text:
Switchboard, from NRDC › Doug Obegi's Blog tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2014:/blogs/dobegi//127 2014-09-04T19:23:06Z Movable Type Enterprise 4.38 The Era of Big Dams is Still Over (Even With the Water Bond) tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2014:/blogs/dobegi//127.17328 2014-09-03T23:49:12Z 2014-09-04T19:23:06Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

The potential for new water storage in California is in the news because of Proposition 1, the $7.5 billion water bond on California's November ballot, which includes $2.7 billion for new groundwater and surface storage (and an additional $800M for groundwater remediation projects). For instance, Sunday's San Jose Mercury News article outlined four major reasons why the era of big dams ended in California: the best sites are already taken, environmental laws prevent the worst projects, easy federal money dried up, and cities and farms found new ways to create water. Likewise, columnist Robert Green in the LA Times asks all the right questions about new storage, from taxpayer subsidies to cost effectiveness, and highlights the fact that building a new dam doesn't mean it will fill with water.

Today, NRDC is releasing a short fact sheet on water storage in California, which contrasts the economic effectiveness of investments in regional and local water supplies like water recycling and efficiency with the high cost and economic infeasibility of building big new dams. Although NRDC continues to have significant environmental concerns with some proposals to build big new dams, more often than not it is simple economics that explains why big new dams aren't being built in California.

To begin with, building big new dams is very expensive, and the water from such projects is generally far more expensive than water created by groundwater storage, water use efficiency, recycled water (indirect potable reuse), or stormwater capture. For instance, the federal feasibility study for Temperance Flat estimates that this project would cost nearly $2.5 billion and would yield only 61,000 to 76,000 acre feet of water per year. The feasibility study for raising Shasta Dam estimates that project would cost $1 billion and only generate 139,000 acre feet of water per year. Taken together, these two dam projects would cost approximately $3.5 billion and would yield an average of 209,000 acre feet of water per year. In contrast, the state has estimated that $1.4 billion in water bond funding for integrated regional water management (IRWM) projects like water efficiency, water recycling, and groundwater cleanup over the past decade leveraged $3.7 billion in local funding and has helped save or create nearly 2 million acre feet per year. Big new dams simply can't compete economically with these regional and local water supply projects.

Not surprisingly, these new dam projects produce very expensive water. We estimate that without taxpayer subsidies, the water coming out of Temperance Flat would cost more than $1,500 per acre foot, which is far more than the cost of water generated from water recycling, stormwater capture, groundwater storage, or water conservation projects. Even with massive taxpayer subsidies, the Bureau of Reclamation estimates that water would cost more than $200 per acre foot for agricultural contractors (far more than these districts pay today, especially since the project would eliminate much of the cheap $10 per acre foot water that is provided in wet years). Water generated from big new storage projects costs substantially more than water from water use efficiency, stormwater capture, groundwater cleanup, and water recycling projects. Similarly, research by Stanford University's Water in the West program, "shows that groundwater recharge is a cheaper alternative to surface storage."

In addition to the economics, California already has over 1,400 dams and reservoirs, and over the past three decades we have added 6 million acre feet of new water storage facilities, including both surface storage (such as Diamond Valley and Los Vaqueros reservoirs) and groundwater storage (including the Kern Water Bank and Semitropic Water Bank). Because we already have so much existing storage, building new dams does little to create substantial new water supplies. Dr. John Holdren, the White House science advisor, succinctly summed up the problem earlier this year, saying that, "The problem in California is not that we don't have enough reservoirs, it is that we do not have enough water in them."

And of course, there are also significant environmental problems with some of the proposed major new storage projects. For instance, as we emphasized in our September 2013 comment letter, raising Shasta Dam would flood sacred sites of the Winnemem Wintu people, flood part of the Wild & Scenic McCloud River (which has some of the best fly fishing in the state), and provide almost no benefits for salmon or other fisheries. Likewise, while our April 2014 comment letter on the draft feasibility study for the proposed Temperance Flat dam focused on the economic infeasibility of this project, we also emphasized that the study's absurd conclusion that the dam created an ecosystem "benefit" of reduced salmon populations in the San Joaquin River. NRDC strongly opposes these two surface storage projects.

Yet in contrast to these two harmful projects, conservation groups like NRDC did not oppose recent offstream surface storage projects like the Diamond Valley or Los Vaqueros reservoirs, and NRDC has identified potential benefits of additional storage projects south of the Delta like further expansion of Los Vaqueros reservoir, expansion of San Luis Reservoir, and groundwater cleanup and storage projects in the Central Valley and in Southern California. For instance, in the San Fernando Valley water pollution has contaminated the groundwater basin, reducing the amount of water that Los Angeles can withdraw and complicating projects to recharge the basin with stormwater or recycled water. And if the contamination is not addressed, it will continue to spread, further reducing water supplies. Yet by investing in a major groundwater remediation project, LA can sustainably increase the amount of water that is withdrawn from the groundwater basin and enable greater recharge of the basin, helping LA to cut imported water use in half by 2025.

This November, California voters will decide whether to approve Proposition 1. Importantly, the water bond does not earmark funding for Temperance Flat or any other surface storage project, and both surface storage and groundwater storage and cleanup projects would be eligible for funding. In addition, the bond would only provide funding for public benefits like improved water quality or higher salmon returns, and would never fund more than 50% of the total cost of any storage project (so private beneficiaries would have to pay at least 50% of the total cost). If voters approve Proposition 1 this November, we believe it is likely to fund groundwater storage and cleanup projects and some smaller, regional surface storage projects, and we will work over the coming years to ensure that the bond does not provide substantial funding for environmentally harmful and economically infeasible projects like raising Shasta Dam or building Temperance Flat dam.

Even with the water bond, the era of big new dams in California is still over. More than anything, that's simple economics.

 A Water Bond to Protect the Environment and the Economy tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2014:/blogs/dobegi//127.17308 2014-08-28T19:21:37Z 2014-08-28T19:31:22Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

Virtually all of California – 99.8 percent – is in severe drought. The toxic blue-green algae that shut down Toledo's drinking water supply earlier this month is thriving in Stockton's waterways, thanks to warm, stagnant water and low river flows. Many farmers and cities across the state are struggling with low water supplies. And salmon and other native fish populations are crashing.

These serious problems require serious solutions. And those solutions shouldn't be held hostage over funding for the state's ill-conceived, $25 billion twin tunnels proposal, incongruously named the "Bay Delta Conservation Plan" or the BDCP.

Happily, the new $7.5 billion water bond heading to the November ballot does not advance the environmentally destructive BDCP. And it's a vast improvement over the $11.1 billion water bond that was scheduled to be on the ballot, which would have devoted more than $1.5 billion to funding the project.

The Natural Resources Defense Council strongly opposes the proposed BDCP, and we worked shoulder to shoulder with Delta legislators to successfully ensure that the newly revised water bond will not provide funding for the flawed plan.

So, here's what you need to know about the bond and the BDCP:

First, the bond explicitly prohibits spending any funds for the construction, design, operation, mitigation or maintenance of the tunnels and the BDCP.

Second, with respect to habitat restoration in the Delta, the bond prohibits using funds to acquire property using eminent domain, requires consultation with local governments in the Delta, funds the Delta Conservancy, prioritizes habitat investments on public lands, and limits funding for these purposes. In other words, habitat restoration in the Delta must happen at the direction of those who live here, and with their support. None of these funds can be used as mitigation for the BDCP, and other funding in the bond must be used outside of the Delta.

Third, some of the most controversial provisions in the bond address the use of funds for stream flows. But after grueling negotiations, the revised bond's provisions preclude such flows from being credited to the BDCP or from being used to meet the obligations of the BDCP (or other environmental requirements). Instead, it requires that any flows that are acquired be above and beyond environmental requirements – even if those requirements are increased in the future – ensuring that the public is not paying for what is already someone else's obligation.

As California Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) said on the Senate floor, any such flows must "float on top" of environmental requirements and cannot be used for the BDCP. Similarly, the Kern County Water Agency's recent press release states that, "the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is not funded by the water bond."

This new bond is not only neutral on the BDCP, but it has funds for programs that, if approved by the voters, will help reduce statewide dependence on the Delta for water:

$2.4 billion in funding for real, 21st-century water solutions like water recycling, stormwater capture, water use efficiency, groundwater cleanup and other regional water supplies to reduce reliance on the Delta.

More than $500 million to help ensure safe, clean drinking water for disadvantaged communities.

$1.5 billion in watershed restoration across the state, including funding to help restore the upper San Joaquin River, for state wildlife refuges, and for other projects to help restore our rivers and wildlife, including our beleaguered salmon populations and the fishing communities that depend on them.

$2.7 billion for both surface storage and groundwater cleanup and storage projects, which will require environmentally harmful and economically wasteful projects like Temperance Flat dam to compete for funding with cheaper, more sustainable groundwater storage projects or offstream storage, such as an expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir.

Ultimately, the investments from this bond are the right response to drought. If approved by the voters, this bond will help protect California's environment and economy, instead of creating a false choice between the two.

 The Clock is Ticking to Craft a Good, BDCP-Neutral Water Bond for California tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2014:/blogs/dobegi//127.17168 2014-07-24T23:11:51Z 2014-07-25T16:03:47Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

This November, California voters will almost certainly vote on whether to authorize billions of dollars of taxpayer spending for a water bond. But crucially, the next few weeks will determine what water bond will be on the ballot in November – how much borrowing it authorizes, what it spends that money on – and whether it is a good investment in California's water future.

