Why Stop the Sacramento Valley Water Raid
Draft 7 – (3/19/04)
Edited by: SVEWC Steering Committee
Note: The SVEWC is circulating this draft document in order to help organize widespread opposition throughout the Sacramento watershed to the plans that Delta water exporting interests are advancing. We believe all the interest groups in the watershed can unite around most if not all of the messages and reasons stated in this draft document. Opponents of the exporters’ proposals will be more successful if they unite on their key messages and collaborate in advancing them. Comments and suggestions for improvements are encouraged.
New versions of this document will be put on line at
http://svewc.org/raid.
A. Introduction/Overview:
In a fast growing state where it seldom rains during the summer and the entire south is classified as a desert, water is precious to everyone.
The Sacramento Valley has enough water for a thriving economy, sustainable agriculture production, great recreation, and valuable fish and wildlife habitat. But there may not be enough water for the Valley’s economy and environment if farms and cities south of the Delta gain long-term rights to Valley supplies.
Federal and state water contractors are now pursuing efforts to increase the amount of water that is exported out of the Delta and the amount of fresh water that enters the Delta from the north. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Kern County Water Agency, and the Westlands Water District are among the leaders in the effort. Overall they hope to increase exports out of the Sacramento Valley by more than 1 million acre feet of water per year.
The primary source of this water will be existing surface and groundwater supplies in the Valley. Much of this is expected to come from the fallowing of farmland in the Valley and major increases in groundwater pumping. The Valley’s water is on the verge of being massively sold and exported without adequate mitigation of the adverse impacts this will have to the Valley’s economy and environment.
Agricultural and urban interests south of the Delta also plan to convince the local, state and the federal government to expand Valley surface water supplies for export south. Their proposed project includes enlarging Shasta Reservoir and building the Sites Reservoir near Williams. Although both projects are touted as beneficial to Valley agriculture, the price of the water from these projects is likely to be so high that only urban interests south of the Delta will be able to pay for it.
Right now, the exporters and their allies in the Valley are pushing hard to gain approval for key elements needed to dramatically increase the north’s supplies to be sent south. Now is the time for people concerned about preserving the Valley’s economy and environment to become informed and take action. Inaction will likely lead to the permanent loss of a significant portion of the Valley’s existing water supplies and cause rippling negative impacts for all but a few in the Valley for generations to come.
B. Main Messages
1. All interest groups and stakeholders in the Sacramento watershed should unite to protect and ensure the sustainability of the Valley’s surface and groundwater resources. The proposal by the exporters threatens these vital resources and will create short and long term harm to the region’s farmers, cities, recreationists, and economy.
2. There isn’t enough information to know how much harm will be caused to groundwater supplies and wells, stream flows and fish, land fallowing and jobs, water quality and drinking water, and other beneficial uses of the Valley’s water. The monitoring data, scientific research and computer models have not been done to provide technical experts and water leaders with any reasonable scientific confidence on how the exporters’ proposal will impact these assets.
3. The Valley’s water interests – urban residents, farmers, recreational users, conservationists, business owners and all – should collaborate to develop the information needed to manage local water supplies in a sustainable way. Conjunctive use of dams and groundwater reservoirs plus improved water use efficiency can be implemented in most areas in ways that lead to benefits for all. There may be new water surplus to the needs of the environment, fish, wildlife and local users that becomes available for export out of the area of origin. But a lot more knowledge needs to be developed before this vision can be implemented.
C. Specific Reasons to Oppose the Exporters Plans for the Sacramento Valley
1. Farmers dependent on groundwater will likely be harmed by higher costs, lower quality and potential shortages in water supplies.
Excessive groundwater pumping, fallowing and its associated negative economic impacts, and reduced surface supplies during droughts are all likely results of increased exports of Valley water south. Only some farmers will be paid for the “new” water that leaves the Valley. And some of these will turn to groundwater pumping to make up for what they sell. Because there are few restrictions on this type of activity, others using those groundwater supplies will be harmed with little recourse. Lowering groundwater levels also reduces surface flows in streams and rivers and harms local springs, wetlands, oak woodlands, rangeland and more. Water districts and counties presently do not have the information and computer modeling tools needed to have any confidence in how the exporters’ proposal will impact local groundwater supplies during droughts and continuing population increases, changing water quality standards and other facts of life in the Valley.
