Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

‘No way, not possible’: California has a plan for new water rules. Will it save salmon from extinction?

News Feed
Monday, December 16, 2024

In summary Growers and cities support the Newsom administration proposal, saying it strikes a balance for uses of Delta water. But environmentalists say the “healthy rivers” rules would actually harm California’s iconic salmon. The Newsom administration is refining a contentious set of proposed rules, years in the making, that would reshape how farms and cities draw water from the Central Valley’s Delta and its rivers. Backed by more than $1 billion in state funds, the rules, if adopted, would require water users to help restore rivers and rebuild depleted Chinook salmon runs.   The administration touts its proposed rules as the starting point of a long-term effort to double Central Valley Chinook populations from historical levels, reaching numbers not seen in at least 75 years. But environmental groups have almost unanimously rejected it, saying it promises environmental gains that will never materialize and jeopardizes the existence of California’s iconic salmon and other fish. “There is no way the assets they’ve put on the table, water and habitat combined, are going to achieve the doubling goal — no way, not possible,” said Jon Rosenfield, science director with San Francisco Baykeeper.  Dubbed Healthy Rivers and Landscapes but better known as “the voluntary agreements,” the proposal is one of two pathways for state officials as they update a keystone regulatory document called the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan, which was last overhauled in 1995. With the ecosystem of the Bay-Delta in the throes of collapse, the set of rules is critical to determining how much water flows through the Delta for salmon and other species and how much is available for growers and cities in the Central Valley and Southern California. Once vital to indigenous cultures and the coastal ecosystem, Chinook salmon and other native fish have declined for decades due to dam operations, water diversions, increased water temperatures and marine food web issues. Numbers of spawning adult Chinook have dropped so low that all commercial and recreational salmon fishing has been banned for two years in a row, and preliminary numbers this year show no signs of recovery.  State officials from multiple agencies have lauded the Healthy Rivers program — which would meter out flows for fish while mandating restoration of floodplains and other river features — as their preferred option for updating the plan. California’s most influential water districts, serving tens of millions of people and most of the Central Valley’s farmland, have rallied behind the state’s preferred option, which has taken center stage during public workshops since November. Newsom administration officials have worked on these rules for years during negotiations with the San Joaquin Valley’s Westlands Water District, the nation’s largest agricultural water provider, the giant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and other water users. California Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot described the proposal as “a new and strengthened approach” that will protect both the environment and the water supply.  Crowfoot told the water board that the proposed rules would do “a good job working to balance all of (Californians’) needs, and ultimately help the environment to recover in ways that’s workable for communities across our state.”  Such a balance has long eluded state officials. “This is progress,” Chuck Bonham, director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, said at a November water board workshop. “It’s gone on so long. It’s time.”  Back in 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom endorsed the “voluntary agreement” approach. “Today, I am committing to achieving a doubling of California’s salmon population by 2050. These agreements will be foundational to meeting that goal,” he wrote in a CalMatters opinion piece. The rules would do “a good job working to balance all of (Californians’) needs, and ultimately help the environment to recover in ways that’s workable for communities across our state.” California resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot Nina Hawk, the Bay-Delta Initiatives group manager with the Metropolitan Water District — which provides water that serves 19 million Southern Californians — said the Newsom proposal would create an equitable pathway to meeting human and environmental water demands. “It is important that we try to balance what the state board defines as beneficial uses … both for the environment and for farms, in a way that looks at the integrity of the water system and also for the state of California’s natural resources and its economy,” Hawk said.   Kevin Padway of the Zone 7 Water Agency, which serves 270,000 East Bay residents, encouraged the water board to adopt the rules, commending them as an “immediately implementable” route to balancing water demands for people and environmental uses. A drone provides a view of water pumped from the Harvey O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant into the California Aqueduct, which delivers Northern California river water to Southern California, on Jan. 20, 2023. Photo by Ken James, California Department of Water Resources But environmentalists aren’t sold. Some have even refused to call it by its formal name, saying it’s a euphemism with no bearing on “healthy rivers.” They say the rules would favor water users, allowing cities and farms to draw so much water from the Delta and its tributary rivers that salmon will continue their long decline. They say the proposed rules simply don’t offer fish the water they need, let alone support the state’s salmon rebuilding mandate.  “If you’re diverting more than half of a river’s flow, you are guaranteeing negative population growth” of salmon, said Gary Bobker, Friends of the River’s program director. The complex flow rules could even allow growers to entirely drain some rivers in critically dry years, according to Barry Nelson, a water policy analyst with the Golden State Salmon Association who spoke at a recent board workshop. “Dewatering rivers during droughts would be completely consistent with the Bay-Delta Plan,” he said.  The State Water Resources Control Board is the agency with the authority to approve the rules. A public hearing and vote could come in 2025. The water board’s other option would require strict minimum flows in rivers. Water users say those rules would have unacceptable impacts on farms, hydropower and communities — including planned housing projects — while environmentalists and tribes laud it as more protective of fish. It would ensure that rivers contain an average of 55% of the total water available in the watershed at a given time — a measure called unimpaired flow. While momentum has built behind the state’s Healthy Rivers plan, the state water board could still go either way with their vote. It is even possible that officials adopt both options, with the unimpaired flow pathway reserved as a regulatory backstop, should the Newsom proposal fail, or as concurrent rules applied to waters users who opt out of the voluntary agreements.   Doubling Chinook runs — is it a stream dream A longstanding mandate requires fishery and water managers to double the Central Valley’s population of naturally reproducing Chinook salmon from levels observed between 1967 and 1991. This would translate into an average of 990,000 spawning Chinook each year, almost 10 times recent averages. State officials say their Healthy Rivers plan would help to realize this goal. Around year-eight — when the program could be extended — officials hope to be about 25% of the way to the doubling goal, said Louise Conrad, lead scientist with the state Department of Water Resources.   “Salmon runs could potentially be extinct by then with the flow assets they’re putting forward.”Ashley Overhouse, defenders of wildlife Officials with the National Marine Fisheries Service, in a January letter to the state, said the eight-year timeframe “is concerning, given the dire status of native fish species within the Sacramento River Basin and Delta.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in comments emailed to the Water Board in January, noted the light water allowances in critically dry years. “EPA is concerned that the total volume and timing of Delta inflow and outflow provided under the proposed VA (voluntary agreement) alternative relative to baseline is not large enough to adequately restore and protect aquatic ecosystems,” the agency wrote.  Fall-run Chinook salmon migrate and spawn in the Feather River near the Feather River Fish Hatchery in Oroville on Nov. 15, 2024. The iconic fish are depleted from a combination of water diversions in the Delta, increased water temperatures and other factors. Photo by Xavier Mascareñas, California Department of Water Resources This target of doubling Chinook is nothing new. The almost legendary “doubling goal” has been on the books since the early 1990s, when federal law set the deadline for 2002.  Now the state’s proposed rules would punt it to 2050 — what salmon advocates say is much too far away for a species already on the brink and a vanishing fishing industry. “Salmon runs could potentially be extinct by then with the flow assets they’re putting forward,” said Ashley Overhouse, Defenders of Wildlife’s water policy advisor. Representatives of California tribes, who historically relied on Chinook as a dietary mainstay, say they were excluded from planning discussions.  “The only people that have been at the table talking about the voluntary agreements are water agencies, water contractors, irrigation districts, and private companies,” said Gary Mulcahy, government liaison for the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. “They (state officials) have excluded tribes, disadvantaged communities, environmental justice communities for nine years.” State officials “have excluded tribes, disadvantaged communities, environmental justice communities for nine years.”Gary Mulcahy, Winnemem Wintu Tribe But the flow rules environmentalists and tribes prefer would cut deep into urban and agricultural water supplies, causing “impacts far and wide” on water exports from the Delta, storage in upstream reservoirs and hydropower production, said Jennifer Pierre, general manager of the State Water Contractors, which represents 27 water agencies that serve 750,000 acres of farmland and 27 million people. Farmers, she said, would experience substantial permanent economic losses, forcing widespread fallowing of their crops. San Joaquin Valley growers would lose more than a quarter of their water in dry years, and 13% on average for all years, according to the draft rules. Thaddeus Bettner, executive director of the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors — a group of farmers who largely grow rice  — said it would force as much as 30% of his district’s 450,000 irrigated acres out of production, with harder impacts on growers with little groundwater to fall back on.  Rice farmer Jon Munger, with 13,000 acres on the east side of the Sacramento Valley, said, in some years, the unimpaired flow approach favored by environmentalists could strip him of virtually all of his water in summer months. His groundwater supply is very limited. “We wouldn’t have any water to grow rice,” he said.  That option would also squeeze residential water use. The Placer County Water Agency, which serves about a quarter-million residents northeast of Sacramento, would lose almost half its supply, threatening initiatives to accommodate a growing population, said General Manager Andrew Fecko.  It would cost Southern California a big chunk of its municipal water, too.  Under the environmentalists’ option, “we wouldn’t have sufficient water supply. It would be a decline at the taps, it would be a decline for businesses.”Nina Hawk, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California “We wouldn’t have sufficient water supply,” said Hawk at the Metropolitan Water District. “It would be a decline at the taps, it would be a decline for businesses.” Billions of dollars in new salmon habitat The program proposes restoring 45,000 acres of structural habitat, like floodplains, tidal marshes, in-river piles of woody debris and gravel spawning beds over the next eight years.  Thousands of acres are already completed or underway. This, according to Overhouse at Defenders of Wildlife, leaves roughly 30,000 planned acres that would be brand new additions to the ecosystem — which she and others say would mute the promised benefits of the program.  All of this will cost money, and to date $2.4 billion in public funds have been secured to support the flow measures and the habitat restoration. Another $500 million may be needed. The state’s proposed rules would allocate to the Sacramento River system between 100,000 and 700,000 acre-feet of water per year, depending on how much precipitation has fallen. But environmentalists say this isn’t nearly enough. They also worry that regulatory loopholes would allow future water projects — such as the Sites Reservoir, for which Newsom advocated at a public appearance last week — to divert water that would be protected if the state adopted unimpaired flow rules. “It is not an accident that they haven’t solved this problem,” Nelson, with the Salmon Association, said. “The VAs (voluntary agreements) and the Delta tunnel and Sites are a package.”  Some conservationists are optimistic about the state’s proposal. Rene Henery, California science director with Trout Unlimited, thinks more habitat and water — especially in dry years — will be needed to protect salmon. But he also thinks the rules could succeed, as long as it’s just the first step of many in a flexible and collaborative restoration process — something he and a team of colleagues are trying to initiate with a state-funded project called Reorienting to Recovery.   UC Davis fish biologist Carson Jeffres, who has studied floodplain restoration projects, also said the salmon doubling objective is achievable through the Newsom proposal as long as state officials “have the courage to be nimble and adjust and adapt if it looks like things aren’t going as planned.” Tribal water rights advocate Regina Chichizola, executive director of Save California Salmon, rejected the Newsom administration’s notion that the state balances competing needs and demands.  “We’ve compromised so much that we’re facing an extinction crisis, that tribes don’t have fish for ceremonies,” she told the board in an emotional public comment last week. “Of course I want to make sure that all of the cities have access to water, but in the end agriculture is going to have to use less water,” she said. “The job of the water board is not to make everyone happy, it’s to protect beneficial uses and clean water, and if the salmon go extinct on your watch, that’s something that you’re going to have to tell your grandkids about.” A third straight year with no California salmon fishing?  Early fish counts suggest it could happen October 30, 2024October 30, 2024 Is a new plan for delivering Delta water worse than Trump’s rules? Environmentalists say yes. October 25, 2024October 24, 2024