Since 2010, state legislators have been trying to replace the "bloated," "pork-filled," $11.1 billion water bond that the Legislature approved in the waning days of 2009. Originally scheduled to appear on the 2010 ballot, the Legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger postponed the vote in 2010 and again in 2012, worried that voters would reject the bond.

They had (have) good reason to be worried.

In recent years, editorials in major newspapers across the State have criticized and opposed the 2009 water bond and recommended the Legislature pass a smaller bond and eliminate billions of dollars in earmarks and pork. For instance, in 2012 he Sacramento Bee wrote, "If we had our druthers, we'd let voters decide this November on the once-delayed $11.1 billion water bond, passed by lawmakers in 2009. The sooner voters dispatch this albatross, putting it out of its misery, the sooner California can get serious about smarter and more equitable alternatives for financing needed water infrastructure." Similarly, in 2012, the LA Times Editorial Board called it "fat with earmarks," and earlier this year they called for a "a bond on this year's ballot that's stripped of obvious pork and nice but superfluous extras, like museums and visitor centers." In 2013, the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board described the 2009 bond as, "the pork-laden $11 billion measure now on the November 2014 ballot."

Environmental groups like the Sierra Club, farmers and local governments in the five-county Bay-Delta region, and civic groups like the League of Women Voters opposed the 2009 water bond, either because it would provide more than a billion dollars for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (the $25 billion plan to build twin tunnels under the Delta that will harm California's salmon and other native fisheries, threatens the livelihoods of thousands of salmon fishermen and Delta farmers, and jeopardizes the health of the Bay-Delta estuary) or because it earmarked billions of dollars for economically infeasible and environmentally damaging new dams. (Or both)

Unions including the United Farm Workers and California Teachers Association have opposed the 2009 water bond because it would do little to help farmworkers and would compete for funding with schools, health care, transportation, and other taxpayer priorities.

Governor Brown, numerous state legislators, and local officials like Mayor Garcetti of Los Angeles have recently expressed concerns with the 2009 water bond, and many legislators have announced their opposition to it.

Numerous public and private polls showed that the public would likely reject the 2009 water bond, particularly when they learn of this opposition and the bond's connection to the twin tunnels project.

(Here is a link to a collection of some of those editorials, newspaper columns, press releases, letters, and stories about opposition to the 2009 water bond.)

But since 2013, legislative leaders in both the Senate and Assembly dedicated countless hours to craft a new water bond to replace the 2009 water bond. Legislators held hearings across the state, numerous draft bills were refined through the legislative process over the past 16 months, and both the Assembly and Senate began coalescing around several specific bills. Yet with only a few weeks left for legislators to take action, they have not been able to muster the supermajority necessary in both houses to replace the 2009 water bond. Not surprisingly, the two most controversial issues preventing agreement thus far are:

1) What will the bond do with respect to the Bay-Delta and the twin tunnels plan (the Bay Delta Conservation Plan)?

2) What will the bond do with respect to new storage, both groundwater aquifers that are sustaining California through the drought, and possible new reservoirs and dams?

I'll talk about this second issue of storage in more detail in a few days, but for now let's focus on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). Numerous polls (such as this one and this one) have shown that the public does not support the $25B twin tunnels plan, and polling shows that a bond is likely to lose if it is connected to BDCP. With environmental groups, the League of Women Voters, Delta farmers, fishermen, local governments, and many others opposed to BDCP, the conventional wisdom is that a bond connected to BDCP will fail. After all, water bonds in California typically pass thanks to strong support from environmental groups, no significant opposition, and strong support from progressives and coastal residents (who also, incidentally, pay the vast majority of taxes to pay for borrowing authorized by a bond).

As a result, one of the key principles that most legislators, the Governor, and stakeholders have agreed to is that the bond should be neutral on the BDCP. (What it means to be BDCP neutral, of course, is in the eye of the beholder)

Yet some of the largest water users in the state have demanded that a water bond fund the environmentally damaging Bay Delta Conservation Plan, lobbying legislators to oppose recent bond proposals, even when those recent proposals were virtually identical to the 2009 water bond's storage provisions. Why? Because these recent bond proposals were neutral on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, but the 2009 water bond, in the words of one advocate (Mario Santoyo), had "$2.25 billion in there, for what was called Delta sustainability, which in essence was going to provide the down payment for the BDCP process which ultimately builds the twin tunnels." (Check out the 57:00 minute mark of this June 27, 2014 KMJ radio broadcast) The text of the 2009 water bond states that it sets aside $1.5 billion for projects including "implementation of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan" (see here, on page 11 of the pdf). The State's draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan (page 8-84 to 8-85, see here) estimates that the 2009 water bond would provide a minimum of $1.5 billion for implementation of the twin tunnels plan.

The clock is ticking on the Legislature's time to replace the 2009 bond. Whether voters will get to vote on a water bond that is truly BDCP-neutral, or whether the bond becomes a referendum on the twin tunnels plan, will be decided in the next few weeks.

With billons of dollars at stake in potential funding for projects to provide safe drinking water for disadvantaged communities, water recycling, stormwater capture, agricultural and urban water conservation, watershed restoration, and groundwater cleanup, we certainly hope that Legislators can craft a BDCP-neutral water bond, and one that we can support.

 California's Drought: Where has the Water Gone this year? tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2014:/blogs/dobegi//127.16801 2014-05-11T19:56:55Z 2014-05-12T14:47:46Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

 Although a few storms in March and April improved hydrology and water supply for some water districts, 2014 is still going to be a very tough year for most farmers, some cities, and our fish and wildlife. While this year is no longer on track to be the worst drought on record, it is still likely to be one of the worst droughts in recent history. However, those storms did allow the Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Water Resources to increase water supply allocations by in recent weeks, particularly for senior contractors on the Sacramento River and Feather River. However, under California's water rights system, some water contractors will get no water from the state and federal water projects, while other contractors will get 75% or 100% of maximum contract amounts.

Three years of drought have resulted in low water allocations for farms, cities, and the environment. Under existing environmental regulations, in dry years far less water is required to remain in our rivers and the Bay-Delta, as this graphic of average Delta outflows submitted by Sacramento Valley water users to the SWRCB in 2010 shows.

(In addition, here is a link to additional examples of how environmental protections are weaker in dry years). There have been no reductions in water pumping from the Delta this year due to Endangered Species Act protections for delta smelt, and minimal reductions in pumping due to protections for endangered salmon and steelhead. State water quality standards in the Bay Delta have been controlling operations for much of the spring – standards that protect water quality to benefit fish and wildlife, Delta farmers, water exports by the CVP and SWP, and other municipal and industrial users in the Delta like the Contra Costa Water District. Those standards were last substantively updated in the 1990s, and the State Water Resources Control Board is currently reviewing and updating that water quality control plan.

Yet even as the fishery agencies and State Water Resources Control Board have approved multiple waivers of water quality standards and environmental regulations in the Bay-Delta, there's continued debate over how much water is actually going to environmental protections versus water diversions. Over the period of February 1 to April 15, 2014, nearly two-thirds of the approximately 4.9 million acre feet of unimpaired (full natural flow) in the watershed was captured in upstream storage or exported by the CVP and SWP. That means that only one third was allowed to flow through the Delta to Suisun Marsh and San Francisco Bay during this period – and nearly one third of that delta outflow was needed just to prevent salinity intrusion in order to protect water quality for the export pumps and other water users.

During this period, upstream reservoirs significantly increased in storage as a result of capturing a sizeable proportion of the runoff, particularly in Shasta Dam (over 700TAF), Oroville (over 550TAF), Folsom (nearly 350TAF), and New Bullards Bar on the Yuba River (nearly 250TAF). In addition, approximately 538,000 acre feet of water was exported by the CVP and SWP in the Delta.

Of course, in many cases it's not so simple to delineate what water is used for water supply versus environmental protection. As noted above, more than one third of the Delta outflow during this period was needed simply to maintain minimal water quality for the export pumps and other agricultural and urban water users in the Delta, thus providing benefits to both the environment and water users (and higher outflow during the storms significantly improved water quality for exporters and Delta water users as well as fisheries). The more than 2.5 million acre feet of water that was stored in upstream reservoirs over these months will not only be used for water supply, but at many reservoirs will also be used to provide some limited cold water for spawning salmon (historically, salmon would migrate to cold water in the upstream river reaches, but the dams block access to this habitat and must provide cold water to mitigate impacts on salmon). And flows down the San Joaquin River into the Delta not only protect migrating salmon and steelhead, but also allow for increased water exports by the CVP and SWP (inexplicably, the SWRCB recently approved reducing San Joaquin River inflow to the Delta below the minimum required in critically dry years, even though that decision not only hurts migrating salmon and steelhead, but also reduces CVP and SWP exports by nearly 42,000 acre feet. NRDC and some water users are requesting the SWRCB to review and reverse that decision.).

Obviously, California needs more of these win-win solutions that benefit both water supply and the environment (whether that is changing the timing of diversions to better align with fishery needs, or inundating floodplains at lower flows through modifications of weirs and flood control systems). But we also need to provide sufficient Delta outflow, which is considered by most scientists to be one of the most important factors affecting the health of the Bay-Delta estuary and its native fisheries. Over the past decades, as this table from the Delta Stewardship Council shows, delta outflow has declined substantially as we have used, diverted and exported more and more water out of the watershed, particularly in drier years, leading to the collapse of native fisheries and the successful introduction of invasive species in the Delta.

