- Author: Carole Hom
- Author: Lauren Adams
Under recently enacted legislation, local agencies in California are required for the first time to manage groundwater pumping and recharge sustainably.
The law empowers local groundwater agencies to manage and use groundwater “without causing undesirable results,” leaving it up to them to determine how to best achieve this goal. Within the next six to eight years, agencies in groundwater basins subject to critical overdraft must adopt plans that put these areas on a path to sustainability by 2040. A major factor complicating such long-term water planning is climate change. Failing to account for a changing climate will put agencies -- and the people whom they serve -- at risk of “undesirable results,” even if they are otherwise well prepared. The solution: a long-term approach to groundwater management will result in more resilient groundwater basins and a more secure water system for California. |
To read more about climate change, groundwater security, and the new package of groundwater legislation, read the full post, “Groundwater security, for the long term” on the California Water Blog at http://californiawaterblog.
- Author: Alan Rhoades
- Author: Carole Hom
Matt Weiser has become the Sacramento Bee's go-to guy for detailed coverage of water and environmental concerns. His growing corpus now includes an article on the proposed Delta water diversion project from the perspective of SoCal water users. Sunday's edition also included an opinion by editor Joyce Terhaar on the rationale underlying the Sacramento Bee's reporting on water issues.
- Author: Carole Hom
US District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill ruled yesterday that water must be released from the Trinity Reservoir to prevent a salmon kill in the lower Klamath River. His ruling responded to a suit by San Joaquin Valley water interests to halt the releases to increase water available for agricultural irrigation via the Central Valley Project.
Judge O'Neill wrote,
"the flow augmentation releases are designed to prevent a potentially serious fish die off from impacting salmon populations entering the Klamath River estuary. There is no dispute and the record clearly reflects that the 2002 fish kill had severe impacts on commercial fishing interests, tribal fishing rights, and the ecology, and that another fish kill would likely have similar impacts."
However, he also ruled that because of the delay of water releases and recent change in environmental conditions, the amount of water needed to preserve the health of the fish had fallen by two thirds.
Environmental advocates, fishing interest groups, and tribal representatives hailed the ruling for its benefit to salmon populations and the economic well-being of the north coast. Representatives of the plaintiffs, the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authorities and Westlands Water District, lauded the reduction in water to be released.
Judge O'Neill concluded,
"Both sides of this dispute represent significant public interests. ...the federal government has invested large sums of money into the restoration of the fisheries in question. Yet, it is equally true that the government has and continues to invest in the long-term viability of agriculture in the Central Valley. Neither side holds veto power over the other. Nevertheless, on balance, considering the significantly lower volume of water now projected to be involved and the potential and enormous risk to the fishery of doing nothing, the Court finds it in the public interest to permit the augmentation to proceed."