On the public record

This is preposterous.   “Water leadership up for grabs as deception fells Gleick.” There are several things wrong with that statement, which I will list for you.

1. Deception isn’t going to “fell” Dr. Gleick.  The dude has a track record of decades.  Pearl-clutchers are going to clutch their pearls for another week, and within a month or two, Dr. Gleick is going to get invited to conferences again for the same reasons he always was.  He knows the data, makes his point(s) clearly and is a good speaker.

2. This level of “deception” shouldn’t fell Dr. Gleick even if it could.   This was a situation in which there were two morally impure effective outcomes, and a morally pure ineffective outcome. 

a. Morally impure effective outcome #1.  Gleick does nothing; the Heartland Institute continues to deny climate change, damaging what we recognize as a comfortable world.  Billions of people in the Third World suffer more than they otherwise would.
b. Morally impure effective outcome #2.  Gleick uses subterfuge.  Heartland Institute is discredited, maybe can do less damage from here on out.
c. Morally pure, ineffective outcome.  Gleick tries to get more out of the Heartland Institute in an above-the-board fashion.  Nothing happens, except that the Heartland Institute now has the knowledge to hide the fact that they’re bought and sold denialists.

Of those options, Dr. Gleick chose the one that causes the least damage, which is the right thing to do.  The folks who whine on and on about being perfectly morally pure aren’t acknowledging that there are moral costs on the other side of the balance.  Sometimes all you can do is choose the least bad option.

3. “Water leadership” doesn’t depend on Dr. Gleick’s presence.  Outside the field, people are super impressed with him.  If I had to choose only one message to get out to laypeople, it would be Dr. Gleick’s, because it sets an enviro standard.  But inside the field, he is one good thinker among a half dozen, and he’s lost a fair amount of credibility with people who simply cannot agree with the Pacific Institute’s claims that there is substantial wet water to be gained from agricultural water conservation.  Lots of people agree there are very good reasons to manage ag water very closely, and many of them think that getting big yields of transferrable water is not one of those reasons.  I don’t think Dr. Gleick should be discredited over the Heartland emails anyway, but if he were, it wouldn’t create a leadership void in the field.

After saying all this, which I could summarize by saying that I’ve got the same respect for Dr. Gleick that I always did, I cannot resist needling him some.  He’s disapproved of my pseudonymity for years, but perhaps this has given him a new appreciation for separating your work from your identity.  The reason I have the same respect for him that I always have is that he does damn good work.  He does everything I want to see:  collects and shows data, shows his derivations, shows how he arrives at conclusions.  I have every reason to think that the next report they put out will be exactly the same, since he’s been doing that for thirty years now.  When I read that report, I’ll do what I always do, which is to look at all those, and either agree or be able to point to where we diverge.  It won’t matter to me that it now comes from Big Fat Liar Gleick or that it used to come from Sainted Holy Gleick.  Fuck that noise.  None of it should change how I read his reports.  If it did before, that was always laziness and taking the shortcut of going by reputation. Which is a big part of why I blog under a pseudonym.   I could be an extraordinarily debonair type with a wall full of illustrious degrees.  More likely, I am a debauched lout who blogs from a bar covered in the remnants of my most recent meal.  But you don’t know.  You will have to read my work to evaluate it.  Which is what I want you to do.  And how I hope you’ll evaluate Dr. Gleick’s stuff from now on.  And how you always should have.

I often have a hard time understanding Devin Nunes, which is fine, since I am not his intended audience. Normally, I would use “narrow political interest” to explain politicians, but ever since Devin Nunes threw a fit and scolded (IIRC) Paramount Farms and the State Water Contractors for selling out to the radical environmentalists, I haven’t been sure who he considers his base. I have to consider the likelihood that Nunes is more motivated by spiting environmentalists than by representing Republicans/agribusiness in the Valley. If that is the case, his latest bill doesn’t represent what “his supporters like Stewart Resnick of Paramount Farms, and the 40 families or so who run the Westlands Water District” want, no matter what Ms. Barrigan-Parrilla says. Nunes might just be a rabid loose cannon looking for strokes from rightwing talk radio. But he might also have proposed a water bill that gives us insight into what big Valley ag wants. I’m not confident of that, because rabid loose cannon is such a plausible alternative, but for a few more paragraphs, let’s stipulate that his bill represents what big Valley ag wants. If that is the case, it is really fucking interesting that the bill “also nullifies the need to construct of a canal to bypass the Bay-Delta, savings $12 billion.”