Source: Delta Stewardship Council 2012

This spring, approximately 33% of the unimpaired flow made it through the Delta to Suisun Marsh and San Francisco Bay. Significantly reducing Delta outflow and weakening other environmental protections for the Bay-Delta may result in higher water deliveries for some contractors in the near term, but in the long run it's likely to harm native fisheries, and ultimately may reduce water supply in the future. The choices we make during droughts have consequences that can last decades.

Drought years are bad for farmers, cities, and the environment, and as the Legislature has recognized, reducing our reliance on the Bay-Delta is an important way to minimize the impacts of the drought on all stakeholders. Investing in water recycling, water use efficiency, groundwater cleanup, and other local water supplies is critically important to help prepare for the next drought – not only for water supply, but also to help protect our native fisheries and the thousands of jobs and communities that depend on their health.

 Waiving Environmental Protections in the Bay Delta: Bad News for Fishermen, Water Supply, and BDCP tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2014:/blogs/dobegi//127.16626 2014-04-03T18:09:50Z 2014-04-03T18:18:37Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

Earlier this week, the National Marine Fisheries Service waived environmental protections for endangered steelhead in the Bay-Delta, in order to allow increased pumping by the CVP and SWP over the next few weeks. This was the second time in as many months that this federal agency waived pumping restrictions protecting endangered salmon and steelhead (NOTE: there have been no pumping restrictions protecting delta smelt this year). In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board has also granted multiple waivers of water quality protections in the Delta, protections which have generally been in place since the 1990s. The environmental protections for salmon and other fisheries in the Bay-Delta are already far weaker in dry years than in wet years, but these decisions to relax environmental protections in the Delta came as a result of significant political pressure from San Joaquin Valley agribusiness interests. While these waivers of environmental protections may be justified by political science, they clearly are not justified by biological science.

California's salmon and steelhead – and the thousands of fishing jobs that depend on them – are at significant risk from these actions to relax environmental protections during the drought. The National Marine Fisheries Service has warned that we could lose the entire year class of winter run Chinook salmon this year as a result of drought and water mismanagement, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has warned that we could lose the entire year class of wild fall run chinook (the backbone of the state's salmon fishery) this year. The fact that fewer salmon and steelhead have been salvaged at the pumps so far this year isn't a sign that we can safely increase pumping; rather, state and federal agencies, the courts, and independent scientists agree that the number of salmon and other fish salvaged at the pumps is a small fraction of the fish harmed and killed by water project operations, and that the take limits are not the default level at which the projects should be operated. Once fish show up at the pumps, the damage has already been done.

NMFS concluded in the 2009 biological opinion that these pumping restrictions were necessary to avoid driving these salmon and steelhead runs to extinction, and a few years ago agency biologists testified under oath in court that waiving these same pumping restrictions would greatly increase the harm to salmon and steelhead and would deepen the jeopardy to these species. The National Academy of Sciences concluded that the environmental protections in the biological opinion generally were "scientifically justified." After trial, the district court also upheld the pumping restrictions that were supposed to be in place in April and May of this year (upholding the 1:1 ratio in dry years, but remanding the more restrictive 4:1 ratio in wet years). Senator Feinstein's drought legislation (S. 2198) also explicitly requires implementation of the 1:1 pumping ratio that was waived by the agencies. Yet despite all this, the rules were waived.

How we manage water during a drought has consequences that last for decades. During the last major drought in California (1987-1992), numerous species were first listed under the Endangered Species Act, including winter run chinook salmon: in 1991 only 211 winter run returned to the Sacramento River, down from more than 50,000 fish only a few decades earlier. Scientists have also concluded in peer reviewed research that water mismanagement during that and earlier droughts facilitated invasive species in the Delta, problems that persist to this day. Our native fish and wildlife are adapted to drought conditions, but they are not adapted to the additional harm caused during droughts by unsustainable water diversions, the installation of migratory barriers, and numerous other impacts, large and small. The Delta and its wildlife are suffering death by a thousand cuts during this drought, and are likely to pay a price for years to come. And that will affect not just the environment, but all of us.

Increased pumping during this drought and reduced flows will likely result in further declines of listed salmon and other fisheries, which in turn are likely to result in more restrictions on salmon fishing -- and more stringent restrictions on water export pumping by the CVP and SWP in the future. These restrictions generally depend in part on how winter run and other endangered fisheries are doing – when there are more endangered fish, more can be killed at the pumps or in the ocean fishery. While some agribusinesses in the San Joaquin Valley may get a little more water this year from waiving these environmental rules, in the long run, water supplies will likely be reduced, and fishermen will also suffer.

And by waiving environmental standards in the Delta, the agencies have also dramatically undermined the likelihood that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan will ever succeed. BDCP is premised on the idea that stakeholders can trust that the new facilities will be operated according to environmental and operating rules to protect fish and wildlife. The State also says that that water exports under BDCP will be lower in the dry years, as a result of climate change and operating rules to protect fish and wildlife. Yet after waiving state and federal environmental rules multiple times this year, why should anyone believe these claims? For instance, would the bypass flows necessary to protect salmon as they migrate past the new intakes have been waived, in order to increase water supply to contractors? Would outflow requirements have been waived to increase exports? After all, the SWRCB waived outflow requirements this spring, except for the minimum outflow to control salinity for the export pumps; if there was a new pumping facility on the Sacramento River, would SWRCB have allowed outflow to go to zero – harming the delta environment and leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of farms in the delta, the Contra Costa Water District, and other municipal and industrial water users without water supply?

It's also true that a new pumping facility on the Sacramento River might have resulted in a minimal amount of additional pumping capacity during the few storms we've had (of course the State also says that BDCP would produce less water than today in dry years like this one). In any event, the contractors would owe an additional $1.1 billion this year for financing payments, money that they could otherwise have spent on water conservation, recycling, water transfers, local water storage projects, and the like. And with a big new facility on the Sacramento River, BDCP would give the contractors and the agencies the ability to do even more damage to the environment and downstream water users. Numerous scientific reviews have concluded that BDCP has failed to use sound science, as the latest independent scientific peer review recently concluded; how much worse will it be when the contractors have more control over BDCP and the water projects? If the state and feds can't stand up to the political pressure now, how will they do with the additional pressures of climate change, $1.1B per year in additional debt, and the contractors having more control over BDCP?

Ultimately, it is drought, not environmental protections, that are the cause of the vast majority of water supply impacts this year, as the Director of the Department of Water Resources has acknowledged: "The great majority of water shortage this year is purely a basis of drought. It's not regulation." And the UCLA Anderson Forecast predicts that the drought will have very minimal impacts on the state's economy this year, in part because many parts of the state have adapted to drought and dry conditions through improved conservation. Yet by waiving environmental rules in the Delta for short term gain of special interests who haven't prepared for drought, the State has reignited the water wars, drastically undermined long term solutions, and likely caused long term harm to the environment, fishing jobs, and water supply.

 Doing the Math on California Water Solutions: Dams Can't Compete with 21st Century Options tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2014:/blogs/dobegi//127.16596 2014-03-31T02:13:33Z 2014-03-31T16:14:48Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

The Department of Water Resources upcoming announcement of dismal April 1 snow survey results, an important measure of available water supply for the coming year, will confirm that, despite a few welcome storms, California remains in the grip of drought. How we respond to the drought today will undoubtedly define our water use and availability for years to come.

Drought is a fact of life in California and across the West, and we cannot know if the drought will end next year, or whether we're facing many more dry years. With climate change creating the conditions for longer and more frequent droughts, we cannot afford to be wasting water and money on 19th and 20th century water habits – like building more dams. Instead, California should take charge of our water future by investing in 21st century sustainable water solutions right now.

Why? Because 21st century solutions are far more cost-effective than massive new dams.

Thankfully, some government leaders and forward-looking water managers are showing us the way to a water-wise future. By embracing sustainable water management solutions like improving agricultural and urban water use efficiency, building water recycling plants, capturing stormwater in our urban environment, and cleaning up and using local groundwater storage, we can put California on a long-term path ahead for real and lasting gains -- resilient and healthy water supplies for decades to come.

21st Century Solutions: A Portfolio of Conservation, Recycling, and other Water Supplies

Investing in water smart approaches are worth it and experts across the spectrum agree that investing in these kinds of water smart approaches are the most cost-effective new sources of water supply. The Director of the California Department of Water Resources recently acknowledged that over the past decade, voters approved spending approximately $1.4B in bond funding (leveraging $3.7B in local ratepayer funding) for what's known as integrated water management: conservation, water recycling, and local storage. The result: 2 million acre feet of new water, which is approximately three times as much water used each year in the City of Los Angeles. The Public Policy Institute of California, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, and virtually every independent expert agrees that these solutions are generally the cheapest new sources of water for California and they have the greatest potential to create more new water for California.

Source: Delta Stewardship Council 2012

Investments in local water supply projects can generate significant environmental benefits such as reduced climate pollution and reduced energy use, improved water quality in our rivers and at the beach, and reduced reliance on water exports from the Delta.

These 21st century solutions also create substantial good jobs in our communities. In 2011, the Economic Roundtable estimated that every $1M invested in water conservation and other local supply projects in Los Angeles creates 12-16 job years and stimulates $1.9M to $2.09M in total sales, equal or greater than the economic impact from a similar investment in the motion picture or construction industries.

And investments in local water supply solutions are paying off in this drought. Conservation, recycling, and other sustainable approaches are a big part of the reason why Southern California is doing better than other parts of the State in dealing with the drought.

