Reduced Reliance on the San Francisco Bay-Delta Means Taking Less Water Than Today

Kate Poole, Senior Attorney, San Francisco

A couple weeks ago, the State of California released the first of three installments describing its new draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) for restoring the Bay-Delta estuary. The second installment is scheduled for release this week, with the final batch due the week of April 22nd. This plan has been many years in the making, and must meet several important benchmarks. One of these benchmarks was imposed by the State Legislature in the Delta Reform Act of 2009, which states that: "The policy of the State of California is to reduce reliance on the Delta in meeting California's future water supply needs through a statewide strategy of investing in improved regional supplies, conservation, and water use efficiency." This directive recognizes that we need to take less water out of the Bay-Delta in order to restore the estuary and the fishing and farming communities that rely on it, as well as the 25 million Californians who get some portion of their water supply from the Delta. The Legislature recognized that the State can manage reduced reliance by investing in sustainable regional water supply options like expanded water recycling and conservation. The portfolio alternative being advanced by NRDC and others is designed to implement this approach in the BDCP process.

Whether the new BDCP meets the test of reduced reliance is not hard to determine. As the Deputy Director of the Natural Resources Agency stated this past week, "the average amount of water we move through the Delta in a typical year is 4.8 million acre feet (though it varies by year)." So BDCP needs to take less water than 4.8 million acre feet, on average, in order to meet the State's policy to reduce reliance on the Delta. The State Water Board, Delta Vision Strategic Plan, Public Policy Institute of California, independent scientists and many others have already recognized that failing to reduce exports and increase flows through the Delta as compared to today, at least until native fish recover, will simply not do the job of restoring the Delta.

But, inexplicably, in the documents released by the State on March 14, 2013, was this "Q&A":

Is this project about getting more water from the Delta? How much water will be exported? No. BDCP is about water reliability and habitat restoration. During the last 20 years, we have exported an average of 5.3 million acre feet (MAF). The modeling for this project shows a potential average export ranging between 4.8 MAF to 5.6 MAF, but this could be refined as more modeling is completed.

Future Delta exports in the range of 4.8 MAF to 5.6 MAF do not reduce reliance from a level of 4.8 MAF today. And there's no dispute about the level of today's exports - that 4.8 MAF number comes from the Resources Agency. So the answer to the bolded question is actually "yes." The new draft plan does not include reduced exports in the range of possible outcomes, despite overwhelming scientific information demonstrating the need for increased flows to restore the Delta. Instead, the plan intends to take more water from the Delta and increase reliance on the Delta as compared to today, contrary to the stated policy of California and the Legislature's directive in the 2009 Delta Reform Act.

In claiming that the new BDCP is not about "getting more water from the Delta," the State seems to be asserting that the lower end of the anticipated export range falls below the 5.3 MAF average level of exports that the State calculates for the last 20 years. But what's the rationale for using the last 20 years, as opposed to the export levels that were in effect in 2009, when the Legislature passed its edict to reduce reliance, and that continue to be in effect today? The last 20 years include the period of the Delta's demise - a time of historically high water exports that coincided with the utter environmental collapse of the ecosystem. There is no question that we need to improve flows dramatically from that 20-year baseline, a job that the Delta biological opinions had already begun by the time the Legislature passed the 2009 Delta Reform Act. But those biological opinions are stopgap measures, designed to keep our native species from going extinct while a longer-term recovery plan is developed. BDCP is supposed to be that long-term recovery plan, which means it must devote more flow to help fish recover than we do today.

Our colleagues at the Nature Conservancy recently penned an eloquent op-ed explaining that "A successful BDCP cannot be about exporting more water from the Delta. We recognize the need to reduce reliance on the Delta as a water supply source, and that is the intent of California's 2009 water reforms." It's time for the State to develop a BDCP that satisfies this fundamental requirement. Our portfolio alternative offers one viable approach. No doubt there are many other viable options out there. It's not too late for the State to take a serious look at these other alternatives - it simply needs to commit to doing so.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kpoole/reduced_reliance_on_the_san_f

Hiding the Impacts of Climate Change in South Carolina

Ben Chou, Water Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

As a near native of the Palmetto State, I often find myself reminiscing about the many years I lived there. From my childhood in Mauldin (near Greenville), to high school in Hartsville (near Florence), undergrad in Columbia (Go Gamecocks!), and a few months post-college in Charleston, I have lived in many areas of the state. I even return a few times a year to visit my in-laws in Myrtle Beach.

• Sunset on Hilton Head Island (photo by Lee Edwin Coursey)

One of my favorite things about the state is a slogan that used to grace the license plate: Smiling Faces. Beautiful Places. I think it nicely sums up the warm and friendly disposition of the people and amazing natural beauty found in South Carolina. Unfortunately, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has kept under wraps a report that spells trouble for the state's beautiful places and could turn those smiles into frowns.

The DNR completed a climate change vulnerability assessment a few years ago but decided against releasing it for public review. The report was leaked to a major state newspaper and then published on their website. It seems like a waste of taxpayer money for a public agency to invest so much time and many resources into developing a study only to leave it collecting dust on a shelf somewhere, especially when it comes to an incredibly important topic that will impact all South Carolinians-climate change.