Growers and cities support the Newsom administration proposal, saying it strikes a balance for uses of Delta water. But environmentalists say the “healthy rivers” rules would actually harm California’s iconic salmon.

Various Chinook salmon swim in water, with rocks underneath them, as bubble from waves form overhead. The image has a sense of action and frenzy.

In summary

Growers and cities support the Newsom administration proposal, saying it strikes a balance for uses of Delta water. But environmentalists say the “healthy rivers” rules would actually harm California’s iconic salmon.

The Newsom administration is refining a contentious set of proposed rules, years in the making, that would reshape how farms and cities draw water from the Central Valley’s Delta and its rivers. Backed by more than $1 billion in state funds, the rules, if adopted, would require water users to help restore rivers and rebuild depleted Chinook salmon runs.  

The administration touts its proposed rules as the starting point of a long-term effort to double Central Valley Chinook populations from historical levels, reaching numbers not seen in at least 75 years. But environmental groups have almost unanimously rejected it, saying it promises environmental gains that will never materialize and jeopardizes the existence of California’s iconic salmon and other fish.

“There is no way the assets they’ve put on the table, water and habitat combined, are going to achieve the doubling goal — no way, not possible,” said Jon Rosenfield, science director with San Francisco Baykeeper. 

Dubbed Healthy Rivers and Landscapes but better known as “the voluntary agreements,” the proposal is one of two pathways for state officials as they update a keystone regulatory document called the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan, which was last overhauled in 1995.

With the ecosystem of the Bay-Delta in the throes of collapse, the set of rules is critical to determining how much water flows through the Delta for salmon and other species and how much is available for growers and cities in the Central Valley and Southern California.

Once vital to indigenous cultures and the coastal ecosystem, Chinook salmon and other native fish have declined for decades due to dam operations, water diversions, increased water temperatures and marine food web issues. Numbers of spawning adult Chinook have dropped so low that all commercial and recreational salmon fishing has been banned for two years in a row, and preliminary numbers this year show no signs of recovery. 

State officials from multiple agencies have lauded the Healthy Rivers program — which would meter out flows for fish while mandating restoration of floodplains and other river features — as their preferred option for updating the plan.

California’s most influential water districts, serving tens of millions of people and most of the Central Valley’s farmland, have rallied behind the state’s preferred option, which has taken center stage during public workshops since November.

Newsom administration officials have worked on these rules for years during negotiations with the San Joaquin Valley’s Westlands Water District, the nation’s largest agricultural water provider, the giant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and other water users.

California Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot described the proposal as “a new and strengthened approach” that will protect both the environment and the water supply. 

Crowfoot told the water board that the proposed rules would do “a good job working to balance all of (Californians’) needs, and ultimately help the environment to recover in ways that’s workable for communities across our state.” 

Such a balance has long eluded state officials.

“This is progress,” Chuck Bonham, director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, said at a November water board workshop. “It’s gone on so long. It’s time.” 

Back in 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom endorsed the “voluntary agreement” approach. “Today, I am committing to achieving a doubling of California’s salmon population by 2050. These agreements will be foundational to meeting that goal,” he wrote in a CalMatters opinion piece.

The rules would do “a good job working to balance all of (Californians’) needs, and ultimately help the environment to recover in ways that’s workable for communities across our state.” 

California resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot

Nina Hawk, the Bay-Delta Initiatives group manager with the Metropolitan Water District — which provides water that serves 19 million Southern Californians — said the Newsom proposal would create an equitable pathway to meeting human and environmental water demands.

“It is important that we try to balance what the state board defines as beneficial uses … both for the environment and for farms, in a way that looks at the integrity of the water system and also for the state of California’s natural resources and its economy,” Hawk said.  

Kevin Padway of the Zone 7 Water Agency, which serves 270,000 East Bay residents, encouraged the water board to adopt the rules, commending them as an “immediately implementable” route to balancing water demands for people and environmental uses.

A drone provides a view of water pumped from the Harvey O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant into the California Aqueduct at 9,790 cubic feet per second after January storms. The facility located in Alameda County and lifts water into the California Aqueduct. Jan. 20, 2023. Photo by Ken James, California Department of Water Resources
A drone provides a view of water pumped from the Harvey O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant into the California Aqueduct, which delivers Northern California river water to Southern California, on Jan. 20, 2023. Photo by Ken James, California Department of Water Resources

But environmentalists aren’t sold. Some have even refused to call it by its formal name, saying it’s a euphemism with no bearing on “healthy rivers.” They say the rules would favor water users, allowing cities and farms to draw so much water from the Delta and its tributary rivers that salmon will continue their long decline. They say the proposed rules simply don’t offer fish the water they need, let alone support the state’s salmon rebuilding mandate. 

“If you’re diverting more than half of a river’s flow, you are guaranteeing negative population growth” of salmon, said Gary Bobker, Friends of the River’s program director.

The complex flow rules could even allow growers to entirely drain some rivers in critically dry years, according to Barry Nelson, a water policy analyst with the Golden State Salmon Association who spoke at a recent board workshop.

“Dewatering rivers during droughts would be completely consistent with the Bay-Delta Plan,” he said. 

The State Water Resources Control Board is the agency with the authority to approve the rules. A public hearing and vote could come in 2025.

The water board’s other option would require strict minimum flows in rivers. Water users say those rules would have unacceptable impacts on farms, hydropower and communities — including planned housing projects — while environmentalists and tribes laud it as more protective of fish. It would ensure that rivers contain an average of 55% of the total water available in the watershed at a given time — a measure called unimpaired flow.

While momentum has built behind the state’s Healthy Rivers plan, the state water board could still go either way with their vote. It is even possible that officials adopt both options, with the unimpaired flow pathway reserved as a regulatory backstop, should the Newsom proposal fail, or as concurrent rules applied to waters users who opt out of the voluntary agreements.  

Doubling Chinook runs — is it a stream dream

A longstanding mandate requires fishery and water managers to double the Central Valley’s population of naturally reproducing Chinook salmon from levels observed between 1967 and 1991. This would translate into an average of 990,000 spawning Chinook each year, almost 10 times recent averages.

State officials say their Healthy Rivers plan would help to realize this goal. Around year-eight — when the program could be extended — officials hope to be about 25% of the way to the doubling goal, said Louise Conrad, lead scientist with the state Department of Water Resources.  

“Salmon runs could potentially be extinct by then with the flow assets they’re putting forward.”

