WaterWired

CRS Report: 'Reclamation Water Storage Projects - Section 4007 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act'

Charles V. Stern authored this 2-pager InFocus CRS Report (Updated 2 July 2020): 'Reclamation Water Storage Projects - Section 4007 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act'.

Download CRS_InFocus_USBR_Section4007_WIINAct_2July2020

From the report (click on the graphic to enlarge it. Figure 2 is from yesterday's post and is a USBR storage project):

Section 4007 of the W ater Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act; P.L. 114-322) created a new authority for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation, part of the Department of the Interior) to build water storage projects in the western UnitedStates. From FY2017 to FY2020, Congress appropriated $469 million for these projects, and Reclamation has allocated a portion of these funds to progress on a number of water storage projects in its service area.

Background
In the early and mid-20th century, Reclamation built hundreds of large dams and water diversion structures throughout the West. Traditionally, Reclamation’s role in water project development has been limited to geographically specific projects authorized in federal statute. Typically the federal government, through discretionary appropriations to Reclamation, hasprovided full, up-front funding for the construction costs of these facilities.Project beneficiaries, which are irrigators, municipal water suppliers, and hydropower contractors, repay their portion of project construction or development costs over a 40-50 year term. The amount recouped by the federalgovernment typically depends on several factors, including the portion of project benefits that are non-reimbursable because they are considered federal in nature (e.g.,fish and wildlife enhancements, flood control, recreation), as well as adjustments for irrigators’ ability to pay. Additionally, irrigation beneficiaries are not charged interest on their repayment obligations. As a result, the total amount repaid to the federal government for these projects is typically less than the fullcost of construction.

Enjoy!

"Good news! We are now providing child care for faculty. Meaning faculty provide care in their own homes and we deduct child care from their pay for their time away for work."- @ass_deans

CRS Report: 'Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation' Updated: 2 July 2020

Happy Fourth of July!

It's B-A-A-A-C-K!

This CRS Central Valley Report report get updated frequently; the last time was 20 May 2020. Not much has changed sine then, I suspect.

So, once again here are Charles V. Stern Pervaze A. Sheikh (updated: 2 July 2020) : 'Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation'.

Download CRS_Report_CVP_Issues_Legislation_2July2020

Here we go (click on the graphics to enlarge them):

Introduction
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), part of the Department of the Interior (DOI), operates the multipurpose federal Central Valley Project (CVP) in California, one of the world’s largest water storage and conveyance systems. The CVP runs approximately 400 miles in California, from Redding to Bakersfield (Figure 1). It supplies water to hundreds of thousands of acres of irrigated agriculture throughout the state, including some of the most valuable cropland in the country. It also provides water to selected state and federal wildlife refuges, as well as to some municipal and industrial (M&I) water users. The CVP’s operations are coordinated with the state’s other largest water supply project, the state-operated State Water Project (SWP).

This report provides information on hydrologic conditions in California and their impact on state and federal water management, with a focus on deliveries related to the federal CVP. It also summarizes selected issues for Congress related to the CVP.

Recent Developments
The drought of 2012-2016, widely considered to be among California’s most severe droughts in recent history, resulted in major reductions to CVP contractor allocations and economic and environmental impacts throughout the state.1 These impacts were of interest to Congress, which oversees federal operation of the CVP. Although the drought ended with the wet winter of 2017, many of the water supply controversies associated with the CVP predated those water shortages and remain unresolved. Absent major changes to existing hydrologic, legislative, and regulatory baselines, most agree that at least some water users are likely to face ongoing constraints to their water supplies. Due to the limited water supplies available, proposed changes to the current operations and allocation system are controversial.

As a result of the scarcity of water in the West and the importance of federal water infrastructure to the region, western water issues are regularly of interest to many law makers. Legislation enacted in the 114th Congress (Title II of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation [WIIN] Act; P.L. 114-322) included several CVP-related sections.2 These provisions directed pumping to “maximize” water supplies for the CVP (including pumping or “exports” to CVP water users south of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers’ confluence with the San Francisco Bay, known as the Bay-Delta or Delta) in accordance with applicable biological opinions (BiOps) for project operations.3 They also allowed for increased pumping during certain storm events generating high flows, authorized actions to facilitate water transfers, and established a new standard for measuring the effects of water operations on species. In addition to operational provisions, the WIIN Act authorized funding for construction of new federal and nonfederal water storage projects. CVP projects are among the most likely recipients of this funding.

Due to increased precipitation and disagreements with the state, among other factors, the WIIN Act’s operational authorities generally did not yield significant new water exports south of the Delta in 2017-2019. However, Reclamation received funding for WIIN Act-authorized water storage project design and construction in FY2017-FY2020, and the majority of this funding has gone to CVP-related projects.

