If you know anything about me, you know I’m big on locally led decision-making AND equally big on coordinating policy and projects between all levels of government. In order to do good things for the land you not only need willing landowners, you need strong conservation partners. Strong partners make for solid seating.

[California's unwillingness or inability to sustainably fund local on-the-ground efforts has been an insurmountable problem and will likely be for some time: the legs of the stool are there, though just barely. Conservation efforts in Idaho benefit from annual general fund allocations (to the Soil and Water Conservation Commission, the largest portion of which is rolled directly down to local districts), special conservation account funds, contributions from federal and other state agencies, and matching funds from counties.]

While the fellow at my interview said use of the three-legged stool analogy is not so common  any more, we’re working to bring it back. Compared to what I’ve seen in other states (not naming names, just sayin’…), Idaho doesn’t have so far to go.

One of the best things about working here is the opportunity to showcase locally-led, voluntary conservation projects being accomplished by farmers, ranchers, and community members. We’ve taken more than our share of hits because we don’t buy the schtick that conservation is primarily about creating and protecting wilderness and wildlife corridors. Balderdash. Conservation includes those things, but it’s also about good stewardship of the land, courtesy of ordinary private landowners like you and me. And courtesy of strong agency partnerships: three-legged stools.

Here’s an Idaho Farm Bureau video from 2009 about an award winning project. I’m not sure which agencies were involved, but it was likely a result of a three-legged stool: a nonregulatory local soil and water conservation district, assisted by a nonregulatory Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission (providing science-based technical ‘assistance and loan funding for irrigation systems and more), with additional assistance from a nonregulatory NRCS.

It’s what nonregulatory, incentive-based conservation success can look like. Some of the best conservation rests on three- legged stools. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTct8A2WTZc

Not only does forest thinning provide economic benefits to rural communities and reduce the amount of vegetative fuels for fires on public and private lands, but it yields another important benefit, as well: more water.

This article was previously published by California Farm Bureau Federation in Ag Alert on April 13, 2011. Thanks, Farm Bureau!

As the state looks for ways to meet ever-increasing water demands for a growing population and environmental needs, a representative from the California Forestry Association says the state should consider how much water is being transpired through the overly dense national forests of the Sierra Nevada.

California could have plentiful, quality water in the form of groundwater recharge and runoff if its public forests were well managed and restored to a healthy condition, said Steve Brink, vice president of public resources for the trade association, whose members include forest landowners and businesses that make forest products.

Brink made his remarks during the California Farm Bureau Federation 2011 Leaders Conference.

He said with properly managed forests and active forest thinning, not only will the state significantly reduce wildfires by 22 percent to 60 percent and have healthy watersheds that minimize sediment production, but it could also get back 1 million to 3 million acre-feet or more of additional water annually.

“So how much water is that? It’s the storage capacity of Lake Oroville,” he said, noting that the reservoir contains more than 3.3 million acre-feet of water. “You could almost fill up the equivalent of Lake Oroville if our national forests were managed.”

More than half of California’s water originates in the watersheds of its national forests, much of it in the Sierra Nevada. But lack of forest management and too much vegetation has contributed to reduced water flows in the state’s watersheds, particularly during dry years, he said.

“When we have a really dry year, it can be so dry that the water stress will be such that vegetation actually dies,” he said. “We had a couple of years here (in 2004 and 2007) where manzanita has died from water stress, and I thought manzanita was indestructible.”

He pointed out that in the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, which is in Yosemite National Park and is a major water source for the San Francisco Bay Area, there has been an average of a 30 percent reduction in spring snowpack since the 1970s due to vegetation growth.

“And that means less groundwater recharge and runoff in the spring and summer months,” he said.

The Department of Water Resources estimates that some 53 to 54 inches of water are evaporated and transpired in the Sierra Nevada annually. The ratio of evaporation to transpiration is small when there is significant canopy cover on the soil, according to DWR.

A few forest studies, including one done in the Feather River watershed in May 2007, show that an increase of 20 percent to 30 percent in water yield can be expected from forest thinning, but such increases are “not sustained due to (forest) re-growth unless you keep after it,” he said.

There are 9.8 million acres of productive forestland within California’s national forests that’s not reserved, or that is not in the wilderness. That averages to about 93 bone-dry tons of biomass per acre, Brink noted.

Regional foresters would like to perform 500,000 acres of mechanical thinning and understory removal per year rather than the current 100,000 acres per year, he said. A typical thinning would remove 10 bone-dry tons of commercial trees and 13 bone-dry tons of surface and ladder fuels per acre. The growth rate after the thinnings is about 0.6 bone-dry tons biomass per acre per year, he added.

