Conference Q & A
While the conference provided some time for Q&A, more questions were submitted than could be answered by the speakers. All submitted questions are listed here, with answers where they were provided (coming soon).
Questions for Congressman Miller:
Question for either Congressman Miller or Tina Swanson:
Questions for Tina Swanson:
Questions for Russell van Loben Sels:
Questions for Randy Fiorini:
Questions for Supervisor Ruhstaller:
Question for Gary Bobker:
Question for John Coleman:
Undesignated Questions:
Transcript of Answers to Selected Questions:
Congressman Miller:
If you were king for the day, what would you have Bay and Delta communities do together to improve freshwater flows?
A: The problem with this is, there’s a lot we can do but you also have to have a partner. Because there’s obviously, as Russell pointed out, there’s a whole series of individuals and entities that have their eyes on that same water but I think what the Bay-Delta community can show is there’s actions that can take place. We’ve led the way until Congress stopped doing it, providing funds under Title XVI for recycling and reuse of water, communities have done that, communities are lined up waiting in line to raise their money to do this, the federal match isn’t there, the current Chairman, and he will be retiring, has treated applications for this funding under Title XVI as an earmark, and Congress ruled out earmarks a couple of years ago. And that’s truly unfortunate. There’ll be a new Chairman of that committee; I think an effort should be made by more than just the Bay-Delta community, but I’d like to see the Southwestern community—really, the people west of the Mississippi—these projects are becoming increasingly important, as you read about groundwater supplies and domestic supplies all throughout the western United States, to get the Congress to understand these are not earmarks, these are just partnerships between state, federal, and local governments, to develop these alternative supplies of water for reuse, recycling, that can make a big difference in communities. It’s sort of—we do it now going forward in much of California but this is about going back and making systems much more efficient. I think really the most important thing to me again, and I want to repeat what I said, is I think the principle has been raised that you don’t get to whack one area of the state for another. And that’s what in fact you’d be doing, because with 30+ million people, there’s not enough tolerance left in the system. So you have to figure out, as we have, how do you replace this water, how do you conserve this water, how do you reuse this water over and over again? And that can be a very successful model in terms of generating several million acre-ft. of water. Then you’re going to have to figure out how you’re going to allocate that, it just can’t be the first person past the bar, or the largest operator. And the idea that one sector of the economy is so much more important than the other. This is a state whose economy depends on diversity. And so for that reason, I think the direction that’s started to be taken here, with the dual values, now suggests that the old days of we were going to steal your water or we were going to withhold your water, however it was going to be done, is gone, because as was pointed out here, these flows are incredibly important to the health of more than half of the state. And that’s gotta be paramount. And people have got to come to see that. And hopefully the California public will start to see that cooperation yields much more water than the water wars of the last 100 years. And that’s the big difference.
Tina Swanson:
Some people say that fresh water that flows out of the Golden Gate is "wasted." Is that true?
A: Short answer, no. That has been around for a long time, but in fact, the fresh water passing through the estuary as well as out the Golden Gate is part of the connection in the system and it’s performing a number of really really vital functions. And if you want to get totally practical about it, the most important thing it’s doing is it’s holding back the salt wedge in the San Francisco Bay so that we can pump water from the Delta. If there were no water flowing out of the Delta, it would be salty to Sacramento. And so from a practical purpose you have to have it. From an ecological purpose, freshwater flow, to speak in scientific geek speak, is what we call a “master driver.” It means it’s a physical environmental condition which drives a lot of other processes and biological responses. And a lot of people talk about flow not being the only problem in the system. That is true. But a lot of the other problems we have identified: invasive species, poor water quality—they’re exacerbated by the flow conditions we have right now, so in fact, it is a master driver, it connects to everything in this system. And part of that connection is the freshwater flow flowing out of San Francisco Bay, which actually has a huge influence on the coastal environment as well.
Congressman Miller:
What's status of House/Senate "secret" negotiations on Delta water/drought?
A: Just a comment on the last person’s question, that water going out the Golden Gate is wasted? People didn’t arrive at that conclusion by themselves; that was a public campaign that went on for 20 years. And you can hear it in Washington DC, maybe more often than you hear it here, but there’s been a constant suggestion that any water that went out the Gate is just wasted, and that’s the economic ruin. We know that that water isn’t wasted, that it’s all of the things that Tina talked about.
