For nearly four years, the City of Sacramento has been encouraging residents to attend water conservation training sessions. Water conservation is always a good idea, but the city is going about it with an iron fist. The utility agency has three water waster inspectors, and is working to hire five more. The agency said in a recent news report it will spend $200,000 on meetings, and billboards to teach people about conservation.

Currently, only about 40 percent of city residents are on water meters.

“Over the past year, we have seen a huge increase in the numbers of calls for service and a desire by the community to have water conservation information shared with their organizations or neighborhoods,” Marty Hanneman, Director of the Department of Utilities, said in 2010. “We can’t think of a better way to share this information than neighbor to neighbor. These Water Conservation Ambassadors will be a huge asset to our department and allow our staff to focus on meeting Best Management Practices and reaching our goal of a 20% reduction in per capita water use by 2020.”

“To become a City of Sacramento Water Conservation Ambassador, volunteers must be 18 years of age or older, sign a volunteer agreement and attend a training session. While all activities are voluntary, it is estimated that the time commitment will be approximately 2-4 hours per month. Bilingual volunteers are especially needed.”

“We believe this is a great opportunity for all Sacramentans, from all walks of life to become more involved in their City, do something great for the environment, and make a difference in their neighborhood” said Hanneman.

Granted, some city residents do a lousy job monitoring their sprinkler systems. Some sprinkler systems spray sidewalks and cars, and run until the gutters flow like a river.

“Learn about the City’s free water conservation services, cool new ways to save water and how to help your neighbor’s [sic] save water by becoming a Water Conservation Ambassador,” a 2012 city notice said.

“Water Conservation Ambassadors will help spread the word about water conservation and protection of our water sources,” the city’s website says. “Ambassadors will help educate neighbors, friends, family and community organizations about conservation through attending community events, conducting knock and talks, and presenting at community meetings!”

Water wasters can receive fines up to $1,000 for repeat offenses.

California’s inadequate water plan

California’s water system is currently adequate enough for a population of 10 million — but the state is home to 30 million residents.

California has spent $18.7 billion on five water bonds since 2000, CalWatchdog’s Wayne Lusvardi explained in Nov. 2012.  “These bonds funded mostly open space acquisitions and landscaping projects that captured no new water and built no new reservoirs.”

“Those bond funds could have funded the proposed $13 billion Delta Tunnels,” Lusvardi said. “Or they could have funded both new reservoirs proposed as part of the $11.1 billion Consolidated Water Bond to appear on the 2013 ballot.  Instead the bond monies have been mostly squandered.  Water bonds have been partly turned into a slush fund for the state Legislature to redistribute Cap and Trade taxes among other activities.”

In 1982, voters turned down the proposed Peripheral Canal Project.  Population has grown about 59 percent since 1980, with few new hydroelectric dams or large water storage reservoirs added for storage since then.

There are 1,400 official dams and 1,300 official reservoirs in the state of California.

The Seven Oaks Reservoir in San Bernardino County was created in 1999 to prevent flooding. Diamond Valley Lake in Riverside County is a new storage reservoir, completed in 2004. But that reservoir is only stored surplus water from the Colorado River and the Sacramento Delta, did not produce any new water.

The Auburn Dam

In 1965, Congress authorized the Auburn Dam following severe flooding in Northern California. The proposed dam would have provided water storage, power generation, and flood control, with 2.5 million-acre-feet capacity. But in 1972 environmental groups sued to halt the dam project. In 1974, Friends of the River took over the environmental fight. By 1980 construction was halted. Despite several attempts, including a 2013 attempt to reignite the dam project, it was never built.

2014 water bonds

So here we are in 2014, with a long-delayed water bond slated for the Nov. 2014 ballot. Democratic State lawmakers have been delaying voters’ approval of an $11 billion water bond, originally passed in 2009.

Many say the bond is filled with pork, rather than seriously improving for better water storage and delivery systems. Money from the bond sale would go to cleaning up contaminated groundwater, increasing conservation and environmental projects, improving sewage systems, and studying and researching the construction of two dams — not actually building two dams, but only researching this. Only 25 percent is allocated for water storage in this proposal.

Contrast that Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Marysville, who has authored AB 1445, proposing a $5.8billion water bond, also for the November, 2014 ballot. Logue’s bill would build two dams — one in the Northern California, and one in  southern California — and fund $1 billion to water quality improvements, specifically in the Central Valley.

The Republican minority in the Legislature even is pitching in. Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Marysville, is pushing Assembly Bill 1445, a proposed $5.8 billion water bond to be put on the Nov. 2104 ballot to build two new dams and address Central Valley water quality.

Logue maintains his bill contains no pork and is the only water bond being discussed that would fund two dams.