“Remember, the forest grows. And particularly after thinning, you spur growth,” he said. He calculates that with active forest thinning, the state could potentially yield 3.3 million acre-feet of water per year, about the amount of water stored in Lake Oroville.

There are other benefits to healthy national forests, he said, including a reduction in sediment rates and fewer wildfires. Costs to suppress those wildfires would also be significant, he added. In addition, thousands of new jobs in rural California counties could be created in actively managing the state’s national forests, he said.

(Ching Lee is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at clee.)

From the “we told you so” file:  a draft of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) reportedly proposes upping reliance on watershed of origin and senior water rights holders (many of them Agricultural and municipal) to meet environmental and water quality needs in the Bay Delta.

This despite passage of The Delta Reform Act of 2009 which clearly states water rights shall not be impaired or diminished as a result of its provisions (which include the BDCP).

A recently formed Northern California Coalition of upstream interests is wading into the fray. We should be in lock step.

The draft BDCP was to have been released later this month, but the schedule has been delayed and the new release date for public review of a Draft Plan is now late spring or early summer of 2011. The draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is also expected to be available at about the same time. Check out the BDCP’s updated “Frequently Asked Questions”.

Although it appears we now may have a little time to insert upstream and senior water rights interests into the process and get to the table, we can’t count on that. There’s a lot of political pressure to get this thing done and soon.

We all realize there’s only so much water – something’s gotta give. It’s not that upstream areas can’t conserve like everyone else. We can. The problem right now is that solutions are being crafted that include our water without our active participation. And those who don’t sit at the BDCP negotiating table will become a greater part of the solution than they would otherwise have been. Count on it.

That’s especially true in our case. Here’s why. The Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus Rivers are already the three main contributing tributaries to the San Joaquin River for water quality and environmental needs in the Delta. A recent report adopted by the State Water Board opined that 70% of the water currently falling into upstream regions of the Delta should be passing through the Delta for those needs.

While the Water Board was quick to state that the report was advisory only, considerably less water than that now flows downstream. It’s inevitable that there will be attempts to throw upstream interests under the bus so the Delta and other areas are “adequately watered”.

A cautionary letter was sent last month to the Natural Resources Agency by the General Counsel for the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. Mr. Somach makes some good points in his letter, pointing out among other things:

“The obligations of overseeing implementation of the BDCP fall on the permittees, which is precisely why federal agencies require that the permittees be capable of overseeing HCP [Habitat Conservation Plan]  implementation and have the authority to regulate the activities covered by the permit, including implementation of all restoration and mitigation measures. Here, none of the permittees have the authority to regulate the diversion and use of water upstream. As such, any analysis of the benefits to the BDCP of non-BDCP participants ‘ foregoing water diversions is neither lawful nor appropriate. Further, any suggestion that impairing upstream water right contracts or requiring legal users of water to forego diversions would help achieve the goals of the BDCP would be misleading at best, and would result in a legally inadequate HCP. {National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service (D. Or. 2003) 254 F.Supp.2d 1196,1205 (“NWF v. NMFS”).)”

 Stuart L. Somach, General Counsel of upstream water user Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

Well put, counselor.

Here’s another – the letter from the Northern California Coalition  to the Natural Resources Agency.

“The Delta Reform Act of 2009 states that water rights shall not be impaired or diminished as a result of its provisions, which include the BDCP. As explained in the September 3, 2010 letter from Somach Simmons & Dunn (copy attached), the current “ranges of operations” being considered by the BDCP include contributions of flow from upstream water users who are not party to the BDCP. We strongly agree with the Somach Simmons & Dunn finding that such a proposal is neither lawful nor appropriate for inclusion in the BDCP. It is critical that the BDCP expressly acknowledge that the parties to the BDCP – not third parties – have full responsibility to satisfy any flow obligations described as part of the BDCP alternatives.”

It’s likely the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors will consider joining the Northern California Coalition and sending a similar letter at our Dec. 7th meeting.

Stay tuned and vigilant. This thing is a long way from over.

State Board Adopts Delta Flow Criteria, an analysis posted on Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard’s website at http://www.kmtg.com.

