Sierra snow comes up short, The Sacramento Bee

Posted by Sierra Nevada Alliance Weekly

May 7, 2008

Despite new warnings Thursday that a water crisis is looming in California, state officials continue to maintain that enforceable conservation goals are not necessary.

The Department of Water Resources on Thursday took its final Sierra Nevada snowpack survey of the season, and the findings only added to the grim prognosis for the state's water supply.

The water content of the snowpack stands at just 67 percent of average for the May 1 date. That's because this year's March and April period proved to be the driest since 1921, when record-keeping began.

Though snowfall was about average in January and February, it wasn't enough to make up for the following two months, which were virtually snowless.

After drought conditions last year, much of the snowmelt will merely be absorbed by parched soil and won't make its way into the streams and reservoirs.

In addition, poor environmental conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and a federal court decision have restricted water exports to 25 million Californians. It's estimated these effects have already cost customers about 600,000 acre-feet of water this year, or enough to serve 1.2 million families for a year.

"We're really up against it here in California," said Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman.

In February, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called for a 20 percent per capita cut in water use statewide by 2020.

But as bold as that goal might seem, the conservation target comes with no teeth.

On Thursday, during a rare Capitol news conference on the meager snowpack, Chrisman said the administration does not yet have a plan to impose mandates or penalties to ensure that California meets the conservation target.

"We're not there yet," he said. "We will be addressing that at some point, but I don't know the answer to that yet."

Instead, he expects the target will be met through voluntary measures and by working with local water agencies. Others say the state should take a much more aggressive stance on water conservation.

"The governor didn't just set a target for climate change. He implemented a real policy," said Mindy McIntyre, water program manager at the Planning and Conservation League. "We hope that he'll do the same with water conservation, because it has the potential to work quickly."

Until this week, the water crisis has largely been limited to regions that depend on water pumped out of the Delta.

But on Wednesday, the city of Roseville was notified by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that its allocation from Folsom Lake will be slashed 25 percent this year.

It's unclear whether the city of Sacramento will be similarly affected at some point this year. Unlike Roseville, which buys water under contract from the bureau, Sacramento has ample water rights in the American River that provide some security.

But a federal court decision in April could require the bureau to alter water releases from its dams to protect salmon. If this doesn't affect urban water withdrawals downstream, it might affect the amount of water available in the river for recreation at times.

"For California, it's another sign that we are going through a rough patch," said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. "And it doesn't get better when the rain comes back, because we've got fundamental problems with the infrastructure and our need to manage the system more responsibly for fish."

A bill pending in the Legislature, AB 2175, would put teeth into Schwarzenegger's 20 percent conservation target.

The bill by Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, would make urban water agencies ineligible for state grants unless they meet the 20 percent conservation target, with benchmarks starting in 2013. The target for agricultural water agencies is a reduction statewide of 500,000 acre-feet.

"We've been successful statewide when we've set goals to reduce energy use, and to reduce the waste stream into landfills," said Laird. "I think the bill we're working on is totally consistent with the governor's goal."

The Governor's Office has not yet taken a position on the bill.

Mat Weiser's story appeared in the Sacramento Bee