The Economics of New Dams and Reservoirs Don't Add Up
The world is running out of potable water. The question is what to do about it.
There are a number of options, but the standard response, as the following article explains, is to build more 'surface storage' projects - dams and reservoirs - because we know how to build, finance and sell them.
The problem with the traditional approach lies in the declining efficiency and productivity of the model on which it is based. JL
Chris Nichols reports in the San Diego Times-Union:
Water generated from big new storage
projects costs substantially more than water from water use efficiency,
stormwater capture, groundwater cleanup, and water recycling projects.
With dead almond trees propped on the Capitol steps and school children clutching signs that read “We need water. Build storage now!”, advocates for new dams and reservoirs in California offered a striking set of visuals in Sacramento last week.
Legislation to advance those traditional GOP arguments, however, faded away faster than this year’s Sierra Nevada snowpack, rejected later in the day by Democrats who tightly control decisions under the Capitol dome.
“I think (surface storage) is a dinosaur. The fact is it’s an inferior way to store water,” said Assemblyman Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara, who chaired a panel that rejected a Republican bill to speed up dam and reservoir construction last week. “It will be a piece of the future, but a very small piece.”
The construction of dams and reservoirs has slowed dramatically in California over the past 40 years due to stronger environmental regulations, the lack of remaining suitable sites and growing momentum for more cost-effective methods of storing water.
But faced with a fourth straight year of drought and growing water shortages for agriculture, Republican lawmakers and Central Valley farmers say there’s no better time than now to build additional above ground storage, to ensure future drought’s aren’t so brutal.
“(The drought) started in agriculture, but now it’s touched all parts of the state — we know the solution is water storage,” Assemblyman James Gallagher, R-Nicolaus, told the farmers, lawmakers and children at last week’s Capitol steps rally.
Gallagher authored the bill, AB 311, to expedite reservoir construction. Like the almond trees on the steps, his legislation was dead just hours after the rally, defeated by a 6-3 party line vote in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, with all Democrats opposed
Lacking in detail, and pursuing a solution Democrats simply don’t agree with, the legislation was flawed from the start, said William, the committee chair.
“It was a political stunt,” Williams added of the rally.
History and high cost
California is home to more than 1,400 regulated reservoirs, the largest of which were built in Northern California by the state and federal governments from the 1950s through the 1970s. Since the completion of New Melones Dam in the Sierra foothills in 1979, however, only regional water authorities have invested in large-scale dams and reservoirs.
“Big dam building has slowed a great deal,” said Maury Roos, the state’s chief hydrologist with the Department of Water Resources.
“The best sites have been taken. There’s a lot more opposition to building dams,” Roos added, citing push back from both environmentalists who highlight the effects on migratory fish and American Indians concerned about the destruction of sacred tribal sites.
Gallagher and other Republicans say without more reservoirs, the state will lose out on capturing billions of gallons of water that falls, during wet years, on sections of rivers without dams and then flows to the delta and ocean.
Still, opponents say the argument against big new dams boils down to economics.
“Water generated from big new storage projects costs substantially more than water from water use efficiency, stormwater capture, groundwater cleanup, and water recycling projects,” Doug Obegi, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, wrote in a blog last year.
“They just don’t pencil out,” Obegi added in an interview.
Citing a federal study to build a dam at Temperance Flat east of Fresno, Obegi said the $2.5 billion project would yield up to 76,000 acre feet of water but cost taxpayers more than $1,500 per acre foot. That would be about $600 more per acre foot than the water generated by an Orange County groundwater replenishment system, he said.
One acre-foot of water, or 326,000 gallons, is the approximate amount used by two typical single-family households.
Building dams is not only expensive, it results in relatively low available supply for cities and farms, according to the California Public Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group.
“Five proposed projects — costing roughly $9 billion — would expand statewide reservoir capacity by about four million acre-feet. However, these projects would raise annual average supplies by 410,000 acre-feet, or just one percent of annual farm and city use,” according to a recent PPIC report.
The supply from new reservoirs would be limited because these storage banks aren’t dedicated solely to city and farm deliveries, explained Ellen Hanak, director of the institute’s Water Policy Center. Much of their new space would remain empty in case it’s needed to store flood water, some would be devoted to environmental water flows, and yet more would be dedicated for use only in droughts, she said.
“That doesn’t mean it’s not useful,” Hanak said, describing surface storage as one piece of California’s complicated water supply puzzle.
San Diego region
Recognizing its lack of natural water supplies, the San Diego region has aggressively developed surface storage, both historically, and in recent decades.
There are 25 reservoirs in the San Diego County Water Authority’s service area, which includes 95 percent of the county’s population.
Last year, the region saw its biggest increase in water storage in history with the completion of the San Vicente dam raise. It raised the dam by 117 feet and added 152,000 acre feet of water storage capacity.
In 2003, the water authority completed the Olivenhain Reservoir, producing 24,000 acre-feet of water.
Given these recent expansions, there are no dam building projects through the water authority’s 2035 planning horizon, according to an agency spokesman.
The Diamond Valley Lake reservoir in Riverside County has a capacity of 800,000 acre-feet and has been a key component of the Southern California water system since its completion in 1999 by the Metropolitan Water District, which supplies water to the San Diego authority.
State’s water future
While dams dot nearly all of California’s waterways, there’s money and some momentum for building at least one more large state reservoir in the near future — though perhaps not directly on a river.