The final flow criteria were unchanged from draft criteria that the State Board released for public comment on July 21, 2010. The final criteria appear in a Flow Report (Report) featuring both increased Delta outflow and increased inflow from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, including their tributaries:

The Report does not describe the water supply impact that would occur if the Delta flow criteria were actually applied. Some estimates suggest that water diversions from the Sacramento River watershed would have to be cut by 50 percent from November through June. Such reductions would have local, regional and statewide significance. The Report also noted its inherent limitations, in that it did not examine non-flow factors affecting the Delta’s fisheries, such as pollution, predation, exotic species or habitat loss…”

To read more, go to: http://www.kmtg.com/data/news/news.php?IDD=1181938593&IDDParent=1181938433&useSpr.

On the Flow Criteria Report

Adoption of flow report marks latest delta development, from California Farm Bureau Federation’s AG Alert.

Issue Date: August 11, 2010, by Kate Campbell, Assistant Editor

“The adoption of a controversial flow report by the State Water Resources Control Board last week marked the most recent in a series of developments involving the state’s water supplies and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. During the past two weeks, the federal government awarded a contract for a project to improve flexibility in water deliveries from the delta, and a gubernatorial appointment filled out a council charged with developing a plan for delta management.

In addition, another session of the National Academy of Sciences committee charged with reviewing the scientific underpinnings for decisions related to restoring the delta ecosystem and ensuring water supply reliability convened in Sacramento last month, and government agencies continue processes that also have bearing on water supply and delta environmental conditions.

The flow report, regarded as a theoretical exercise by most water agencies and organizations but heralded by environmental groups, resulted from last year’s package of water bills passed by the Legislature. It considered the flows through the delta needed to protect fishery resources, without considering any of the other uses for water from the delta.

In written comments to the Water Resources Control Board prior to the vote, the California Farm Bureau Federation pointed out that the advisory report set delta flow criteria that would reduce the state’s existing water supply—north, south, upstream and downstream of the delta—by nearly 5.4 million acre-feet.

The report notes this represents a 73 percent reduction in north-of-delta water deliveries and a 25 percent reduction for south-of-delta flows, from already reduced delivery levels…”

To read more, go to: http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=1587&ck=49AF6C4E558A7569D80EEE2E035E2BD7.

And on withdrawing the Water Bond from the November ballot.

Editorial from the LA Times: Sinking the water bond at  http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-prop18-20100811,0,3329667.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Feditorials+%28Los+Angeles+Times+-+Editorials%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

“Because factions in the Capitol can’t, or won’t, compromise, nothing changes, no matter how important the issue…”

Under legislation passed a year ago, the SWRCB was required to prepare the report within a year of passage of the Delta bills – too fast for a thorough study, say some. The report adopted was seen as scientific vindication by some environmental groups opposed to building an alternative conveyance facility (Peripheral Canal). It was received by others as incomplete and skewed due to its limited scope in only considering habitat and water quality needs.

Before adopting the report, the Board deleted an appendix that indicated draconian reductions by state and federal water contractors and upstream water users would be necessary for water quality and habitat in the Delta. The appendix was said to be too hastily assembled for adoption. Further studies will follow to determine proposed reductions.

What do you bet that the report will be heavily relied upon by folks advocating for more water to go through the Delta and provide additional fodder for the spin cycle? It can’t be a good thing for us in watersheds of origin, I’m thinking…

Read about it here:

From Indybay.org,  State Board Adopts Flow Standards for Bay-Delta

“The report, released in late July by board staff, calls for more water to be left in the Delta instead of diverting it through the giant state and federal pumps to corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and southern California cities… The report recommends that around 75 percent of the precipitation in the Delta watershed should be allowed to flow unimpeded to San Francisco Bay. The report’s findings mirror calls for more water made by fish biologists, other scientists, and state and federal wildlife officials who have studied the problem… The board just put the stake through the heart of the co-equal goals of restoration and water supply, as defined by increased exports out of the Delta,” said Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. “The document says that to restore the Delta, you need to increase Delta flows.”

From The Contra Costa Times,  Delta water users dismiss call for steep cutbacks:

“…Board member Arthur Baggett said the report was not the final word on how water will be divided between the environment and competing water users because it was put together quickly and without the formal processes the board uses to make water rights decisions… It’s not cross-examination; it’s not testimony under oath. We took the best available science,” Baggett said. “It’s a term paper.”

From The San Francisco Chronicle, Study: Cut in delta water use needed for fish

“…The document, issued by the five-member board after nine months of scientific study, determined that 75 percent of runoff from snowpack and rainfall would need to funnel through the delta to San Francisco Bay and the ocean in order to sustain the estuary’s most important wildlife and habitats, known in legal parlance as “public trust” resources.