According to the report, there have been several observed changes in the state's climate and across the Southeast region:

• Since 1970, a general warming trend has been observed in the state's three major geographic divisions.
• Water temperatures in Charleston Harbor have shown a steady warming trend since 1985.
• Across the Southeast, there have been observed increases in heavy downpours in many areas even though moderate to severe drought conditions also were widespread.

Over the next 70 years, average temperatures are projected to rise 4.5°F to 9°F depending on future greenhouse gas emissions. And as if summers were not already hot enough (and extremely humid might I add), the greatest temperature increases are projected to occur during the summer months. By the 2080s, summers are projected to be about 11°F hotter. Just imagine summer highs well into the triple digits being the norm instead of the exception. Drought conditions also are expected to become longer, more frequent, and more intense as temperatures and rates of evapotranspiration rise.

The report only focuses on direct impacts to natural resources, which also will affect natural resource-dependent industries like tourism and recreational fishing and hunting-tourism alone contributes approximately $17 billion annually to the state economy. There are also untold impacts to people, homes, businesses, communities, and the economy that are not included in this assessment.

These are a few of the likely consequences of climate change for natural resources in the state from the report:

• Rising sea levels will impact beaches, wetlands, and other coastal habitat, threatening sea turtles, birds, and commercially-important fisheries like shrimp and blue crab.
• Increasing salinity in river systems due to sea level rise will force freshwater and diadromous fish (fish that spend portions of their life cycles in freshwater and saltwater) to move upstream, where possible, to find better habitat.
• Warmer water temperatures could cause a shift in the distribution of anadromous species (fish that live in saltwater but return to freshwater to spawn) like striped bass and sturgeon and cause coldwater fishes like brook trout and smallmouth bass to become locally extinct.

While this report is a critical first step towards planning for climate change impacts, the state still has much work to do. Given that the places and wildlife that people love so much are at great risk, the DNR should formally release this report for public review. The state also should take immediate steps to examine what the likely impacts of climate change are for other sector areas as part of the development of a statewide climate preparedness plan. Approximately 20 percent of states in the U.S. have developed such a plan. The state can and should join these ranks to preserve its beautiful places and keep the smiles on the faces of future generations of South Carolinians.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bchou/hiding_the_impacts_of_climate.

Maryland is Taking Action to Prepare for Rising Seas

Ben Chou, Water Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

As Hurricane Sandy vividly demonstrated in late October, coastal communities across the U.S. are increasingly vulnerable to flooding and storm surge as sea levels rise. Storm surge from more extreme storms on top of higher sea levels increases coastal flooding by allowing floodwaters to move further inland, putting people, homes, and businesses in harm's way.

Given Maryland's thousands of miles of shoreline, coastal hazards are an ever-present threat. The state's coastal zone includes the 16 counties that border the Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake Bay, and Potomac River-an area encompassing two-thirds of the state's total land, which contains nearly 70 percent of all residents. Since the early 1900s, relative sea levels along Maryland's coast have risen over one foot, placing 13 islands in Chesapeake Bay underwater. And approximately 580 acres of coastal land are lost to erosion every year.

• Abandoned home on Holland Island in 2009, which has since collapsed into the sea (photo credit: flickr user baldeaglebluff)

Rising seas due to warmer, expanding oceans and melting ice will only exacerbate existing coastal hazards, further jeopardizing communities in coastal areas. Relative sea levels are projected to rise by approximately one foot by mid-century and about three feet by the end of the century-though these projections were developed in 2008 and more recent data on rates of future sea level rise are now available. In fact, a 2012 study by the U.S. Geological Survey found that rates of sea level rise along the mid-Atlantic coast (from Cape Hatteras to Boston) are three to four times greater than the global average primarily due to the weakening of ocean currents. Warmer water temperatures and melting glaciers are decreasing the density of water in the northern Atlantic, which is subsequently affecting ocean circulation patterns.

According to our recent report, Maryland has been among the leading states in the country when it comes to preparing for climate change impacts. And the state is not idly standing by. Last week Governor Martin O'Malley signed the Climate Change and Coast Smart Construction Executive Order, which will help to reduce flooding risks to state buildings and public infrastructure in coastal areas. The order directs:

• State agencies to consider coastal flooding and sea level rise risks in the siting, design, and construction of new state buildings and the reconstruction of substantially damaged state buildings;
• The Department of General Services to update its engineering and design guidelines to require state agencies to elevate new and rebuilt state structures two or more feet above the 100-year flood level;
• The Department of Natural Resources to develop recommendations for siting and design requirements for coastal state infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and water systems and non-state infrastructure that receive public funds;
• The Scientific and Technical Working Group of the state's climate change commission to update statewide sea level rise projections based on the latest climate science.

These are critical first steps that every coastal state should be taking to prepare communities for more extreme storms and higher seas. By not factoring climate change into fundamental land use and structural design decisions, states are turning a blind eye to a problem that will only get worse. It's time for other governors across the country to stop ignoring the problem and, like Governor O'Malley, start implementing solutions.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bchou/maryland_is_taking_action_to_p