California voters have not passed a water bond since 2006.  The Legislature in 2009 voted to put an $11 billion water bond on the Nov. 2010 ballot. But the Legislature then postponed the vote twice because of almost certain defeat by voters and questions about funding of pork.

That bond is back again this November — unless the Legislature again postpones it. If that bond ends up passing, Logue said, it would allocate only 25 percent of the funding, about $2.8 billion, for water storage.

“Two-times the water at half of the price, is what I call it,” Logue said in an interview of his own, cheaper bond proposal. He explained that, of the $5.8 billion in AB1445, $1 billion would be allocated to improving water quality, especially in the Central Valley. “We can use this bond money to pay for projects that will improve water quality, enhance our ability to protect ecosystems and reserve water for emergency situations,” he said.

Scrap High-Speed Rail and build reservoirs 

“Water is the most important issue facing California today,” Logue said. “I’ve called on the governor to scrap High-Speed Rail and put that money into building reservoirs.”

However, in his State of the State address last week, Gov. Jerry Brown continued to push for the HSR, whose total cost would be at least $68 billion.

“California potentially faces the driest winter in 500 years and water needs to be the top priority in 2014,” Logue said. “Reservoirs are drying up, farmers are losing their crops and it’s just getting worse.”

Logue explained that, because the state’s entire economy relies on an adequate and healthy water supply, legislators need to get to work immediately with Brown to find long-term solutions.

“California’s current water system provides water capacity for for 10 million people — we have 38 million in the state,” Logue said.

How Logue’s bond money would be spent

The two dams funded would be in the North of the state and near Fresno. “The money from my water bond will specifically be used for the storage of ground and surface water and this water can then be used for a variety of reasons, and it has the area of origin protection in the bond,” Logue said. “This will let us store it and use it for the ultimate benefit of Californians.”

If AB1445 is not passed by the Assembly, Logue may try putting his bond on the ballot with signatures.

And he has experience with ballot initiatives.  In 2010, Logue wrote and qualified for the ballot Proposition 23, after acquiring 800,000 signatures. It would have repealed AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, unless unemployment dropped. Voters rejected it and unemployment remains higher than the national average.

Logue stressed how important his water bond is and said it should have been done 10 years ago. If it doesn’t pass, he warned, “the Central Valley will turn into a dust bowl.”

Other water bond bills

The Democratic supermajorities in the Legislature also are coming up with new water bonds.

AB4 is by State Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, and is quite different from Logue’s bill. It would fund $6.5 billion in water projects. According to a Daily Republic story, the bond would be geared more toward the concerns of environmentalists: wastewater recycling, groundwater storage, regional and local water supply development and Delta ecosystem restoration and stronger levees to improve water delivery.

AB1331 is by Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood. Its $6.5 billion would fund projects related to water supply reliability, water quality, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta sustainability, watershed conservation and protection and water recycling.

The bill will have its first hearing in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee in March.

By Wayne Lusvardi

Call it “thin water.” A small private company called Cadiz Inc. in Los Angeles is in the process of creating water in California’s Mojave Desert — like a magician, literally out of thin air.

By selling that water wholesale, water agencies will be able nearly to double the amount of water sold because of an administrative mechanism called an “Intentionally Created Surplus” as part of the Lower Colorado River Basin Operating Agreement.

ICS water will contribute toward avoiding the construction of new costly water-storage reservoirs anywhere in California, even though the new water “produced” will be in the Mojave Desert.

New Cadiz Plan Endorsed by Environmentalists

If this sounds too good to be true to environmental skeptics, it isn’t.  Cadiz Water’s plan to capture evaporation water losses has been endorsed by some of the most eminent conservationists, water scientists and engineers in the world.  And ICS credits have been in operation since 2007.

The Cadiz Company has many skeptics due to a failed proposal 10 years ago to sell Cadiz Valley groundwater to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.  Critics at that time believed that Cadiz would deplete the groundwater table and would destroy the desert ecology.  But Cadiz CEO Scott Slater says recently, “They learned from that process.”

Cadiz’s new water development concept is to capture downstream groundwater before it gets to desert dry lakebeds in the Cadiz Valley.  Nature uses dry lakebeds as evaporation ponds to allow groundwater to escape back into the atmosphere.  Thus, Cadiz will take water from no one, not even the environment.  It will take water from the ground before it evaporates into thin air.

Water Conservation Credits Double Water Supply

And through a novel new administrative process called an “Intentionally Created Surplus,” it will be able to sell water conservation credits to the MWD or its member agencies.  Under the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operationsfor Lake Powell and Lake Mead of 2007, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation will allow the MWD to store almost an equal amount of conserved water in Lake Mead.  Thus, conserved water will produce double the potential water supplies. As as long as low water capacity conditions prevail along the Colorado River, water storage system water can be stored in Lake Mead.

