I trust that Secretary Babbitt will eventually be venturing out beyond the his state DWR office to get some alternative information and perspectives. Maybe he will even venture onto this blog? I offer these 5 thoughts to help Secretary Babbitt consider solutions to the Delta problem.
The Tunnels Do Not Have a Strong Enough Value Proposition to Support a Negotiated Deal.
According to the article, Secretary Babbitt's state office is stocked with 40,000 pages of documents produced by DWR to support the project, but nowhere in those volumes has the state put forward an economic feasibility analysis.
The cost of the project is disproportionate to even the most optimistic assessment of potential benefits, and many interests that would pay for the tunnels are openly questioning whether they are worth the investment, despite the risk of antagonizing a Governor who strongly supports it. When economic merit of the project is this questionable to its beneficiaries, there is no basis to negotiate a credible deal between them and opponents.
Electricity and the Remarkable Phase-Out of Nuclear Power Can Be a Model
The state's electricity and energy system has made remarkable transformation in its supply portfolio over 15 years. Electricity is even more important to the state's economy than water, and its relative importance is increasing. During this time, the electricity system also endured a reliability crisis in the early 2000s that was more economically damaging than the recent drought. The transformation of the state's electricity grid is much more significant and economically challenging than what would be required to truly reduce reliance on the delta for water.
A decade ago, nuclear power was 15% of California's electricity portfolio, and water exported from the Delta through the State Water Project and Central Valley Project were about 15% of California's water portfolio. In addition to being a similar percentage of the statewide portfolio for their critical infrastructure system, both nuclear and the SWP/CVP represent 1960s visions of technology and modern infrastructure, and both can be made obsolete by new technology and improved conservation.
Nuclear power is now about 7% of California's electricity power and with the closure of Diablo Canyon will bring it down to 0% in a decade. The SWP/CVP are still about 12-13% of California's current proposal, and the WaterFix hopes to keep it at that level indefinitely. When it comes to water, not even the most extreme environmental proposals say we should completely shut-down Delta pumping the way the state has phased out nuclear. Instead, the most extreme proposals are to cut from 5 million acre feet to 3 million acre feet of exports per year over an extended time. That is a shift of 5% of California's water portfolio over time. In other words, even the most extreme environmental proposal for the Delta would be a much smaller change to the state's water portfolio that we have achieved in replacing nuclear with alternative technologies.
The state has taken a much more innovative and aggressive approach to its energy policy (nuclear is just one example). Read PGE's statement on closing Diablo Canyon and think about the divergence between California's energy and water policies.
Only twenty years ago, people in the energy industry laughed off suggestions that we would ever see this kind of announcement and phase out nuclear without devastating economic effects. Water agency leaders today sound a lot like energy executives from the last generation.Underpinning the agreement is the recognition that California's new energy policies will significantly reduce the need for Diablo Canyon's electricity output. There are several contributing factors, including the increase of the Renewable Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030, doubling of energy efficiency goals under SB 350, the challenge of managing overgeneration and intermittency conditions under a resource portfolio increasingly influenced by solar and wind production, the growth rate of distributed energy resources, and the potential increases in the departure of PG&E's retail load customers to Community Choice Aggregation.The Joint Proposal would replace power produced by two nuclear reactors at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) with a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage..."California's energy landscape is changing dramatically with energy efficiency, renewables and storage being central to the state's energy policy. As we make this transition, Diablo Canyon's full output will no longer be required. As a result, we will not seek to relicense the facility beyond 2025 pending approval of the joint energy proposal. Importantly, this proposal recognizes the value of GHG-free nuclear power as an important bridge strategy to help ensure that power remains affordable and reliable and that we do not increase the use of fossil fuels while supporting California's vision for the future," said PG&E Corporation Chairman, CEO and President Tony Earley.