CVP and SWP water allocations for 2020 were once again reduced due to extremely limited precipitation in the winter months. Separate state and federal plans under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act, respectively, would alter water allocation and operational criteria in markedly different ways and have generated controversy. In mid-2018, the State of California proposed revisions to its Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan (developed pursuant to the Clean Water Act [CWA; 33 U.S.C. §§1251-138]). These changes would require that more flows from the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers reach the California Bay-Delta for water quality and fish and wildlife enhancement (and would thus further reduce water supplies for CVP and SWP users). Separately, in February 2020, the Trump Administration finalized an operational plan to increase water supplies for users and issued a new biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544) that reflects these changes. Both plans are the subject of ongoing litigation.

Cutting to the chase: 

Concluding Observations
The CVP is one of the largest and most complex water storage and conveyance projects in the world. Congress has regularly expressed interest in CVP operations and allocations, in particular pumping in the Bay-Delta. In addition to ongoing oversight of project operations and previously enacted authorities, a number of developing issues and proposals related to the CVP have been of interest to congressional decisionmakers. These include study and approval of new water storage and conveyance projects, updates to the state’s Bay-Delta Water Quality Plan, and a multipronged effort by the Trump Administration to make available more water for CVP water contractors, in particular those south of the Delta. Future drought or other stressors on California water supplies are likely to further magnify these issues.

I never tire of the CVP. It's one of the world's great wicked water problems.

Enjoy!

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." - Kris Kristofferson

CRS Report: 'Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation' Updated: 20 May 2020

By Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh here is the CRS report (20 May 2020): 'Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation'

Download CRS_CVP_Issues_Legislation_20May2020       

Click on the graphics to enlarge them.

Introduction
The Central Valley Project (CVP), a federal water project owned and operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), is one of the world’s largest water supply projects. The CVP covers approximately 400 miles in California, from Redding to Bakersfield, and draws from two large river basins: the Sacramento and the San Joaquin. It is composed of 20 dams and reservoirs and numerous pieces of water storage and conveyance infrastructure. In an average year, the CVP delivers more than 7 million acre-feet of water to support irrigated agriculture, municipalities, and fish and wildlife needs, among other purposes. About 75% of CVP water is used for agricultural irrigation, including 7 of California’s top 10 agricultural counties. The CVP is operated jointly with the State Water Project (SWP), which provides much of its water to municipal users in Southern California.

CVP water is delivered to users that have contracts with Reclamation, which is part of the Department of the Interior. These contractors receive varying levels of priority for water deliveries based on several factors, including hydrology, water rights, prior agreements with Reclamation, and regulatory requirements. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers’ confluence with the San Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta or Delta) is a hub for CVP water deliveries; many CVP contractors south of the Delta receive water that is “exported” from north of the Delta.

Development of the CVP resulted in significant changes to the area’s natural hydrology. However, construction of most CVP facilities predated major federal natural resources and environmental protection laws. Much of the current debate related to the CVP revolves around how to deal with changes to the hydrologic system that were not significantly mitigated for when the project was constructed. Thus, multiple ongoing efforts to protect species and restore habitat have been authorized and are incorporated into project operations.

Congress has engaged in CVP issues through oversight and at times legislation, most recently through provisions in the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN Act; P.L. 114-322) that, among other things, authorized changes to operations in an attempt to provide for delivery of more water under certain circumstances. Although some stakeholders are interested in further operational changes to enhance CVP water deliveries, others are focused on the environmental impacts of operations.

Various state and federal proposals are currently under consideration and have generated controversy for their potential to affect CVP operations and allocations. In late 2018, the State of California finalized revisions to its Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan that would require that more flows from the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers reach the Bay-Delta for water quality and fish and wildlife enhancement (i.e., reduced water supplies for other users). “Voluntary agreements” that might replace some or all of these requirements are currently being negotiated but have yet to be finalized. Concurrently, the Trump Administration is aiming to increase CVP water supplies for users by making changes to long-term operations of the CVP, pursuant to a 2019 biological opinion created under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 87 Stat. 884. 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544). California and environmental nongovernmental organizations have opposed these efforts and filed lawsuits to prevent implementation of the changes. On May 11, 2020, the court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Reclamation from implementing the operational changes through May 31, 2020. Efforts to add or supplement CVP storage and conveyance also are being considered and are under study by federal and state entities.

In the 116th Congress, legislators may consider bills and conduct oversight on efforts to increase CVP water exports compared to current baselines. Some in Congress have also weighed in on disagreements between state and federal project operators and the status of coordinated operations of the CVP and SWP. Congress is also considering whether to approve funding for new water storage projects and may consider legislation to extend or amend CVP authorities.

Cutting to the chase...

Concluding Observations
The CVP is one of the largest and most complex water storage and conveyance projects in the world. Congress has regularly expressed interest in CVP operations and allocations, in particular pumping in the Bay-Delta. In addition to ongoing oversight of project operations and previously enacted authorities, a number of developing issues and proposals related to the CVP have been of interest to congressional decisionmakers. These include study and approval of new water storage and conveyance projects, updates to the state’s Bay-Delta Water Quality Plan, and a multipronged effort by the Trump Administration to make available more water for CVP water contractors, in particular those south of the Delta. Future drought or other stressors on California water supplies are likely to further magnify these issues.

Good stuff...a wicked problem, for sure.

I am getting a feeling of déjà vu...