On the negotiations on two pieces of legislation, one a bill by parts of the Central Valley delegation to sort of just take a running battering ram to the Endangered Species Act, to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, to water allocations, to some contracts, just to say, “This is our water, we’re the deprived ones in the state, and we get to take all of this.” I don’t think it’s going to be successful at the end of the day, it doesn’t mean they’re not trying; they’re using that bill as part of the negotiations with Senator Feinstein who has a much more limited bill, but even that bill is in its current form is very destructive to the idea, because we do have this flexibility that I talked about that we used under the Biological Opinions to adjust the flows given rain events that happened in that period in March and may happen again later on or outside the normal window, and you want to be able to respond to that. To dictate that the inflows from the San Joaquin and the outflows are adjustable; in a wet year you can get an acre-ft of inflow, you can maybe get two acre-ft. of outflow, but what she would do is really mandate that that 1:1 ratio be in place all the time. In a critically dry year, in a dry year, in a wet year, it’s really as long as the governor lets a drought declaration stay in place, and as we know, recently we’ve had very long periods of time that the drought declaration—therefore, every acre-ft. coming down would have to be exported south of the Delta without regard to what else is happening. It’s obviously outside of the scope of the parameters of the Biological Opinions, it’s probably outside the scope of the Endangered Species Act, and for that reason it has serious opposition. The fact of the matter is, because of the actions—both administratively and legislatively—in the state, and because of the actions, mainly administratively, at the federal government, most of what was in that bill that would somehow benefit/save[?] is already being done. So the only parts that are left now, are the old dagger at the heart of the Delta. You would put in statute weighting the Biological Opinions so that you could continue to export an inordinate amount of water. Some people have suggested that that could yield—that chemistry—I don’t quite see it in the legislative language but the proponents are betting that somehow that yields them—not the State, not the governor, not the economy, not the fisheries—yields them an additional half-a-million acre-ft. of water. I don’t know where that loose water is in the system, I suspect it’s not loose in the system, but somehow the legislative language, the discussions are that it would provide them an additional 500,000 acre-ft. of water. That’s a real dangerous proposition, and last time I looked, God made water, not the legislation, so I don’t know where that yield comes from, it comes from somebody else’s pocket. And that’s why we’ve been on sort of 24/7 alert here, in terms of our delegation, on these negotiations. We’re deeply worried about them and there’ll be a lame duck session, which may be the most dangerous time in a democracy; being a lame duck? Is a great opportunity.
Questions for Congressman Miller:
- If you were king for the day, what would you have Bay and Delta communities do together to improve freshwater flows?
- What do you see as the federal government's role in water in California?
- What do we need to do to get more federal funding for multi-benefit projects that improve the health of the estuary?
- Comment on current drought bill being negotiated in Congress?
- What's status of House/Senate "secret" negotiations on Delta water/drought?
- What potential do you see for the California public trust doctrine (as a responsible problem-solving) in this time of changing climate?
- What should be done to increase public awareness about the freshwater inflow problem?
Question for either Congressman Miller or Tina Swanson:
- Do you think that flows can be re-established and protected with adjudication of water rights and balancing of the public trust?
Questions for Tina Swanson:
- Some people say that fresh water that flows out of the Golden Gate is "wasted." Is that true?
- Can you please discuss the historical and scientific evidence of the saltiness of the Delta. Has it really always been a freshwater body?
- How do invasive species contribute to the lack of primary productivity and survival of native fish?
Questions for Russell van Loben Sels:
- How has the drought affected water quality in the Delta, and what trends do you see if it continues?
- As a resident of the Delta, how do you think the Bay and Delta could work more closely together to improve water quality?
Questions for Randy Fiorini:
- Can you give some examples of current adaptive management activities being done in the interest of Delta science?
- With all of these processes in place, how do we align them and make improvements while getting everyone on board and not leaving anyone out?
- Would you consider solving our issues with natural desalination which uses natural power only with no brine?
- How could the Delta Stewardship Council's Implementation Committee address the issue of freshwater flows in the estuary?
Questions for Supervisor Ruhstaller:
- What do you hope to accomplish with the invasive aquatic weed study?