Big ag in the Valley doesn’t want a Peripheral Canal anymore?! I see two interpretations. First, they realize they can’t farm with water expensive enough to pay back the costs of building a Peripheral Canal. They won’t get enough new water to spread those costs over, and the reliability aspect of a new Peripheral Canal isn’t worth the money to them. (Maybe they’ve come to this conclusion based on early access to whatever BDCP has produced, I don’t know.) AND, they’re willing to accept a different form of reliability.

My interpretation is that big ag in the Valley is willing to accept a re-write of water rights law giving them priority in lieu of a canal. They don’t need expensive new cement if they can get the feds and the courts to make sure they get the first portion of our variable supply. Maybe they’re willing to trust that because Westlands has been diligent about staffing the district with very politically connected folks from the Bush Administration and because their GM is an extremely litigious lawyer.

It makes for an interesting contrast to the widespread “plumbing is destiny” belief in the Delta and Northern California. Canal opponents in the Delta and NoCal simply do not believe that a Peripheral Canal won’t be used to “take more water”. If the big canal is built, it will get filled, and no governance structures (Delta flow requirements, a Delta Plan, state laws, agreements, DWR’s solemn promise) will stop LA and Big Ag from using every cfs of canal capacity at the Delta’s expense. I personally don’t share this view, but I understand that it is compelling.

I’m just guessing, and like I say, Nunes is too erratic to be a good predictor of much. But I’m intrigued by this possibility that big Valley ag isn’t interested in a Peripheral Canal anymore (even if they’re still looking for substitutes, like shameless governance structures that favor them). If they drop out, the purposes of a Peripheral Canal (insure a reliable urban supply to the South, separate water conveyance from Delta habitat requirements) become much purer and we can decide how we value those.

Like everyone else, I’m real anxious about whether we’ll get enough rain this winter.

Dr. Lund’s list of curiosities about water management is interesting. I’ve wondered about the State and Fed’s role diminishing, especially as the legislature and the agencies explicitly set their water management approach as ‘supporting integrated regional water management’. I worry about that some, since I believe that local governments generally don’t have the luxury to do anything more than work in their immediate self-interest and compete with their neighbors for “growth” and its accompanying new tax revenue, which will always require additional water sources. By the way, I read Robert Self’s book American Babylon: race and the struggle for postwar Oakland over my vacation in a tropical paradise. It was a fantastic discussion of the California promise to keep taxes low by continuously shifting the collective burden onto new growth. A little dry, but you should totally read it (it also mentioned race and stuff). Anyway, if “the locals” are going to be making most water management decisions in the future, I would still want the state to set regulatory boundaries that prevent both a race to the bottom between neighboring jurisdictions and perpetually relying on growth to fund government.

To my mind, the most politically important of his points on water management was the paragraph on how people immediately work to optimize whatever system exists, and capture the benefits from it. Which is sorta great, butcept that no matter how sucky a system is overall, there will be groups that really genuinely depend on some aspect of it staying exactly the same. “We bought this house in a floodplain and now you have to fix that levee forever.” They aren’t wrong; they have a legit reliance interest. But there would be people with a legit reliance interest no matter what the system is, because people love to optimize. So the existence of a section of society that genuinely needs things to stay as they are can’t be the only reason that a new policy gets blocked.

***

I didn’t agree with Pia Lopez’s reasoning on the Peripheral Canal, but I thought she hit one of the most important issues squarely.

You can bet on this: Southern California water users are not going to spend billions on a peripheral canal if it only gives them the amount of water they’re already getting. They want to maximize water exports south of the Delta. More water, not just “reliable” water.