Right now, about 50 percent of the state’s runoff flows through the delta all the way to the ocean. The other 50 percent goes to cities and farms. Raising the flow into the ocean from 50 percent to 75 percent would require taking away roughly half of what cities and farms now get, according to the report… “

“…’The board has finally put to rest the argument about whether the delta needs more water,’ said Cynthia Koehler, water legislative director with the Environmental Defense Fund. ‘You can’t divert 50 percent of the flows and think the fish and ecosystem are going to be just fine.’… Many of the largest water districts in California lambasted the report as one-sided and contended that higher delta flows and less pumping would devastate the economy and hurt farmers grappling with water cutbacks first stipulated by a federal judge in 2007 and fought over ever since.”

The confluence of the Merced and San Joaquin Rivers.

Long time adversaries in the Delta water wars are weighing in on a State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) draft report released this week. Highly controversial, it contains recommended criteria to establish water flow requirements for the Delta, the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, and their tributaries. It returns to the SWRCB for action on Aug. 3rd.

Folks who want more water in the Delta for habitat and fish crow that the report is a major indictment of SWRCB’s management of the California water system.  Others who want water for Southern California and Central Valley farms and communities bluster, “Nonsense! Water rights!” Still others point out that just mandating flow won’t solve all the Delta’s problems.

As reported in the Contra Costa Times yesterday, the report is really bad news for areas upstream of the Delta (including watersheds of origin).

“The key finding is that about 75 percent of all the snowmelt and rain that flows or falls into the Delta’s watershed, which covers 40 percent of California, should flow through the Delta into the Bay. Today, about 50 percent of the flow passes through the Delta on average as nearly all of California taps into its tributary rivers and the Delta itself…”

That doesn’t bode well for the water supply up here, that’s for sure. But I’ll post a number of links here over the next week or two so you can make up your own mind.

Most of today’s articles support the report’s conclusion that the Delta needs more, not less water.  I’ll balance perspectives with opposing pieces as I find them.

Click below to read the articles:

No more watered down excuses, Stockton Record (this piece is classified as news, but golly, there’s a lot of opinion in the thing);

Response to article:

It seems as though the writer completely ignored statements by the State Board throughout the report that it will take more than flow changes to fix the problems in the Delta. The Board, in fact, was prohibited by the Legislature from looking at anything BUT flow, effectively tying their hands as they conducted their work.

The approach taken by the State Board in its 181-page report limited its scope to “flow criteria determinations” and did not look at broader issues. Those issues, such as “habitat, water quality and invasive species” should be addressed in more comprehensive processes, such as the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. The report stated that there is a “need for an integrated approach to management of the Delta. This clearly indicates that the State Board understands that fixing the Delta cannot be achieved by simply adding more water.

Mike Wade
California Farm Water Coalition

California’s ailing water supply needs help, SF Chronicle

Delta flow criteria issued, Legal Planet Blog

The next Delta report, and inevitable spin,  Fresno Bee (don’t bother with all the spin, the Bee says. Just read the Report.)

The San Joaquin flows up and the Sacramento River flows down to the Delta, California Water Projects System Map, Department of Water Resources

A draft State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) report on criteria for establishing instream flow requirements through the Delta was released yesterday. 

While it’s good news for the Delta’s natural environment, it’s not so good for the rest of us. There’s gonna be a rumble, me thinks.

Here are some articles about the report and folks’ responses:

Californians should use less delta water, report says, LA Times

Delta survival requires major cutbacks in water use, state study finds, Contra Costa Times (CCT)

The CCT says, among other things: “The report also details flow requirements for the two biggest rivers flowing into the Delta — the Sacramento and the San Joaquin…”

“Meeting all of those requirements would require San Joaquin farms, Southern California and portions of the East Bay and South Bay that rely on pumps in the southern Delta to cut their Delta water use by one-third in addition to recent cutbacks required to meet endangered species rules.

For other water users upstream, including utilities serving Oakland and San Francisco, the effect could be even worse — up to 70 percent, because the goal to increase river flows would make more water available in the Delta for pumps to export.

But those figures do not take into account water rights laws that say agencies with older rights — including some in the Bay Area — should not have to give up water for newer users, and that agencies closer to water sources also should not have to give up water to those relying on Delta pumps.”

Report: Delta in need of water. Too much is being diverted to reverse lengthy decline, Stockton Record

Here’s a link to the full draft report, due to return to the State Water Resource Control Board on August 3rd.

SWRCB Report

Expect fireworks.

