporations would not profit from it.

But PUC officials have yet to determine how they will deal with the novel situation, said PUC spokeswoman Terrie Prosper.

The issue never arose in the 2002 campaign for Proposition 50, which encountered only minor opposition, from the California Farm Bureau and taxpayer groups resistant to more state borrowing.

Those who represent public water agencies say they have become aware only in the last few weeks that they could be competing with private firms for Proposition 50 money. The Assn. of California Water Agencies has yet to weigh in on the issue.

Jerry Jordan, executive director of the California Municipal Utilities Assn., sent a letter last week to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Health and Human Services Agency secretary warning that the proposed set of guidelines "undermines and contradicts long-standing state policy."

Conservation Program in Pioneertown

From County of San Bernardino Special Districts Web site:
http://www.specialdistricts.org/2/water/conservation/fp%20conservation.htm

The Low Desert Water District, CSA 70 W-4 also known as Pioneertown, has experienced water quantity problems throughout its history. The past few years have been symptomatic of the drought conditions that have been experienced across the County of San Bernardino and the Western United States. The severe drought has diminished the potable water supplies and continues to be a challenging situation for the Division and the customers of Pioneertown.

In August 1996, a drought situation occurred that reduced potable water supplies to dangerously low levels. During that event, the Division enacted the Stage III Drought/Emergency Condition Severe, enabled by an ordinance adopted by resolution 90-493 of the Board of Supervisors for the County of San Bernardino. This resolution and conservation ordinance 90-11 was communicated to the people living in Pioneertown by personal visits to each residence and business in the community. The resulting affect was a dramatic turnaround in the supply of potable water in the storage reservoirs that serve Pioneertown. When the situation was communicated to the people of Pioneertown they responded by reducing their water consumption by 25-30%.

During the summer of 2002, a similar set of events began to affect the potable water supply in Pioneertown. The Division recognized these events and drafted a conservation notice packet that included the ordinances 90-493 and 90-11, and a brochure with water saving tips. The notice explained the situation and the stage of the Drought/Emergency Condition, Stage III Severe, which again resulted in the customers reducing their water consumption and avoiding further actions by the Division.

In May of 2003, the Division again recognized trends that would indicate the affects of the drought and the effect it would have on Pioneertown. Another notice was developed, which included the 2 ordinances, 90-493 and 90-11, along with a Water Conservation Checklist adapted from the California Department of Water Resources Office of Water Conservation’s “The Water Conservation Checklist”. An analysis of the water consumption by the customers was performed and high users of water were identified. These high users included accounts that had exceeded their usage from the previous year’s billing period and accounts that are in the 95th percentile of consumption, which is between 25 and 33.45 hundred cubic feet (hcf).

The Division again went door-to-door handing out packets and answering questions in an effort to help the customers reduce their water consumption. The customers identified as high users were personally contacted, offered assistance in reducing their water consumption, and given a special message, which included a mandated reduction of 25-30% of their water consumption.