20th Century Solutions: Building Big New Dams

Nevertheless, some voices have been rallying for antiquated solutions to drought, such as eliminating environmental protections for the State's rivers and salmon fishery, and demanding massive taxpayer subsidies to build expensive, big new dams. The field hearing convened by House Republicans in Fresno on March 19th was no exception – simply an echo chamber of false solutions, myths, and water management ideas of the past.

With more than 1,400 reservoirs in California, and the majority of the state's major reservoirs less than half full (not to mention millions of acre feet of groundwater storage available in the state), it's no surprise that the Public Policy Institute of California has described major new surface storage reservoirs as a costly source of new water, and written that the idea that new surface storage will fix California's water problems is a persistent myth. For instance, the Bureau of Reclamation's draft feasibility study estimates that at a cost of $2.5 billion, the Temperance Flat dam would yield an average of only 70,000 acre feet per year. The proposed expansion of Shasta Dam doesn't fare much better economically, and at a combined cost of over $3.5 billion, the most aggressive alternatives for these two projects show that they would only yield an average of 209,000 acre feet of new water. Those are paltry amounts compared to what the more than 2 million acre feet of water created by water conservation, recycling, and other 21st century solutions (Integrated Regional Water Management projects, or IRWM, in the chart below) yielded in the past decade:

The Public Policy Institute of California's analysis also shows that new surface storage is generally one of the most costly sources of new water for California, typically more expensive than water use efficiency, groundwater storage, and recycled water:

Source: PPIC, California Water Myths, 2009

These big new dams can also cause huge environmental, social, and economic impacts: for instance, the potential expansion of Shasta Dam would inundate sacred sites of the Native American Winnemem Wintu tribe, flood part of the beautiful McCloud River (protected under the state's Wild & Scenic Rivers laws), and impact recreation and infrastructure around the lake. There are virtually no environmental benefits to these big new dam projects, and no justification for the massive taxpayer subsidies (up to 72% for some projects, like Temperance Flat dam) that the Bureau of Reclamation claims will make the projects economically feasible.

Regional Water Storage Projects as part of a 21st Century Portfolio

That's not to say that there is no role for new storage in California, including both groundwater banking and smaller surface storage projects. Southern California's investments in storage over the past decades are part of why they are in better shape to deal with the drought. And contrary to myths that California has not built any new storage in recent decades, the State has added nearly six million acre feet of new surface and groundwater storage over the past several decades.

NRDC and some other environmental groups see potential benefits for smaller storage projects like expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir or San Luis Reservoir, and especially for groundwater remediation and groundwater storage projects in the San Fernando Valley and elsewhere in Southern California. These offstream reservoirs and groundwater banks South of the Delta don't block salmon swimming in California's rivers, but they do provide a place to store water from the Delta during the really wet years (for instance, in 2011, the state and federal water projects (CVP/SWP) had to stop pumping from the Delta because there was simply no place to put any water, even though environmental rules allowed significantly more pumping). These regional surface storage projects can be used in conjunction with groundwater banks to save that water underground for the inevitable dry years.

Conclusion

Instead of wasting money on taxpayer subsidies for big new dams that also threaten California's salmon fisheries and the health of our rivers and Bay-Delta, we should be investing in local supply solutions. Recent polling done for NRDC shows that California voters overwhelming support investments in local water supply solutions, and are willing to pay a little more on their water bill for investments in water recycling plants, improved efficiency, and similar investments – 21st Century solutions to drought, not 19th or 20th Century solutions.

Unfortunately, it's not yet clear whether the state's politicians are listening to the voters and sound economic and environmental considerations, or whether they're mostly listening to those special interests that "stand to gain from state subsidies for new facilities." (PPIC, California Water Myths, 2009)

 State of California and Stakeholders Oppose H.R. 3964 tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2014:/blogs/dobegi//127.16264 2014-02-04T00:48:15Z 2014-04-15T18:01:43Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on H.R. 3964 (Valadao). Like H.R. 1837 of 2011-2012, this bill would permanently preempt state law and weaken or eliminate protections for California's rivers, salmon fishery, and Bay-Delta estuary. The bill also would repeal the court-approved settlement to restore the San Joaquin River and would permanently withdraw part of the Merced River from protections under the Wild & Scenic River Act.

Drought, not environmental laws, are restricting water supplies across the State this year. Waiving environmental protections won't make it rain, but in future years it will hurt thousands of fishing and Delta farming jobs that depend on these state and federal protections. Real solutions to California's drought include investments in efficiency, recycling, stormwater capture, local storage projects, and groundwater management, which will help create a drought-resistant supply. Farmers, fishermen, rural communities, and the environment are all struggling through the drought, and most of us are working together. Unfortunately, Congressman Valadao and his allies in the House are seeking to overturn more than a century of precedent to benefit certain agribusinesses over the rest of the State's citizens.

For these reasons, H.R. 3964 is opposed by California's Governor, State agencies, Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, numerous Congressional Representatives, local government agencies, farmers, fishermen, conservation groups, business groups, tribes, and many others. Below are links to letters, editorials, and other materials opposing H.R. 3964.

White House Opposition

2-5-14 Statement of Administration Policy recommending a veto of H.R. 3964

State of California Opposition

2-3-14 Letter from Governor Brown

1-30-14 Letter from California Natural Resources Agency

2-4-14 Letter from California Attorney General Kamala Harris

Congressional Opposition

1-29-14 Statement of Senator Feinstein

1-29-14 Statement of Senator Boxer

1-22-14 Joint Statement of Representatives Bera, Thompson, Miller, McNerney, Matsui, and Garamendi regarding House Water Legislation

Local Government Opposition

2-3-14 Letter from Brannan-Andrus Levee Maintenance District and Reclamation Districts 3, 150, 307, 317, 407, 501, 551, 554, 556, 563, 744, 755, 813, 999, 1002, 2111, 2067

2-3-14 Letter from Grasslands Water District

2-3-14 Letter from Contra Costa Water District

Fishing, Tribal, Social Justice, Conservation and Businesses Opposition

2-2-14 Letter from conservation groups, Tribes, fishing and hunting groups, local businesses, and social welfare organizations

2-4-14 Letter from conservation and fishing organizations

2-4-14 Letter from the American Sportfishing Association

2-4-14 Letter from Golden Gate Salmon Association, Coastside Fishing Club, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, and Golden Gate Fishermen's Association

2-4-14 Letter from local and regional conservation groups, recreation companies, fishing groups, and other stakeholders

2-4-14 Letter from Environmental Entrepreneurs

Editorials in Opposition to H.R. 3964 and Related Legislation

2-4-14 Sacramento Bee Editorial Opposing HR 3964

2-3-14 Los Angeles Times Editorial Opposing HR 3964

1-27-14 San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Opposing House Legislation to Waive ESA protections in the Delta

1-27-14 Santa Rosa Press Democrat Editorial Opposing House Legislation to Waive ESA protections in the Delta

1-27-14 Redding Record Searchlight Editorial Opposing House Legislation to Waive ESA protections for Salmon

1-25-14 Bakersfield Californian Editorial Opposing House Legislation to Waive ESA protections in the Delta and Overturn the San Joaquin River Settlement

1-23-14 Sacramento Bee Editorial Opposing House Legislation to Waive ESA protections in the Delta and Overturn the San Joaquin River Settlement

1-23-14 Sonoma News Tribune Editorial Opposing House Legislation to Waive ESA protections in the Delta

Fact Sheets and Other Materials

2-4-14 List of Opponents to H.R. 3964

2-4-14 Fact Sheet Summarizing Provisions of H.R. 3964

 We're All in this Drought Together (Unless Congressman Nunes Sacrifices the Environment First) tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2014:/blogs/dobegi//127.16189 2014-01-22T17:38:47Z 2014-01-22T20:53:31Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

Drought is a natural occurrence and a fact of life in California. And climate change is likely to make the challenges of drought even more difficult. While we can't make it rain, we can prepare for drought by investing in a diverse portfolio of water supplies, including conservation, water recycling, groundwater management, and stormwater capture.

However, while the State and most stakeholders are working together to get through the drought, Congressman Devin Nunes and many of his far right colleagues in the Central Valley are apparently gearing up to reintroduce legislation to overturn the Endangered Species Act, preempt state environmental and water rights law, rescind the San Joaquin River Restoration Program, and generally blame environmental laws for the lack of rain and snow. Yet in their zeal to stop the restoration of the San Joaquin River and to eliminate protections for salmon and other native fish under the Endangered Species Act, they've lost sight of the facts.

Fact: the Endangered Species Act isn't controlling pumping operations in the Delta, and isn't likely to significantly reduce water supplies this year. Drought, not environmental laws, is the overwhelming cause of low water allocations across the State. Indeed, the Fresno Bee reported today that:

Currently, delta pumps that supply water to west-side Valley farmers are working at minimal levels and have been for two months.

The reason, however, is low storage in reservoirs and low river flows, and not because of any environmental regulations to protect threatened delta smelt and endangered salmon populations.

KQED similarly reported over the weekend that drought, not protections for endangered species, are the cause of limited water supplies:

Some water districts blame those environmental regulations for limiting water supplies, but state regulators say in extremely dry years like this one, the rules have little effect. There simply isn't enough water to pump in the first place.

"It just hasn't rained," said Mark Cowin of the Department of Water Resources. "The environmental regulations still control pumping to some degree, but this is really about Mother Nature."