Enjoy!

"All that is gold does not glitter; not all those who wander are lost." - J. R. R. Tolkien

 

From Outrage to Trust at Tucson Water G. Tracy Mehan's Book Review: 'Tucson Water Turnaround'

I have known Michael J. McGuire for over a decade but I have been aware of his reputation for much longer than that. After all, he is one of the world's experts on drinking water. We served together on a National Research Council committee dealing with the California Bay-Delta issue. Later, he asked me to write the foreword to his book, The Chlorine Revolution: Water Disinfection and the Fight to Save Lives. He also runs the informative This Day in Water History site.

Since I have a connection to and fondness for Tucson I was glad to see his latest book (written with Marie S. Pearthree),Tucson Water Turnaround: Crisis to Success.I was going to review it but I was beaten to the punch by someone who writes incredible reviews.

G. Tracy Mehan III, a frequent contributor to WaterWired, former assistant administrator for water at EPA in 2001-2003, executive director for government affairs at the American Water Works Association and adjunct professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, sent me the following PDF of a his review published in the May issue of Journal of the AWWA:

Download Tucson_Water_Review_GTM

The first few paragraphs to wht your appetite.

Before Flint, there was Tucson.

Michael J. McGuire and Marie S. Pearthree have written what the military would call an “after action report” on one of the great crises experienced by an American water utility in the pre-Flint era absent a natural disaster. In Tucson Water Turnaround: Crisis to Success, they provide a deeply researched, well-sourced insiders’ view of how, in 1992, Arizona’s Tucson Water (TW) became embroiled in nonstop controversy for nearly a decade. The story reveals technical omissions and missteps, obtuse management, political interference, and the failure to realize just how customer-facing a water utility truly is. As consultants and, with Pearthree as a TW employee, the authors were intimately involved in this tale.

As in Flint, Mich., the Tucson crisis stemmed from the failure of corrosion control when water from a new source—in this case the behemoth Central Arizona Project (CAP)—was brought to Tucson, a city accustomed to high-quality groundwater. CAP is a 336-mile system that brings Colorado River water to Arizona and now serves 80% of the state population. CAP was to be the solution to groundwater mining and subsidence as well as the key to future growth. Pressure was also building for Arizona to use its full allocation of CAP or Colorado River water pursuant to western water law (“use it or lose it”) rather than revert to California by default.

And the last paragraph:

The tragedy in Flint involved another failure to anticipate the consequences of switching source waters with consequences for human health—not just taste. As Mark Twain may or may not have said, “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.” Hopefully, the water utility sector will not experience another Flint or Tucson fiasco, thanks to the labors of Michael McGuire and Marie Pearthree.

Enjoy!

“It’s not true that you never learn from history. You do, but then you forget.” – Martin Wolf

WWA Report: 'Colorado River Basin Climate and Hydrology: State of the Science' (2020)

Well, this item came across my screen this morning - a quite remarkable piece of work by the Western Water Assessment: Colorado River Basin Climate and Hydrology: State of the Science (April 2020).

Here is the blurb from the website:

In recent decades, increasing water demand, dry conditions, and warming temperatures have impacted the Colorado River, creating greater uncertainty about the future of the basin’s water supply. With support and guidance from over a dozen federal, state, and local water agencies, WWA researchers teamed up with leading experts to integrate nearly 800 peer-reviewed studies, agency reports, and other sources to assess the state of the science and technical practice relevant to water resources in the Colorado River Basin.

Colorado River Basin Climate and Hydrology: State of the Science aims to create a shared understanding of the physical setting and the latest data, tools, and research underpinning the management of Colorado River water resources. In identifying both challenges and opportunities, the report will guide water resource managers and researchers in efforts to improve the short-term and mid-term forecasts and long-term projections for the basin's water system.

Report options:

1) Two-page overview:

Download ColoRiver_StateofScience_WWA_TwoPager_Interactive

2) 30-page Executive Summary:

Download ColoRiver_StateOfScience_WWA_2020_Executive_Summary

3) Complete report with low-res figures (c. 25 MB):

Download ColoRiver_StateOfScience_WWA_2020_FullReport_low-res

4) Full report (Recommended; 80 mb PDF with high-resolution figures)

5) Chapter-by-chapter downloads:

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Chapter 2 - Current Understanding of Colorado River Basin Climate and Hydrology

Chapter 3 - Primary Planning Tools

Chapter 4 - Observations—Weather and Climate

Chapter 5 - Observations—Hydrology

Chapter 6 - Hydrologic Models

Chapter 7 - Weather and Climate Forecasting

Chapter 8 - Streamflow Forecasting

Chapter 9 - Historical Hydrology

Chapter 10 - Paleohydrology

Chapter 11 - Climate Change-Informed Hydrology

If you have trouble downloading any of the above go to the website.

I'll need some time to get through this. It's a great addition to the literature.

Enjoy! 

Only one quote will suffice for this post...

"You are piling up a heritage of conflict and litigation over water rights for there is not sufficient water to supply the land." - John Wesley Powell, 1893