Major Problems with the Southern California Water Supply
22 Comments Published by clay September 2nd, 2007 in State and Local Politics.
U.S. District Court Judge Oliver Wanger imposed limits on flows caused by pumps sending water from the San Joaquin-Sacramento River delta to users around the state, saying the pumps were drawing in and destroying the endangered delta smelt.
Wanger’s ruling — which only lasts for a year — imposes the limits from the end of December, when the smelt are about to spawn, until June, when young fish can move into areas with better habitat and more food.
Metropolitan Water District officials called Wanger’s ruling one of the largest court-ordered water curtailments in state history. They said based on initial estimates supplied by the state, MWD stands to lose as much as 30 percent of its supplies from
That, combined with reduced supplies from the Colorado River and this year’s record dry spell, means the MWD has to plan for a shortfall in deliveries to its 26 member cities and agencies, MWD Board President Timothy Brick said earlier this week.
“All of these factors may necessitate a curtailment,” said Brick, noting that the Southland has gone from having 60 inches of rainfall during the record wet season two years ago to just 3 inches in
Wagner faced an important choice. Should he protect the fish, which are at the brink of extinction, or should he allow people to continue to pump water for a growing
On the one hand, I want to protect species in the environment. I think it is necessary for planetary survival. However, I am not sure we can or should protect all species. If we are going to protect these fish, the state government needs to respond immediately with a plan targeting:
(1) the shortage
(2) the increase of water prices
I pay $60-$75 a month now (water for the house, Sparkletts water dispenser, and bottled water).
Do you agree with his decision? Why or why not? Do you think conservation will solve the problem? What habits should state and local governments tell its citizens to change? Be specific.
I hate to be a hypocrit, but moderation has never been a strong suit of the american people. Our water supply is an integral part of our survival, however, when I walk the streets at night and see sprinklers watering the pavement I have to wonder how necessary it is to water our streets. Inept and ignorant are the only words I can use to describe the population of L.A. I am glad that judge saved, or tried to save, that species, but seeing as we are situated in a semi-desert climate, we should act accordingly. Year round restrictions on water usage, plant more succulants in government areas, and an overall conservative water consumption rate. Raising prices might be a possible avenue. Following the energy companies plan of save power, save money, might be able to be adapted to the water companies. Even placing an increasing price scale set by the amount of water a houshold uses. The point is, it shouldn’t take a drought to make us aware that we live in a desert. WAKE UP LA!
Well I know that its not setting any survival risks to save the fish instead of giving that water to the population, but if I had to choose between people and fish I would choose the people.But at the same time when I think about it we havent been conserving the water the way we should, I really like and agree with the point that Buddy gives about the sprinklers. Maybe its a good idea to let us work with some restrictions, it could be the only way we learn to conserve our resources.
To me this is a huge problem and I actually agree with his decision that he has made. To save the fish over letting people pump water for a bigger population. See with this decision the fish at least get to live and not go into extinction, while for a little bit of time the human life will not get as much water but will get some, yes the prices will skyrocket but in the long run the fish will live and then we the people will get as much water as anyone wants. Even though there has not been much rain, there is hope that things will go better than last years wet season and everyone will get what they want. Even if the people save the water there also is that “chance” that things will work out, if you just continue with low priced water and not conserve the water, what if at the end everything turns out bad and then you have no fish and less water, then the water will still go high just because there is going to be a big water drought, and everyone will complain. So to me conserving the water will make a difference and if it doesn’t then at least we took that chance. If it does work then the state and local government shouldn’t say much, but if the whole thing is a failure, the government should have people water there grass once a week, and make sure they don’t take showers for a long time, for example my little sister she takes about an hour or an hour and a half in the shower, if the government can enforce a way to make people take 5 to 10 minutes showers that will cut down on the water. Also letting sinks run, I always see people letting there sinks run that should be a big NO! And also letting the water hose run while washing the car also a big NO! By having people stop doing all of this, this should help California and the U.S. conserve water and we shouldn’t have this big problem. But the only way this can happen is if the government acts on it fast and actually makes laws that relate to saving water.