This is a tricky point. I think two contradictory things. First, I believe that water policy elites do understand they’d be paying billions for reliability and not additional water. The savvy lobbyists for the Peripheral Canal get this; they aren’t being personal hypocrites as they make their case for the Peripheral Canal and BDCP. Second, I have no idea whether they can sell that concept to their ratepayers. Ratepayers don’t even seem to like paying for local O&M, preferring instead to let their systems fall into disrepair and deferred maintenance. Can they really get behind paying lots more so that their supply is at much less risk from earthquake and sea level rise? I don’t know.

Which brings me to another point. To my mind, the thing that could convince SoCal users to pay billions for reliability is to calculate the costs of a disruption. Which would be a great piece of a full cost-benefit analysis of a Peripheral Canal. Which might also reveal that while SoCal cities might be talked into paying more for the water they get now, the costs of a Peripheral Canal could price water out of agriculture’s range. All of these things would be interesting! As far as I understand his argument, Dr. Michael thinks a full cost-benefit analysis of the Peripheral Canal would reveal that it wouldn’t be worth it to the water recipients. My own guess is that it would, but I don’t know that. So I’m joining him in saying that one should be done.

***
Governor Brown’s State of the State sounds to me like a clear signal that he intends to back a Peripheral Canal. Since I’m in favor of someone making an arbitrary decision on that, I’m not especially sympathetic to the local politicians saying that he is ramming things through without enough study. But I do wonder that all the coded political reactions came out today. Honestly, what did people think it meant that the Governor’s budget includes 135 new positions for DWR to complete “preliminary engineering work” for BDCP. Whatever could all that staff be needed for?

I am away until January. Hope your holidays are peaceful and joyous. Have a wonderful New Year.

This is a great story about the Delta Plan; one I’m surprised has taken this long to coalesce. The City of Stockton is exactly right to bring up this objection to the Delta Plan, that it may impose limits on local development. Personally, I think the idea that the state can impose limits on local growth that stresses our water system or imposes new flood risks is a fucking fantastic idea, and only wish the state had started doing that fifty years ago, before the Pocket and Natomas were built out. But yeah, the City of Stockton has accurately sussed out that the Delta Plan would mean a whole new era of tying local land use to water and flood conditions. I wouldn’t have minded if that had slipped by unnoticed but gotten adopted. But I also don’t mind if it is explicitly debated, so go Stockton. So long as the Delta Council holds the line on that (because it makes perfect sense), it is at least a new and interesting facet of this conversation.

Eh. I couldn’t be bothered by Judge Wanger’s signing on with Westlands. His writing in his decisions showed he’d adopted the buzzwords (and presumably the thought short-cuts) of the pro-westside-ag side of things, so I was just happy that he became an open advocate for them rather than pretending to be a neutral while making important decisions. He’s backed off that now anyways. Whatever.

(No, I didn’t think that hiring on with Westlands showed that he’d been biased all along. They have a long history of buying political clout and talent; I’m not surprised they bid on Wanger. Looked to me like he followed legal ethics. I think his own writing showed he’d become biased, presumably from living in a pro-ag milieu during a very politicized few years, but a lawyer working for the highest bidder doesn’t mean to me that he had always sided with Westlands.)

***

I already regret wading into this one more time. I especially regret it because I read the Pacific Institute’s Water International article and thought that Point 1 (that non-productive consumptive use doesn’t get enough attention, although eliminating non-productive consumptive use is pretty much the whole point of drip and sub-surface drip irrigation) was very good. But I thought the gist of Point 3 was pretty unfair (to agricultural water experts). Every serious ag water conservation person I talked to said “We don’t believe there’s anything like the water yield the Pacific Institute proposes, but we believe in ag water conservation because of all the other benefits: energy savings, improved crop yields, decreased entrainment, water quality.” In fact, the fact that most ag water conservation folk didn’t accept the Pacific Institute’s water yield estimates means that they were believers in ag water efficiency for those other reasons.

Mostly, though, it galls to have the Pacific Institute tell us to get past our out-moded emphasis on new water.

But “new” water is not, and should not be, the only measure for evaluating efficiency programs.