Fact: Environmental protections in the Delta and our state's rivers not only protect salmon and other native fish, but they also protect thousands of fishing jobs, protect water quality for farmers in the Delta, and protect drinking water quality. According to independent economists, the closure of the salmon fishery in 2009 likely caused as many job losses as pumping restrictions under the Endangered Species Act. By working together to conserve water and by making investments in conservation, recycling, and other tools to improve regional self-reliance, we can sustain our economy and environment in the face of this drought. Weakening our environmental protections in dry years is likely to just worsen conditions for fishermen, Delta farmers – and all of us – down the road.

Fact: Existing environmental protections are already far weaker in dry years, and they allow far more water diversions than scientists recommend to sustain California's rivers and the Bay-Delta. California's rivers and fisheries are already getting hit hard by the drought. In dry years, existing regulations require lower flows (or in some cases, allowing rivers to completely dry up) and allow greater levels of water diversions (here are some examples of how these environmental regulations are far weaker in drier years). This is true of the State Water Resources Control Board's minimum water quality standards in the Bay-Delta, it's true of protections under the Endangered Species Act, and it's true of San Joaquin River Restoration Program.

With current minimal protections for salmon and other native fisheries, we're already seeing significant impacts: for instance, reduced flows on the American River are dewatering an estimated 10-15% of salmon redds, killing significant numbers of juvenile salmon, and we're likely to see many more similar tough choices this year. Indeed, most independent scientific reviews, including that of the National Research Council, have suggested that we need to strengthen environmental protections in the dry years so that we divert less in dry years (one promising approach is to divert less water in dry years and divert more in wet years, known colloquially as the "big gulp / little sip" approach. And we had record levels of water exports from the Delta during the last wet year, in 2011.).

Ultimately, none of these facts matter to Congressman Nunes and his colleagues, because they are not trying to solve problems for the benefit of the entire state. If they were, they'd recognize what policymakers across the spectrum have recognized: that the best to prepare for drought is by investing in a diverse portfolio of water supply solutions, including conservation, water recycling, groundwater management, and stormwater capture. There's always more that we can do to prepare, since we cannot know whether this drought will end later this year, or whether it will last for several more years. Even the best prepared cities and water districts know that they have to continue to improve water use efficiency and invest in conservation and these other tools, so that they are prepared for the next drought – or next year.

As the Governor has repeatedly noted, none of us can make it rain. We need to work together to protect California's economy and environment, rather than trying to pit one against the other. Too bad that Congressman Nunes and his far right colleagues aren't listening.

 When in Drought, Corporate Agribusiness Attacks Bay-Delta Environmental Protections tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2013:/blogs/dobegi//127.16039 2013-12-19T18:05:41Z 2013-12-19T18:57:16Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

As California begins what appears to be a third consecutive dry year, corporate agribusinesses and politicians in the San Joaquin Valley have begun calling for the State and federal government to waive environmental rules governing the Bay-Delta estuary – the same environmental rules that not only protect salmon and other wildlife in the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas, but also protect thousands of fishing jobs and water quality for Delta farmers.

Ironically, at the same time that these special interests are seeking to waive State and federal environmental rules, the State of California and these same agribusinesses are asking Delta farmers, fishermen, conservation groups, and the public to trust that the massive new intakes proposed as part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan will be operated according to strict environmental rules, which would limit diversions in dry years like this one. Which begs the obvious question: what's to prevent these same interests from waiving the rules in the future, after the tunnels are built?? These attempts to blame – and waive – environmental laws threatens the fragile potential for the State to build any new conveyance infrastructure in the Delta.

And it is drought, not environmental rules, that are the overwhelming cause of water supply reductions. The water contractors' own documents show that protections for salmon and other endangered species in the Delta account for only a small percentage of the water supply reductions this year, as this graphic from the Coachella Valley Water District's December 10, 2013 Board of Directors meeting shows:

2011-2012 was the last time that Rep. Nunes and other radical House members sought to overturn federal environmental laws and preempt State law regarding management and protection of the Bay-Delta estuary (H.R. 1837). We can refight these tired old fights if need be, or we can implement and strengthen existing environmental protections and work on longer term solutions, such as improving water use efficiency and water recycling and expanding South of Delta storage (groundwater and surface storage) to allow us to save more water in wet years for use during the inevitable dry years. But it sheer hypocrisy for Westlands and other contractors to claim that they want to work with the agencies and conservation groups on collaborative science for the Delta and support extensions of the existing biological opinions, and at the same time run to Congress seeking to overturn those very same biological opinions and preempt State law.

As I've written before, dry years also highlight the seeming inequities of California's "first in time, first in right" water rights system precisely because senior water rights holders get 100% (including many agricultural districts in the San Joaquin Valley, including the so called Exchange Contractors), while contractors like Westlands or Kern County Water Agency get far less. But just as water rights are the foundation of California law, so too is the Public Trust doctrine, Reasonable Use doctrine, and environmental laws that go back more than a century. And in their efforts to waive environmental laws, the contractors and their allies in Congress pretend to uphold water rights but ignore that the water rights for the Central Valley Project and State Water Project explicitly are conditioned (see page 148 of this order) on full compliance with the state and federal endangered species acts.

The good news is that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has previously announced that the region is unlikely to face water supply shortages next year, despite also receiving a very low water allocation. This is because Southern California has made significant investments in water use efficiency, water recycling, and other local supplies, and because they have invested in storage and saved water from wet years like 2011 for use in dry years like 2014. This demonstrates the wisdom of the State's decision to codify reduced reliance on water exports from the Delta as state policy. While water transfers should help reduce impacts in the San Joaquin Valley this year, the region also needs to do more to reduce reliance on the Delta and to save water from wet years for dry years like this one.

Even with existing environmental protections in place, in dry years the environment already gets short shrift, with as much as 70% of flows diverted from the watershed, reducing flows into the Delta and San Francisco Bay. My colleague Dr. Tina Swanson recently analyzed how drastically we have reduced flows through the Delta and into San Francisco Bay in recent years, creating permanent drought-like conditions as a result of unsustainable levels of diversions. Reducing environmental protections in a dry year like 2014 is likely to further harm salmon and other native fisheries, which likely would result to future restrictions on water diversions as native fisheries decline. Virtually every independent scientific review has recommended that reducing diversions in dry years is critical to sustain and restore the health of the estuary, and live up to the decades old promise to double wild salmon populations. This has become known colloquially as the "big gulp, little sip."

The State Water Project and Central Valley Project took a "big gulp" in 2011, the last wet year, exporting record levels of water from the Delta; will California carry through with the "little sip" in dry years like 2014, or will it waive environmental rules?

 Is California Prepared for Another Dry Year? It Depends... tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2013:/blogs/dobegi//127.15882 2013-11-22T00:34:43Z 2013-11-22T20:41:17Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

Yesterday, the California Department of Water Resources announced its initial, conservative estimate of how much water it will deliver from the Delta. Since 2013 has, so far, been one of the driest years on record, there was some irony that the State announced an initial 5% allocation during the first storm of the season. The last time the state announced an initial 5% allocation (for 2010) the final allocation was 50%. So while there's a 90% chance that the allocation will go up, it depends almost entirely on weather in the next few months. For example, agricultural contractors of the federal Central Valley Project are predicting that the final allocation will range from 65% if it's wet, 25-40% with average hydrology, and 0-5% if it's dry. Dry conditions, not fishery protections, are the primary cause of lower allocations, and hydrology over the next few months will largely determine CVP and SWP water supply allocations.

Is California prepared for another dry year? It probably depends on where you live. Thanks to investments in water conservation, storage, and regional water supplies that have reduced reliance on water imports, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has announced that it does not plan to reduce water supplies to member agencies throughout Southern California or impose mandatory conservation measures. MWD will have more than 2 million acre feet of water in storage at the end of 2013 (in addition to emergency reserves), should 2014 prove to be a dry year.

By reducing reliance on the Delta, improving water use efficiency, and investing in regional water supplies (and storage), Southern California shouldn't face water shortages if 2014 proves to be a third dry year. Other areas of the state, which haven't reduced reliance on the Delta, haven't built their own storage to save water for future dry years, and haven't invested as much in conservation and local supplies, may not be as well off. This illustrates the wisdom of the 2009 Delta Reform Act's establishment of state policy to reduce reliance on the Delta and invest in conservation, recycling, stormwater capture, and other local supplies to increase regional self-sufficiency.

Dry years also highlight the seeming inequities of California's "first in time, first in right" water rights system. In 2012, even as South of Delta agricultural contractors like the Westlands Water District got a 20% allocation from the CVP, the Bureau delivered 100% allocations to other agricultural users in the Central Valley including the Exchange Contractors (875,000 acre feet), South San Joaquin Irrigation District and Oakdale Irrigation District (600,000 acre feet), and Sacramento River Settlement Contractors (up to 2.1 million acre feet). Likewise, the State Water Project in recent years has delivered a 100% allocation to the so-called Feather River Settlement Contractors (up to 1.2 million acre feet), while SWP contractors got a 35% allocation in 2013. Indeed, most of California's 8.1 million acres of irrigated farmland do not get water from the CVP or SWP. While water rights may not seem fair (particularly to those who have junior water rights or contracts!), they are a foundation of California water law.

And some of those senior water rights holders also transfer water to CVP/SWP water contractors and other water users. More than 1 million acre feet of water has been transferred each year in recent years, helping to meet water needs across the state. In addition to water transfers and CVP/SWP supplies, most contractors also get water from groundwater, storage, and other sources.