Don't Believe the Apocalyptic Talk, and Do Not Engage In It
Tunnel proponents make many outlandish claims of economic disaster that would ensue if water exports were disrupted or reduced. Unfortunately, Governor Brown himself often makes these unsubstantiated claims and the media laps up the disaster scenarios. There is no credible basis for these apocalyptic claims, even the worst case scenario of completely cutting off Delta exports would have costs in the single-digit billions in a $2.5 trillion state economy.
As discussed above, the 5 million acre feet of water exported from the Delta is 12-13% of the state's water portfolio. In the past two years, the state has dealt with a surface water supply reduction of 11 million acre feet (more than double the amount of surface water exported from the Delta in a typical year) and the overall economy has boomed. Losses from water shortages across all economic sectors were a few billion dollars. Even in the very unlikely case that all Delta water exports were shut-down, we have ample evidence to show that the state's economy could continue to grow. This not to say that there would not be economic costs, and that they could be acute in some communities, but the apocalyptic talk is irresponsible and unwarranted.
In fact, the delta earthquake argument is not only economically wrong, it is immoral. The state's own study of this scenario shows that only 20% of the billions in economic costs is due to water exports, and the tunnels would protect 0% of the hundreds of lives the state's report says would be lost in such an event. The real devastation would be in the Delta region itself. While I agree that sea-level rise and earthquakes are real risks, solutions should be considered in a comprehensive fashion rather than pursue multi-billion dollar individual solutions for water, transportation, public safety, etc.
Consider a No-Tunnel Habitat Conservation Plan
As Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt greatly expanded the use of HCP's. Thus, he should understand the argument that in the BDCP, the habitat conservation plan created more valuable for water exporters than the physical infrastructure of the tunnels. When the administration abandoned the BDCP, they ditched the HCP and kept the tunnels, the wrong approach. An HCP in the Delta does not require the tunnels, and I believe there is potential for a long-term deal to stabilize the regulatory environment and improve habitat for endangered species once the tunnels are off the table.
There are a lot of other alternatives too, and they are not mutually exclusive. However, Secretary Babbitt is uniquely qualified to restart the HCP process and perhaps salvage something useful from the BDCP process. If nothing else, I think that process illustrated the value of an HCP to all parties, and the science program is increasing knowledge of the efficacy of various habitat improvements. A No-tunnel HCP need not be limited to the Delta itself, but could support actions to improve spawning habitat, get fish around some of the rim dams, increase Delta outflows, and more.
Consider Institutional Incentives and Structural Changes to Agencies
Returning to the electric utility comparison, it is worth noting that electric utilities have diverse power portfolios and sell power at both the retail and wholesale level. If Southern Cal Edison or PGE were wholesalers that only owned a nuclear power plant, they would not have agreed to shut-down their nuclear power plants.
The main water agencies pushing the tunnels, DWR's state water project and Metropolitan, are wholesalers and basically the only product they sell is water imported from hundreds of miles away. Under their current structure, they have an interest in preserving the status quo. How can we change their incentives and their business models? Should they be required to develop a more diverse water supply portfolio of their own? I have not thought deeply enough about this to make specific proposals, but I am increasingly convinced that some institutional restructuring is needed to create new business models and incentives that encourage water agencies to invest in new technologies, diversify their portfolios, and invest in research and development of new technologies.
While this list is by no means a comprehensive survey of all the options that are superior to the tunnels, I hope it can spark some new ways of thinking and reduce the tunnel vision so prevalent in the state bureaucracy.
Your closing statement re the need for a diversified water portfolio in So Cal would be laughable, if it weren't so utterly misinformed. Apparently, you do need to educate yourself on the the facts in this area... and we respectfully suggest you should have done so prior to clicking save on a blog post.
ReplyDeleteSome of the facts are... So Cal ratepayers have invested quite literally billions of dollars over the past quarter century to bolster local supplies and reduce regional demand (see pg 4 of http://ow.ly/FQ62302QRt1). The Diamond Valley Reservoir, So Cal's largest reservoir, was completed at the turn of the century at a cost of ~$2B to local ratepayers and >$300 million was recently expended on turf removal rebates alone over the past couple years. The amount of thirsty turf removed south of the Tehachapis under this program makes the Governor's 2015 call for 50 million sq ft statewide seem trite. Info on these programs and many, many more is readily accessible for those who TRULY care to do the research.