I agree with the U.S. District Court Judge Oliver Wanger because it’s important to stop the over pumping of San Joaquin-Sacramento River and to save the endangered delta smelt. It’s crucial to preserve and improve are environment for future generations. Conservation will help, but will not be the only answer. We as society should do are part by buying automobiles with low carbon emissions and other produces, which are environmentally friendly. There are so many ways we can help and I believe the state and local governments should encourage the public by offering tax reductions.
I agree with U.S. District Court Judge Oliver Wanger’s decision. Why? Well, I personally belive that saving an endangered species is a good thing, not only for the enviroment, but for us as well. I wont go into the whole chain reaction the extinction of this species may cause. I also belive that this may show people how to properly use water and appreciate it. Sinks are always left running and I’ve seen plenty of people throw away half full bottles of water. As a whole, the people of LA can do so much to help the delta smelt by moderating their water usage. Dont be wasteful people, becuase if the San Joaquin-Sacramento River should ever dry up for whatever reason, were in BIG trouble.
I agree with Judge Oliver Wagner. I believe that it is important to save certain species especially when they are on the brink to extinction. Water is being used so carelessly by Americans that we forget that other things, other species, also rely on water to survive. Conservation, in my opinion, may not solve the problem but it will definitly help with the over use of water. Conserving water will benefit marine life, but also it will help out Americans by making our world that much better. Already so many ways of conservation are starting to appear. For example, they have washing machines now that save energy and water, they have sprinkler systems now that save water as well. Many things are already happening to help the water supply. The state and local governments should however have more of a say when it comes to our water supply and how we use so much of it. I think the government should set up a special fund that could create more places for a better habitat for those fishes that are slowly dwindling to the endangered species list.
I agree with the Court Judge Oliver Wanger because even though we people need water to survive, we should still think about what we are doing to have even caused this problem. I think its a good idea to save the Delta Smelt and to help open our eyes and think about changing how we use water, and if we conserve it well enough like we should. And if we all take a closer step in conserving our own water at home, or even outside our homes I believe that this plan could work out for the better and save the fish that are dying. Listen to the commercials that come up on your television screens, they are there for obvious reasons. The habits that should be changed are to not leave the water running in your bathroom or kitchen, or turning on your sprinklers when you know its going to rain, those little things are whats causing this situation with the Delta Smelt to occur. And taking action on the problem will not only help our environment but give us better habits to follow.
I agree with the guy saving the fishes because the united states doesn’t know how to really appreciate the water very much and either way we will find a way to get water even if the prices go up we will still have water, and we save the fishes. i think its not fair that we take the fishes water because there not doing anything and thats where they live and we are using it for the wrong reason i think that the united states should learn to respect the water and then maybe come back to this to see if we can use it. It seems like on one really understands how much this water issue is really a problems and with the water prices going up people will really learn to save/appreciate the water.
Of course I don’t disagree with the judge’s verdict; we do need to ration our water. However, the judge’s solution to the water crisis was not an appropriate one. Firstly, he seemed to approach this situation with a “band-aid” conclusion. I don’t know how the ecosystem will be affected with the extinction of the smelt, nor do I know much about the current SoCal(Los Angeles) vs Northern Cali (Owens Valley) conflict. But I do know that the smelt are not the only part of our environment who are affected by the massive water pumping. We’re sinking the Mojave desert dry trying to pump water from it! In addition, who can forget that crucial part of California history when we almost drained Mono Lake completely dry in the 80′s? Just now Palmdale is experiencing a massive water shortage, while tainted, dangerous water is flowing (or was flowing? It was a huge scandal in 2004) to multiple parts of Central Valley. I do not think conservation will solve the water shortage. It might postpone it, at best, but in 25 years California’s need for water will still increase by 40%(Public Policy Institute of California). In terms of PSAs about water rationing, it would help to inform the citizens of California to be wary of the massive overuse of water in their yard irrigation (about half of all the water used by inland homeowners goes to irrigating yards, compared to one third or less on the cooler coast).
