All ideas need to be explored for cost-effective ways to increase water supplies to California’s cities and farms. The residential, commercial, and industrial water needs of her 40 million people in California total about 8 million acre-feet annually. The 9 million acres of irrigated farmland that produce the food they eat require 30 million acre feet of water annually.
This water supply is threatened as droughts occur and keeping rivers a high priority to maintain ecosystem health. The only answer that the California legislature seems to support is water shortages and water rationing, and letting millions of acres fallow. Efforts to increase water supplies have been incremental at best.
From a cost perspective, most supply solutions are economically viable, but still very expensive. For example, only about one-third of California’s municipal wastewater is recycled. Construction costs to upgrade all water treatment plants in the state that do not recycle sewage for landscaping or reuse as drinking water will cost approximately $20 billion and recover up to 2 million acre-feet annually. will be
Desalination is another option, but it costs about twice as much as wastewater recycling. At an estimated $20 billion construction cost, it could desalinate approximately 1 million acre feet of seawater per year. Desalination is the most expensive option, but has the advantage of being immune to drought and providing a permanent supply of new water. What other options do I have?
During periods of warm, dry winters with little rain and little snow, runoff from storms that hit the state must be harvested more efficiently. The traditional way of doing this is by reservoir storage, but early storm runoff cannot fill reservoirs in rivers because they lose their ability to prevent flooding in the event of late spring storms. If the late sprint storm does not materialize, the reservoir will be understocked and another water shortage will occur.
In contrast, off-stream reservoirs do not impede the natural river flow. They are usually built in dry valleys and flood runoff is pumped into them during storms. Using the proposed Sites Reservoir as an example ($4 billion for an annual yield of 500,000 acre feet per year), an offstream reservoir could capture and release 1 million acre feet per year for an $8 billion construction cost. But where does water come from?
A new proposal, the San Joaquin Valley Water Blueprint, is a work in progress and is being produced by a coalition of San Joaquin Valley community leaders. Central to this proposal is the construction of what is essentially a giant French drain within a channel created within the Delta Islands. By drawing fresh water from perforated pipes beneath the gravel layer of these channels, flood water could be safely harvested from the delta during periods of excess storm runoff. , estimated to cost $500 million per 200-acre facility. His estimated capacity of two of these facilities is more than two million acre-feet per year, costing $1 billion.
Blueprint will also rely on the construction of a central canal in the San Joaquin Valley to transport water from the delta’s harvesting arrays to underground storage. The aquifer storage capacity of the San Joaquin Valley is conservatively estimated at 50 million acre feet. The estimated cost of the canal is $500 million, including connections to Julianto Caen, Delta Mendota, and California water supplies, and facilities to recharge and recover water from aquifers.
This idea has extraordinary potential. His preliminary construction cost estimate of $1.5 billion to harvest and recover 2 million acre-feet of delta runoff annually is in the rough order of magnitude. low than any other possible solution.
In addition, there is a good chance that it can be harvested safely. more Over 2 million acre feet from Delta each year. An authoritative 2017 study by the Public Policy Institute describes so-called “uncaptured water.” This is the often-flooding excess runoff that occurs whenever atmospheric rivers hit the state. To quote from this study: “The benefits provided by uncaptured water are: above and beyond required by environmental regulations for water in systems and ecosystems” (italics added). The study claims that California’s Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta “has an average of 11.3 million acre feet of water.” [per year] From 1980 to 2016”
This is a very encouraging fact. According to some of California’s most respected water experts, the average amount of “uncaptured water” flowing through the delta “exceeds the amount required by environmental regulations for water in systems and ecosystems.” I’m here.” average 11.3 million acre feet per year.
A green delta conversion project has several attractive aspects. Unlike delta pumps, these extraction channels do not harm fish or alter delta flow causing saltwater intrusion. Their high capacity eliminates the need for the controversial construction of delta tunnels. There is a possibility. Storing large amounts of water in the San Joaquin Valley aquifer, which has a known capacity that exceeds the combined capacity of Lake Mead and Lake Powell, allows nearly unlimited capacity for storing water from wet years. It will eliminate the need for more reservoirs as well. Use in dry years.
The solutions provided by the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint not only benefit farmers, but also all coastal municipal water agencies in the state. Many of Southern California’s water authorities store water in Lake Mead, but are unable to access it because the lake’s water levels are historically low. Having a large water bank available just above the hills of the Central Valley is a much safer and more practical option. The next step in this project is the construction of a demonstration facility. And here reality is already set in.
Every water expert asked for their opinion on eco-friendly diversion of the delta had the same answer: it’s a good idea, but it requires 25 years of environmental research, endless lawsuits, and more. , at the end of it all there is a good chance it won’t build.
This is the problem. It has nothing to do with nature, drought, climate change or wildlife conservation. It has to do with the special interest juggernaut, whose business model is built on sabotage and conflict. Any of the above solutions can easily be implemented in California, so they have nothing to do with the staggering and needlessly inflated costs of water projects taking place in California.
But unless California’s politicians, from Gavin Newsom to the board of directors elected in the tiniest waters in the state, stand up to environmentalist extremists and stringy scarcity beneficiaries. , you will never get enough water again.