DUDE. “New” water was the way the Pacific Institute made their report glamorous. Millions of free acre-feet of new water, that agriculture wouldn’t miss. Now, those are a few years old now, and the controversy over that report may have led them to revise their thinking. But even at the time, I was all, wow, that’s unusual that they’re willing to proclaim about new water. No one does that. So I would just like to say that a vague collection of experienced ag water professionals weren’t the ones bringing up new water from ag water use efficiency, nor are we the people who need to get over it. Now, laypeople whose thoughts on water are entirely shaped by Cadillac Desert could stand to revise that emphasis, so I hope they all read Dr. Glieck’s post in the Chron.

Finally, I do want to say that this whole Pacific Institute v. others feud (to the extent it exists) is dumb. I thought their initial report was overbroad. They suffered some unprofessional attacks, and I suspect (without knowing first hand) that they’ve dug in and attributed the unprofessional attacks to ideology, when actually people without the same ideology could have the same (and different) concerns about the Pacific Institute’s first report. Now I’d say the various sides are moving much closer to each other, which was always the position that there are very good reasons to make ag water efficient, and “new water that could make its way to urban uses” isn’t one of them. From the little I’ve observed, I think the whole thing was hard on a number of people and I wish that weren’t the case. I should do my part by shutting up about it.

***

I don’t know what to make of this UC ANR study on “community conversations” in the Delta. On the one hand, I’d agree with a lot of it. On the other hand, so fucking what? My main objection is: even if every word in that report were true as gospel, what could “policymakers” do differently at this point?

People in the Delta feel that they haven’t been “heard” in the political processes around the Peripheral Canal. Dude. They’ve been heard. Their policy preferences are fully understood. They don’t want a Peripheral Canal; they think will divert freshwater that they 1. want to use themselves for agriculture and will 2. change the current freshwater patterns of the Delta. They are afraid their own land may be condemned to become part of the path of the canal, or converted to marsh as part of habitat restoration. The counties are afraid of losing tax revenues. They don’t believe their levees are at great risk of flood nor earthquake, or at least not as much risk as the state says they are. They are afraid their communities will be chipped away, if not entirely displaced. They are afraid of losing their way of life. They think the Peripheral Canal will be an expensive debacle to move water to uses they judge as immoral (houses in the desert or agriculture on selenium-poisoned lands.) Dude. We know. We HEAR them.

But here’s the thing. When advocates say “We aren’t being heard.” what they mean is “we aren’t getting our way politically (because if they could hear the arguments that are emotionally powerful to us, that would necessarily convince them to take our position).” But losing this political fight may continue to be true for Delta residents. Even if every bad prediction that Delta advocates make comes true to its fullest extent, it may still be worth building a Peripheral Canal, for water reliability south of the Delta. (Not a new water grab, but insurance against catastrophic failure of the levee system and disentanglement from the Delta ecosystem.) Advocates don’t want to be “heard” in the abstract. When they say “heard” they mean “given more influence or a veto”. But the Delta, as one (relatively small) player among many other players only has so much. How much influence could be a good conversation*, but then I would like that to be the explicit topic of discussion.

It is possible that a different presenting/facilitation/public engagement style would make Delta residents feel more “heard”. But I also don’t think they’re going to be fooled. This debate, over where the next century’s water should be allocated has genuine winners and losers. I think the losers can tell that their lifestyle is at stake. They may well feel that a different political process genuinely engages them. But even if they knew deep in their souls that every word of theirs struck home and it deeply pained every single member of the Delta Stewardship Council to call for a Peripheral Canal, they would still notice if their property were condemned to make way for a canal. Even if they’re the most “heard” people in the world, that won’t make it any easier for them if the state’s collective needs outweigh theirs.

Finally, I am fully aware that a lot of state meetings suck, and we could do a whole lot to get better at them. But I don’t think “having different kinds of conversations” is going to cure the level of political anger in the Delta. For the one, they have a whole lot at stake and their potential losses will be the same no matter how the matter is negotiated. But more, the State has a lot of ugly backstory and they would be right to approach any new type of meeting structure with suspicion. I do believe they were playing a rigged game during the Schwarzenegger administration. I do believe that people with a lot of political clout were spending a lot on BDCP and drought propaganda to force a Peripheral Canal through. I believe their representatives were shut out of water bond/water bill negotiations. They know they were getting screwed for years. The trust is lost (although maybe the Delta Stewardship Council as a new and transparent entity still has some) and any new process would be rightfully looked on with suspicion. So I don’t know what the state policymakers can do NOW to fix the conversation.

So I didn’t get much from the UC ANR report. Sure, our process is pretty bad. But the problems go way deeper. Honestly, the only new process I hope for these days is an arbitrary, unilateral decision by someone with the authority to force it through.

*i.e.: as the locals, it should be absolute. Or, as a few hundred thousand people among 39 million, it should be proportional to their numbers.

Burt Wilson writes an op-ed in the Sacramento News and Review that illustrates an attitude that I consider the single worst threat to solving California’s resource conflicts.

“One state, one water!”

…It’s the latest DWR propaganda to get us to believe that Northern California water also belongs to Southern California.”

I interpret Mr. Wilson to be asserting the opposite: that the concept “one state, one water” is self-evidently wrong. I believe his alternate view is that areas of origin have strong claims on water, and that the regions to which we’ve shipped water for decades have no good claim. This belief should be hard to adopt for a Delta partisan; they are not themselves the area of origin of any water, and we’ve recently seen the foothill counties start to get more possessive about water that would eventually run to or through the Delta. It is also possible that Mr. Wilson is more tribally oriented than watershed oriented; there’s a lot of Northern California disdain for Southern California. Perhaps he associates the Delta with Northern California (although I understand that the good citizens of Jefferson don’t ) and by that alignment, doesn’t care what happens to the people of Southern California. The op-ed doesn’t give me enough to figure out precisely which angle he is taking, but I’ll argue against either.

The view that the state isn’t a collective that pools its resources, or at least that a region that has it good in some regard shouldn’t have to share, is nasty, small-minded parochialism shortsighted. Completely aside from the practicality of unilaterally shutting off a good chunk of the water that 25 million people depend on, I wonder how the people of the Delta would feel if the same concept were applied to different collective resources of the State. The Delta doesn’t generate any of the following, and is completely dependent on any of the following state resources:
A market for their agricultural products (39 million eaters for tasty Delta pears).
A system of higher education.
Road or freight transportation out of the region for their crops.
Ports for ocean access for their crops.
Tourists.
Emergency response capacity (they have some of this, but not enough in a flood)

These things aren’t as tangible as water, but they are entirely parallel – a resource provided by some parts of California (even evil Southern California!) that isn’t locally generated in the Delta. It is exactly as stupid to say “propaganda to get us to believe that Northern California water also belongs to Southern California” as it is to say “propaganda to get us to believe that Southern California food markets should also be open to Northern California farmers.”

We live in one political entity. Regions taking an “I got mine” and “Devil take the hindmost” attitude is going to break us. Not in the way they might enjoy thinking of, as in, we peacefully dissolve into separate regions. But “break us” as in fuel enough political delay that foreseeable bad things happen before political processes can prevent them. Tribe-based squabbling (and north versus south is only one angle; there are other possible alignments, like mountain counties getting possessive about additional water.) could well hold up the Delta Plan past the day when a big flood knocks out a bunch of islands. On that day, Southern California may find that depending on complex plumbing four hundred miles away isn’t a good strategy for Southern California. But Burt Wilson and the Delta will find out far more acutely that their own counties cannot provide all the emergency evacuation, food and shelter they will need. That day, they’ll believe in a collective State and using resources that come from elsewhere.

Both the editorials from the source areas assert their right to enough water for future growth.

Calaveras and Tuolumne editorial:

Lopez said the draft could also affect future water rights and does not recognize communities’ rights as “areas of origin” to eventually use available water for future development. Lopez said that would slow economic development in Calaveras County… .

Folsom and Roseville editorial:

…the deal was that Northern California water suppliers would always be able to use our local water to meet local demands. … The Delta plan proposes to make it more difficult for us to use water supplies … needed to meet future water demands.

Different Sac Valley folks are testing the strength of their Area of Origin rights in law, and I have no idea how those court cases will turn out. But, in practice, I can’t imagine that the foothill and Sac Valley folks are going to get wide sympathy for “and whatever water we ‘need’ to grow.”