Ashley Overhouse, defenders of wildlife

Officials with the National Marine Fisheries Service, in a January letter to the state, said the eight-year timeframe “is concerning, given the dire status of native fish species within the Sacramento River Basin and Delta.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in comments emailed to the Water Board in January, noted the light water allowances in critically dry years.

“EPA is concerned that the total volume and timing of Delta inflow and outflow provided under the proposed VA (voluntary agreement) alternative relative to baseline is not large enough to adequately restore and protect aquatic ecosystems,” the agency wrote. 

A shallow stream flowing through with a fish visible above the river bottom over rocks and gravel. The fish is swimming just under the river's surface with another fish in the distant background.
Fall-run Chinook salmon migrate and spawn in the Feather River near the Feather River Fish Hatchery in Oroville on Nov. 15, 2024. The iconic fish are depleted from a combination of water diversions in the Delta, increased water temperatures and other factors. Photo by Xavier Mascareñas, California Department of Water Resources

This target of doubling Chinook is nothing new. The almost legendary “doubling goal” has been on the books since the early 1990s, when federal law set the deadline for 2002. 

Now the state’s proposed rules would punt it to 2050 — what salmon advocates say is much too far away for a species already on the brink and a vanishing fishing industry.

“Salmon runs could potentially be extinct by then with the flow assets they’re putting forward,” said Ashley Overhouse, Defenders of Wildlife’s water policy advisor.

Representatives of California tribes, who historically relied on Chinook as a dietary mainstay, say they were excluded from planning discussions. 

“The only people that have been at the table talking about the voluntary agreements are water agencies, water contractors, irrigation districts, and private companies,” said Gary Mulcahy, government liaison for the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. “They (state officials) have excluded tribes, disadvantaged communities, environmental justice communities for nine years.”

State officials “have excluded tribes, disadvantaged communities, environmental justice communities for nine years.”

Gary Mulcahy, Winnemem Wintu Tribe

But the flow rules environmentalists and tribes prefer would cut deep into urban and agricultural water supplies, causing “impacts far and wide” on water exports from the Delta, storage in upstream reservoirs and hydropower production, said Jennifer Pierre, general manager of the State Water Contractors, which represents 27 water agencies that serve 750,000 acres of farmland and 27 million people.

Farmers, she said, would experience substantial permanent economic losses, forcing widespread fallowing of their crops. San Joaquin Valley growers would lose more than a quarter of their water in dry years, and 13% on average for all years, according to the draft rules.

Thaddeus Bettner, executive director of the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors — a group of farmers who largely grow rice  — said it would force as much as 30% of his district’s 450,000 irrigated acres out of production, with harder impacts on growers with little groundwater to fall back on. 

Rice farmer Jon Munger, with 13,000 acres on the east side of the Sacramento Valley, said, in some years, the unimpaired flow approach favored by environmentalists could strip him of virtually all of his water in summer months. His groundwater supply is very limited.

“We wouldn’t have any water to grow rice,” he said. 

That option would also squeeze residential water use. The Placer County Water Agency, which serves about a quarter-million residents northeast of Sacramento, would lose almost half its supply, threatening initiatives to accommodate a growing population, said General Manager Andrew Fecko. 

It would cost Southern California a big chunk of its municipal water, too. 

Under the environmentalists’ option, “we wouldn’t have sufficient water supply. It would be a decline at the taps, it would be a decline for businesses.”

Nina Hawk, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

“We wouldn’t have sufficient water supply,” said Hawk at the Metropolitan Water District. “It would be a decline at the taps, it would be a decline for businesses.”

Billions of dollars in new salmon habitat

The program proposes restoring 45,000 acres of structural habitat, like floodplains, tidal marshes, in-river piles of woody debris and gravel spawning beds over the next eight years. 

Thousands of acres are already completed or underway. This, according to Overhouse at Defenders of Wildlife, leaves roughly 30,000 planned acres that would be brand new additions to the ecosystem — which she and others say would mute the promised benefits of the program. 

All of this will cost money, and to date $2.4 billion in public funds have been secured to support the flow measures and the habitat restoration. Another $500 million may be needed.

The state’s proposed rules would allocate to the Sacramento River system between 100,000 and 700,000 acre-feet of water per year, depending on how much precipitation has fallen. But environmentalists say this isn’t nearly enough. They also worry that regulatory loopholes would allow future water projects — such as the Sites Reservoir, for which Newsom advocated at a public appearance last week to divert water that would be protected if the state adopted unimpaired flow rules.

“It is not an accident that they haven’t solved this problem,” Nelson, with the Salmon Association, said. “The VAs (voluntary agreements) and the Delta tunnel and Sites are a package.” 

Some conservationists are optimistic about the state’s proposal.

Rene Henery, California science director with Trout Unlimited, thinks more habitat and water — especially in dry years — will be needed to protect salmon. But he also thinks the rules could succeed, as long as it’s just the first step of many in a flexible and collaborative restoration process — something he and a team of colleagues are trying to initiate with a state-funded project called Reorienting to Recovery.  

UC Davis fish biologist Carson Jeffres, who has studied floodplain restoration projects, also said the salmon doubling objective is achievable through the Newsom proposal as long as state officials “have the courage to be nimble and adjust and adapt if it looks like things aren’t going as planned.”

Tribal water rights advocate Regina Chichizola, executive director of Save California Salmon, rejected the Newsom administration’s notion that the state balances competing needs and demands. 

“We’ve compromised so much that we’re facing an extinction crisis, that tribes don’t have fish for ceremonies,” she told the board in an emotional public comment last week.

“Of course I want to make sure that all of the cities have access to water, but in the end agriculture is going to have to use less water,” she said. “The job of the water board is not to make everyone happy, it’s to protect beneficial uses and clean water, and if the salmon go extinct on your watch, that’s something that you’re going to have to tell your grandkids about.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

World’s ugliest lawn winner says she leaves watering to Mother Nature

New Zealand garden takes first prize in global competition designed to promote water conservationA sun-scorched patch of lawn near Christchurch, in New Zealand, has been crowned the ugliest lawn in the world.Now in its second year, the World’s Ugliest Lawn competition rewards lawn owners for not watering their parched yellow grass and patchy flowerbeds. Continue reading...

