Major hurdles loom for any water transfers, from Ag Alert

Major hurdles loom for any water transfers
Issue Date: April 1, 2009
By Kate Campbell
Assistant Editor

In a drought, moving water from those who can spare it to those who need it sounds logical. But in practice, the procedure is so complicated that water-short California farms and cities may not find water transfers much help this year.

The state established a Drought Water Bank last fall to help ease the impact of the water supply crisis. The idea is to buy water from willing sellers, primarily from irrigation districts upstream of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and sell it to those short of water to the south using the state and federal water project to move the added supplies.

After six months of effort, DWR says it has the “potential” commitment of about 400,000 acre-feet of water. The amount that actually would be available, however, is still uncertain. Many farmers north of the delta who might have fallowed land or relied more heavily on groundwater to meet their crop needs have now made other plans for their water. Farmers in the south are still trying to figure out how to keep permanent plantings alive through the heat of summer.

“Even with the 2009 Drought Water Bank, getting the water to those who need it and who may have paid for extra supplies is challenging,” said Danny Merkley, California Farm Bureau Federation water resources director. “There are no guarantees it will be delivered. That’s primarily due to the impact of environmental protections for the delta smelt (which resulted in severe cutbacks in pumping water through the delta).”

Water officials say that because there’s so much uncertainty about contract requirements and environmental limitations, the actual amount of water that could be transferred south may be much less than the 400,000 acre-feet initially hoped for.

“We’re still getting proposals in from potential, willing sellers so we don’t have a number on how much water is actually going to be available for sale,” said Teresa Geimer, DWR’s Drought Water Bank manager. “We have a list of potential sellers and we’ve listed maximum amounts and that’s the best number we have right now.”

She said it’s hard to tell what the response will be because it’s a statewide drought and supplies are limited everywhere.

Statewide, agriculture uses about 34 million acre-feet of water. Total developed water for all purposes is about 78 million acre-feet. Combined water deliveries through the state and federal projects is about 4.8 million acre-feet.
Preliminary farm water allocations from the state and federal water projects currently is between zero and 20 percent of contract amount, far short of what farmers need to keep permanent crops alive. Even at 400,000 acre-feet, the amount that could be moved to drought-parched areas is a fraction of what’s needed.

Water experts say there are a number of hurdles that must be overcome before meaningful supplemental supplies from the state’s Drought Water Bank can flow from the Sacramento Valley, through the delta, to the San Joaquin Valley, including resolving environmental constraints, coping with an actual statewide lack of water, addressing inadequate infrastructure and accounting for agricultural market conditions.

“There are so many balls in the air right now it’s hard to keep your eye on all of them,” said Thad Bettner, general manager of Glenn Colusa Irrigation District. “We’ve got a number of issues to resolve before our farmers can free up water for transfer.”

For example, he said issues related to protection of the giant garter snake have not been resolved. This will impact the number and location of rice acres that can be fallowed. There are operational issues related to increased flows in the Sacramento River for fishery benefits that prohibit diversion during May and June for any reason, including export.

“That means buyers would lose 40 percent of the water they purchased because of having to maintain flows in the Sacramento River,” he explained. “These constraints also increase the price for delivering any water that ultimately can be transferred.”

Groundwater also is problematic, he said. Local communities are concerned about pumping water out of the ground for export south because of the potential impact on aquifers in the Sacramento Valley.

“Those are just a few of the limitations. And, then all this has to be covered by environmental documentation. It’s difficult to be timely in finalizing transfer contracts when both the state and federal governments have to prepare environmental assessments to cover these sales,” Bettner said. “We’re not giving up on this. We’re still going to try to free up water to meet demands this summer. But it won’t be easy.”

GCID supplies water from the Sacramento River through a 65-mile-long irrigation canal to more than 141,000 acres in crop production. Right now the district has tentative commitment for about 15,000 acre-feet of water from fallowing for the Drought Water Bank.

Given the uncertainties, he said farmers have already planted crops, noting, “they’re simply reluctant to enter into water purchase contracts when the final criteria for transfer hasn’t been decided.”

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California said it sees water transfers as a viable way to get additional water supplies to the 19 million customers who depend on the district for deliveries.

“But, it will not be the only way to get sufficient supplies for either urban or ag use,” said Debra Man, the district’s chief operating officer. “We recognize that our water challenges are not just related to dry or wet weather. There are more prevailing challenges that we’ll face every year in the future.”

She said that in addition to water transfers, MWD is looking at stepped up conservation, water recycling and desalination.

“It is in the best interest of agriculture and urban water users to fix the state’s delivery system through the delta,” Man said. “The challenges we face are the biggest cutbacks in state history due to restrictions to protect endangered species.”

She said all transfer-water purchases are being pursued through the state’s Drought Water Bank, but this source alone will not meet MWD’s supply shortfall.

“We’re waiting to hear from DWR that they have final agreements so they can move forward,” she said. “But more importantly, we want to know how much water we can procure from the water bank.”

The uncertainty of the supply available through the Drought Water Bank has made the option less effective than it could be, said Donn Zea, Northern California Water Association president.

“Not only are the transfers predicated on state and federal water project allocations, which usually come at the last possible minute, but also on completing required environmental documentation,” Zea said. “Once you move into the growing season, farmers have made their plans and they’ve got to hold on to the water to grow our food.

“The Drought Water Bank is a system that in theory is important, but the current situation really points back to the larger issue of flexibility in the water delivery system,” he said. “You can’t have that without increased water storage.

“If we had adequate storage then water transfers, the Drought Water Bank and all the activities of getting water to places where supplies are short would be easier because there would be backup systems that provide the state with greater supply certainty,” he said. Meanwhile, the California Latino Water Coalition participated in a press conference last week at the state capitol. The group wanted to underscore to lawmakers the impact the water crisis is having on jobs, families and valley communities.

The group joined Assemblywoman Anna Caballero, D-Salinas, and a number of other lawmakers and county water officials, in urging the board to allow greater cross transfers of water between the state and federal water delivery systems to increase flexibility and efficiency.

The petition, however, won’t be heard by the State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Water Rights for about a month, adding another layer of uncertainty at a time when commitments to transfer water need to be firmed up.

Federal water allocations get small boost

Although federal water allocations for agriculture remain at zero for service contractors south of the delta and at just 5 percent north of the delta, allocations for senior water rights holders and wildlife refuges north and south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta have been increased from 75 to 100 percent.

Federal officials say the increases result from additional precipitation, improved snowpack and improved runoff into Lake Shasta since the March snow surveys. Likewise, improved inflow to Millerton Lake also has increased the updated allocation for Friant Division Class I water from the preliminary allocation of 65 percent to 85 percent.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said it is working closely with Central Valley Project municipal and industrial contractors both north and south of the Delta to determine if, to meet public health and safety needs, adjustments are needed to their allocations.

The bureau said the increased allocations pave the way for several actions. With additional supply in the CVP system, more water may be available through the joint state and federal Drought Water Bank. Increased water supply would help meet critical water needs statewide.

In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed to postpone the summer delivery of a large portion of its San Joaquin Valley water to federal wildlife refuges until later in the year, freeing the water for other uses.

At the beginning of April, the state will conduct the fourth snow survey of the season. With the additional precipitation experienced since the March snow survey and with improved runoff into CVP reservoirs, the bureau said it anticipates announcing an updated water supply allocation in mid-to-late April.

Updated water supply allocations are posted online at www.usbr.gov/mp.
(Kate Campbell is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at kcampbell@cfbf.com.)