“This is probably the issue of the day – whether you can limit growth by shutting off water supply or making it more difficult to build a home,” said Tim Coyle, a top official at the California Building Industry Association. Coyle said that there's only so much lawmakers can force developers to do as they try to meet housing demands. He said the state will continue to attract newcomers, “all with straws in their mouth.”

Several water and economy experts said that the current housing slump has a silver lining because water agencies aren't handling nearly as many requests for new developments as they were earlier in the decade. That gives them months or possibly years to shore up water supplies before demand for new water spikes. At that point, expect to see more flare-ups between developers, local policies that encourage growth and water managers who are increasingly wary about overstating how much they can provide.

“When the economy starts to warm up again, you'll see more potential for friction,” said Jeff Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District in Los Angeles.

2007 California Groundwater Coalition

THE INCREASING IMPORTANCE OF GROUNDWATER
FOR CALIFORNIA WATER SUPPLY

Groundwater is one of California’s most important natural resources. Consider that:

- Nearly half of California’s drinking water supply comes from groundwater.¹

- In an average year, groundwater meets about 30 percent of California’s urban and agricultural water demand.²

- In drought years, when surface supplies are reduced, groundwater meets an

even larger percentage of urban and agricultural water demand.

- Groundwater provides water for the environment including wetland habitat,

springs and other important natural resources.

- The potential amount of groundwater storage in California is far greater than the amount of water stored in the state’s surface storage reservoirs.

- Groundwater is the only source of water supply in many areas of the state that do

not have surface water connections.

The demands of an ever-increasing population and longer dry periods resulting from climate change demand new approaches to more strategically utilize groundwater storage space available in subsurface reservoirs. This means filling the available storage space in the wet years and withdrawing the stored groundwater in dry years. Using our available groundwater storage is essential to provide a long term, safe and reliable water supply for all Californians.

This paper will address is relatively summary form two key questions regarding the ability to store water in the state’s groundwater basins. First, how much storage space is available? And second, what are the water quality challenges in using groundwater and how much will it cost to remediate the contamination?

ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL GROUNDWATER STORAGE

Substantial amounts of available groundwater storage in California have been reported by a variety of resources, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Reported Estimates of Groundwater Storage in California

In order to effectively integrate surface water reservoirs and groundwater with conveyance and distribution systems and to address the impacts of climate change, conjunctive use will be increasingly important. Conjunctive use involves the coordinated and planned operation of both surface and groundwater resources for conservation and optimal use⁷ by routing surface water flows to groundwater recharge facilities.

Conjunctive use can be implemented in multiple ways. In lieu conjunctive water management relies on offsetting historical groundwater pumping with surface water deliveries during times of surplus surface water supply, during the wet season or wet years. A recent analysis of the Central Valley indicated that over 1.7 MAF of groundwater storage could be attained, by in lieu conjunctive water management⁸.

Flood protection can also be integrated with managed conjunctive use operations. For example, integrated water resources planning can emphasize co-locating recharge areas and surface water reservoirs with end users, and encourage participation from surface water and groundwater users within affected floodplains⁹. In this way, California’s water resources management strategies will maximize surface water capture, enhance flood protection, increase environmental benefits, and increase the available groundwater storage.

Climate change¹⁰ also has the potential to cause significant impacts on the State’s water resources and water demand. Changes in local and regional temperature and precipitation patterns in the state, as well as a potential loss of one-third of the annual Sierra snow pack, are anticipated to have profound impacts on state ecologic and water resources systems.¹¹

In the future, Californians must increasingly rely upon the state’s subsurface reservoirs and integrated management approaches in order to respond to the challenges of an increasing population as well as larger swings in precipitation and temperature.

GROUNDWATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT COSTS

Water stored underground does not face evaporation losses or the environmental challenges associated with constructing large surface reservoirs. However, groundwater quality and associated costs to treat stored water extracted for potable use can vary, depending on the nature and concentration of the contamination.

Agricultural and industrial contaminants, as well as naturally occurring inorganic and radiological constituents in California’s aquifer systems can impact groundwater quality. In areas of current or former agriculture, nitrate is a common groundwater contaminant in shallower aquifers, and pesticides are also relatively common but less abundant. Volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) are associated with industrial operations and dry cleaners. Perchlorate, an industrial oxidizer, is associated with industrial operations, and to a

lesser degree with agriculture and as a natural occurrence. Arsenic occurs naturally in some of the state's groundwater basins, and hexavalent chromium may be naturally-occurring or the result of industrial practices. Radiological constituents include primarily naturally occurring constituents such as radon, gross alpha, and uranium. Naturally-occurring dissolved solids (salts) can impair groundwater, as can seawater intrusion in coastal areas. Some basins may have a single contamination issue, while others may have to deal with multiple contaminant groups. Emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals and some personal care products may require attention to protect surface water ecosystems and groundwater supply.