Lastly, as your a numbers guy... here are three for you to consider... 50, 50, and 4. They refer to the percentage of the state's total population that lives in the Metropolitan service area, the percentage of the state's economy that is attributable to same, and lastly and most profoundly, the average annual percentage of Delta water used in same.
Please be sure to share with Mr. Babbitt as well.
Statistics can be so telling and then again, they can be so manipulated that they tell either the truth or lies depending on how you view them.
Delete50% of the population living in the desert does not justify de-watering the lands where the rest of the populace lives.
50% of the economy may very well come from the MWD's service area but how much of that economy is based on agriculture or other water-intensive products? And regarding that economy, how is the product and the profit distributed among that aforementioned 50% of California's population?
4% of the delta water may indeed go to the same area but here's a stat' for ya':
Big Ag on the west and south side of the San Joaquin Valley, down to Bakersfield, get about 70% of Delta water, which often goes to grow water-intensive almonds, cotton, and pistachios on unsustainable ‘desert’ farmland for lucrative overseas exports. In addition, these agricultural users contribute only 0.3% to California’s economy, despite using 70% of Delta water.
Calleguas,
ReplyDeleteI agree that I probably should have left the last comment out. It is not well thought out or clearly expressed, a hazard of unedited blogging. It should give a lot more credit to SoCal agencies that have done a lot to diversify their supplies, added storage, and acknowledge the increase in conservation we have already seen. However, the point I was trying to express was specific to the revenue streams of MWD and DWR's state water project, and whether the agencies financial structures could put some constraints on their interest in alternatives.
As for 50, 50, and 4. I think 50 and 50 are actually too small, but they aren't applicable.
We fully agree that So Cal's genuine water resource diversification efforts should be trumpeted for all to hear... loudly... up and down the state. And, we likewise agree that the 50 and 50 are conservative estimates and as such further highlight the considerable value that a small percentage of Delta water - in the single digits - plays for a majority of the state. We would argue such information is always applicable to any serious dialogue re state water.
ReplyDeleteNo, we do not agree that 50 and 50 (or some larger number) says anything about the value of Delta water.
ReplyDeleteAmen!
DeleteStatistics can be so telling and then again, they can be so manipulated that they tell either the truth or lies depending on how you view them.
Delete50% of the population living in the desert does not justify de-watering the lands where the rest of the populace lives.
50% of the economy may very well come from the MWD's service area but how much of that economy is based on agriculture or other water-intensive products? And regarding that economy, how is the product and the profit distributed among that aforementioned 50% of California's population?
4% of the delta water may indeed go to the same area but here's a stat' for ya':
Big Ag on the west and south side of the San Joaquin Valley, down to Bakersfield, get about 70% of Delta water, which often goes to grow water-intensive almonds, cotton, and pistachios on unsustainable ‘desert’ farmland for lucrative overseas exports. In addition, these agricultural users contribute only 0.3% to California’s economy, despite using 70% of Delta water.
CVP and SWP contractors most certainly do not account for 70% of total combined Delta water use/outflow... not even close. Would greatly appreciate reviewing your supporting data on that claim.
DeleteYes Calleguas MWD is looking to the same old, same old, tunnels or bust mentality. It should come as no surprise. They are active in perpetuating the collective spin of Brown and now Babbitt, as are many more agencies across the state. I suspect that we will see this all end up in the courts, where the two sides will undoubtedly spend more time and money.
ReplyDeleteAs always, we're very happy to be of service to you in Simi Valley, CA where you enjoy virtually 100% imported state water.
DeleteThe real reason the MWD wants the tunnels is that they expect over a million people a year to move to California over the next 20 years. This was brought to light by the California Business Round Table and the California Chamber of Commerce who expect most of them to reside in southern California.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that there will not be enough water to support this influx into southern California because the only place left to build is in the high desert areas east of Los Angeles--including the Mojave Desert! This is where new water will go when the time comes and MWD will demand more Delta diversions from what they are projecting now. It's all a big game.