A sun-scorched patch of lawn near Christchurch, in New Zealand, has been crowned the ugliest lawn in the world.Now in its second year, the World’s Ugliest Lawn competition rewards lawn owners for not watering their parched yellow grass and patchy flowerbeds.The winning lawn in the settlement of Birdlings Flat belongs to Leisa Elliott, and is kept closely cropped by harsh coastal winds and little rainfall.“I live in a small coastal community,” Elliott said. “Our drinking water is pumped from a well in nearby Kaitorete Spit. In my mind, drinking water is drinking water, not watering-the-lawn water.”Leisa Elliott’s winning lawn is in Birdlings Flat in the Canterbury region of New Zealand. Photograph: Leisa ElliotThe contest began in the Swedish municipality of Gotland as a stunt to promote water conservation on the island. An irrigation ban in 2022 due to water shortages led to a competition between residents, which quickly gained global recognition.Elliott said: “I have aimed at creating a garden that primarily looks after itself, making its own natural rhythm.” Bushes of stout, verdant cacti surround the lawn, and are perfectly suited to the hot weather.“Mother Nature does the watering here,” she said. “When the rain comes, the transformation is stunning. An oasis after a desert is a sight to behold.”Wildlife is left to thrive undisturbed, often congregating by Elliott’s pond. “Many varieties of birds drink and bathe in it. Bellbirds, fantails, silver eyes, different types of finches, blackbirds, starlings. The list goes on. Bees and geckos also call this place home.”Elliott found out about the competition in February through a morning breakfast show. “We were experiencing above-normal summer temperatures and my lawn sure fitted the competition bill.”The jury, composed of Gotland residents, voted unanimously for Elliott’s lawn after an hour-long deliberation. “Her lawn may not win beauty contests, but it wins hearts for its message of sustainability and adaptability,” they said. “The ground, parched and textured by the elements, is dotted with natural, weather-carved indentations and adorned with the muted colours of a landscape that thrives without human interference.”skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionMimmi Gibson, the brand director at tourism agency Region Gotland, who helps organise the contest, said competition for the title was fierce. “I mean, they’re all so bad,” she said. “They’re so terrible.”Gibson said she hoped the annual contest would continue to provide people with optimism and ideas for small, meaningful actions they can take during the climate crisis. In Gotland, the contest and other initiatives have reduced water consumption by 5% to 7% each year since 2022.“We all have to channel this anxiety about environmental issues and the challenges we’re facing as a global population,” Gison said. “And this is one way to do that, not by making people feel bad but making them feel good.“At first you stand and you laugh and it’s like: ‘God, what is this?” Then you start thinking. It’s not just a fun thing, it’s actually saving water. I think people like that.”

California wildfires: Water supply becomes flashpoint in Trump-Newsom fight

The blazes burning across the Los Angeles region are not only devastating property and lives, but also fueling political argument over how to fight the fires, with President-elect Trump blaming state officials for a dearth of available water supplies. A social media brawl began on Wednesday after Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADPW)...

The blazes burning across the Los Angeles region are not only devastating property and lives, but also fueling political argument over how to fight the fires, with President-elect Trump blaming state officials for a dearth of available water supplies. A social media brawl began on Wednesday after Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADPW) efforts to fill three 1-million-gallon storage tanks left some Pacific Palisades fire hydrants high and dry. Extreme water demand had surpassed the speed with which the higher-elevation tanks could be replenished, according to LADPW. Trump soon after took to Truth Social, blaming the insufficient supply on Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), whom he accused of blocking efforts to pump more water from Northern California to the Los Angeles region. But experts maintain that moving more water in this manner would be impractical from an infrastructural perspective, as well as wholly unnecessary. "Would that have made any significant difference in terms of what we're experiencing right now with these forest fires and the damage they're creating?" asked Kurt Schwabe, a professor of environmental economics and policy at University of California Riverside. "I would say no," he told The Hill, noting that reservoirs statewide are currently in good shape. "There is this level of dryness in Southern California, but you're not going to irrigate all the forests." Trump on Wednesday night called for Newsom to resign, following up on an earlier post in which he slammed the governor for failing to sign a declaration that would have "allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way." The governor's office quickly decried the accusations as "pure fiction," writing on the social platform X that "there is no such document as the water restoration declaration" and that Newsom "is focused on protecting people, not playing politics, and making sure firefighters have all the resources they need." Trump was likely referring to water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (the "Bay-Delta"), which supplies drinking water to nearly 27 million residents through the State Water Project, according to the California Department of Water Resources. But the City of Los Angeles actually gets much of its water elsewhere, with about 38 percent of drinking water in 2023 — the most recent year with data available — coming from the Los Angeles Aqueduct, according to LADPW. The Aqueduct shuttles water from the Owens River Valley in the Eastern Sierra Nevada to the city, rather than from the Northern California Bay-Delta. Another 9 percent of the city's 2023 drinking water came from local groundwater and 2 percent from recycled wastewater, while 51 percent was imported from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Only 30 percent of Metropolitan's water originates in the Northern Sierra, as 20 percent comes from the Colorado River and 50 percent form a mix of other resources. On Wednesday night, Newsom announced that the state was mobilizing up to 140 water tanker trucks to help fight the Eaton and Palisades fires. The 2,500-gallon vessels were joining about 23 that were already on the ground, according to his office. In the same announcement, his team noted that "the state started tracking this weather event closely over the weekend and began prepositioning resources on Sunday." The governor, his office added, is in constant touch with local, state and federal leaders, including President Biden. Earlier in the day, Biden had approved Newsom's request for a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration, which made federal assistance available to bolster emergency response costs. Daniel Swain, a University of California Los Angeles climate scientist, addressed the issue of preparedness in a webinar the same day, noting that "there was a lot of pre-positioning of resources, which likely saved lives." "This event scared people as much as a week before it occurred in terms of the weather forecasting world," he said. "In fact, it is possibly only because of those dire prognostications that things weren't even worse." "I am pretty sure there are people who are alive right now, who would not have been alive, had those pre-positioned resources not been in place," Swain added. Nonetheless, Trump followed up with additional criticism on Thursday morning by denouncing the "gross incompetence by Gavin Newscum and Karen Bass," referring to the mayor of Los Angeles, while adding that "Biden’s FEMA has no money — all wasted on the Green New Scam!" The Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA) has authorized the use of federal funds to assist California in combating multiple fires in the Los Angeles area, and said it is making assistance available to people impacted by the blazes. As far as pumping more water from north to south is concerned, Schwabe, from UC Riverside, stressed that doing so "would have had virtually no impact on what we're experiencing right now." Instead, Schwabe described the ongoing crisis as "a local preparedness issue," in the sense that cities need to account for the "changing climate regime" in the future planning and placement of resources. For example, he suggested that rather than just relying on three tanks in Pacific Palisades, officials could form partnerships with adjacent communities that might be able to share tanks during times of crisis. Repositioning and diversifying supply sources, Schwabe explained, would be more strategic than increasing the amount of water flowing to the region. He likened the situation to a household fire, in which the residents have only one garden hose and ask their neighbors to borrow another one. Similar to that household, Schwabe explained, Southern California will probably need "more garden hoses and bigger garden hoses" in the future. Patrick Reed, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Cornell University, echoed these sentiments, identifying a division between two elements of Los Angeles's water management: the "crisis response and long-term planning." The Pacific Palisades water tank situation was "reflective of the extraordinary demands" that local officials were facing in managing the immediate crisis, Reed said in an emailed statement. "Long-term planning of city water supplies would not typically assume they are going to be used to fight large-scale wildfires in heavily populated urban areas," he continued. The "surprising shocks" caused by the ongoing fires and resultant stress on water usage surpass any "peak demand scenarios that would be used for planning," according to Reed. Nonetheless, he emphasized that such a short-term disaster can bring long-term impacts, in the form of lives lost and property damages. Los Angeles, Reed explained, is coping with a situation in which known climate change risks "have manifested into the type of extraordinary extreme event that we are struggling to address in our long-term planning.” Going forward, Schwabe said that he could see the value in pausing to reevaluate crisis management plans under new climate scenarios — not just in Southern California, but in other areas across the U.S. West. "If you're not, you're assuming that these are just kind of really infrequent events, and you're basing your decisions on past data and evidence about climate," he said.  "Then you're likely going to continue to make these mistakes," Schwabe added.