- Please tell us more about weeds.
- How can the public be kept abreast of your work on AIS (aquatic invasive species)?
- What challenges did the San Joaquin Valley Partnership have to overcome in order to work effectively together (that would be relevant here)?
Question for Gary Bobker:
- What is the single most important action that could be accomplished on flows by a coalition of Bay-Delta interests?
Question for John Coleman:
- With your three roles in ACWA, EBMUD, and Bay Planning Coalition, what do we need to do to achieve better integration between state and regional efforts?
Undesignated Questions:
- What percent of the Delta flow is currently being diverted south?
- What opportunities exist for practices that would improve both Bay and Delta?
- How would you recommend specifically we interact with the State Water Board to influence the update of the water quality standards?
- Over 50% of drinking water in urban areas is used to water lawns. Lawns use inefficient irrigation and waste water. Why aren't lawns illegal?
- Certainly, the inappropriate use of herbicide is not desirable. However, is it possible to control the spread of invasive aquatic weeds without changing the current regulatory regime concerning the use of herbicides?
- How does the role of water rights influence the current planning process of the Bay-Delta Estuary?
- With the new water bond, how will this help Delta flows? It appears more water will be taken out, and less to the Delta.
- From your perspective, how should the SF Bay and Delta pull together as a region?
- Do the most recent analyses show that accretion rates of BDCP restored intertidal habitat are sufficient to avoid submersion of new land by sea level rise given climate change forecasts? Are the assumptions for accretion and sea level rise realistic?
- At a talk last week, a UC fisheries professor discussed that artificially keeping a steady fresh/salt boundary in the lower Delta benefits invasives and predatory fish, making the Delta similar to a Midwestern reservoir. This is done by deliberate freshwater releases. Could you comment?
- Why should we believe that we can effectively resolve these problems without addressing water rights, the overall economic driver?
- We hear so much about the residential conservation but what are farmers doing to restore their 80% of CA water and the Delta?
- What about natural desal? It uses only Nature to power desal at sea, for conveance [sic] and for distribution. $20 per acre-foot est.
- How practical is it to start thinking of desalination of sea water for use? Is it cost effective for the Bay Area/CA?
Transcript of Answers to Selected Questions:
Congressman Miller:
If you were king for the day, what would you have Bay and Delta communities do together to improve freshwater flows?
A: The problem with this is, there’s a lot we can do but you also have to have a partner. Because there’s obviously, as Russell pointed out, there’s a whole series of individuals and entities that have their eyes on that same water but I think what the Bay-Delta community can show is there’s actions that can take place. We’ve led the way until Congress stopped doing it, providing funds under Title XVI for recycling and reuse of water, communities have done that, communities are lined up waiting in line to raise their money to do this, the federal match isn’t there, the current Chairman, and he will be retiring, has treated applications for this funding under Title XVI as an earmark, and Congress ruled out earmarks a couple of years ago. And that’s truly unfortunate. There’ll be a new Chairman of that committee; I think an effort should be made by more than just the Bay-Delta community, but I’d like to see the Southwestern community—really, the people west of the Mississippi—these projects are becoming increasingly important, as you read about groundwater supplies and domestic supplies all throughout the western United States, to get the Congress to understand these are not earmarks, these are just partnerships between state, federal, and local governments, to develop these alternative supplies of water for reuse, recycling, that can make a big difference in communities. It’s sort of—we do it now going forward in much of California but this is about going back and making systems much more efficient. I think really the most important thing to me again, and I want to repeat what I said, is I think the principle has been raised that you don’t get to whack one area of the state for another. And that’s what in fact you’d be doing, because with 30+ million people, there’s not enough tolerance left in the system. So you have to figure out, as we have, how do you replace this water, how do you conserve this water, how do you reuse this water over and over again? And that can be a very successful model in terms of generating several million acre-ft. of water. Then you’re going to have to figure out how you’re going to allocate that, it just can’t be the first person past the bar, or the largest operator. And the idea that one sector of the economy is so much more important than the other. This is a state whose economy depends on diversity. And so for that reason, I think the direction that’s started to be taken here, with the dual values, now suggests that the old days of we were going to steal your water or we were going to withhold your water, however it was going to be done, is gone, because as was pointed out here, these flows are incredibly important to the health of more than half of the state. And that’s gotta be paramount. And people have got to come to see that. And hopefully the California public will start to see that cooperation yields much more water than the water wars of the last 100 years. And that’s the big difference.