The Merced River below Snelling, photo by Andrew Shun, Dept. of Conservation, 2004.

Congratulations to the East San Joaquin Valley Water Quality Coalition (Coalition) on demonstrating water quality improvement in area waterways – including in two of its three targeted problem areas: the Dry Creek, Duck Slough/Mariposa Creek, and Prairie Flower Drain watersheds. Despite the initial frustration and the challenges of coordinating and funding a large regional coalition of landowners, industry, and watershed interests to insure compliance with strict regulatory guidelines, the Coalition’s hard work is paying off.

In 2003, the sunset of the Ag Waiver (a water quality-related exemption from the state requirement to obtain a water discharge permit for irrigated agriculture runoff) alarmed farmers and ranchers who would be tasked with funding and implementing the state’s water quality monitoring and management standards for agricultural lands. Fortunately, the state provided for conditional waivers of permitting requirements under conditions that irrigated Ag landowners could live with, though barely.

As the lower Merced River watershed coordinator for a Valley resource conservation district in 2003, I worked with others to form the Coalition and meet new requirements established in the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (Regional Board) new Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP).

Under the ILRP, agricultural dischargers into waters of the state had to choose to Œ 1. file regular reports with the Regional Board to obtain a permit and insure all discharges meet water quality objectives,  2. join a coalition of Ag landowners and obtain a waiver, monitor, and manage water quality in area waterways, or Ž 3. obtain a waiver, monitor, and manage their own individual discharge – an expensive and highly technical undertaking.

The Coalition has grown to cover irrigated Ag lands east of the San Joaquin River in Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Mariposa Counties and portions of Calaveras County. It contains 550,470 irrigated acres and has 2,378 members. Since 2003, the Coalition and other Central Valley agricultural efforts have collectively spent over $15 million to assess and address the impacts of farm runoff on regional waterways.

Over the last four plus years, the Coalition has conducted baseline monitoring in 40 different locations in the region. Beginning with baseline monitoring in 2004, it determined there were numerous locations in the region where Ag discharges were a problem and developed an overall management plan for 27 waterways and identification of the three problem watersheds above.

According to the Coalition’s recently released 2009 Annual Report, the initial management plan focuses on chlorpyrifos among several others, “an insecticide widely used in the region due to its cost effective control of invertebrate pests on many crops, particularly almonds, walnuts, and alfalfa”.

After aggressive outreach and education to members in targeted watersheds in 2008 and subsequent monitoring in 2009, water and sediment quality sample results showed no exeedance of water quality standards in two of the three watersheds. The third watershed continued to exceed standards for the pesticide chlorpyrifos, but further investigation identified the source as a farmer enrolled in a different program who was uninformed about the Coalition’s efforts. Coalition leaders note in the Report that additional years of monitoring will follow to scientifically validate the results, however 2009 outcomes are highly encouraging.

While it’s great news that water quality has demonstrably improved in the key Central Valley watersheds above, why am I blogging about it?

For starters, Tuolumne County has irrigated Ag land covered by the Coalition. Since water runs downhill, their success is ours too. Agriculture is not a villain or the source of widespread willful and egregious pollutant discharges into this region’s rivers and streams as some would have you believe. To be sure, there are still some who discharge polluted runoff, but the Coalition is catching up with them and helping them mend their ways.

Coalition farmers and ranchers have gotten on board with the conditional waiver. They’re educating each other, monitoring and planning to improve water quality, using best management practices and they’re policing themselves. They demonstrate the Coalition model works.

So once again, congratulations to the Coalition and its leaders Executive Director Parry Klassen and Wayne Zipser of the Stanislaus County Farm Bureau. They’re doing their part to insure the San Joaquin River and its tributaries have good water quality. Thanks, folks!

To learn more about the Coalition and its efforts, go to www.esjcoalition.org or contact them at 209-522-7278.

Our city cousins are concerned about Bay Delta water bills coming back to life, not being taken serious by the Legislature, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, a peripheral canal, reallocation of water rights... Sound familiar?

These are dicey times for folks without AND with water rights in California. The Governor and Legislature are still resolved to solve the California water crisis. The solutions look likely to rest on our shoulders.

About two years ago – compared by Liz Bass to Goliath facing down David – San Francisco informed our Board they were going after additional water from the Tuolumne River.  That’s not so likely now.  They can expect less. Us too.

SF will exhaust itself and considerable resources to make some sort of  a deal. We can only hope Tuolumne County and Groveland don’t get further sold down the river (pun intended) in the process.