In Los Angeles, Water Runs Short as Wildfires Burn Out of Control

By Jackie Luna, Kanishka Singh, Jonathan Allen and Hannah LangLOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Crews battling multiple wildfires that raged across Los...

By Jackie Luna, Kanishka Singh, Jonathan Allen and Hannah LangLOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Crews battling multiple wildfires that raged across Los Angeles on Wednesday were up against a near-perfect storm: intense wind, low humidity and, most troubling for residents, inadequate supplies of water to contain the blazes.Los Angeles authorities said their municipal water systems were working effectively but they were designed for an urban environment, not for tackling wildfires.On Wednesday, at least three major blazes burned in LA County communities simultaneously, including a fire in the affluent Pacific Palisades neighborhood, an area west of downtown LA dotted with multimillion-dollar celebrity homes built along steep canyons.Jay Lund, a professor in civil and environmental engineering at the University of California Davis, said city water tanks are typically designed to be able to put out localized fires, not widespread fires like the ones blazing in Los Angeles."It's not a matter of there's not enough water in Southern California, it's a matter of there's not enough water in that particular area of Southern California just for those few hours that you need it to fight the fires," Lund added.Across the county, more than 70,000 people were ordered to evacuate and at least five were left dead as fierce winds fueled the fires, which have burned unimpeded since Tuesday. The fires have destroyed hundreds of buildings."A firefight with multiple fire hydrants drawing water from the system for several hours is unsustainable," said Mark Pestrella, director of Los Angeles County Public Works.Janisse Quinones, CEO and chief engineer of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, said the demand for water to fight fires at lower elevations was hampering the city's ability to refill water tanks at higher elevations.The lack of water hampered efforts particularly in Pacific Palisades, an upscale coastal enclave where a wildfire has consumed nearly 12,000 acres (4,856 hectares).The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power said that in advance of the windstorm, it had filled all available water tanks in the city, including three 1-million-gallon (3.8-million-litre) tanks in the Palisades area.The area had exhausted the three water storage tanks by early Wednesday, Quinones said in a press briefing."We're fighting a wildfire with urban water systems, and that is really challenging," she added, noting that Pacific Palisades experienced four times the normal water demand for 15 hours as firefighters battled the blaze.The department urged Angelenos to conserve water, and said it had deployed 18 water trucks of 2,000 to 4,000 gallons since Tuesday to help firefighters.Lund said the nature of the fires was such that it was nearly impossible to arrange enough water in advance."If everything catches fire at once, there's not going to be enough water for everybody," he said."There's just no way that you could fit the pipes to work to move that much water across that area in a short period of time."Gregory Pierce, director of the UCLA Water Resources Group and an adjunct professor at the Department of Urban Planning, said the fires were unusually intense even by Southern California standards. His brother's house burned down, he said.He said the problem was not a lack of water so much as the difficulties in rapidly getting large amounts of water to a specific point where it was needed, which would entail major investments in power and infrastructure.Sanah Chung, a Pacific Palisades resident who spoke to a reporter while hosing down hedges and trees in his front yard, said governments at all levels should have been more proactive in preparing for the fires."There must be some things we can do to try to mitigate this. Please. Fire hydrants are empty. Firefighters are doing everything they can, but we need to do things more proactively before," Chung, 57, told Reuters.(Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington, Jonathan Allen and Hannah Lang in New York and Jackie Luna in Los Angeles; Editing by Frank McGurty, Paul Thomasch and Lincoln Feast.)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

People are flocking to Florida. Will there be enough water for them?