Groundwater quality in California’s groundwater basins ranges widely from excellent to poor, based on data from public supply wells ⁴. Groundwater quality in the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region is generally excellent, with only localized areas of impairment. Groundwater quality throughout most of the San Francisco Bay, San Joaquin, and Tulare Lake Hydrologic Regions is suitable for most urban and agricultural uses with a few restricted areas of degradation. VOCs and perchlorate have created notable groundwater impairments in some of the heavily industrialized portions of the South Coast Hydrologic Region, and some localized impacts in the urbanized areas of San Francisco Bay and Sacramento Hydrologic Regions. Nitrate and pesticides in shallow aquifers are a result of agricultural activities in the San Joaquin, Tulare, Central Coast, and to a lesser degree, North Coast and Sacramento River Hydrologic Regions.

In general, seawater intrusion in shallow aquifers is a problem in the coastal groundwater basins of the North, San Francisco Bay, Central and South Coast Hydrologic Regions. Total dissolved solids are a problem for interior desert basins in the South and North Lahontan Hydrologic Regions where salts build up over time.

Table 2. Groundwater Demand and Public Supply Well Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) Exceedances by Hydrologic Region

Table reference DWR Bulletin 118

A wide range of effective technologies and methods are available to remove most constituents from extracted groundwater. Volatile organic compounds or VOCs (industrial solvents) are usually removed effectively by granular activated carbon filters (GAC) or by aeration (air stripping), while removal of inorganic chemicals such as nitrate and perchlorate require an ion exchange or biologic processes, and treatment of dissolved solids or desalination uses the reverse osmosis method.

Where multiple types of contaminants are present above drinking water standards, several treatment components may be needed to produce potable water. Treatment costs also vary depending on the level of contaminant in the water. Treatment processes and cost ranges for various groundwater contaminants are summarized in Table 3.

Contamination is often limited to the shallow zone, which is not pumped for drinking water. Contamination may occur in some portions of a basin and not necessarily preclude the basin’s overall use. When contamination is limited to certain areas or zones of an aquifer, contaminated water may be blended with water produced from other areas or zones to meet drinking water standards, thereby avoiding costly treatment. For example, in 2004 the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and its member agencies, which supply water to approximately 18 million California residents, blended 85,000 acre-feet of groundwater and treated another 215,000 acre-feet for a total of 300,000 acre-feet of extracted groundwater, accounting for 21 percent of all groundwater produced in the MWD service area.

Considering all the variables and unknowns, it is not practical to estimate an overall quantity of contaminated groundwater statewide or an overall cost of treatment; however, groundwater treatment costs can be averaged based on the following costs and groundwater quality in individual basins.

Table 3. Estimated Groundwater Treatment Costs

Monitoring groundwater basins for water quality and groundwater levels is a necessary function for informed groundwater management strategies. Monitoring is conducted by local water districts and other local water suppliers, and in some areas more advanced data collection is conducted by state and federal agencies.

Much work remains to be done in order to adequately characterize and manage California’s groundwater resources and accurately plan for increasing storage to meet growing demand for water. Funding is needed to gather key information about the geologic structure, groundwater flow patterns, groundwater quality characteristics, and vulnerability to contamination. Local water suppliers and local and state agencies will need to work together to pool their resources for statewide integrated water resources management planning, so that flood control, surface water reservoirs, and groundwater basin planning are coordinated.

With adequate funding, California’s groundwater basins can play a critical role in helping to meet the state’s long term demands for a reliable water supply.

References

1 California Groundwater Management, A Resource for Future Generations, Groundwater Resources Association of California, second edition 2005.

2 California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118, 2003 Update, California Department of Water Resources.

3 California Water Plan Update 2005, Bulletin 160-2005, California Department of Water Resources, 2005.

4 Draft Groundwater Assessment Study Report, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2007.

5 Groundwater and Surface Water in Southern California, A Guide to Conjunctive Use, Association of Ground Water Agencies, 2000.

6 Designing Successful Groundwater Banking Programs in the Central Valley: Lessons from Experience, The Natural Heritage Institute, 2001.

7 Groundwater Hydrology, 3^rd Edition, David K. Todd and Larry W. Mays, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New Jersey, 2005.

⁸Estimating the Potential for In Lieu Conjunctive Water Management in the Central Valley of California, David R. Purkey and Elizabeth Mansfield, The Natural Heritage Institute, 2002.

