<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	>

<channel>
	<title>San Diego water reclamation &#8211; CalWatchdog.com</title>
	<atom:link href="https://calwatchdog.com/tag/san-diego-water-reclamation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://calwatchdog.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 23:22:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">43098748</site>	<item>
		<title>Water war&#8217;s new front: Where to add major storage projects</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2017/08/18/water-wars-new-front-add-major-storage-projects/</link>
					<comments>https://calwatchdog.com/2017/08/18/water-wars-new-front-add-major-storage-projects/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Reed]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 23:22:28 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Breaking News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[San Diego water reclamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Reed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Central Valley marshlands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmentalists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California droght]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Water Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[central valley wetland refuges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Propostion 1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[los vaqueros reservoir]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first dam since 1979]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contra Costa reservoir]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new Fresno County dam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new Colusa County dam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[12 proposed projects]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://calwatchdog.com/?p=94805</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[After a 35-year stalemate stalled new California water storage projects, Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders agreed in 2014 to include $2.7 billion for such needs as part of Proposition]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-weight: 400;"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-93771" src="http://calwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Lake-Shasta-Water-Reservoir-300x199-1-300x199.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="199" align="right" hspace="20" />After a 35-year stalemate stalled new California water storage projects, Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders agreed in 2014 to include $2.7 billion for such needs as part of </span><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1,_Water_Bond_(2014)" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Proposition 1</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, a $7.5 billion water bond approved in a landslide by voters later that year.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The then-raging drought persuaded Democrats to go along with major water storage creation plans after blocking new projects since California completed its last dam in 1979. Many Republicans saw the opposition as a back-door way for environmentalists to squeeze state farmers to limit agricultural pollution and protect native species, and to slow growth in urban areas. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council scoffed at these claims. They say encouraging water conservation is always a good goal in an arid state, and argue that state and federal laws that protect threatened species need to be fully followed.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">This sharp disagreement reflects how water politics have long been fraught in the Golden State. And now that the California Water Commission must choose which of 12 qualified proposed projects to fund with the $2.7 billion kitty, officials’ decisions are sure to be buffeted once again by regional interests (Northern vs. Southern California), economic interests (farmers vs. developers) and environmentalists’ interests. With the 12 projects estimated to cost about $13.1 billion – $10 billion-plus more than what is available – some key water stakeholders are sure to end up unhappy. Some districts will be forced to seek all or nearly all funding from other sources, starting with their customers.</span></p>
<h4>Greens quick to start push for preferred project</h4>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The 12 projects were </span><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/15/new-dams-coming-to-california-a-dozen-projects-seek-2-7-billion-in-state-funding/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">unveiled</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> last week. The water commission must make its final decision by June 2018.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Environmentalists wasted no time identifying their favorite project: The Contra Costa Water District’s proposal to increase the storage capacity at its Los Vaqueros reservoir by more than 70 percent – going from 160,000 acre-feet to 275,000 acre-feet. Contra Costa officials say the additional capacity could meet the yearly needs of 1.4 million people.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">But that isn’t why the $914 million project already has the strong support of several environmental groups – including the Planning and Conservation League, the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy. It’s because a chunk of the water would go to threatened Central Valley wetland refuges to shore up their fragile ecosystems, long a goal of state greens.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">To boost the case for the proposal, Contra Costa water officials have lined up the formal support – and promises of funding help – from 12 other Bay Area water districts, which see the additional storage as “drought insurance.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The most costly proposed projects are to build a $5 billion dam in Colusa County and a $3 billion dam in Fresno County.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Most of the projects proposed for Southern California are less ambitious. The exception is from the city of San Diego, which is asking for the water commission to help cover the $1.2 billion cost of a plant to recycle wastewater with advanced technology that makes it fully safe to mix with conventional water supplies. Officials believe the plant can supply one-third of city needs by 2035.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The project won </span><a href="http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/San-Diego-Eyes-Recycled-Water-Project-in-Drought-Conditions-283058261.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight: 400;">final approval</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> at San Diego City Hall in 2014, two weeks after Proposition 1 passed.</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://calwatchdog.com/2017/08/18/water-wars-new-front-add-major-storage-projects/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">94805</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/


Served from: calwatchdog.com @ 2026-04-14 13:51:03 by W3 Total Cache
-->