Climate change, a development boom, and overexploitation of groundwater are draining the Sunshine State.

While wading through wetlands in the headwaters of the Everglades, where tall, serrated grasses shelter alligators and water moccasins, agroecologist Elizabeth Boughton described one of Florida’s biggest environmental problems: There’s either too much water, or too little.  An intensifying climate, overexploitation of groundwater, and a development boom have catalyzed a looming water supply shortage — something that once seemed impossible for the rainy peninsula. “It’s becoming more of an issue that everyone’s aware of,” said Boughton, who studies ecosystems at the Archbold Biological Station, a research facility in Highlands County, Florida, that manages Buck Island Ranch. The ranch — a sprawling 10,500 acres of pasture lands and wildlife habitats across south-central Florida — both conserves water through land restoration while also draining it as a working cattle ranch. “You kind of take water for granted until you realize, ‘Oh my gosh, this is something that is in danger of being lost.’” An entrance to Buck Island Ranch, a 10,500-acre working cattle farm in Highlands County, Florida (left). Agroecologist Elizabeth Boughton gestures to a grassy field of bluestems and sedges on Buck Island Ranch on December 16, 2024. Ayurella Horn-Muller / Grist Like many places worldwide, the dwindling freshwater availability in Florida is being exacerbated by a warming atmosphere. Sea levels in the state’s coastal regions have already risen dramatically in the last few decades, pushing salt water into the groundwater and creating an impotable brackish mixture that is costly to treat. A report released last summer by the Florida Office of Demographic Research found that the state may experience a water supply shortage as soon as this year, with the problem escalating in coming decades. Florida’s groundwater supply is the primary source of drinking water for roughly 90 percent of the state’s 23 million inhabitants, and is vital for agricultural irrigation and power generation. Public use by households, municipalities, and businesses accounts for the largest depletion of groundwater in Florida, while agriculture is responsible for at least a quarter of withdrawals.  Virtually all of Florida’s groundwater comes from the state’s expansive network of aquifers, a porous layer of sediment that underlies the peninsula. When it rains, water soaks into the ground and gets trapped in gaps in the rock formation — providing an underground reserve of fresh water that humans can tap into with wells and pumps.  But most Floridians live near large population centers — like Miami and Tampa — where the freshest aquifer water is too deep to access or too salty to be readily used. With nearly 900 people moving to Florida each day, the Sunshine State is only continuing to grow, fueling a thirsty rush for new housing developments.  Clayton Aldern / Grist The future of the state’s water has long looked bleak, and a ballooning population is ramping up an already-fraught situation. As leading policymakers push pro-development agendas and parcels of agricultural land are sold to the highest bidder, districts are grappling with political demands to advance water permits — often at the cost of conservation. The Florida Office of Demographic Research report found that the conservation, infrastructure, and restoration projects necessary to tackle the incoming water deficit will cost some $3.3 billion by 2040, with the state footing over $500 million of that bill. But according to Florida TaxWatch, a government-accountability nonprofit, current water projects and sources of funding aren’t coordinated or comprehensive enough to sustain the state’s population growth.  Global warming has changed the nature of rainfall in Florida, increasing the likelihood of extreme rain events in swaths of the state, but even torrential bouts of rain won’t replenish drained aquifers. Intensified hurricanes are primed to overwhelm wastewater systems, forcing sewage dumps that contaminate the water supply, while rising sea levels and floods further damage public water infrastructure. Higher temperatures that drive prolonged droughts also contribute to groundwater scarcity: Florida has experienced at least one severe drought per decade since the onset of the 20th century.  Such climate-borne crises are already playing out across the United States, and beyond. Roughly 53 percent of the nation’s aquifers are drying up as global water systems confront warming. Compared to places where groundwater is already severely depleted, like California, Mexico, and Arizona, Florida has the luxury of one of the highest-producing aquifers in the world, and more time to prepare for a dearth of supply. Still, adaptation will be necessary nearly everywhere as the Earth’s total terrestrial water storage, including groundwater, continues to decline. Record-breaking temperatures and crippling droughts wrought havoc on the world’s water cycle last year, according to the 2024 Global Water Monitor Report.  Read Next Three-quarters of the world’s land is drying out, ‘redefining life on Earth’ Ayurella Horn-Muller Sarah Burns, the planning manager for the city of Tampa, home to half a million people on the Gulf Coast, expects water supplies will continue to face a number of climate pressures like drought and rising sea levels. But one of the biggest factors in the city’s looming water crisis is population growth — and a hard-to-shake abundance mindset.“It’s all a challenging paradigm shift,” Burns said, noting that many Floridians take pride in lush, landscaped lawns, and an influx of new homes are coming to market with water-intensive irrigation systems pre-installed. This can be seen in Tampa, where roughly 18 percent of residents use 45 percent of the city’s water. Tampa already exceeds its 82 million-gallons-per-year limit that it can directly provide without paying for more from the regional provider, at a higher cost to residents. In November 2023, the Southwest Florida Water Management District instituted a once-a-week lawn-watering restriction for households in the 16 counties it oversees, including Tampa. In August 2024, the Tampa City Council voted to adopt the measure indefinitely — a move that has already saved them billions of gallons of water.  Read Next The US is finally curbing floodplain development, new research shows Jake Bittle As newcomers flock to affordable housing within commuting distance of Tampa, once-rural areas are also feeling the squeeze. The nearby city of Zephyrhills — known for a namesake bottled water brand — has temporarily banned new developments after it grew too quickly for its water permit. “Water is the hidden problem that really forced our hand,” said Steven Spina, a member of the Zephyrhills City Council who proposed the restriction. “It is ironic that we’ve been known as the ‘City of Pure Water’ and then we’re in this predicament.” Perhaps nowhere in Florida is more at the crux of water issues than Polk County in the center of the state. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2023, more people moved to the former citrus capital than anywhere else in the nation, with subdivisions “springing up right and left.” The growth the county is seeing “has created a need to find additional water supplies,” said Eric DeHaven, the executive director of Polk Regional Water Cooperative. The entity was created in 2017 after Polk County’s worries became so acute it prompted more than a dozen local governments to assemble to protect their future water supplies. Between 2002 and 2015, Polk County’s farm bureau reported 100,000 acres — about a third of the county’s total agricultural land — had been converted for development. Florida farms are a crucial part of the U.S. food system, but struggles from extreme weather, citrus diseases, and economic issues are driving farmers out of the industry. By 2040, half of an estimated 1 million additional acres of developed land could take the place of farms. This would further magnify Florida’s water supply issues — in 2020, public utilities were estimated to have overtaken farming as the biggest drain on groundwater resources.  A farmworker checks the irrigation lines in an orange grove in Polk County, Florida, in 2022. Paul Hennessy / Anadolu Agency via Getty Images “Imagine if you own this land,” said Boughton, the agroecologist. Farmers are hard-pressed to refuse offers as high as six figures per acre from developers, she noted. ”There’s so much pressure from urban development … that opportunity is hard to pass up.”  “Things are definitely changing because of climate change, but it’s also because of this,” said Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson, gesturing to new houses built across the road from her home in Columbia County, in the north of the state. As the founder of the nonprofit Our Santa Fe River, Malwitz-Jipson has spent the last two decades fighting to save the crystal-blue springs that feed it.  Collectively, the state’s springs have lost over a third of their historic flow levels, while 80 percent are severely polluted. Last year, Blue Springs, a locally beloved landmark, collapsed entirely. Because these springs are directly connected to the aquifer, says Malwitz-Jipson, such signs are omens of declining groundwater health.  Local water-conservation activist Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson points to watermarks on a tree on the banks of the Santa Fe River near her home in Florida. Sachi Kitajima Mulkey / Grist It wasn’t long ago that she devoted years to try and prevent the renewal of a controversial 1 million-gallons-per-day groundwater permit for bottled water for BlueTriton — formerly a subsidiary of Nestlé — in nearby Ginnie Springs. When the effort failed, she switched gears and now advocates for adding conservation conditions to water-use permits. A 2019 report from the Florida Springs Institute found that restoring springs to 95 percent of their former flow levels would require curbing regional groundwater extractions by half. Matt Cohen, a hydrologist who leads the University of Florida’s Water Institute, says the “devil is in the details” when it comes to permitting. “It’s very much where the implementation of those kinds of sustainability measures would be realized,” Cohen said, adding that state water management district authorities often convince applicants to use “substantially less” water. Other measures include offering alternatives to groundwater, like using reclaimed wastewater and surface water supplies. Coordinating such conservation efforts across Florida’s five water management districts and 67 counties will take a concerted statewide approach. In November, the state unveiled its 2024 Florida Water Plan — which includes expanding conservation of agricultural lands, and investing millions into infrastructure and restoration projects, such as Buck Island Ranch — among other measures.   Still, in the face of the population boom, advocates like Malwitz-Jipson wonder if it will be enough. “I don’t know why the state of Florida keeps issuing all these permits,” she said. “We are not ready, y’all. We do not have enough water for this.”  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline People are flocking to Florida. Will there be enough water for them? on Jan 8, 2025.