Finally, dry years also put enormous stress on California's rivers, the Bay-Delta, and our fisheries and wildlife (and the fishing and other jobs that depend on a healthy ecosystem). In dry years, we typically take an even higher percentage of water out of the Bay-Delta and our rivers, with salmon and other fish populations usually declining in dry years, sometimes precipitously. We can't make it rain. But by reducing reliance on the Delta and investing in water conservation and regional water supplies we can leave our rivers healthier, make our cities and farms more resilient, and better weather the dry years to come.

 State Admits BDCP Portfolio Alternative is Far Cheaper Than It Previously Claimed tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2013:/blogs/dobegi//127.15823 2013-11-14T19:05:19Z 2013-11-14T20:53:10Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

As the State prepares to release the public draft of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and draft EIS/EIR next month, the public deserves to get accurate information on the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of BDCP and alternatives. This is one of the essential purposes of NEPA and CEQA, to ensure that decision-makers and the public can make informed decisions on the costs and benefits of a project and compare it to other alternatives. The NEPA/CEQA process is aimed at improving projects by reducing their environmental and social impacts.

At the beginning of 2013, NRDC released an alternative to the State's dual tunnel proposal. Known as the Portfolio Alternative, our proposal combines a single, new water intake and single tunnel under the Delta, with investments in local water supply development, levee improvements, and South of Delta storage. Numerous water districts, newspaper editorials, and elected officials have requested that the Portfolio Alternative be given a fair shot by analyzing it seriously in the BDCP EIS/EIR. But last month the Secretary for Natural Resources wrote a letter to the San Diego County Water Authority rejecting the request to analyze the Portfolio Alternative, claiming that "the fundamental premise that cost savings from building a smaller facility could generate funding for substantial and adequate investments in other regional and local water supply to meet California's future water needs does not bear out." The Secretary based this claim on the State's assertion that a 3,000 cfs facility with a single tunnel only saved $3 billion compared to the state's proposed 9,000 cfs, dual tunnel facility.

However, after NRDC reviewed documents provided by the State to justify the cost estimates in the Secretary's letter, we discovered that the State had substituted the cost of a 3,000 cfs dual tunnel facility for the cost of a 3,000 cfs single tunnel project, providing misleading information about the cost of the Portfolio Alternative (overstating the cost of a single tunnel project by approximately $3 billion). Two days ago, the State admitted to the error in a blog post, and we appreciate them acknowledging the error and providing the following corrected cost estimates:

 3,000 cfs single tunnel: $8.6 billion
 9,000 cfs dual tunnel: $14.5 billion

The State made a similar error in the administrative draft BDCP documents, where they used the cost figures for a 3,000 cfs dual tunnel project to estimate the cost of a 3,000 cfs "tunnel" alternative in Chapter 9.B (Page 9.B-4). While consultants for the State have repeatedly said that the Portfolio Alternative was analyzed in Chapter 9, it's clear that they were looking at a more expensive, dual tunnel project, and equally important, none of the alternatives in Chapter 9 of the BDCP documents or in the EIS/EIR include the benefits of investments in local water supplies, storage, and levees, as called for in the Portfolio Alternative.

Staff has told us that in the forthcoming public draft plan and DEIS/DEIR they will make clear that they are analyzing a dual tunnel project, not a single tunnel project like that described in the Portfolio Alternative. However, this isn't the only example of the State providing biased analysis in BDCP; for instance, numerous state and federal agencies have publicly commented that the administrative draft of the draft plan and EIS/EIR provided misleading analysis that overstated the environmental benefits and understated the negative impacts of BDCP (see here, here, and here), conclusions that have been echoed by independent scientific reviews.

And unfortunately, the State still refuses to analyze the Portfolio Alternative in the BDCP DEIS/DEIR even though their basic rationale for rejecting it is now shown to be false. We will continue to press for further corrections to the letter to the San Diego County Water Authority regarding the Portfolio Alternative (some of our concerns were outlined here) and we will continue to press for a full evaluation of the Portfolio Alternative in the BDCP EIS/EIR, as numerous conservation groups, water districts, editorial boards, and state and federal elected officials have requested.

The public deserves honest information about the costs and benefits of BDCP and alternatives. That starts with honest information about the costs (including how much each water contractor will pay, so that the public can determine how much it will affect their water rates and property taxes), and honest information about the environmental effects. Ultimately, only with accurate information about the costs, benefits, and impacts of BDCP and alternatives can the public and decision-makers make an informed decision. We appreciate the State admitting to and correcting this error, and we're going to make sure they correct the rest of them too. Let's get the numbers right – this issue is too important not to.

 State Agency Comments Show Need to Improve BDCP tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2013:/blogs/dobegi//127.15079 2013-07-16T18:10:41Z 2013-07-16T18:24:13Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

Earlier this month, state and federal agencies were invited to submit comments on the administrative draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan documents. While comments from the federal agencies and some state agencies are not yet available (the state says they will be posted online later this week), comments from three independent state agencies (the State Water Resources Control Board (available here), Delta Independent Science Board (available here), and the Delta Stewardship Council (available here)) show the need for significant improvement to the BDCP draft plan, as well as to the analysis of the effects of the plan and alternatives in the EIS/EIR. Both the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) are state regulators who will have to review and approve the BDCP before it can be implemented, so DWR and BDCP proponents should pay attention to their comments, some of which have been raised for years. Below I've highlighted some of the key issues the comments raise regarding the proposed project and the NEPA/CEQA document.

Of particular importance, both the SWRCB and DSC commented on the need to improve flows into and through the Delta beyond what is proposed in the state's draft proposal:

The SWRCB comments demonstrated that the proposed "Decision Tree" does not significantly improve winter/spring Delta outflow, particularly in the drier years, which may not be sufficient to meet the Board's legal obligations and is far less protective than the SWRCB's alternative in the administrative draft EIS/EIR (SWRCB, pages 4, 7, 10, 13, 33-34, and Attachment 1).

Likewise, the Delta Stewardship Council called for more natural flows and improved flows and operations, asked how the SWRCB's 2010 Public Trust flow criteria were being incorporated into BDCP, and asked how the proposal and EIS/EIR were consistent with the statutory mandate to analyze "operational requirements and flows necessary for recovering the Delta ecosystem and restoring fisheries under a reasonable range of hydrologic conditions [that] will identify the remaining water available for export and other beneficial uses" (Water Code § 85320(b)(2)(A)). (DSC, pages 2-4, 10)

All three agencies also commented on the need to reduce reliance on the Delta and invest in local water supply development, consistent with the requirement of the Delta Reform Act of 2009. The Delta Independent Science Board pointed out that, "The alternatives summarized on pages 3-14 and 3-15 do not presently include reducing California's reliance on water from the Delta and its tributaries... The BDCP and its EIR/EIS could go further in considering demand-reduction actions and relating them to the Delta Stewardship Council's Delta Plan." (DISB, page 2) Similarly, the Delta Stewardship Council commented on several aspects of water supply reliability, pointing to the need to address levee improvements to maintain reliability, to reduce reliance on the Delta and invest in local water supplies to improve regional reliance, and to address potential new water storage projects and new local supply development that reduces reliance on the Delta in BDCP's analyses. (DSC, pages 5-6, 9-10) In particular, the Delta Stewardship Council wrote that,

"In some cases, actions to improve storage or reduce reliance on the Delta may also warrant consideration as measures to mitigate BDCP alternatives' impacts on water supplies, water quality, or other values, even if they are outside of the alternative projects considered in the EIS/EIR. Such consideration could build off of the Delta Plan's EIR/s's evaluation of these actions, allowing BDCP to draw more fully on the full portfolio of measures available to address the state's co-equal goals for the Delta."

(DSC, page 10) And the State Water Board wrote that,

"As discussed in the State Water Board's letter to Gerald Meral of April 19, 2011 and other correspondence, in order for the State Water Board to consider changes to the Bay‐Delta Plan and water rights, the BDCP must evaluate a sufficiently broad range of alternatives. Alternatives that reduce reliance on water from the Delta should be included in this range. Accordingly, it seems appropriate to include reduced reliance on water from the Delta as a conservation measure for the project and as mitigation for impacts associated with impacts related to inadequate water supplies to meet all needs for water within and outside of the Delta."

(SWRCB, page 3) The agencies also pointed out significant problems in terms of the State's proposed plan resulting in degraded water quality in the Delta and in failing to meet existing water quality standards to protect agriculture and other beneficial uses. (SWRCB, pages 18-22; DSC, pages 14-16)

In addition to concerns about the proposed project, the state agencies also identified concerns with the analyses used in the EIS/EIR, including:

The SWRCB and DSC both pointed out flaws in the baselines used for comparisons in the EIS/EIR, in terms of the confusion from the use of multiple baselines, as well as the fact that BDCP excluded several of the habitat restoration and flow requirements of the existing biological opinions from the baseline. (SWRCB, page 11; DSC, page 9)

All three agencies raised concerns regarding the analysis of biological outcomes and the effects analysis in the BDCP plan, including assumptions that all conservation measures will be 100% successful, concerns that tidal marsh restoration may not be effective in reducing the need for flow, concerns about the lack of quantitative analysis of whether the project will achieve biological objectives, and concerns that the draft EIS/EIR relies heavily on the effects analysis, which two prior independent scientific peer reviews had found "wanting." (DISB, page 1; DSC, pages 5, 9, 10-11, 16-17; SWRCB, pages 32-34)

All three agencies raised concerns about the inadequate range of alternatives, and specifically raised concern that while the proposed project was analyzed in the effects analysis, the EIS/EIR provided far less detailed analysis of the impacts of other alternatives. (DISB, page 2; DSC, pages 10-12; SWRCB, page 3).