In response to what Buddy and Lupe (and I think more people) have noted about raising the cost of water, I strongly disagree with these notions. Much of the poorer side of Central Valley already spend about 4-6% of their annual income on water (which as I said is tainted anyways). Some people have to drive 30-50 miles JUST to get water that they’re afraid won’t give them cancer. It would be ridiculous, especially with all the other raising costs [of gas, fresh fruits/vegetables, tuition] to further increase the cost of basic water. In reality, how could this affect the general hygiene of California in the long run? And Buddy, I know you’re new, but in Southern California, we always hear about the abundance of EVERYTHING California has to offer. Ask any generation-long resdent, we’re just not used to conserving. It’s not ignorance, but rather the longevity of the attitude we’ve been forced to accept about the beauty of our state. We’re just scared that this minor shutdown might be followed by a much LONGER shutdown. Even the State Water Project is nervous about the amount of water they’ll be able to supply for about two out of three Californians, not to mention irrigation water for 750,000 acres of farm land.
I agree with his decision. People listen to what their stomach tells them. It growls, and we think we’re starving…the fact is, every kind of fish is a part of our food chain. if they become extinct, we’re screwed. Yes the rainforest and plants are all good too, but quite bluntly, either way the human population could be endangered. I think the smartest thing to do, would be to save the fish. Once they’re gone, our entire food chain is tangled and out of hand. eventually we’d have starving humans. I believe that Hunger could kill off a human race, much, much faster than a lack of plantation. Planetary survival may seem just as important, but the lack of fish, or in this case extinction of them, would harm the human race musch faster. I do not, however feel that thi “conservation” will solve the problem at all. i think people can only be so heroic of our planet. something so big. we CAN make a difference, but no way on “earth” can we absolutely save our planet… if it’s going to happen, then it’s going to happen. The earth was once humanless. if we stopped wasting so much water, WE’RE NOT GOING TO DIE. and neither will the earth. it survived without us billions of years ago, i’m sure it still can. it’s as simple as that.
Melanie
Band-Aid Solution! I think the more you research public policy (government), you will see this is common. Policymakers, or in this case a judge, either offer a short-term solution or offer nothing and pass the buck.
Conservation is part of a solution, but I wonder if any public policy can change the water choices we all make. Will anything change our behavior prior to any massive shortage or will we need to wait until a shortage in order to change?
I agree with what Judge Oliver Wagner stated. This has been a serious problem since 2005. Many people don’t realize the seriousness of this. The water level, from the delta, has dropped significantly over time and it continues to drop farther. The problem with the low water level is that when the water gets to a certain point it starts getting hotter and changes the living conditions for fish like the smelt. The smelt have always made that delta their breeding ground and last year there was about 885 that were there. This year there were only 17. The smelt feast upon zooplankton, but unfortunately the zooplankton are disappearing mostly because other non-native species have been introduced to the region. Pretty soon the smelt will be extinct.
Not only is this affecting the fish, but it also affects us. Going back to the low water level, 70% of that water is used in farmlands both in Northern and Southern California, to irrigate the food that we eat. We have spent millions of dollars studying this and it seems to be going nowhere. This estuary is important environmentally as well as economically. We are not only trying to save the fish, but we are trying to save ourselves. In order to do this we should try and limit how much water we use. It won’t hurt your lawn if you water it every other day. Also, do we really need to be in the shower for 30 min.? Just doing little things can help the situation improve. Let’s take some action and change this.
Currently, southern California’s drought is one of the worst in recorded history. As a resident of Pasadena, I understand MWD Board President Timothy Brick when he sites the yearly rainfall for the area. There is no doubt that California’s residents are feeling the pressures of the lack of water but where does one draw the line when it comes to accommodating people over animals? With the increasing population, we need to dwell upon more and more fresh water sources, such as the San Joaquin-Sacramento river delta and the Colorado river, to meet the demand but I do not think that we should go as far as putting another species at risk of extinction. I agree with the judge’s decision to limit the amount of water being pumped out of the delta because it is not for that long of a period and will provide enough time for the species to have another generation. By cutting down on water use all throughout Southern California, such as running sprinklers for shorter periods of time and turning off sinks while brushing our teeth, both our needs as well as those of the delta smelt will be met.
The right answer the wrong way.