This is why the construction industry in southern California is supporting the twin tunnels with all their might. They expect to make billions building new tracts, malls, streets, etc. But state law says you have to have a reliable water supply and they are looking to the tunnels to supply that
So you see, its a business thing, not a water thing. Always has been! It's been masquerading as a new water infrastructure that won't take any new water out of the Delta, but what happens when the new people arrive and building begins. This has been just another disguised water grab all along and the people who support is know that and I just can't imagine how they are able to live with their consciences with all the lies they are telling. Now, Gov. Brown has been able to buy off Bruce Babbitt who was once a good man.
It's all about money, not water.
--Burt Wilson
I don't know a lot about issue but aren't most saying that the tunnels are mainly about reliability and not increased water supply? Where is there more water to be had, without decreasing flows through the delta, which isn't environmentally (thus, legally) supportable?
DeleteMore generally, how many people can a dry state like California support? Should there be a limit or will we find a way to supply resources no matter how many people live here, at whatever cost to the environment (can we get Canada's water?!?) Maybe we should start thinking about this question. Currently this is done at the local level, with zoning, and cities and towns aren't going to forego new buildings and people, especially when they aren't responsible for supporting systems, such as the water system, or electricity, etc.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYes, from a water supply perspective, the intent of the project is to restore reliability to a certain extent. Not 100% of annual entitlement, but higher than the current 10-year SWP running average allocation of ~45% (yes, only 45%) Since enforcement of smelt and salmonid BiOps in 2008, the average has plummeted nearly 50%! (see http://ow.ly/8gP9302VRaB) For over 50% of the state's population/economy that relies on ~5% of the total amount of Delta water that is either used by man or flows to the sea each year, the math simply doesn't add up.
DeleteThe percentages can be deceptive. I believe it is more meaningful to graph the actual amount of water exported by the projects.
DeleteIt is also my understanding that your use of the word entitlement is not correct, as I do not believe the contracts are an entitlement. I think you mean the full contract amount. The statement that the majority population/economy relies (i.e. depends) on this water is also a bit deceptive.
It is true that the current objective of the project is reliability/stability, but the initial objective was to restore deliveries to higher levels.
The math that doesn't add up is $16+ billion for a project that does not yield additional water. That is what makes Delta folks, environmentalists, upstream interests, and farmers across the Central Valley nervous about the project that has the capacity to deliver a lot more water than the plan says it will.
"Entitlement" is the term expressly used in each of the various SWP contracts - http://www.water.ca.gov/swpao/wsc.cfm - with percentage-based allocations of each contractor's entitlement set annually by DWR based on storage, hydrologic, and regulatory conditions. So, it’s a state term, not ours, that has been in use for over one-half century.
DeleteRe deceptive data/statements... Not sure why you would even remotely consider our citing these percentages to be deceptive as such annual allocations serve as a clear indication of the current status of available supply (Table A) for all SWP contractors. Moreover, you suggest our statement that a majority of state’s pop/econ is reliant on imported water is deceptive? Again, absent any further clarification, we're puzzled over this as the simple fact is that ~25 million CA residents - a clear majority of the state's population - depend on imported water to varying degrees. Likewise, as you previously noted, the 50% figure we tied to the percentage of the state's economy that is attributable to the Metropolitan service area alone is, in your words, “actually too small”. Add in the other non-Met areas dependent on imported water and, again, it would appear to be rather clear that a majority of state's economy is generated from within the SWP/CVP service areas. Perhaps we are misinterpreting your remarks?
