STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly
• News alerts
• Subscribe to the paper
• Submit a news tip

More Speak Your Piece

• Native fish are dying out, but it's not too late
• Who are the aggressors in Prop. 8 battle?
• Can Forest Service get back on track?

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

The future of California depends on the utilization of water. Water is the new California gold. Without proper control, the state will slowly deteriorate.

Californians have taken water for granted for far too long. With the burgeoning population, that can no longer be the case. We have to balance it against our needs in the future. Where do we put our priorities? They are: first, in life-giving drinking water; second, in food and foliage production, and third, in sanitation.

With the amount of expenditures being evaluated by state and federal agencies, there have to be viable options. Wasting water for generations is no longer acceptable. Curbing inequitable proposed measures could support production of water storage, totally independent of existing waterways and spawning grounds. Water education, like power and fuel efficiency, should parallel all efforts.

Programs are being studied to store fresh water. Catch basins/dams and replenishing aquifers are considered. Current clean hydroelectric reservoirs should be retained. We need more off-line storage when wet years provide a surplus of water.

One near-term effort needs to be to educate the population. Wasting of this precious resource should be curtailed. Water is the life blood of all California and bleeding it dry should be stopped, even to the extent of fines for flagrant waste.

Without adequate water, the agricultural economy of the state is in trouble. The world needs the food California produces, as much as California needs the product income. It has been said the desert would bloom if it had water, and lots of arid parts of California have been converted. This has increased the need for water as well as the agricultural productivity.

California is slowly digging its own grave. Case in point is the Owens River Valley on the east side of the Sierra Nevada. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District channeled that water source south to the growing population center in about 1913. The result was to devastate the valley, turning it into a wasteland. Only recently has the effect been addressed and any efforts at recovery experimented with. Is this the way areas must suffer before preventive action is taken?

Areas of Northern California are working to keep their water rights and still provide support to the more arid southern portion of the state. Water to support fish is recognized, as this is another important food source. But have we studied the conditions adequately to be able to balance the use of water for people and food production?

Sources are at work to open up streams for fish spawning. Though this is a worthwhile effort, it must be done without impacting other needs. Currently National Marine Fisheries Service scientists have identified the cause for the reduction of anadromous fish as not being the feeder streams. Removing valuable hydroelectric facilities does not appear justified and is in opposition to the efforts to promote "green" power.

Millions of dollars are being spent in the Northwest studying means of retaining fresh water, while millions are being spent in California to destroy reservoirs and the accompanying hydroelectric power. This money is allocated by the California Public Utility Commission and is ratepayer money, yet these same ratepayers have had little if any say in the process. Adequate studies do not support removal of non-impacting power stations in place for over 100 years.

Opening up streams means a greater flow of water to the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta region and spurs the effort to create a peripheral canal to take water south. It is needed to support the growing population in the south, but at what cost to the north and the farms and ranches throughout the valley? Is it unreasonable to expect comprehensive study of cause and effect?

A battle over water rights would be unsatisfactory and detrimental to all areas and agencies that are involved. It could easily become a federal rather than a state problem for resolution, since the option being considered of raising the height of Shasta Dam is a federal project.

The current economic crisis means conservation. The balancing of the budget is vital, but it must go beyond the fiscal and include productivity. Allocations for water supplies can be established and escalating costs can be set for excessive use. There are always individuals who feel they can flaunt the rules. They should be forced to support the cost of remediation. The new California gold must be used wisely or we are destined for disaster.

Thomas Glenn Dye is a retired California registered professional engineer and a board member of the Friends of Cow Creek Preserve. He lives in Whitmore.