Is restoration making more SJ River water available?
Chris Acree, executive director of Revive the San Joaquin, has been talking about a revolutionary idea on the San Joaquin River restoration.
He says the water releases from Friant Dam for the restoration may actually be making more water available for farmers and others. That's the exact opposite of what I've always heard.
Since 1988, farmers have dreaded this restoration, knowing they would have to give up irrigation water so the river could run again. The math seems simple enough. They give up water. The river runs year-round again. How could Acree be correct?
He says releasing water for the restoration creates new space behind the dam to capture rain runoff and snowmelt that would have been released in flood-control situations.
I see where he's going. He's talking about operating the dam differently. Let some water out continuously. Hold more water later on if a big snowmelt is taking place in spring.
And, combined with recapturing some of the released restoration water and sending it back to farms, he might have a point.
But these flood-release situations don't happen every year. Some years, there's far too much water to keep in the system. Some years, there's not nearly enough to go around. Who can figure out if there is more water or less by operating the dam differently?
Maybe it's time to see an engineering analysis from the federal government.
Comments:
Good Grief Mark,
Dont you think we've studied that ad naseum?
We have done exhaustive studies to determine, of the water released for fish, how much is an actual impact on farmers.
For instance, in a wet year some of the water would have spilled anyway.
In addition, digging a hole in Millerton storage by releasing water for fish CAN capture water that would have spilled absent restoration.
The effects? For example, when 555,000 af are released for fish in wet years the models indicate only 300,000 to 350,000 af might be actual impacts for the two reasons listed above.
In some years the full 555,000 would be an impact, in others, the impacts could be negligible.
The bottom line, restoration steals on the average over 200,000 af per
year from the farmers who paid for the CVP to be built!
Sincerely
Steve Collup
Engineer-Manager
Arvin-Edison Water Storage District
Posted by: Steve Collup at February 11, 2011 10:42 AM
Thanks Mark for recognizing that it will take revolutionary ideas to make progress on necessary San Joaquin Valley water infrastructure upgrades. Steve Collup's response that restoration "steals" water is exactly why we need to change the way we think about water projects. This restoration water was ordered released by a judge, stating the "theft" came on behalf of the CVP system and now that water is rightfully returned to the San Joaquin River. The Fraint Water Users retain rights to ALL of the water released for restoration, they just don't have the infrastructure in place yet to get it all back.
The San Joaquin River Settlement Agreement offers a Water Management Goal that is attempting to recirculate ALL the water released to the river. This is not a guarantee, but when the agreement is fully implemented, it could be a reality. The Friant Water Users consider the "new water" created from increased storage behind Millerton as a makeup for losses, but according to this line of reasoning, a multi-billion dollar investment in Temperance Flat would still not create enough "new water" to make-up these losses.
The Arvin-Edison Water Storage District has almost unlimited space to store this "new water" and they have been selling it back to new Fresno developments at high rates. Fresno and Madera Counties are the Counties of Origin for all this water, and we have the greatest water shortages in the State, so why do we not have a stake in new water development.
"New water" created with taxpayer dollars should go to "new need." This is the only way we will move forward with water planning and a sensible water bond, by recognizing the multiplicity of water users and letting the courts and the State Water Resources Control Board make the best decisions to appease them all.
Chris Acree
Revive the San Joaquin
Posted by: Chris Acree at February 16, 2011 12:51 PM
Post a comment
(read the comment policy before posting)