This week, however, one of the relatively few think tanks that specializes in water issues came out with a 26-page analysis that in low-key fashion suggests Prop 1’s merits are being exaggerated. The Pacific Institute, based in Oakland, says it is neutral on the measure. But its concluding chapter strongly  suggests that the bond is likely to disappoint anyone who sees it as a game-changer for state water policy:

We note that nothing in this proposition will provide immediate relief from the current drought or offer short-term assistance to those suffering the consequences of current water challenges. If Proposition 1 passes, if the funds are designated for effective projects, and if those projects are well-designed and well-implemented, the long-term benefits could include a reduction in the risks of future droughts and floods as well as improvements in the health of California’s aquatic ecosystems. A key priority of the bond is to augment the state’s water supply and improve water supply reliability, with more than $4.2 billion in taxpayer funding dedicated to that priority.

As was the case with the 2010 bond, there is substantial funding in the 2014 bond for the public benefits portions of surface water or groundwater storage projects. The 2010 bond included $3.0 billion directly for water storage; the current language includes $2.7 billion. Because the total size of the 2014 bond is smaller than the 2010 bond, the proportion of total funding committed for storage increased from 30% to 36%. Beyond the eduction in the total allocation from $3 billion to $2.7 billion, the water storage language in the proposed 2014 bond is almost identical to the language in the original 2010 bond.

Far less of the bond funds are available for other water supply and demand management options, including recycled water, stormwater capture, and efficiency. Yet, these options can typically provide more water at lower cost than most storage projects. Funding for water conservation and efficiency is especially low, at only $100 million, or about 1% of the bond.

 A down payment on water future “at best”

The think tank also worries that once the bond money is in hand, allocation decisions may be poorly handled.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of Proposition 1 funds in addressing California’s overall water problems will depend on how the funds, if passed by the voters, are actually allocated and spent. If Proposition 1 passes, the Institute recommends that the California Water Commission develop a rigorous, independent, and transparent evaluation of the process governing the evaluation and quantification of the public benefits of proposed storage projects. It also recommends that decisions about the rest of the funds be made with a focus on meeting public and ecosystem needs for safe and reliable water, improvements in efficient use, and reductions in the risks of future droughts and floods.

If good projects are identified and supported, these funds can help move the state forward in the broader effort of designing, building, and managing a 21st century water system. But voters should not expect immediate relief from Proposition 1 for the impacts of the current drought; nor should they expect these funds to be the last investment that is needed for better institutions, smarter planning, and more effective water management strategies. It can be, at best, a down payment on our water future.

The obvious solution that may someday be forced on us

I’ve always thought that California’s water problems are seen through a distorted lens — one which doesn’t acknowledge that if water use is prioritized, genuine nightmares harming our quality of life are easily avoided.

The U.S. EPA says one-third of residential water use goes to maintain lawns. That’s nearly 9 billion gallons a day. And much of that is wasted.

If we ever had a water shortage so severe that it threatened our economy, stopping the use of water for what might be called cosmetic purposes would be an obvious step. Sorry, but using precious water so folks can have a green lawn should be the lowest water priority of all if the megadrought some expect for the Southwest comes to pass.

Brown lawns or dead lawns, in the grand scheme of things, are not genuine nightmares.

Has California built any dams in the past 55 years as its population has more than doubled – and as a drought rages? Yes – but not by the state.

Peter Gleick of the Pacific Water Institute recently stirred the waters about whether California has added any new water storage dams since 1959. The title of his article in the San Francisco Chronicle, “The Number of New Dams Built in California in the Past 50 (or 40, or 30, or 20) Years is Not Zero.”

Gleick is correct that five new dams were built in California since 1959 with a total capacity of 8.6 million acre-feet of water. However, we need to distinguish.

No water has been added to the State Water Project or federal Central Valley Project for farms and cities. The State of California has built no new dams since 1959.

However, the federal government and three local water districts have built the five dams Gleick mentioned.

The five dams are irrelevant because they do not effectively produce more water for the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project that provide water to cities and farms. Both the state and federal water systems depend on the largest reservoir of the Sierra snowpack that holds 15 million acre-feet of water.

So, while Gleick’s “not zero” is correct, it also could be calculated as “not much more relevant than zero.”

The dams listed by Gleick include:

Federal dams

1. New Melones Dam

The New Melones Dam, with a capacity of 2.4 million acre-feet of water storage, is the United States’ first “green dam.”  It was re-built in 1978 by the federal government.  It is no longer able to meet its original obligations to provide flood control protection and agricultural irrigation except in a rare wet year.  All of the water in the dam is now required only for fish flows during normal years. Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Modesto, has attempted without success to get as little as 100,000 acre-feet of water dedicated for agricultural irrigation.

2. Warm Springs Dam (Lake Sonoma)

Warm Springs Dam in Sonoma County was built in 1983 and holds 381,000 acre-feet of water.   The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operates the dam for flood control and fish flows; and for agricultural irrigation operates when enough water is available.  Warm Springs Reservoir is not counted on the list of state and federal reservoirs for water storage purposes as it serves only Sonoma County.  

Local dams

3. New Spicers Meadow Dam

The New Spicers Meadow Dam was built by the Calaveras County Water District in 1989 and holds 189,000 acre-feet of water.  It diverts water from the Stanislaus River that flows into the San Joaquin River and ultimately the Sacramento Delta.  The purpose of the reservoir is to provide drinking and agricultural water as well as hydro-power to Stanislaus and Calaveras counties only. Since it diverts water from the Delta, the State of California does not count it as contributing to water storage.

4. Los Vaqueros Dam and Reservoir

Los Vaqueros Dam and Reservoir was built by the Contra Costa County Water District in 1998 and holds 160,000 acre-feet of water solely dedicated to serving Contra Costa County.  The reservoir was built because during dry years water from the Sacramento Delta became salty.  The reservoir is also not counted by either state of federal authorities for water storage purposes.

5. Diamond Valley Lake

Diamond Valley Lake is an 800,000 acre-feet off-stream reservoir located in Riverside County in Southern California.  The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California built it in 1995.  It is also not counted as contributing to statewide water storage. It is a backup reservoir that holds surplus water for droughts and emergencies for Southern California only.  The reservoir is connected to the State Water Project by the 44-mile Inland Feeder pipeline.  Diamond Valley Lake only takes water from the State Water Project when surplus water is available for storage for future use.