Ultimately, these comments should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the BDCP process closely for the past several years. Indeed, in recognition of these concerns in 2009 the Legislature crafted specific new requirements in state law (in the 2009 Delta Reform Act) to help guide BDCP to a successful project. These recent state agency comments track prior comments raised by federal and state fishery agencies, independent scientific reviews, and conservation groups over the past several years, including the 2013 Progress Memos from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (available online here, here and here). And I expect that the comments from other state and federal agencies (which should become public later this week) will identify similar concerns.

Like NRDC, these agencies want to see BDCP succeed, and they recognize that a successful BDCP depends on the State and feds not only improving the quality of the EIS/EIR but also revising the proposed project to improve outcomes for fisheries, improve water quality, and hopefully to improve water supply reliability by including actions to reduce reliance on the Delta and invest in local supply development. The Portfolio Alternative attempted to address many of these concerns by reducing diversions and improving flows, improving levees, and investing in local water supply development to provide a more cost-effective and environmentally preferable project.

Ultimately, these significant problems with the EIS/EIR and the proposed project should be fixed before the state and federal agencies release a draft EIS/EIR, which clearly means there's a lot of work to get done before a draft NEPA/CEQA document is released. I hope and expect the state and feds will make these necessary changes to the project before releasing a public draft document, even if that means the proposal diverts less water from the Delta.

 Voices for America's Wildlife - Fishermen Know that Protecting Endangered Salmon Protects Fishing Jobs tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2013:/blogs/dobegi//127.14752 2013-05-16T18:48:33Z 2013-05-16T18:55:51Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

As we prepare to celebrate Endangered Species Day this Friday, the website Voices for America's Wildlife is highlighting stories from around the country about why farmers, fishermen, hunters, businessmen, faith leaders, Tribal leaders, and many others support protections for wildlife under the Endangered Species Act. Today's video below features Roger Thomas, who has been taking families fishing for salmon off the California coast since the late 1960s.

Roger's been working for decades to protect and sustain the salmon fishery, and he knows that protecting endangered species in the Bay-Delta estuary helps ensure that there is adequate water flowing to sustain fall run Chinook salmon, which form the backbone of the salmon fishery in California. Working with the Golden Gate Salmon Association, conservation groups, and many other fishing organizations, fishermen like Roger have stood up for Endangered Species Act protections in the Bay-Delta, because they know that protecting endangered salmon protects their livelihoods.

With the opening of the commercial salmon fishery earlier this month, now's a great time to enjoy fresh California King (Chinook) salmon. And as you enjoy salmon on the barbeque this weekend or this summer, take a moment to give thanks for California's salmon runs and for the Endangered Species Act, which helps sustain them now, and for future generations.

 State's Refusal to Use Sound Science Continues to Delay the Bay Delta Conservation Plan tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2013:/blogs/dobegi//127.14659 2013-04-29T22:20:08Z 2013-04-30T16:29:32Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

For more than six years, state and federal agencies, water districts, conservation groups, and other stakeholders have been working to try to develop a successful Bay Delta Conservation Plan. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is one of the most complex habitat conservation plans ever to be developed, but unfortunately, it continues to struggle to develop a scientifically credible plan.

As the Sacramento Bee recently reported, the Governor wrote a letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and Acting Commerce Secretary Dr. Rebecca Blank, demanding that the federal agencies must release the BDCP plan and environmental impact statement (NEPA document) this summer. The Governor's letter apparently follows a letter from the Kern County Water Agency to the Director of the California Department of Water Resources earlier this year, in which Kern County Water Agency stated that they will not continue funding BDCP unless the national Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "commit to completing their review of the Administrative Draft to the extent that the Public Draft can be released, with their support on July 1, 2013." (see page 17 of this PDF). Kern County Water Agency alleged in that letter that the delays in finalizing the plan are "because of a lack of decision making on the part of the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)."

While the water contractors and the State of California may want to blame the Feds for the delays in preparing the BDCP, it is the State's (and the water contractors') refusal to utilize sound science in the BDCP that continues to delay and bedevil this process. We've wasted years in this process – and lots of money – because the state and contractors refuse to incorporate sound science into BDCP. This can be seen in the highly critical scientific peer reviews of BDCP in the past several years from the National Research Council and the independent peer review panel convened by the Delta Science Program, as well as the voluminous trail of comments by the fishery agencies, conservation groups, and other stakeholders. Rather than doing the analysis right once, even if that takes a bit longer up front and even if it shows that we have to take less water out of the estuary, BDCP has rushed to meet arbitrary deadlines and has ended up having to do the analysis several times, because each time the analysis doesn't pass muster.

Last month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service released their latest round of comments [see here, here and here] on the administrative draft BDCP effects analysis prepared by the State and its consultants. This latest round of comments builds on the "Red Flag" memos released in 2012 by the fishery agencies (available here), and demonstrates that many of these critical issues have not been resolved and that there are still fundamental scientific flaws in the plan. Many of these comments have been raised numerous times by the conservation community and the fishery agencies, but the State and water contractors have steadfastly chosen to rely on "combat science" rather than sound science, in order to try to justify increasing water diversions from the Bay-Delta estuary. (The State is even trying to move the goalposts on what "increased diversions" means, as my colleague blogged about recently.)

The federal comments on the critical scientific flaws cover a wide variety of issues, including:

comments that the effects analysis shows that the draft BDCP plan is likely to hasten the extinction of several listed salmon runs, in combination with the foreseeable effects of climate change;

comments that the draft effects analysis dramatically overstates the benefits of tidal marsh habitat and is likely to result in uncertain benefits, if at all, to numerous fish species;

comments that the effects analysis uses an improper baseline that ignores certain actions that are required under baseline conditions (the existing biological opinions), including floodplain restoration in the Yolo Bypass;

comments that the high outflow scenario is critically important to many species' needs and may be the only scenario that could be permitted in the draft plan;

comments that project description needs to be revised, particularly the flows that bypass the new intakes, and the South Delta operations in dry years, in order to protect salmon and other fisheries; and

comments that the draft effects analysis demonstrates that the proposed project, as currently designed, is unlikely to achieve its biological objectives.

It's clear from these comments that many critical issues remain to be resolved in order for BDCP to succeed, and many of them are issues that the fishery agencies and conservation groups have been trying to get BDCP to address for many years. In the coming weeks, I'll be blogging about some specific changes to the Effects Analysis that BDCP has to make to be successful, highlighting many of the comments raised by the fishery agencies in more detail.

NRDC and our partners want to see a successful BDCP, and together with other conservation groups in 2012 we outlined the essential elements of a successful BDCP.

In addition, in 2013 several conservation groups, water districts, and businesses have recommended that BDCP should analyze a "Portfolio Alternative," which may offer a successful path forward. The "Portfolio Alternative" utilizes operational rules that were developed by the state and federal fishery agencies to meet species' needs, which to date the State has refused to include in the range of alternatives being analyzed in BDCP. The "Portfolio Alternative" also includes significant investments in levee improvements, south of Delta storage, conservation, recycling, and other local supplies, in order to create more new water for California in the most cost effective manner. Conservation groups, business interests, and urban water agencies have asked the State to analyze this alternative in BDCP to see how it compares; members of Congress have asked for it to be analyzed; members of the State legislature have asked for it to be analyzed. Unfortunately, thus far the State has refused to agree to analyze it as a standalone alternative in BDCP.

The refusal to use sound science is a significant reason why BDCP has taken so long, but ultimately utilizing sound science in the effects analysis is critical for BDCP to succeed. The state and federal government have committed that BDCP will be based on, and guided by, sound science. As the recent federal comments show, we still have a ways to go. Now is the time to get the analysis right.

If we're going to get things done in the Delta, we have to the analysis fairly and accurately, even if that means taking less water from the Delta. Cutting corners and refusing to use sound science is a recipe for failure and further delay.

 Will California Restore the Lower San Joaquin River and its Salmon? tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2013:/blogs/dobegi//127.14243 2013-02-21T17:45:53Z 2013-02-21T19:17:55Z Doug Obegi
Doug Obegi, Staff Attorney, Western Water Project, San Francisco

From their headwaters in the Sierra Nevada mountains, the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers were historically wild, teeming with salmon that sustained native Americans, early settlers, and abundant wildlife. These rivers join the lower San Joaquin River and flow into the Bay-Delta, one of the two main arteries that sustain the heart of the West Coast's largest estuary. But for too long, California has allowed farmers and cities to divert massive amounts of water from the rivers that run through the heart of California's San Joaquin Valley, leaving only a fraction of the natural flow in these rivers in the winter and spring months.

Decades of dam building, water diversions, and flood protection projects on these rivers have resulted in the vast majority of their flow being diverted each year. This has degraded water quality and has devastated the fish and wildlife -- and people, like sport and commercial salmon fishermen -- that depend on their health. Historically, hundreds of thousands of salmon returned each year to spawn in these rivers, but in recent years only a few thousand salmon have returned. Despite state and federal laws that set goals to "double" salmon populations to approximately 78,000 salmon returning each year, salmon populations have continued to decline in the San Joaquin basin.

(Source: The Bay Institute)

The scientific information is clear that reduced flows, as a result of diverting most of the water from these rivers, is the primary (but not sole) cause of the continued decline, and that more flows are needed to restore salmon, the health of these rivers, and the health of the Bay-Delta estuary.

