Water - not to be monopolized, politicized or privatized



Image: Just Seeds.org

Op-ed: Stop the political water wars

By Art Aguilar
San Gabriel Valley Tribune (California)
April 18, 2012

Clean, safe water should be affordable and accessible to all citizens, not just the wealthy.

Central Basin Municipal Water District is proud of the fact we provide the most affordable water in the region. However, in these challenging economic times, our Board of Directors recognized we needed to do more to support the people of our community.

To help alleviate the burden of the rising cost of water on the people of southeast Los Angeles County, the Central Basin Board is announcing a Pledge to Freeze Water Rates for at least one year.
Moreover, we are challenging all other water agencies in the region to do the same.

In the words of one Bell resident from who came to us seeking help with her $700 water bill from the Golden State Water Company: "Enough is enough!"

We are tired of so-called political "water wars" that historically pit communities and agencies against each other in a fight for control over a vital public resource.

Central Basin will continue to protect and preserve our limited and precious water supplies for the public use. We will not stand aside and have this public resource monopolized, politicized or privatized in any way. Water must be accessible and affordable to all people.

We will fight, but only for the public's interest, not for the pocketbooks of special interests. While we are tired of political "water wars" shaping the public debate, we believe firmly that access to such a natural resource like water is a civil-rights issue. The cost of water is a social justice issue that we as Californians can no longer afford to ignore and it is an issue worth fighting for.

The economically disadvantaged and historically underserved populations of southeast Los Angeles County have gotten the short end of the water pipe for long enough.

Central Basin prides itself on representing the people of the community and as such, we are committed to standing and fighting for them. In the past few years, this commitment has taken many forms.

We have gone to court to fight for justice on behalf of ratepayers by holding other water agencies accountable; we have supported legislation that would bring equity to current water rates and limit the ability of agencies like the Water Replenishment District to force southeast L.A. ratepayers to pay more for water than they should, in order to keep rates low for the wealthy communities of the South Bay.

In September, when a deeply distraught group of residents from Bell took sick days from their jobs to come to our offices in a desperate search for answers; we did everything we could to help them while not overstepping our limitations as the regional water wholesaler.

As a result of other, similar public outcries from across the state, the responsible retailer, Golden State Water Company, was fined $1 million by the California Public Utilities Commission for questionable rate setting practices.

But how have we gotten to a point where residents are being forced to decide between paying for water and buying food for their families? This question remains unanswered.

In an effort to address this, Last month, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) approved Assemblyman Ricardo Lara's request for an audit of the water agencies in southeast L.A. County. As we informed the JLAC members that day, we intend to cooperate fully with any legitimate effort to explain the rising water rates of the southeast county and support this audit.

However, while we are respectful of the legislative process, we also know that these state audits take time and we do not think the ratepayers should have to wait several months before they begin to see rate relief.

This is why the Central Basin Board of Directors is proposing a rate freeze for at least one year and we call on Metropolitan Water District, the Water Replenishment District, West Basin Municipal Water District and all local retailers to do the same.

Developing a budget that will allow us to freeze our rates has not been easy, but we got it done. To achieve this, we have reviewed every expense with a fine-tooth comb twice over. We also had to make some tough decisions to suspend, eliminate or cutback vital conservation and community programs. We hope that the affected residents, schools and program partners will understand. We were also able to begin enacting an aggressive plan to increase recycled water sales and boost revenues in the next fiscal year.

While we are still forced to pass through the rates from Metropolitan Water District, the ratepayers of our service area can rest assured that Central Basin has not increased our portion of the rate by one penny.

To the wholesale water agencies who claim that our rates somehow drive theirs; our pledge should enable them to minimize, decrease or freeze their prices also.

We implore Metropolitan Water District to take the same hard look we did at our expenses and rescind the rate increases it approved this week and freeze rates at their current level.

Water is the most vital part of every person's quality of life. Affordable access to water should not be awarded to the highest bidder and should not be treated like a game piece in a political war.
Central Basin challenges the Metropolitan Water District, the Water Replenishment District and West Basin Municipal Water District and others to take this stand with us for the people's right to equal access and affordable water.

Art Aguilar is general manager of the Central Basin Municipal Water District.

Copyright 2012 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Los Angeles Newspaper Group, Inc.

All Rights Reserved

San Gabriel Valley Tribune (California)

Source: WaterWorld

Tow an iceberg to California?

US Reviews Ideas For Boosting West's Dwindling Water Supply

By Catherine Tsai

DENVER -- Demand for water in a river basin that serves more than 36 million people in the West and Mexico is expected to overwhelm supply in the next half-century as the region grows. So the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation asked the public what to do about it.

FILE - In this March 5, 2008 file photo, water levels at the Colorado River's Horseshoe Bend begin to rise along the beaches just hours after the Glen Canyon Dam jet tubes began releasing water in Page, Ariz. Hispanic leaders in the West have formed a new group called Nuestro Rio to focus attention on the Colorado River, which has sustained generations of Latinos. The Colorado River system provides municipal water for more than 30 million people in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico.

It got more than 140 ideas: Tow an iceberg to California and capture what melts for the Colorado River basin. Divert water from the Mississippi River. Deliver water bags from Alaska to southern California. Change the desire for beef to reduce demand for thirsty cattle.

The bureau won't single out any options to pursue, but it will review them as part of its larger study of water supply and demand in the arid Colorado River basin through 2060. It published the suggestions in late March.

"It's an entertaining list," said Jim Pokrandt, who handles education and outreach for the bureau's Colorado River District in Colorado. "There's a couple good ideas on there that bear further discussion. Other ideas are kind of fantastic, as in maybe not based in reality."

The identities of most of the people submitting the ideas weren't disclosed.

Other suggestions: Desalination, or removing salt to create fresh water. Covering swimming pools to keep water from evaporating. Reforming the oil and gas industry, which uses water in processes including hydraulic fracturing.

Some ideas, including the iceberg suggestion, have floated around for years.
"The bureau, to its credit, threw open the doors and said, `We'll take all ideas.' Some of the good old ones certainly reappeared," Pokrandt said Wednesday.

About 30 million people in Arizona, California, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico get drinking water from the Colorado River system, which also benefits about 6 million Mexicans.
The Colorado River Compact of 1922 outlines how states share the water, but that deal was struck assuming about 2 million more acre-feet would be available than there really is, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said. Drought, climate change and population growth have posed more challenges for limited water supplies.

One acre-foot is enough to cover 1 acre of land 1 foot deep, or enough to meet the annual needs of about two households.

"It's the same challenge of the last century," Salazar said this week. "You have huge and growing water demands in the Colorado River basin. It's an arid area of our country which is going to continue to see declines in precipitation."

One party who submitted an idea to the Bureau of Reclamation raised the possibility of incentives for businesses to move where energy and water supplies aren't as tight.

Native American tribes have suggested exploring voluntary water transfers from tribes with water rights. Other ideas include changing how water is priced, removing invasive plant species that suck up water, and requiring lawns and golf courses to be watered with "gray water," which generally refers to wastewater like that from showers that could be used for purposes other than drinking.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said this week at a Colorado College conference concerning the river that increased water conservation and new dams will be needed, The Denver Post reported. Efforts are under way to explore new reservoirs and to boost conservation.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Geological Survey is looking at alternative water sources for providing electricity. "Not all water is created equal. There are some uses of water that don't really require the same quality of water as, say, for drinking water," agency director Marcia McNutt said.

Protect the Flows, a coalition of businesses in the Colorado River basin states, said it supports affordable measures including enhanced urban conservation, improved agricultural efficiency and expanded "water banking," which would allow users to temporarily borrow water rights in times of need.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/us-reviews-ideas-for-boos_n_1418724.html?ref=clean-water

Water - The Essential Ingredient for Fracking

By Kai Olson-Sawyer

Do you know where North America’s largest shale-gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations are? Texas, Wyoming or Pennsylvania? No. It’s Canada’s Horn River Shale Formation, located in northeastern British Columbia.

Performing that frack job is oil and gas production giant Apache Corporation, which lauded its own immense size and scale: “When all was said and done, the completions team performed 274 successful fracs on the 16-well pad, using 50,000 tons of sand and 980,000 cubic meters of water.” (That’s over 250 million gallons of water.)

Apache and its partner, Encana, made sure to “celebrate” this achievement of oil and gas engineering within the company, while touting its prowess throughout the industry and the Canadian government.

But Apache representatives were sedate during an October 2011 hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on Water and Power. During the hearing, Apache executive Dr. Cal Cooper showed greater interest in the more typical fracking operations that take place in the U.S.—ones that are much smaller than in the Canadian super-frack job.

What explains Apache’s change in tune before the U.S. Senate panel? In a word: water.

Water, the Essential Ingredient
Water is the main ingredient in fracking fluid, comprising more than 99 percent of the total with the remainder a mix of undisclosed, proprietary chemicals. The quantity of water required for a typical frack job is around 4.5 million gallons, of which a substantial amount—approximately 10 to 40 percent—“flows back” to the surface as toxic wastewater. That’s right, 4.5 million gallons are pumped into the ground and up to a million gallons of toxic water flow back up (or the amount of contaminated water equal to the annual water use of up to seven households).

With so much water involved in fracking, it makes sense that the American public is apprehensive. National polls show that ensuring adequate supplies of clean freshwater is an overwhelming environmental concern. No wonder the oil and gas industry is sensitive about fracking’s water use and have sought to downplay the importance of water by essentially saying, “Don’t worry, it’s not really that much.” But such niceties don’t satisfy critics, so industry has to find ways to justify its heavy water use.

One of the industry’s most common strategies is to emphasize how fracking water use is some fraction of the one percent slice of the “mining, oil and gas” industries’ compared to dominant American water withdrawers like thermoelectric power plants, agriculture and public water supplies. Another common justification is what gas giant Chesapeake Energy does by taking the 4.5 million gallon figure and comparing it to other water use examples. For example, drawing comparisons to the amount of water needed to supply New York City for seven minutes or irrigate 7.5 acres of corn in a season.

But such standard comparisons between fracking and other water uses must be drying up because Apache’s Cooper offered a new, more sophisticated line of argument in his testimony:

…[I]t seems especially pertinent for this committee to consider the water budget of energy from shale gas compared with other sources…Natural gas, from both shale gas and conventional reservoirs requires less water per MMBtu of energy generated from combustion than any other common fuel. (PDF)

Hmm. Water requirements per heat energy unit (MMBtu)? Fuel-type comparisons? Cooper’s favorable argument for shale gas is compelling because in such a life cycle analysis—where the entire process is assessed from extraction to power plant combustion—water requirements are lower in comparison to certain fuel types. In addition, the popularity of natural gas relies, in part, on its reputation as a “bridge fuel”—the fossil fuel that will lead to a renewable energy future because it’s cleaner burning, emits less greenhouse gas and uses water less intensively in certain steps of the process. However, substantial debate exists about its presumed life cycle environmental benefits. Cooper conveniently avoids real and legitimate water resource impacts associated with fracking, as summarized in the list below:

• Quality over quantity. In other words, if water is contaminated by the fracking process, then it is either taken out of use or costs money, energy and even more water to remediate the situation. Externalities anyone?
• Glaring omissions [p. 12]. The analysis conveniently leaves off low to no-water renewable electricity technologies, like solar PV and wind.
• Cumulative impacts. The number of gas wells is expected to increase over time. More wells mean more water.
• Recycling is not a panacea. This is mainly because the waste that accumulates in recycled fracking wastewater is never eliminated but concentrated, and ultimately requires disposal. Plus, recycling wastewater requires—guess what?—more water, and more energy.
• Water is consumed. Much of the water used for drilling or fracking is taken out of the water cycle entirely.
• The nature of water. Even as part of the global water cycle, water is experienced locally and is site-specific.

The local dimension of water undermines industry’s water use claims

Cooper openly acknowledges that “[w]ater is a local resource and withdrawal must be managed on a local basis to ensure that the ecological health of riparian systems and the needs of other major users are met.” He notes the historically severe drought in Texas and Oklahoma, where oil and gas companies had to adjust their fracking methods because of decreased water availability and competition with other users, like farmers. This is a constant concern throughout arid western states with active shale gas plays, like Colorado and Wyoming.

If a well site has inadequate water resources, a fairly common problem, water has to be transported via tanker trucks to fill impoundments over the course of hundreds or thousands of visits. Finally, there is the thorny issue of toxic fracking wastewater and its storage, reuse and disposal.

Local differences can explain, in part, the differences between how Apache represented itself regarding the Canadian super-frack operations versus the restrained tone of Dr. Cooper’s testimony before the Senate panel. The Horn River Shale is located in a remote section of British Columbia, far from any population centers. Additionally, the enormous volume of water used for the super-fracking was done with brackish water unsuitable for drinking, and wasn’t a direct draw on freshwater supplies.

On the other hand, fracking in the U.S., especially in the Marcellus Shale region, tends to occur in more densely populated areas where it can come into conflict with local water uses like drinking and irrigation. As fracking spurs the proliferation of natural gas wells around the U.S., water-related issues will continue to impact water quantity and quality for both ground and surface water. These local impacts are where the true fault lines lie in the struggle over fracking.

The debate over whether the millions of gallons used for a frack job is outsized might be appropriate within a larger discussion of national water use. But the discussion about water resource impacts of fracking must be a local one. In changing the unit of analysis from the water needed for drilling and fracking at the well site to a more general “water for fuel-type,” Cooper’s argument bypasses localized impacts, where they are felt most intensely and where water use is amplified. Wherever you go, 4.5 million gallons is a lot of water, particularly if in your backyard. That’s a fact that doesn’t change no matter how the industry attempts to minimize it.

Source: http://ecowatch.org/2012/water-the-essential-ingredient-for-fracking/

Take a Seat, Take a Stand

Join the Earthjustice campaign to Take a Seat, Take a Stand.

Earthjustice is asking you to join in the fight to protect the world's natural resources and wildlife. Supporters are being asked to take a seat in Earthjustice's virtual courtroom.

If you'd like to protect our air and water, help to preserve wildlife, and secure a clean energy future, go the the Earthjustice website to stand up, and take your seat.


Click here: Earthjustice

The coming reality...who owns your water?

From: Open Your Eyes

Welcome Easter, Welcome Spring

Spring is the perfect time to take delight in the wonders of nature. Below is some photography from people who have discovered the beauty of flowers sprinkled with dewdrops or raindrops. If you have photos of water droplets on flowers, plants, or trees, feel free to send them to occupyyourwaterrights@gmail.com. Include a caption for the image with your name, website or email.

In the meantime, please join us in conserving and preserving our water. Save your water, save yourself.




Red flower with water droplets
arnojenkinsphotography.com

Water droplets on a viola
The Firefly Forest.net

Water droplets on salvia flower
By Martin Heigan



Rose with water drops
By Active Rain.com



Water droplet on an ornamental cabbage
The Firefly Forest.Net



Dew drops on flower
Public Domain Image.com



Yellow dahlia after the rain
Megapozitive.com



Bluebells after the rain
By Terotielinen.fi