Re reliability vs. additional water... If the 10-year SWP allocation rolling average was to be restored to level of five/ten years ago, this would not constitute any new or "additional water" - that is, water in amounts beyond that historically delivered - yet it would greatly improve supply reliability for 2 out of 3 CA water users. How? We would be able to replenish critical stored reserves for use during Mother Nature-driven water shortages. One needs only to consider current storage within San Luis Reservoir (SLR)... 10% of capacity, which is a historic low for this time of year. As we imagine you are well aware, Delta inflows during peak winter storm periods this year totaled ~4 MAF. At its peak in mid-March, Sacramento River flows would have filled the Rose Bowl in ~2 minutes! And, by the end of the month... within ~4 minutes. If placed end-to-end, the number of Rose Bowls filled over the roughly 40 days/nights of peak stormwater flows would extend from the Golden Gate to Hawaii...over 2,300 miles! >90% of that inflow was allowed to flow out to sea. That's an absolute embarrassment for this state and a gross disservice to the same 2 of 3 CA residents that have saved water in any number of ways in recent years, from ripping out their lawns to collecting shower water in buckets, yet are required to pay quite literally hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year for water reliability that has been slashed by ~50%. A SLR at 10%, with many other south-of-Delta storage facilities still depleted, is unacceptable given the high stormwater flows noted above, not to mention 2016 being a year in which one-half million acre feet was diverted out of the Sacramento River so the capital... wouldn’t... flood. Quite a juxtaposition, isn't it? End result?... 25 million CA residents are left in a seemingly perpetual state of either looming or present drought. Simply wrong.
By deceptive percentages, I was referring to the graph you linked of percentages that shows 100% through the 70's and 80's when actual exports of delta water were significantly lower than many of the years in the past 20 years when the percentage is less than 100%. The linked graph from the Delta Stewardship Council shows the actual amount exported from the Delta over time and it makes the situation look much different.
Deletehttps://i0.wp.com/mavensnotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Fig3-2.jpg
Yes, it is very deceptive to continuously state or imply that the majority of the state's economy depends on Delta water. It does not, even if the majority of the state's population is supplied by areas that use Delta exported water to various degrees. We have plenty of evidence, both from actual events, as well as modeling exercises of the economy, to show that the economy could continue to prosper even if Delta exports were eliminated - an extreme scenario that no one is proposing. The main point of the post is that the cost of reducing reliance on Delta exports is manageable for the state, and the state has made much larger and more meaningful shifts in its energy portfolio when there was the will. However, we have water agencies that would be devastated financially by this shift (even if their ratepayers would not), so perhaps we need to think about creative ways that we might change those business models so that agencies can benefit from reduced reliance on the Delta and shifts to alternatives.
As for the sacrifices of conservation, the entire state was dealing with dry lawns and buckets in the shower during the drought. The environment suffered badly in the drought as well. Be careful about attributing drought impacts to endangered species restrictions. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the drought is actually great evidence that the state's economy is not nearly as reliant on reliable water as Delta tunnel advocates state.
I appreciate this dialogue, but I am going to shut-off the comments on this post now.
Feel free to come back on a future post.
More fun with facts...
ReplyDelete- One-half million acre feet of water was diverted out of the Sacramento River to the Yolo Bypass this winter so Sacramento wouldn't flood.
- An estimated 4 million acre feet of water flowed into the Delta over a mere 40 days and 40 nights in January and March, with less than 10 percent exported.
- 800+ miles of CA coastline yet one of every two units of runoff flows into the Delta and ultimately through a one-mile wide exit to the Pacific at the Golden Gate.
Apparently, calls from all corners of the state for increased, prudent stormwater capture don't apply statewide. Shame.
Issues that can fix the Delta & Exports (co-equal):
ReplyDelete1) Good fish screens, keeping fish in old river and not it forebay. 1.5 miles of fish screen area is available.
2) Intermittent filling of Forebay, which holds 1+ days worth of water, to improve Delta Flows
3) Salt intrusion +20% with lock between 3 Benicia/Martinez bridges for safety and to limit Salt water intrusion.
4) Salt Intrusion can be further controlled with tidally controlled louvers between 10 of the 12 supports, leaving only always open.
5) Flow added fix is to have tunnel from Forebay to Sherman Island following the railroad and highway 160.