Former U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water consultant Bob Johnson called ICS water a “huge breakthrough” that will mainly benefit Southern California water users.

Johnson says that prior to the creation of water conservation credits, the water in Lake Mead was held in common ownership by all the Lower Colorado River Basin states.  Water conservation credits have created a sort of water right within the common pool of water in Lake Mead. These water rights could disappear if greater rainfall eventually fills the reservoirs along the Colorado River system.

Johnson says an ICS water conservation credit is defined as a portion of any water conserved through farmland fallowing, lining of canals, increased system efficiency or other measures taken by Lower Basin users of the Colorado River that will result in new additional sources of water.  There is a cap on how much water surplus each Lower Basin Colorado River water user can store in Lake Mead.  Thus, there is a future risk of losing the surplus water parked in Lake Mead if high water conditions return.  But as long as low rainfall conditions prevail, there is potential water storage capacity in Lake Mead.

Categories of Water Conservation Credits

Lake Mead has four statutory priorities for storing water, in this order: flood control, water storage and hydropower.

Under the 2007 guidelines, there are four categories of ICS:

1. Tributary conservation: allows a water user to fallow water rights in tributaries of the Colorado River that were in use prior to the effective date of the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act and transport this water to the Colorado River for credit.  An example would be MWD fallowing 16,000 acres of farmland it owns in the Palo Verde Irrigation District along the Colorado River.

2. Groundwater-imported ICS: allows a Colorado River contract holder to convey non-Colorado River water to the Colorado River for credit. Cadiz’s plans to capture evaporative groundwater losses — or “thin water” — would fall into this category.

3.  System efficiency: allows a user to fund a system efficiency project that would conserve Colorado River water. The project must increase the amount of water in the United States and a portion of the saved water would be credited to the user funding the project.  The Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project — also called the Brock Reservoir — will capture about 70,000 acre feet of water on average that is released from Lake Mead, but is no longer needed because of changed weather conditions.  The Drop 2 Storage Reservoir is located north of the All American Canal in Southern California and about 30 miles west of Yuma, Ariz.

4. Extraordinary conservation: Allows a water user to implement a project, such as land fallowing or canal lining, to conserve water through extraordinary measures, which would increase Lake Mead levels. Unlike other forms of ICS, extraordinary-conservation ICS is not available during declared shortages.  The Imperial Irrigation District plans to conserve 12,000 acre-feet of water for example by a main canal lining and seepage interception project.  Likewise, MWD is planning a water desalting facility that will save 56,300 acre-feet of water as part of its Palo Verde Irrigation District project.

Before the creation of ICS credits, Johnson says there was no incentive for Lower Basin users to conserve their water allocation.  It was a system of “use it or lose it.”  The new incentive system allows Lower Colorado River Basin users to now nearly double their water resources.

California Can Only Weather a Half-Year Drought

Colorado River water consultant Bob Johnson says that California “has the toughest water problems of all 17 western states.”  He pointed out that the ratio of average annual water flows to water storage on the Lower Colorado River system is about 4.0.  In other words, the Lower Colorado River has four years of storage and thus can weather a four-year drought.

The entire Colorado River system could withstand a 10-year drought according to Johnson.

Using rough numbers by comparison, Johnson said the flows-to-storage ratio for California’s State Water Project and the federally operated Central Valley Project is about 0.5.  Stated differently, California can only weather a drought for about half a year. On its own, the California State Water Project cannot manage a drought of nearly any duration.

This makes a three-to-five year drought unmanageable in California. It forces emergency conservation measures instead of water planning and management.  Thus, not only is more water storage in California needed, but the existing water system needs to be able to be managed more flexibly to make it more efficient.  ICS water credits go a long way to adding system flexibility and more efficient management of existing water supplies until more water storage can be added.

The new proposed Cadiz Water project will go one step further by creating a 100 percent multiplier effect of creating a new water supply from almost nothing.

California Voters Squandered Water Bonds

California voters have squandered about $18.7 billion in five water bonds since the year 2000, without creating any new significant water storage. (Propositions 12, 13, 40, 50 and 84.)  Most of that bond funding went to land acquisitions for open-space preservation.

A $11 billion water bond is scheduled to go before voters this November, called the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012.

It would provide for construction of two new water reservoirs, if they can withstand legal opposition by environmentalists. But the bond may be pulled from the ballot due to low voter support. Voters apparently are tired of paying for water bonds that are nothing more than expensive jobs programs for environmentalists. New opinion polls show voters are tiring of the Green Agenda.

If that’s the case, maybe the state finally can move on and solve its water problems with real solutions, as in the 1950s and 1960s. If not, then prepare for future droughts complete with much higher water prices, brown lawns, shuttered car washes, dirty cars and more national jokes about Californians’ incompetence.