Irrigation deal’s water is trivial, precedent huge

Redding Record Searchlight, May 12, 2013:

Looking strictly at this summer, a proposal to sell a few thousand acre-feet of Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District water to parched farms in Central California, making up the shortage by tapping wells, will do trivial harm at most to anyone in Shasta County.

But if you give them a drop, will they want the whole lake?

The federal Bureau of Reclamation is working to smooth a series of water transfers, totaling 37,505 acre-feet, from water-wealthy Sacramento Valley irrigation districts to the western San Joaquin Valley. All would in turn tap groundwater to keep their own irrigators whole. Anderson-Cottonwood is the northernmost.

A water sale is the kind of deal that, as former Anderson-Cottonwood board member Butch Sartori said, is likely to get someone punched in the nose. Looking at it practically, though, it makes considerable sense, at least as a one-time deal.

California is suffering a severe drought. Lake Shasta doesn’t look too bad, but this year’s snowpack was skimpy. Irrigators in the San Joaquin Valley farm belt expect to get just 20 percent of their contract water from the federal Central Valley Project. Water is in high demand and fetches a high price.

Anderson-Cottonwood, along with other Sacramento Valley water districts, has first-in-line water rights and can expect nearly full canals. The basin below Redding has a robust aquifer and can easily replace sold water from wells, unlike the badly overdrawn San Joaquin Valley, where water tables have dropped sharply and land subsidence can be serious. (On the flip side, seeing the end result of excess pumping from farm wells is a major warning to proceed with caution.)

And in exchange for selling less than 3 percent of its water, again replaced fromwells, the Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District would earn nearly half a million dollars in new revenue. That’s money it could invest in local improvements to serve customers’ long-term needs.

Groundwater and nearby streams are connected, of course, and heavy pumping of wells can dry up waterways. It can also hurt neighbors’ wells. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s plans, however, require monitoring wells to track the effects on the water table and mitigation plans to make up for any harm.

Specific to the Anderson-Cottonwood district, the Bureau’s environmental assessment of the water-transfer plan, released last week, is clear that the district “will cease operation of the production wells if monitoring data indicate any adverse depletion of groundwater levels.” If neighbors suspect their wells are dropping because of the new pumping, the plan requires ACID to investigate “promptly” and “immediately” shut down wells found to be causing problems.

Those safeguards, coupled with the relatively small scale of the water sales, make it seem safe for the region.

But what happens next year, and the year after that?

“As we look at it, they’re trying to get their foot in the door,” said Barbara Vlamis, executive director of the Chico-based environmental group AquAlliance, which is fighting the transfers. Vlamis points to plans that periodically pop up to dramatically expand water transfers replaced by groundwater pumping — to as much as 600,000 acre-feet a year, or more than 15 times the current proposal — and to make them a routine part of California’s irrigation network.

Those schemes, Vlamis said, have never been adequately studied to show how they might leave other wells sucking air, dry up creeks and wetlands, and otherwise impose side effects on our valley. She points to a 1994 pumping experiment in Butte County that caused serious problems and shouldn’t be repeated.

Even if every district approved every water sale proposed this year, it wouldn’t come close to making a dust bowl of the Sacramento Valley. Even Vlamis concedes the amount of water at stake this summer is “chicken feed from an ag perspective.”

But opening this faucet would set a precedent. Doing so demands a clear-eyed look at what would happen after we turn the handle a few more times. Because once those water-hungry farms in the San Joaquin Valley get a taste, they will be back for more.

COMMENTS:

Les Baugh: Water deal is anything but trivial
Posted May 14, 2013

[Shasta County Supervisor Les Baugh represents District 5, including Anderson and Cottonwood.]

A recent Record Searchlight editorial was headlined, “Irrigation deal’s water is trivial…”

This “trivial” water deal is the single most important issue to hit Shasta County and perhaps the entire north state in the last decade. The potential is there to effectively change our life as we know it. This seemingly minor sale of water to our southern neighbors will in fact open the proverbial floodgate to much larger deals.

And deals there will be.

The Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District stands to receive a hefty half a million dollars with this groundwater substitution transfer of up to 3,500 acre-feet. Even I will be the first to recognize their need for the additional revenue. But money, like water, never quite satisfies. The taste of money and water combined is a powerful aphrodisiac.

What’s the prize? Our groundwater basin. Under Anderson and Cottonwood lie several million acre-feet of fresh water. A resource equivalent to a full Lake Shasta, valued conservatively at $300 million.

Once ACID get’s a taste of the money, what’s to prevent them (or anyone else who owns land above this liquid gold mine) from drilling a big fat well and selling “their” water? For that matter, what’s to prevent Southern California water users from buying their own piece of water-rich Shasta County and pumping their water south?

Excessive water transfers have the potential to dry up local resources.

If you think I’m over-reacting, I offer two words: Owens Valley. Once a lush and vibrant valley. Today dried up after losing its water source, the Owens River, to satisfy Los Angeles’ thirst for water.

Some would say this water transfer is merely a tiny mosquito bite. And compared to the whole of the resource they would be right. But it will be felt. Groundwater dynamics will change. Even a minor one-foot drawdown will impact homes, agricultural users, native riparian growth and wildlife. Well owners within a mile or two of the pumping may notice higher turbidity and different taste. Pump from a dozen wells throughout the basin and the effects multiply. Water tables could plummet.

The economic cost to the north state could be millions of dollars.

Here’s the rub; I don’t even believe this water will end up being used for its intended purpose. Yes, it will go into the Sacramento River. It still needs to get across the Delta and be pumped out to the buyers. There is absolutely no guarantee that the state or the feds will find the time or even have the inclination to “pump” this water south when it hits the Delta. In all likelihood, our water will end up flowing out the Golden Gate.

The buyers are willing to pay half a million dollars for this “trivial” test case. They may establish a precedent of buying and transferring upstream water. Scare out the legal challenges, establish monitoring records, mitigate where necessary by fixing grandma’s well. With that, you’re off and running toward the water sale of your dreams. Therein lies the real danger — the avarice to come.

Nothing about this potential water sale will improve Shasta County water resources. Nor will it serve to benefit a single county resident. The beneficiaries of this project live elsewhere.

Local water agencies need to work toward the common goal of preserving this valuable resource to meet local needs. This “trivial” water deal has been years in the making behind the scenes. Let’s take a great big step back and allow the public to fully participate in this decision through transparency and disclosure of the details. Lest we set into motion a never-ending escalation of ground water transfers south.

Shasta County Supervisor Les Baugh represents District 5, including Anderson and Cottonwood.

—————————————————————————————————

Dan Fults: Without fallowing, water sale is sham
Posted May 14, 2013 at 6 p.m.

Your Sunday editorial points out the seriousness of the proposal to sell a few thousand acre-feet of Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District water to parched farms in Central California. This deal claims to sell a portion of the district’s surface water and the district would make it up by pumping local groundwater. Thus, there would be no change in supply to the district.

This is an illusory arrangement where in reality the district’s groundwater would be sold to Central California. Selling water is not uncommon but historically, when water is sold from one farmer to another (which is essentially the case here), the seller must fallow enough land to make the water available. I don’t see that happening in the case you describe in your editorial. This looks like a bigger problem than you suggest.