Tina Swanson:
Some people say that fresh water that flows out of the Golden Gate is "wasted." Is that true?
A: Short answer, no. That has been around for a long time, but in fact, the fresh water passing through the estuary as well as out the Golden Gate is part of the connection in the system and it’s performing a number of really really vital functions. And if you want to get totally practical about it, the most important thing it’s doing is it’s holding back the salt wedge in the San Francisco Bay so that we can pump water from the Delta. If there were no water flowing out of the Delta, it would be salty to Sacramento. And so from a practical purpose you have to have it. From an ecological purpose, freshwater flow, to speak in scientific geek speak, is what we call a “master driver.” It means it’s a physical environmental condition which drives a lot of other processes and biological responses. And a lot of people talk about flow not being the only problem in the system. That is true. But a lot of the other problems we have identified: invasive species, poor water quality—they’re exacerbated by the flow conditions we have right now, so in fact, it is a master driver, it connects to everything in this system. And part of that connection is the freshwater flow flowing out of San Francisco Bay, which actually has a huge influence on the coastal environment as well.
Congressman Miller:
What's status of House/Senate "secret" negotiations on Delta water/drought?
A: Just a comment on the last person’s question, that water going out the Golden Gate is wasted? People didn’t arrive at that conclusion by themselves; that was a public campaign that went on for 20 years. And you can hear it in Washington DC, maybe more often than you hear it here, but there’s been a constant suggestion that any water that went out the Gate is just wasted, and that’s the economic ruin. We know that that water isn’t wasted, that it’s all of the things that Tina talked about.
On the negotiations on two pieces of legislation, one a bill by parts of the Central Valley delegation to sort of just take a running battering ram to the Endangered Species Act, to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, to water allocations, to some contracts, just to say, “This is our water, we’re the deprived ones in the state, and we get to take all of this.” I don’t think it’s going to be successful at the end of the day, it doesn’t mean they’re not trying; they’re using that bill as part of the negotiations with Senator Feinstein who has a much more limited bill, but even that bill is in its current form is very destructive to the idea, because we do have this flexibility that I talked about that we used under the Biological Opinions to adjust the flows given rain events that happened in that period in March and may happen again later on or outside the normal window, and you want to be able to respond to that. To dictate that the inflows from the San Joaquin and the outflows are adjustable; in a wet year you can get an acre-ft of inflow, you can maybe get two acre-ft. of outflow, but what she would do is really mandate that that 1:1 ratio be in place all the time. In a critically dry year, in a dry year, in a wet year, it’s really as long as the governor lets a drought declaration stay in place, and as we know, recently we’ve had very long periods of time that the drought declaration—therefore, every acre-ft. coming down would have to be exported south of the Delta without regard to what else is happening. It’s obviously outside of the scope of the parameters of the Biological Opinions, it’s probably outside the scope of the Endangered Species Act, and for that reason it has serious opposition. The fact of the matter is, because of the actions—both administratively and legislatively—in the state, and because of the actions, mainly administratively, at the federal government, most of what was in that bill that would somehow benefit/save[?] is already being done. So the only parts that are left now, are the old dagger at the heart of the Delta. You would put in statute weighting the Biological Opinions so that you could continue to export an inordinate amount of water. Some people have suggested that that could yield—that chemistry—I don’t quite see it in the legislative language but the proponents are betting that somehow that yields them—not the State, not the governor, not the economy, not the fisheries—yields them an additional half-a-million acre-ft. of water. I don’t know where that loose water is in the system, I suspect it’s not loose in the system, but somehow the legislative language, the discussions are that it would provide them an additional 500,000 acre-ft. of water. That’s a real dangerous proposition, and last time I looked, God made water, not the legislation, so I don’t know where that yield comes from, it comes from somebody else’s pocket. And that’s why we’ve been on sort of 24/7 alert here, in terms of our delegation, on these negotiations. We’re deeply worried about them and there’ll be a lame duck session, which may be the most dangerous time in a democracy; being a lame duck? Is a great opportunity.