mdunbar's blog

Our action-hero governor must have written this script himself. On what has been the hottest day of the year, with fires burning across the state, and smoke choking the Central Valley, he announced a water bond proposal that promises cool relief the all of California. And then he signed on the only co-star who might be capable of bringing this box-office smash to fruition.

Gov. Schwarzenegger enlisted Sen. Dianne Feinstein to help rebuild California’s deteriorating water system with a $9.3 billion bond proposal.

As we know all too well, this isn’t the first time the Gov has tried to get a water bond passed. Last year, he and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata went head-to-head with similar but competing water bonds. Perata held out more money for dams, but wanted legislators to have annual reviews of expenditures. Such a deal was a dead duck and deservedly so. The Gov’s plan would have appropriated the money as needed.

Few words pack the power of this one: “Drought.”  Gov. Schwarzenegger officially declared the state to be in drought conditions on Wednesday, calling for far greater conservation, water transfers, federal aid and the establishment of an emergency “water bank” in case our dry conditions continue.

It’s an interesting and logical step – after all, he’s tried just about everything else to call attention to the fact that our entire state is suffering a two-year water emergency. Last year, the governor traveled the state to call attention to a disasterously dry year. He joined with the Association of California Water Agencies’ President Randy Fiorini of Turlock and Sen. Dave Cogdill of Modesto to push for money to build two dams at either end of the valley – Temperance Flat near Fresno and Sites Reservoir north of Sacramento. But politics got in the way at the last minute and the bond proposal was derailed when it became clear the governor would not agree to a plan that would allow the legislature to "review" how the money was spent each year. 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has decided it needs a little more time to decide whether or not it will conduct a “rehearing” into how Turlock and Modesto irrigation districts are protecting salmon on the Tuolumne River. That’s a good step, though a better step would be to set a date.

By all accounts, fewer than 250 Chinook salmon returned to the river this year to spawn. Some put the number at around 125. That’s the worst return in a string of terrible returns, continuing a downward spiral that doesn’t have much more room to drop. It’s especially troubling in light of strong spring flows in 2004 and 2005. Such flows have always meant an increase in salmon numbers two years later. That didn’t happen. Part of the problem is undoubtedly connected to a catastrophic decline in salmon all along the West Coast. But there are likely contributing factors specific to the Tuolumne since the number of salmon returning to the Stanislaus and Merced rivers did not fall as precipitously.

After reading The Bee's recent editorial about the Tuolumne River's native salmon population being at "high risk" of extinction, according to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report, Modesto Irrigation District general manager Allen Short wanted to talk over a few things. 

Over sandwiches, he agreed that the native salmon are in crisis. He just didn't agree with a USFWS scientist that much higher water releases from Don Pedro Reservoir would improve the salmon's situation. Instead, Short pointed to six "stressors" for salmon, and emphasized his belief that predation (other fish making meals of salmon trying to swim to the ocean) is among the most significant. Bass, in particular, he pointed out, like to eat young salmon. There is no doubt this is true. It's also true that certain areas of the river, especially the old rock quarries west of LaGrange, have become salmon "killing zones" due to the large number of bass living in the deep holes. 

Desalination of ocean water works and it could be the answer to our problems. But I've been told that water from fresh sources must first reach a price of more than $1,000 an acre foot before the cost of desalination becomes viable. How much they're willing to spend is a question most coastal communities must answer for themselves.

But if water is selling for $1,000 an acre foot, what will that mean for our communities? Will the good people living (and voting) in our irrigation districts start looking at "their" water as a way of lowering other costs, such as electricity? After all, selling a mere 10,000 acre feet would net $10 million. And think what that could do to the bottom line of any of our irrigation districts.

Oakdale is already looking at selling water it saves from modernization to cover the cost of making those improvements. It is a prudent plan for a district whose facilities are in dire, dire need of repair. But if that water leaves the area, it will establish a precedent for good or ill.