2. People dependent on well water for drinking could be harmed by higher costs, lower quality, and shortages in water supply.
Groundwater use will increase to make up for the additional surface water that will be exported. Increased groundwater pumping will negatively affect supply, quality and cost. As more ground water is pumped, groundwater levels will lower resulting in increased pumping costs. Some shallow wells will simply dry up. Lower groundwater levels will likely receive increased polluted inflow from natural and man-made sources. The Valley’s groundwater supplies are not inexhaustible, and tapping them to replace water exported south is a highly risky assumption. A great deal more science needs to be conducted before anyone commits future generations to this unverified resource as a long-term supply.
3. As Valley water is tapped for export, it will be less available for future use in the Valley.
Use over time can affect water rights. Once the much more populated south becomes reliant on supplies from the Sacramento Valley, they have the political ability to “protect” their supply. They have the money and power to change the state’s constitution if they felt it was needed. They certainly have the financial ability to tie up Valley lawyers for years. When the state and the exporters invest in enlarging Shasta Dam or building Sites Reservoir, they increase their ability to claim this water for generations to come.
4. Valley residents and businesses benefiting from recreation on full reservoirs, and on healthy rivers and wetlands, will be harmed.
As a result of increased exports south, water levels in Lake Shasta, Oroville and other Valley reservoirs will fluctuate more and degrade boating and fishing on those regional recreational resources. Flow releases from dams into the rivers will suffer even greater modifications. Higher than normal river flows in summer and lower in the spring and winter harm native fish populations favored by recreational and commercial anglers. Rice fields and wetlands dependent on water supplied by local reservoirs could be left dry, resulting in the loss of waterfowl habitat and likely impacts on waterfowl hunting. Less fishing, hunting, boating, rafting, bird watching and other recreational opportunities in the Valley mean less economic value from these activities. This great Valley of ours can be a source of a sustainable and expanding economy as its natural beauty and resources rebound.
5. The increased costs of protecting the Valley’s water-dependent threatened and endangered species from additional water exports will largely be born by the entire Valley economy, and not necessarily by those benefiting from water exports.
A host of Valley wildlife species, including threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead, many riparian and wetland dependent bird species and other wildlife need naturally functioning streams to survive and recover. Oak woodlands especially the Valley Oaks and many terrestrial plants and animals will be threatened if groundwater supplies fluctuate too much or too often as groundwater extraction increases throughout the valley and foothills in response to the exporters’ plans. The resulting changes to ground and surface water supplies, and further modification of formerly natural stream flows will not help these species recover to healthy population levels. Export proposals will likely increase the number of threatened and endangered species in the Valley, without the exporters and importers sharing the fair and proportionate cost to protect and recover these species. This cost will largely be born by the entire Valley economy.
6. Valley water needs should have first call on any Valley water considered by some to be “surplus” and available for export.
If any water is surplus to the Valley’s irrigation needs, it should first be made available to meet other consumptive and environmental needs in the Valley before being sold to the south. This includes Valley water conserved through increased efficiency, reclamation, and conjunctive use programs.
7. Non-Valley interests who wish to import Valley water should consider other options for meeting their water needs. They should assist the Valley in evaluating the true long-term impacts of their proposed plans. They should expand their Delta export capacity or operations until a full and scientifically sound evaluation of all impacts and alternatives is completed.
The proposal to dramatically change state and federal project operations and infrastructure in order to increase exports out of the Delta and Sacramento Valley should be fully analyzed in a transparent process readily accessible to the public. This analysis should consider other alternatives that would require water importers to develop additional local supplies through increased water use efficiency and conservation, water reclamation, desalinization, fallowing of irrigated land poisoned by selenium, and other options. It is neither a fair nor a sound policy to focus on exporting Valley water before first fully considering all other local water supply options. Non-export options could provide more jobs, reduce water pollution, and create more reliable, decentralized supplies for the south.
