(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As we all know, agricultural irrigation commands a majority of community water allocations in many parts of the country. In California for example, agricultural irrigation accounts for 41% of all water use, and about 30% of that water is supplied by groundwater extraction, with the remaining 20% coming from the state’s extensive conveyance system that involves a series of dams, canals, and pumping plants. Perhaps the most famous of these conveyance sources is the San Joaquin–Sacramento Delta—subject of many lawsuits and continuing battleground for environmental versus agricultural interests.
Last week, Judge Oliver Wanger of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California supplied yet another twist to the ongoing delta smelt saga. Ruling against agricultural interests, Wanger reinstated water flow restrictions that had been recently lifted. These restrictions were initially put in place for the protection of the endangered delta smelt, and while they do not foreclose all pumping at the delta, they do significantly limit the amount of water that can be pumped (and delivered to California’s farmers throughout the central valley).
So what do you think? Are lawsuits and restraining orders the best way to reduce the impact of agricultural irrigation? Or does it make more sense to encourage an open dialogue between competing interests? In Queensland, Australia, community groups and local governments are working with farmers to develop a water resource management plan focused on protecting supply and keeping demand within “sustainable” standards—could a similar program help California and other water-strapped/agriculture-heavy states?
Showing posts with label water efficiency resource management delta smelt sacramento river. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water efficiency resource management delta smelt sacramento river. Show all posts
Monday, February 15, 2010
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Is it a "water grab" or a reasonable solution?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Those of you following the Delta-smelt decision in California and the resulting water shortages are aware of the contentious relationship between the northern and southern parts of the state when it comes to the management of local water resources. A recent panel recommendation seems designed to stir up the drama by proposing that the state begin construction of a canal to divert water from the Sacramento River as soon as 2011.
The panel is not alone in its recommendation. Last month the governor’s cabinet-level panel came away with the same recommendation in a draft report. Those supporting the project point to the added benefits of flood control and the rerouting of water away from the fragile delta habitat. But many in northern California aren’t buying those rationalizations, insisting that the project amounts to nothing more than blatant water grab by the South. Add environmentalists and a majority of California voters (who rejected a similar project in 1982) in the “con” column. And lest the issue end in a North/South stand-off, Natural Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman has stated that the committee behind the new canal project believes that legislative approval is not required for the project — which also includes the restoration of 100,000 acres of habitat in the delta, and the recommendation that more dams be built and another panel created to determine how to govern the delta).
There are similar controversies occurring throughout the country — from other areas in the Southwest (Utah-Nevada come to mind) and even in the midwestern and southern parts of the country. So what do you think? Does demand outstrip all other considerations when it comes to water resource management? Do the “haves” owe the “have-nots?” Or does a water-rich community have a right to determine how it will handle its supply?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Those of you following the Delta-smelt decision in California and the resulting water shortages are aware of the contentious relationship between the northern and southern parts of the state when it comes to the management of local water resources. A recent panel recommendation seems designed to stir up the drama by proposing that the state begin construction of a canal to divert water from the Sacramento River as soon as 2011.
The panel is not alone in its recommendation. Last month the governor’s cabinet-level panel came away with the same recommendation in a draft report. Those supporting the project point to the added benefits of flood control and the rerouting of water away from the fragile delta habitat. But many in northern California aren’t buying those rationalizations, insisting that the project amounts to nothing more than blatant water grab by the South. Add environmentalists and a majority of California voters (who rejected a similar project in 1982) in the “con” column. And lest the issue end in a North/South stand-off, Natural Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman has stated that the committee behind the new canal project believes that legislative approval is not required for the project — which also includes the restoration of 100,000 acres of habitat in the delta, and the recommendation that more dams be built and another panel created to determine how to govern the delta).
There are similar controversies occurring throughout the country — from other areas in the Southwest (Utah-Nevada come to mind) and even in the midwestern and southern parts of the country. So what do you think? Does demand outstrip all other considerations when it comes to water resource management? Do the “haves” owe the “have-nots?” Or does a water-rich community have a right to determine how it will handle its supply?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