This deepens our concern for watersheds of origin, expressed here a few weeks ago. If SF is scrambling, how worried should we be?

And why does Assemblyman Jared Huffman say there’s no language in the bills to threaten watersheds of origin and then say they can’t put protective language in because then we’d all want it? We’re rural, not stupid.

Read yesterday’s front page article in the Chronicle:

SF, East Bay fear water rationing

This is the last (promise!) in a series of postings on the five Delta-related water bills now under consideration in Sacramento. Mr. Green has a different and valid opinion that hasn’t been heard in this series - thus we’re posting rather than publish it as a comment.

First, a clarification. The meeting will not be a public hearing, but a joint study session with TUD to be conducted today at 1:30 in the Board Chambers. It has been noticed per the requirements of the Brown Act, the local radio station has been running spots, the paper generally publishes information about upcoming Board meetings, and finally, over 700 Facebook friends and over 200 blog subscribers have heard now nine different perspectives, been exposed to a wide but not necessarily exhaustive range of opinions, and been told about the meeting more than once.

Here is Mr. Allen Green’s opinion.

Re: Imperfect & Lousy Solutions: what’s a county of origin to do?

Teri Murrison:

Teri, It would be nice to have had more time to announce the TCBS / TUD hearings that are on for tomorrow. As a summertime user of Pinecrest Lake, I have been following the water rights fights pretty closely. Let me know when Toulumne County wants to give up all of the money that comes in from tourism – isn’t that one of the major, if not the major, income source of the County? Nobody wants the residents to go without water, however the regulation of the lake should be a joint agreement based upon comsumptive needs and recreational needs. When PG&E has Pinecrest Lake up too high in the early summer months (late May / early June) there is no, or very little beach available. Also in the late summer (late August / September / early October) if they let the late out too far the mud pits and rocks show up also limiting pleasurable use of the lake.

With TUD experiencing major water losses in their distribution system and pushing for more and more development, wouldn’t you think that they also have some responsibility for water conservation? Where is it?

The National Forest Homeowners Association, in a nationwide survey, has come up with a figure of $7,500 per year per cabin spent within a 50 mile radius. For Pinecrest this would be an even greater amount because of the metropolitan aspect of the region. The Forest Service has about 700 permits in the Pinecrest Recreational Basin — this computes to over $5.25 million coming into Tuolumne County. Surely this is of value and should be considered. If you ask the voting residents of the County to diminish the financial value of the Pinecrest Recreational Basin and therefore raise their taxes, I think you know what they’ll say — let’s start conserving our precious water and come to some reasonable agreement over it’s shared use.

I, personally, don’t think that you can point at the State Water Resources Board and label them as a villian. Take a close look at TUD, who have no defensible water rights, and see what they have / have not done.

While it may be politically correct to take a stand against those in power, however I would like politicians to have a balanced view on issues before they start taking sides. Feel free to share this with others at the hearing tomorrow, due to the last minute notice (maybe it was published somewhere and I missed it) I have other plans and will not be able to attend.

*****

Thanks, Mr. Green. You make a valid point about the regulation of the lake needing to be a joint agreement based upon consumptive and recreational needs. There was such an agreement reached within the last few years that everyone from TUD to the USFS, PG&E, environmentalists, recreation interests, and others hammered out in years of meetings during the FERC relicensing process. The State Water Resource Control Board  (SWRCB) staff, not their governing Board, chose to ignore that consensus-based agreement to prohibit further draw down of Pinecrest for consumptive use (that’s residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial) when the water falls to a certain level. SWRCB staff has been instructed to take a new look at the way they got to that decision and for that we are very grateful.

We find it alarming that in all the discussion of potential solutions and interests, we hear no legislators, agencies, or environmentalist voices mentioning that there are needs other than in the Delta, San Joaquin Valley, the Bay Area, and Southern California. There was no voice on the panels in the Joint Committee hearing (at least on the 18th) for local governments and the communities they represent in the Delta or elsewhere, despite the significant impacts with which they will have to deal.

The needs and conditions of counties of origin must be factored into the solution and not ignored or sacrificed because they can be. Water rights or no, there are living, breathing communities and habitat that depends on the waters that now flow through TUD to much of the county – even when Pinecrest’s level drops.

All that said, we appreciate Mr. Green taking the time to write and share his opinion, as did others. We will make sure his opinion is distributed to the Board members today along with the others. Balance, as he says, is very important. Additional conservation in Tuolumne County will be a component of the Delta solution. The Delta is in trouble and that has implications for all of us.

King Solomon, where are you?