This summer, the State Water Resources Control Board will establish new flow standards to protect salmon and fisheries in the Lower San Joaquin River and the three tributaries. The Board's draft report concludes that about 35% of the natural flow should remain in the rivers, allowing more than 65% to be diverted. Yet the scientific information shows that salmon are unlikely to recover at those flow levels, which are only slightly better than current flow levels.

We can – and must -- do better than 35% for San Joaquin salmon to recover and achieve the state and federal salmon doubling goal.

Diverting 65% of the Flow Won't Restore California's Magnificent Salmon

Scientists and fishery managers with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State Water Resources Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and The Bay Institute, as well as independent scientific peer reviews and other conservation and fishing groups, have recognized that current flows are inadequate. For instance, in 2010, the State Water Resources Control Board concluded that the best available science showed that 60% of the natural flows should remain in the river in the spring months in order to achieve the salmon doubling requirement of state law and protect public trust resources (this was a non-binding conclusion). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has also concluded that much higher spring flows in these tributaries and the lower San Joaquin River are necessary to recover salmon and achieve the salmon doubling requirement. Allowing the diversion of 65% of the water from would increase diversions on the Stanislaus River and isn't even enough to meet minimum requirements under the Endangered Species Act on the Stanislaus River; if these flows are lower than what's needed to avoid potential extinction, they obviously will not lead to recovery and salmon doubling. And independent scientific peer reviews of the Board's technical report last year endorsed the scientific analysis showing that higher flows are necessary to recover salmon and recommended consideration of higher flows than 60%, which is the upper end of the range that the State Water Resources Control Board is considering.

We Can Maintain Healthy Agricultural Economy and Healthy Rivers

The Board's draft analysis shows that reducing diversions to increase river flows will still result in a robust agricultural economy; for instance, the Board found that allowing 40% of the flow down the river would result in a 1.5% reduction in agricultural revenue in the region. And this is likely a worst case scenario, as the Board's analysis ignores the potential to increase agricultural water use efficiency to allow farmers to grow "more crop per drop" and increase profits, as well as water transfers between farmers and downstream exporters that could potentially help fund these improvements.

Increasing Flows in the River Benefits Lots of People, Too

Improving flows and restoring salmon has huge benefits for salmon fishermen, tackle shops, charter boats, fishing guides, and the thousands of jobs that depend on a healthy salmon fishery. Improved flows would improve water quality for Delta farmers and for cities and farms that get water exported from the Delta, and it is critical to restoring the health of the Delta. Allowing 65% of the water to be diverted in the basin leaves only a third for the rest of us.

Will California Restore the Health of the Low San Joaquin River and its Salmon?

The science is clear that more flows are needed than 35%, but the State Board is under pressure to adopt these weaker flow requirements despite the strong scientific evidence. In the coming weeks, fishermen, farmers, conservation groups, boaters, birdwatchers, scientists, and all of us will have a chance to tell the State Water Resources Control Board to do better to help ensure the future of California's salmon. We can and should do better than 35%: is a third of a river really healthy? I hope you'll join us in urging the Board to do better.

For more information or to get involved, visit SalmonAid's petition to the State Water Resources Control Board.


text:
Postfix not responding to telnet
View Single Post
7th May 2009, 23:09
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
your netstat -tulp result:
tcp 0 0 *:smtp *:* LISTEN 17628/master
clearly shows that the server is listening to all interfaces for SMTP, that's what *:smtp means.
The first telnet you tried with the -l flag is a syntax that seems odd to me. I would try just "telnet localhost 25" and also a "telnet 127.0.0.1 25" and then copy and paste the results. It would be useful to see if you get a connection refused or a timeout.
Also, many versions of linux now come with forms of security, like selinux on red hat and others have firewalls. So even if the OS thinks it's listening you may have to configure the firewall to let IP traffic get to that listening port.
View Public Profile
Send a private message to danieljdoughty
Visit danieljdoughty's homepage!
Find all posts by danieljdoughty

subset: commoncrawl


text:
San Diego State University Fall 2014 hopefuls
- 1Jan 25 by HardyharHello!
I'm starting a thread for those who have applied to SDSU's BSN program for Fall 2014. I know we still have some time to find out if we are accepted or not, but I thought it would be nice to start this thread so that we can all have some support while we are all stressing about whether we got in or not. Also, I am interested in how competitive my scores/ grades are under the new point criteria. Here are my stats:
Cumulative GPA: 3.89
prerequisite GPA: 3.73
5 points for work experience (I work as a CNA in a home health care agency, I think it should count, right?)
61 points total (so worried this score isn't very competitive)
military veteran also (not worth points but hopefully it is put into consideration?)
please post your stats too!! Also, for chemistry I took both general chemistry and organic chemistry, do I include both when determining my prereq. GPA or just the organic chemistry?
- 0Jan 25 by Motchie_MooHi!
I have applied as well. I do not have the points chart in front of me, but my stats are
Both GPAs are 4.0
No work/volunteer experience
I am a veteran as well.
I don't know if you count both chemistry grades; I took the class that combines general, organic, and biochem.
I am nervous since they are so very picky with their admissions now!
Best to us all!
- 0Jan 25 by HardyharHi! I think your stats are good and you don't have anthing to worry about! I had straight A's up until last semester and I got two b's. Unfortunately, those two B's are part of the major prerequisites. I wish that SDSU were using all of the major prereqs for the gpa calculation, instead of just the 5 because then it would be a little bit higher. Oh well, I will just keep my fingers crossed. I'm pretty sure that they put the military experience into consideration. I know that CSUSM doesn't give points for veterans, however, if there were a tie between two candidates they choose the veteran. Hopefully SDSU does something similar because it's my first choice school.
- 0Jan 25 by Esme12, BSN, RN Senior Moderatorthread moved for best response.
- 0Jan 29 by mpradThank you for starting this thread. It's no nice to chat with people who are in the same boat, just waiting to hear from admissions. Here are my stats:
Overall GPA 3.82= 24 pts
Prereq GPA 4.0= 30 pts
TEAS 95.3% = 12 pts
I also have work experience as an LVN for a total of 71 pts. That seems pretty good but as Motchie_Moo mentioned State is so competitive you just never know. Does anyone else become more and more nervous the more time passes?!?
- 0Jan 29 by Beccaz07Yes thank you for posting this! I've been wondering where my chances lie. I have a total of anywhere of 62-67 points. (Gpa's are both 4.0, 82.0 on the teas). I've worked as a chiropractic assistant for well over a year and have experience with direct patient care and physiotherapy modalities such as therapeutic ultrasound,electrical muscle stimulation, mechanic traction ect, as well as taking patient vitals. It's pretty much the same job as medical assistant. I'm hoping it will score be the extra 5 points!
- 0Jan 29 by HardyharDid you guys apply to any other schools, or just SDSU? Beccaz, I too am hoping for the 5 work experience points. I have my CNA certification and I have direct patient care, however it's home health care rather than a skilled nursing facility. It's only 5 points, but it could be the differance between getting in and not getting in. I am curious as to how the new point system will affect the number of applications SDSU recieves since the minimum score for the TEAS was raised to 80.
- 0Jan 31 by Motchie_MooI have not applied to any other schools, but if I do not get into State, I may apply to Grossmont then just do RN to BSN later. I have a family and CSU San Marcos is simply too long of a commute for me. I hear terrible things about National...their NCLEX passing rate is not so hot...
- 0Jan 31 by zzbxdoQuote from Motchie_MooIf you don't get into State, what makes you think getting into grossmont any easier? Not doubting you or anything, your stats are solid, but the application pool is going to be stacked being sd is so saturated with applicants just as competitive as you. Just saying you might as well start early and apply to both right off the bat instead of wasting time.I have not applied to any other schools, but if I do not get into State, I may apply to Grossmont then just do RN to BSN later. I have a family and CSU San Marcos is simply too long of a commute for me. I hear terrible things about National...their NCLEX passing rate is not so hot...
- 0Jan 31 by mpradI applied to CSU San Marcos and plan to apply to Grossmont when their application opens in February. San Marcos doesn't let applicants know until July which is after the intent to enroll is required by the University. That means if the University accepts a person, they have to pay the $150 deposit and tell the University they intend to enroll. If the nursing school doesn't accept them, they are out of luck (and $150). Needless to say, they are not my first choice. But if all else fails it's certainly better than nothing.


text:
What does CLIFF mean in Unclassified?
This page is about the meanings of the acronym/abbreviation/shorthand CLIFF in the Miscellaneous field in general and in the Unclassified terminology in particular.
Clean Lifestyle Is Freedom Forever
Find a translation for CLIFF in other languages:
Select another language:
What does CLIFF mean?
- cliff(n.)
- a high, steep rock face; precipice.
Discuss this CLIFF abbreviation with the community:
Use the citation below to add this abbreviation to your bibliography:
"CLIFF." Abbreviations.com. STANDS4 LLC, 2014. Web. 19 Dec. 2014. <http://www.abbreviations.com/term/1459198>.
CLIFF also stands for:
... see them all »
Nearby & related abbreviations:
Alternative search:
- Search Clean Lifestyle Is Freedom Forever on Amazon.com
- Search Clean Lifestyle Is Freedom Forever on Google


text:
Gear Review
Good deal
Ronnie dobbs
Member since
I bought these pants in Air Twill Plaid a few weeks ago. This site is great, got here to Japan in no time. Wore them for the first time today, fit is great, water proofing is great, and the style is awesome. People were commenting on them all day.
View More Details on Burton Cargo Pant - Men's