Curbing irrigation of livestock feed crops may be vital to saving Great Salt Lake: Study

Reducing the amount of water used to irrigate livestock feed crops may be critical to revitalizing the dried-out Great Salt Lake, a new study has found. About 62 percent of the river water heading toward the lake in Utah ends up rerouted for human purposes, with agricultural needs responsible for almost three-quarters of those diversions,...

Reducing the amount of water used to irrigate livestock feed crops may be critical to revitalizing the dried-out Great Salt Lake, a new study has found. About 62 percent of the river water heading toward the lake in Utah ends up rerouted for human purposes, with agricultural needs responsible for almost three-quarters of those diversions, according to the study, published on Tuesday in Environmental Challenges. The Great Salt Lake, which relies on mountain snowpack for much of its replenishment, is the biggest saline lake in the Western Hemisphere and the eighth largest on the planet, the study authors noted. The lake is also a biodiversity hotspot that houses critical habitats and sustains migratory birds, while also supporting area jobs and $2.5 billion in economic activity. At the same time, however, the basin has lost more than 15 billion cubic yards of water over the past 30 years and is now getting shallower at a rate of 4 inches per year, the researchers explained. And as the lake has gotten smaller, area residents have increasingly endured respiratory problems from the fine particulate matter kicked up in the form of wind-carried dust. “The lake is of tremendous ecological, economic, cultural and spiritual significance in the region and beyond,” co-author William Ripple, a professor of ecology at Oregon State University, said in a statement. “All of those values are in severe jeopardy because of the lake’s dramatic depletion over the last few decades." About 80 percent of the diverted agricultural water ends up irrigating alfalfa and hay crops, according to Ripple. With the goal of helping stabilize the lake and bolstering its restoration, Ripple and his colleagues proposed decreasing human water consumption in the area's watershed by 35 percent. These conservation efforts would include a sizable reduction in irrigated alfalfa cultivation, fallowing of irrigated hay fields and taxpayer-funded incentives for farmers and ranchers who lose income as a result. To draw their conclusions, the researchers employed data from the Utah Division of Water Resources to create a comprehensive water budget for the Great Salt Lake basin for 1989 through 2022. They found that on average, water flowing into the lake trailed behind consumption and evaporation by 500 million cubic yards per year. Going forward, the authors suggested a range of conservation measures, including crop shifting, decreasing municipal and industrial use, and leasing water rights from irrigators. But they emphasized that farmers and ranchers who lose income should be compensated at a cost ranging from $29 to $124 per Utah resident per year. “Revenues from growing both irrigated alfalfa and grass hay cattle feed in the Great Salt Lake basin account for less than 0.1% of Utah’s gross domestic product,” Ripple said. “But our potential solutions would mean lifestyle changes for as many as 20,000 farmers and ranchers in the basin.” Yet although the necessary adjustments would be significant, Ripple stressed that they would not be insurmountable. “With the right policies and public support, we can secure a sustainable future for the Great Salt Lake and set a precedent for addressing water scarcity globally," he added.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.