We've spent quite a bit of time discussing large infrastructure projects throughout California. Last week, we had a guest lecturer on Dam removal and river restoration. Dam removal is still heavily contested- the age-old discussion over emergency/back-up water supply to support ag and urban development vs. restoring natural water flows and providing for recreation, environment, etc. Hetch Hetchy is no different. Hetch Hetchy is a valley located Northeast of Yosemite National Park. Before settlers came in the 1850s, indigenous groups depended on the valley for subsistence. It was known for its sheer beauty, which some claim rivaled and even surpassed Yosemite Valley. In the 1920s, the dam was built and the valley was flooded-- the water is largely used by San Francisco (specifically, Silicon Valley). There are many arguments for and against the project-- some claim it violates California's Raker Act (that water/power from Hetch Hetchy can't go to private companies)-- a rule that was worked around by claiming that there was no more money for the project and it just happened to be built to the PG&E substation. Others claim environmental and recreation reasons for wanting the valley restored. On the other hand, it's a source of clean, high-quality water that also provides hydroelectric power. 

Water, water everywhere, not a drop to drink. As you have hopefully learned throughout this quarter, there are quite a few challenges facing water managers-- not just in California, but nationally and globally as well. Through our discussions of dams and canals and "conquering the west" we have discussed at length the massive engineering feats of moving water.  We also talked about some of the repercussions (e.g., Owens Valley, Colorado River, Salton Sea). We've touched on using water for domestic purposes, industry, energy, and agriculture. We have also touched on the dynamics of groundwater and surface water. Another major challenge in the water management and planning realm is water quantity (availability) vs. water quality. Some have postulated that we don't need to care about water quality because at the core, if we don't have water, water quality doesn't matter. These people also point to our advanced treatment technologies and capabilities of cleaning water. On the other side of the road, some people postulate that water quantity doesn't matter if it's not "clean enough" to be used for its purposes. Their retort to the other camp is, yes, technology as advanced, but with requirements for every increasingly advanced methods, come costs- can we continue to afford them? Finally, there is a big dark cloud of climate change. Climate change is projected to cause major challenges to water planning both from a quantitative and a qualitative point of view. Given this context, your task this week is to debate which is more important: water quantity or water quality?

Throughout our class so far, we've read about and discussed the relationship between groundwater and surface water. With the 2012-2016 drought, we talked about how changes in the allocations of water from the major water projects, combined with lack or precipitation greatly reduced the amount of surface water available for domestic and agriculture use. We discussed how this shifted the focus (as it often does) to pumping groundwater, which also led to overpumping and groundwater infrastructure problems. Earlier on in the quarter, we discussed the hydrologic cycle and the connectivity between groundwater and surface water (see image above). Often, surface water and groundwater are treated as two separate bank accounts-- and they are managed as such. We have rules and operations regarding dams and reservoirs, streams and lakes, and we have rules and operations regarding groundwater storage and pumping (more specifically outlined in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act).  This begs the question though, does it makes sense to treat these two sources as separate bank accounts? Even if they are hydrologically connected? If it does make sense to manage them together (sometimes called conjunctive use), how would that work? Is it even possible given our existing management systems and styles? Given all of these considerations, your task this week is to debate whether groundwater and surface water should be managed together or separately?

The debate question is: should the environment get as much emphasis as humans in water planning and allocation?In California disputes over who gets which sources of water and how much are frequent and persistent. As we've debated and discussed, tension often grows between agricultural users and domestic users. These tensions are strained during extreme events like the 2012-2016 California drought. For example, agricultural losses during the 2012-2016 drought were estimated at around $3.8Billion (Medellín-Azuara et al. 2016,) even with a shift towards greater groundwater reliance. During the same time period, many domestic users, dependent on wells, lost water access; overall state project (State Water Project and Central Valley Project) water allocations were reduced; and homeowners were left with dead yards. Many users had to rely on trucked in or bottled water. The environment also suffered. About 102 million forest trees died during the same time period (US Forest Sevice 2016). Additionally, trees lacked soil moisture and as a result, became susceptible to disease. In the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta, delta smelt suffered from low water levels and lack of food resources that were typically carried to them through higher water flow. A report from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) shows that many species were pushed to the point of extinction (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Brian Gray, from PPIC, stated, “People are very frustrated with the current state of affairs"... “They don’t think it’s working either to provide adequate protection and habitat for fish or a reliable water supply. Both sides feel they bear a disproportionate share of the risk of hydrologic and regulatory uncertainty.” What is apparent is that balancing our water budget and ensuring humans and the environment have adequate water allocations and adequate water quality is a challenging and ongoing discussion. Given all of these considerations, your task this week is to debate whether the environment should get as much emphasis as humans in water planning and allocation?

This is the debate page for the HYD/SAS10 Week5 debate discussion.

Nonpoint source pollution (NPS): pollution that cannot be traced back to a single point (e.g., a pipe). NPS comes from diffuse sources so it is hard to assign blame. Agriculture and stormwater runoff are two examples. As we discussed in Debate Week 3, California agriculture brings $50 Billion into the state and helps to feed our country. As of 2015, California had 25.5 million acres of farm and ranch land. It is also the sole producer (99% or more) in the U.S. for the following crops: almonds, figs, peaches, olives, artichokes, kiwi, dates, pomegranates, raisins, sweet rice, pistachios, plums, and walnuts (Snibbe 2017). With this immense amount of agriculture, also comes immense water pollution. The National Water Quality Assessment (EPA 2019) reports that nonpoint source pollution from agriculture is the leading source of river and stream water quality impacts, the third largest source for lakes, the second largest source for wetlands, and a major contributor to contamination of estuaries and groundwater. Currently, at the federal level, management of nonpoint source pollution is voluntary. The EPA oversees the Clean Water Act Section 319 (Nonpoint source pollution) program which provides states with funding to help manage nonpoint source pollution. Nationally, there have been some attempts to regulate nonpoint source pollution (aka require farms to reduce runoff to a certain threshold) but more broadly, managing nonpoint source pollution remains voluntary.   

This is a test for training purposes only.

This is for HYD/SAS10 Week 2 Debate: do humans have a right to water?

In the second week of this course, we learned a great deal about the LA versus Owens Valley water disputes. We also had a guest lecture on groundwater and power in California. As came up in Debate Week 2, about 350,000 Californians lack access to safe drinking water. Many argue that agriculture takes away water that could otherwise be sent or used for domestic use. At the same time, however, California agriculture was responsible for bringing in about $50 Billion in 2017 (California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2019). So your task this week is to debate which is more important to California: irrigation or domestic uses of water?

This is a debate designed for students enrolled in the HYD/SAS 10 Course: Water, Power, Society.