The Fish are NOT what’s important. As California’s population continues to grow we will need water. What is surprising is that we should not need any more water than what we consume at this moment. Seventy percent of local domestic water consumption goes towards watering lawns (Ortega, Fred “Water rationing said likely” http://www.sgvtribune.com). We simply just use more water than we need to. Conservation is a must. As we continue to try and force ourselves upon the natural landscape it will continue to push back (not literally:)
The question was protect the fish or let people pump the water? The most unfortunate problem with this question is that it would not have been raised if it was only about the water. If there had been no fish involved we would not be having this conversation.
If this court ruling is what it takes for residents to learn that we need to conserve water, then so be it.
I think the judge should let the fish just go on and die in peace. Humans come first animals come second.People pay the bills and fish do not. Conservation will definitely help out the issue. The more water saved the more we have left over. If do not take care of ourselves then we will be the ones heading towards extinction. The governments should tell people to use their water wisely use common sense. If there is not goin to be enough water then make sure you conserve that extra gallon of water because you will definitely need later. Im out peoplz
It is true that California [at least Southern California] is extremely behind on its rainfall, but so far there hasn’t been any desperate need of water to where we need to ration it out. I would agree with the decision to help the smelt. If the water shortage went to as bad as us having to ration water, of course I believe we should help ourselves before the fish, but at the moment it does not seem to me that we are in such a desperate need of water.
Judge Oliver Wagner made a good point about decreasing the pumping and saving the fish. But on the other hand, people need the water as well. Yes, people might over use water, but that’s when certain limits should be set, just like in Palmdale. There should be limits in the usage of water, and there should be certain times when you can water the lawn. This will not only decrease the usage of water, but we will also maintain the population of the fish. We as residents of the state of California should be considerate of the amount of water we are using and be considerate of the fish as well.
I do agree with the judges decision to impose limits on flows, because the smelts were abundant and their numbers have dropped drastically. Truth is they look useless, but can effect the food chain they belong to. Only reason to disagree with his decision is the growth of California’s population which is constant. You can never go wrong with conservation. It would help out because their will always be more than needed rather than wanted. Citizens should develop a habit of being more conservative, turning off running water whenever they can, fix leaking pipes, etc. But not everyone would follow it so i dont think it would affect how people use water atm.
U.S. District court Judge Oliver Wagner made a good point about using less pumping to save the Delta Smelt population. However, due to his point about saving the fish I believe that the people from differnt cities are more of a priority to keep. Yes,it is true that the population of the smelt will decrease over time but what about the people who desperatley need water to survive and keep up with there daily routines. For instance, we need water for many things including water for drinking and even watering plants. I think we should pump the same amount that is being done right now but there should be limitations to how much we use.
I agree with the judges to limit the flows. Because saving the fish is the most important issue at this point. most animals are endangered and to have these fish endangered would just ruin them. also we need the water to drink to water the plants, basically to survive. we need all this to live.
I’m glad to see that so many have agreed with Judge Wagner. Although small losses in the ecosystem may appear permissible under threat of social inconveniences, we must not allow so many ‘small losses’ to slip through the cracks. Many small losses can add up to a big loss. Food webs exist everywhere in nature and the extinction of minor species (prey for other species) could arguably lead to a ‘snowball’ effect throughout the food web and cause more species loss. But back to Judge Wagner and agreement. The number in agreement in this blog over this issue just goes to show how much people really do care about the environment and biodiversity protection. People know that it is wrong to damage the environment. But I think that the real problem is the inconvenience. Most would not want to preserve this species of Delta Smelt at the expense of their time and effort and certainly not at the expense of their money. That is why it is the role of the government to step in and offer alternatives. Different systems of water use could make a large difference in water conservation.
Some people would see the decision between humans or fish easy. Why would want to same some stupid fish when we could get more water? Of course we could just as easily conserve our water and allow the “crashing smelt population (Oakland Tribune Apr 27, 2007)”.
“FRESNO — The federal agency responsible for protecting endangered species ignored information that showed the Delta smelt population crashed to its lowest level ever before approving a plan to increase water pumping out of the Delta… (Oakland Tribune)”
The federal government is allowing a species to come very close to extinction and is ignoring any plan aimed at conserving an environment for mating. It is very sad that we threaten the existence of other creatures because of our ignorance.