Everything I’ve seen points to the state receiving less water, in less catch-able forms overall. The shocking thing about Sites and the Peripheral Canal is that they are essentially a $12-15B project that doesn’t create new water. They just help the State deliver the water it does now, and MWD is saying “Yep, that’s worth it to us.” SoCal isn’t expecting to get additional water. You’ve seen my predictions that any new urban and enviro water will come from ag, to the tune of 10MAF. They’re going to take a huge hit. Given that everyone else is aware that they’re going to make do on the same water or less, I have a hard time believing that the source communities will hold on to even more future water than they use now.

Aside from my skepticism, there interesting questions embedded in the idea of calling dibs on more future water, to which you could make up interesting answers. Do they have to have real plans for the water, like, zoned into their General Plan? Should they get to reserve water at the shameful Sac County per capita water usage, or should new water demands be a lot closer to the state average per capita use? Does it make sense for the source areas to continue to grow, in a “move users to the water-rich areas” kinda way? Those are neat questions, but it is worth remembering that the value of the Delta Plan doesn’t depend on answering them.  The Delta Plan is judged against the meeting the co-equal goals.

Continue reading →

Here are another pair of upstream diverters, becoming aware that the Delta Plan will have an impact on them. They do a nice job making a moderate and sober case:

We are ready to participate in a responsible Delta solution, integrating our current water management efforts into a solution that works for all. Unfortunately, the Delta plan that is currently under development would make no clear environmental gains and would impose serious restrictions on water supplies in our communities.

They go on to say why Folsom and Roseville, and all of Northern California, shouldn’t have to give up any water. Then they say that Folsom and Roseville definitely shouldn’t have to pay any fees, especially in these hard times.

I have a question for them. Water and money to fix the Delta will have to come from somewhere. Instead of just saying “Not us”, where, precisely, should water and money to fix the Delta come from? Honestly, everyone who writes an editorial saying “the Delta Plan sux because it will impose costs on us” should have to say where those costs should fall instead.

The mayors assure us that they stand ready to help the Delta:

Our region will, of course, do our part to help develop water solutions for our state.

So long as that help doesn’t cost real money or real water. Folsom and Roseville are more than prepared to donate cheap words to the cause.

I read the enviros’ comments on the Delta Plan yesterday; a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that I critique them the way I critiqued ACWA’s Ag-Urban “plan”. My thoughts:

1. I don’t see how the DSC can get away without defining “reliable supply” much longer. I’ve heard the water users asking the burning question: making recent exports reliable by building NODOS and a Peripheral Canal, or only exporting a smaller supply that can be reliably extracted without hurting habitat and fish? Now the enviros are asking precisely that question:

For example, reliably receiving full contracted quantities or receiving the present level of water deliveries is considerably different than reliably receiving water after the public trust has been balanced and the Delta ecosystem protected. What are the yardsticks by which success will be documented?

They aren’t mincing words, either.

The inescapable reality is that consumptive water rights issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) exceed unimpaired flow into the Delta and contracts for state and federal project water are far greater than available supplies.

That’s fine. Fragile buy-in to the Delta Plan will collapse when that question gets answered and at least one side will sue. But this is the fundamental question about the state’s water future. It will have to be answered by someone. We will have iterative processes that struggle with this question until it is settled or the Delta levees give way, whichever comes first. Might as well be answered in this process as the next. Mr. Isenberg’s thoughts on the matter are hinted at in this wonderful letter.

2. Lot of signatories on the enviro comments. It is nice to see them come out in force to match the long list of signatories on ACWA’s plan. I don’t see them in the meetings much, so it starts to feel one-sided.

3. The enviros go awfully easy on the upstream diverters. In fact, I found no mention of them. Water that never reaches the Delta is also lost flow for Delta fish, you know. The enviros are many of them upstream diverters themselves. It isn’t always the right interpretive lens, but looking at a conflict through the classic top-end/tail-end lens is often illustrative.

Mostly I liked their comments, as would be expected. I liked that they want the DSC to do more than “coordinate state government”. They want it to actually govern water use that touches the Delta. Which seems perfectly appropriate to me. I have a new question for ACWA’s Ag-Urban coalition. Suppose that a different project from within the state bureaucracy took on the project of coordinating and unifying state agencies. If that task were addressed in a credible process, what would you have the Delta Stewardship Committee do with itself?