9 Conjunctive Use for Flood Protection, US Army Corps of Engineers, 2002.

10 Preparing for a Changing Climate, the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, a Report of the California Regional Assessment Group for the US Global Change Research Program, June 2002.

¹¹Progress on Incorporating Climate Change Into Management of California’s Water Resources, Technical Memorandum Report, California Department of Water Resources, July 2006.

Groundwater Resources Association of California www.grac.org  GRA Liaison, Tim Parker Association of Ground Water Agencies www.agwa.org AGWA Liaison, John Rossi American Ground Water Trust www.agwt.org AGWT Liaison, Terry Foreman

Thomas Elias: Budget, water top Capitol issues

But legislators see little need to compromise
Appeared in Appeal-Democrat  March 31, 2008 - 4:54PM

As will surely become clear when the hot days of summer arrive about two months from now, California now confronts two problems more threatening to more people than any other current ones: the state budget deficit and a looming water crisis.

Yes, other problems affect tens of thousands of Californians, including the continuing spate of home foreclosures caused in large part by the real estate bubble that built through most of this decade and the questionable lending and borrowing practices that fueled it.

But unless the budget crunch is resolved, vital state services will be seriously diminished from levels that were often inadequate before.

And unless the state settles on new tactics to resolve longstanding water issues, they will become far more urgent as a so-far uncontested court decision mandates severe reductions in water pumped from the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. Besides that looming man-made water shortage, there's also the issue of climate change, considered by most scientists as likely to sharply reduce Sierra Nevada snowpacks that supply most of the state's water.

But legislators whose votes are needed to solve both these problems remain adamant in opposition to practical solutions. Republicans won't accept a budget solution involving any kind of tax increase, even one as obvious as closing loopholes benefiting only wealthy special interests. And most Democrats refuse to acknowledge the easily apparent coming need for more water storage, whether in reservoirs behind new dams or by pumping supplies into underground aquifers in times of brief winter surpluses.

Both stances are unrealistic and spurred by fears of political retribution. Republicans have seen colleagues who bolted party lines to vote for budget compromises driven from office by hard-line no-new-taxes primary election opponents. Democrats fear being blackballed by environmentalists for whom "no" is the knee-jerk answer to any new water storage proposal.

Both sides are in this situation in large part because of gerrymandered legislative districts, which make most state Assembly and Senate seats safely Democratic and others safely Republican. There's little room for non-doctrinaire compromisers in either party these days.

But California needs compromises. In these bad economic times, it's not feasible to place large new tax or fee burdens on the state's populace. But closing loopholes or restoring levies to previous levels is another matter, so long as they are the right ones.

For instance, rolling back the vehicle tax reductions of the late 1990s — as ex-Gov. Gray Davis attempted before being recalled in 2003 — would produce about $6 billion toward keeping the public school teaching workforce at current levels, rather than following through on thousands of pink slips already issued this year. There's also the well-publicized "sloophole," which lets Californians avoid sales taxes on boats, cars, trucks and airplanes by buying them in other states and holding them there for 90 days after the purchase.

There's also a sales tax exemption on racehorses sold for breeding, and there are breaks for businesses that hire handicapped workers or workers who have been unemployed for long periods. Oil companies here do not pay extraction taxes for drilling California crude, as they do in virtually every other state.

Eliminate enough of these and you'd raise sufficient funds to at least end the current threats of larger public school class sizes and much higher state college and university tuitions and fees.

All these things could be done without touching the single largest special-interest tax loophole, the homeowners exemption which helps keep property taxes down on virtually every owner-occupied residence in California. A time of foreclosures like today probably is not a good time to end this one.

In short, a lot of loopholes could be closed at a cost of about $300 per year per family. The question yet to be answered: How many Californians consider the services saved by such a tax hike to be worth the money?

Meanwhile, the water crisis festers. Many Democrats and environmentalists believe it can be resolved by conservation. But Californians have conserved water better than any other Americans for the last 25 years, since the droughts of the 1970s and '80s spurred large-scale use of things like low-flow toilets and shower heads and bans on watering lawns during the hottest times of day.

But population increases projected to continue at least 30 more years make it plain this won't be enough. Meanwhile, most legislative Democrats won't even attend meetings to talk about water storage.

All of which means it's time for both Republicans and Democrats to put aside their fears for their own political skins, focus on what's best for California as a whole and get out of their respective parties' lockstep default positions.

Failure to do that, and soon, will be a sure sign that they simply don't take the state's major problems seriously enough to solve them.