Voters in November approved the state’s $7.5 billion water bond. Needing Republican votes to put the measure on the ballot, Democrats including Gov. Jerry Brown agreed to include $2.7 billion for water storage.
The proposed Sites Reservoir, which would sit west of the Sacramento River about 60 miles north of the Capitol, has emerged as the top candidate, along with the Temperance Flat Reservoir.
All sides in California’s water debate are closely watching plans for the two reservoirs, with environmental groups at least not ruling out the Sites project, Obegi said.
The water bond allows the state to use a competitive process to select storage projects, pay for a maximum of half their cost. Half of any water bond money would be devoted to ecosystem improvements, the attorney said.
Norman Crow, who grows almonds and walnuts on 1,000 acres in Crows Landing, named after his farming forefathers seven generations ago, said last week the state should take a close look at the cost of water storage. That doesn’t mean, however, it should rule reservoirs out as it grapples with California’s water crisis, he said.
“We should look at the economics,” Crow said following the water storage rally. “Let’s (also) be accountable for the money we agreed to spend,” in the water bond.
“We don’t want to be adversaries,” the farmer added. “We want to bring everybody to the table and work this through.”
As a Partner and Co-Founder of Predictiv and PredictivAsia, Jon specializes in management performance and organizational effectiveness for both domestic and international clients. He is an editor and author whose works include Invisible Advantage: How Intangilbles are Driving Business Performance. Learn more...
“Big dam building has slowed a great deal,” said Maury Roos, the state’s chief hydrologist with the Department of Water Resources.“The best sites have been taken. There’s a lot more opposition to building dams,” Roos added, citing push back from both environmentalists who highlight the effects on migratory fish and American Indians concerned about the destruction of sacred tribal sites.Gallagher and other Republicans say without more reservoirs, the state will lose out on capturing billions of gallons of water that falls, during wet years, on sections of rivers without dams and then flows to the delta and ocean.Still, opponents say the argument against big new dams boils down to economics.“Water generated from big new storage projects costs substantially more than water from water use efficiency, stormwater capture, groundwater cleanup, and water recycling projects,” Doug Obegi, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, wrote in a blog last year.“They just don’t pencil out,” Obegi added in an interview.Citing a federal study to build a dam at Temperance Flat east of Fresno, Obegi said the $2.5 billion project would yield up to 76,000 acre feet of water but cost taxpayers more than $1,500 per acre foot. That would be about $600 more per acre foot than the water generated by an Orange County groundwater replenishment system, he said.One acre-foot of water, or 326,000 gallons, is the approximate amount used by two typical single-family households.Building dams is not only expensive, it results in relatively low available supply for cities and farms, according to the California Public Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group.“Five proposed projects — costing roughly $9 billion — would expand statewide reservoir capacity by about four million acre-feet. However, these projects would raise annual average supplies by 410,000 acre-feet, or just one percent of annual farm and city use,” according to a recent PPIC report.The supply from new reservoirs would be limited because these storage banks aren’t dedicated solely to city and farm deliveries, explained Ellen Hanak, director of the institute’s Water Policy Center. Much of their new space would remain empty in case it’s needed to store flood water, some would be devoted to environmental water flows, and yet more would be dedicated for use only in droughts, she said.“That doesn’t mean it’s not useful,” Hanak said, describing surface storage as one piece of California’s complicated water supply puzzle.San Diego regionRecognizing its lack of natural water supplies, the San Diego region has aggressively developed surface storage, both historically, and in recent decades.There are 25 reservoirs in the San Diego County Water Authority’s service area, which includes 95 percent of the county’s population.Last year, the region saw its biggest increase in water storage in history with the completion of the San Vicente dam raise. It raised the dam by 117 feet and added 152,000 acre feet of water storage capacity.In 2003, the water authority completed the Olivenhain Reservoir, producing 24,000 acre-feet of water.Given these recent expansions, there are no dam building projects through the water authority’s 2035 planning horizon, according to an agency spokesman.The Diamond Valley Lake reservoir in Riverside County has a capacity of 800,000 acre-feet and has been a key component of the Southern California water system since its completion in 1999 by the Metropolitan Water District, which supplies water to the San Diego authority.State’s water futureWhile dams dot nearly all of California’s waterways, there’s money and some momentum for building at least one more large state reservoir in the near future — though perhaps not directly on a river.Voters in November approved the state’s $7.5 billion water bond. Needing Republican votes to put the measure on the ballot, Democrats including Gov. Jerry Brown agreed to include $2.7 billion for water storage.The proposed Sites Reservoir, which would sit west of the Sacramento River about 60 miles north of the Capitol, has emerged as the top candidate, along with the Temperance Flat Reservoir.All sides in California’s water debate are closely watching plans for the two reservoirs, with environmental groups at least not ruling out the Sites project, Obegi said.The water bond allows the state to use a competitive process to select storage projects, pay for a maximum of half their cost. Half of any water bond money would be devoted to ecosystem improvements, the attorney said.Norman Crow, who grows almonds and walnuts on 1,000 acres in Crows Landing, named after his farming forefathers seven generations ago, said last week the state should take a close look at the cost of water storage. That doesn’t mean, however, it should rule reservoirs out as it grapples with California’s water crisis, he said.“We should look at the economics,” Crow said following the water storage rally. “Let’s (also) be accountable for the money we agreed to spend,” in the water bond.“We don’t want to be adversaries,” the farmer added. “We want to bring everybody to the table and work this through.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment