Environmentalists are pressing CPUC to design the state's pioneering "smart grid" system to ensure maximum GHG reductions by assessing the value of electricity transmission investments based on emissions cuts, among other issues. Such design requirements may prompt opposition from the utility industry based on claims they are premature and could slow grid improvements. The emerging dispute is in response to a draft proposal issued May 21 by the CPUC on its smart grid requirements which the commission is slated to adopt as a final rule making later this month. The draft decision requires that the utilities follow a common outline in preparing their smart grid deployment plans. The outline consists of eight topics, which include deployment baseline, grid security and cyber security strategy, cost estimates, benefits estimates and metrics. Environmentalists are focusing primarily on one piece of the deployment plans, claiming that utilities must assess the success of their smart grid programs in part by measuring reductions in GHG emissions, increases in renewable energy supply and the creation of "green jobs".
See: http://carboncontrolnews.com

As with most climate change regulations, California's rules to implement its smart grid program are being closely followed by regulators in other states because it is seen as a leading model. As referenced by the CPUC, smart grid refers to an electricity distribution system that allows for the flow of near real-time information between a customer's meter and the utility, and modernizes the electricity grid with a goal of using advanced, information-based technologies to increase power grid efficiency, reliability and flexibility. Smart grid also aims to reduce the rate at which additional electric utility infrastructure needs to be built. So why are environmentalists against this. They would say that they aren't but that they just want to make sure there is an assessment done to show that this brings about some GHG emissions benefit. Well, just having the information will allow such assessments and in reality, the smart grid has nothing to do with increasing green energy (merely curtailing the use of fossil fuel energy) and it may not create a single green job. So why all the fuss? We just don't understand this one at all.

Meridian Energy's photovoltaic solar farm in the Central Valley farming town of Mendota is the first utility-scale solar project to feed its power directly to the high-voltage transmission lines managed by the central grid operator. Until now, all solar facilities -- even ones up to 20 MW -- used only local distribution lines of much smaller voltages, limiting their use to the immediate geographic region. Meridian had to meet stringent requirements set by the grid operator and by PG&E, who is buying the plant's output. It had to upgrade its transformer to handle 10 percent above its maximum planned output and install phone lines throughout, which took eight months alone. California regulators viewed the plant as a sign of progress for the state, which is notorious for its bureaucratic morass. "It's not huge, and it's not the only attempt to put solar into the grid," said California Public Utility Commissioner John Bohn. "What's important is that a group of people, in spite of regulation, in spite of bureaucratic inertia, still got it done."
See: http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/06/02/1955610/mendota-solar-farm-paves-way-for.html

We report this not for the sake of its newsworthiness, but to point out the comment by Commissioner Bond: "...in spite of regulation, in spite of bureaucratic inertia..." The Commissioner is to be applauded at the very candid and straightforward comment which summarizes many of the problems that stand in the way of green power and freeing ourselves from continued mid-east entanglements. We would hope that not only he, but the entire commission recognize this problem and fix it. However, we doubt that this will happen without a strong legislative push, but in California, regulation and control are king. So we won't hold our breath.

Plans for future houses, apartments, gas stations, plants and shopping centers in the Bay Area could face significant changes under new emissions and toxic air guidelines. The new Bay Area Air Quality Management District guidelines offer pollution thresholds to cities and counties regarding greenhouse gases and potentially harmful toxins. Those limits can be used to determine whether developers need to study ways to remove pollution during the land-use review process. Projects that are projected to produce more than 1,100 metric tons of GHG a year (the amount from 55 typical new single-family houses) would have to submit to a review on ways to reduce their output. Under the guidelines, a gas station, business or housing project developer would be required to conduct pollution reduction studies if the proposed project would increase the cancer risk by 10 in a million within 1,000 feet of a major pollution source. Air district managers said the guidelines will not stop development in downtowns or near transit centers. "We support infill development," said Henry Hilken, the air district director of planning and research. Business leaders and developers were upset with the guidelines, saying they would discourage new growth in key development areas, including along downtown streets and near freeways
See: http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_15211310?nclick_check=1

Possible solutions to meet these new requirements could include locating the project near public transportation, installing solar panels or adding insulation but we are not certain that it will end their. While Cities and counties are not required to use the guidelines, it is clear that a failure to comply could lead to lawsuits from development opponents. Further, the linking of the need to ascribe specific health risk analysis to such a development is another area of contention and will alone generate litigation. (I've been involved in a many of these scientific/administrative/litigation tussles and there is no end to their ambiguity.) But, on the other side of the coin, at least there is some solid standard that people can work with and try to meet, which in some cases may provide an escape from the cycle of planning-litigation - re-planning-more litigation etc.

Using hybrid gasoline engines to boost fuel efficiency by 50 percent comes at a cost of $9,000, according to a long-delayed report by the NAS. The study, based on 2007 technology, was originally slated for release in 2008 but lagged behind as Congress, the Obama administration and California implemented stricter fuel economy requirements. The analysis found that conventional engine technology could be used to boost efficiency by 29 percent at a cost of $2,200 per vehicle, while switching to diesel engines could deliver a 37 percent increase for $5,900. Carmakers have already moved toward hybrid and cleaner diesel technology, with the average U.S. vehicle required to get 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016. The study also examined unconventional technology such as plug-in hybrids and homogeneous charge compression ignition, a process by which gasoline engines use diesel-style compression instead of spark ignition. Scientists from the auto industry, government and academia concluded that it was not possible to forecast the feasibility of those technologies beyond the next five years.
See: http://www.freep.com/article/20100604/BUSINESS01/6040328/1331/business01/Boost-in-mileage-also-boosts-vehicles-cost-federal-study-says
Official report summary: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12924

The cost of clean transportation is going to be expensive. But again, assuming the increase in cost does not crush the car market, increase in efficiency while making for lower emissions (of all types) does make sense. Our largest use of oil is for transportation related fuels and so it is a natural place to try to break the cycle of continuous and unabated reliance on oil, particularly in the current political climate because of the oil spill in the gulf, and for-again-benefit to our geopolitical position. Of course, this also has to be weighed against the cost of removal of carbon usage elsewhere and whether or not it is cheaper, faster and provides a higher degree of benefit to control emissions at a different source point.

Merely switching to electric vehicles in the UK will not have a significant impact on carbon emissions, a new report has claimed. The success of eco-friendly vehicles is dependent on a number of different factors, including the availability of green electricity, according to the Royal Academy of Engineering. Swapping gas guzzlers for electric vehicles will not solve our carbon emissions problem on its own,` said Roger Kemp of Lancaster University who chaired the working group responsible for the report. `When most electricity in Britain is still generated by burning gas and coal, the difference between an electric car and a small, low-emission petrol or diesel car is negligible.` He said that car manufacturers developing electric models is a good thing but it is only one way carbon emissions can be reduced.
See: http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=151458&catid=3 Official report Summary: http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/releases/shownews.htm?NewsID=566

Last week we touched on the issue of EVs and how they will rally impact the GHG emissions from transportation. Recall that the power has to come from somewhere. The comments from the UK proves our point.

Wyoming could be the first state to develop a comprehensive set of legal rules dealing with carbon sequestration risk. Lawmakers in the state have been saying that there is a great need to get some fundamental legal rights and responsibilities clear. They have stated that there are numerous questions that need to be answered first, among them: Which land owner can prevent a carbon sequestration project from taking place under their land - the mineral rights owner, or the surface land owner? Which owner is legally responsible for the storage? How about in 100 years? Which governmental entity should oversee best practices and enforce potential liability in carbon sequestration - and how can that department be funded to do the job adequately? Already this year, state legislators passed a precursor bill that requires that landowners be notified of carbon sequestration proposals and mandate that carbon sequestration project operators have liability insurance and provide financial assurances to get a sequestration permit. Under discussion are proposed rules spell out the process and standards for obtaining a carbon sequestration permit, including detailed application requirements, proving a pore space can sequester carbon dioxide, and an extensive monitoring plan. It is reported that other states with significant coal industries like Montana and South Dakota are following Wyoming's efforts closely as they consider how to draw up their own rules.
See: http://cleantechnica.com/2010/05/29/first-us-state-to-codify-law-for-carbon-sequestration-is-wyoming/

You'd think Wyoming would be the last state to codify such laws, but understand their motives. They have the terrain, space and geography to become a powerhouse state in producing fossil fuel based power with sequestration. But they are also as state that takes the private rights of its citizens very seriously. And so, by seeking answers to these questions first they are likely to put their citizens at some peace so that they can profit from the sequestration promise. We haven't seen any other state (or the feds) attempt this in this manner. Mostly we think its because the pending attitude is that the Courts will figure it out in time. Guess what, that has proven time and time again to be an enormously inefficient method to get things done, particularly in times of significant policy shifts.

Gov. Jodi Rell vetoed a comprehensive energy package that would have provided extensive solar incentives, aimed at slicing electricity prices by 15 percent; expanded efficiency standards; and restructured Connecticut's energy agencies. It was passed in both legislative houses before the state General Assembly adjourned at the end of May. The measure vetoed by the governor would have set up a program similar to one in New Jersey, which has one of the highest rates of solar installations in the country. The proposed Connecticut program would have allowed solar installers to fund projects by selling "commercial-scale solar" credits, or Solar Renewable Energy Credits, to utilities, which would have spread out the costs to ratepayers over a 25-year period. Combined with other renewable incentives in the vetoed measure, the measure would have led to enough solar in the state to power 100,000 homes. Large utilities supported the governor's veto, as did the Hartford Courant newspaper, whose editorial writers said the "bloated bill" mixed too many bad elements with the good. Electricity distribution companies such as the New Haven-based United Illuminating Co. complained that the legislation's call for a 15 percent reduction in electricity rates in a short time frame without a detailed plan could leave them eating the costs of lowering prices.
See: http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/05/26/news/doc4bfc970de3f89231527945.txt

There seems to be a lot about this bill that did more then provide what is needed to move solar power into a price range of acceptability. But it is surprising nonetheless. There is discussion of the state legislature coming back into session to override the veto. More likely, a trimmed down bill will be negotiated to avoid a show down. We will follow this.

Legislation requiring Colorado to generate 30 percent of its electricity from renewable sources was signed in March by Governor Bill Ritter, giving Colorado the second-highest renewable energy standard in the nation, behind only California. Proponents of the bill assert that the measure will create thousands of green jobs and spur the building of 100,000 solar rooftops. A foundation for the new goal was laid in 2004, when Colorado voters passed Amendment 37, setting the standard at 10 percent by 2015. That number was doubled to 20 percent by 2020 by the governor and the legislature in 2007. In addition, the bill calls for 3 percent of the standard to be met by local solar power, which, the governor said, will encourage clean energy without the expense of new transmission lines.
See: http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_15195830

Colorado is on the move and is likely to be parroting many of the California pathways already cut. They still need to start tackling the core issues of how to do it and how to make the investment in renewable energy economic. Of course, how to get green power from place to place, is an issue that has stymied not only those in California, but almost everywhere in the country.

The effects of climate change in Egypt could hurt the country's farming sector, adding to concerns over food security in what is already the world's leading wheat importer. An environmental study released this week shows that climate change could cut key crops, reduce water supplies and force millions to migrate. El Sayed Sabry, head of the climate change unit of the environmental affairs agency, said his office predicts a loss of 10 to 12 percent of agricultural land, mostly due to flooding. Wheat production could drop by 15 percent by 2050 if temperatures increase by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit and 36 percent if the temperature increase is twice that. Parts of the Nile Delta, where nearly half the country's crops are grown, would be flooded with salt water. "There is no doubt, this will create stress on the economy," Sabry said. The country also faces a decline in the flow of the Nile because of an anticipated 20 percent drop in rain in the Nile Basin. A rise in temperature of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit would cause an 88 percent decrease in the flow of the river, which supplies the country with 87 percent of its water.
See: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6504YW20100601

Rising temperatures and unpredictable patterns of the seasonal monsoon rains are two fallouts from climate change that may pose a major threat to Indian agriculture according to the Ministry of Agriculture based on internal studies. In the first case, in 1997, the winter onion crop in the western state of Maharashtra failed due to unusually high temperatures during the onions' bulb formation stage. In 1998, the same crop failed due to the onset of the purple blotch and stemphylium blight diseases, which were induced by uncharacteristically high rainfall, the ministry said. The second case relates to the so-called apple belt in the Himalayan state of Himachal Pradesh. The studies showed that the apple belts are shifting to higher elevations due to warmer temperatures in the lower regions. "A rise in temperatures reduces crop duration, increases crop respiration rates, affects the equilibrium between crops and pests, hastens nutrient mineralization in soils, decreases fertilizer use efficiencies, and increases evapo-transpiration," the ministry said. Extreme temperatures and heat spells could alter monsoon patterns, key to India's mainly rain-fed agriculture and vital to maintaining 81 federally monitored reservoirs that fulfill the country's irrigation, power, and drinking water needs. Generally, temperatures have risen in the central, southern, and northeastern parts of the country and have decreased in some areas in the west and northwest.
See: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/himachal-apple-belt-shifting-due-to-climate-change_100374042.html

While all predictions must be tempered by the inexactitude of the science and modeling behind it, the point here should be well taken. Given movement of geographic areas where agriculture can take place means that to continue to produce efficiently two things have to happen. The areas for agriculture need to relocate or an effort has to be made to develop crops that are resistant to the change. Relocation is difficult at best and may be in some places simply impossible for a wide variety of issues including cultural and historical reasons, let alone infrastructure, land rights, water supply etc. The development of different strains of crop can occur slowly using standard hybridization technology of mixing plants that over time seem to do better with those that don't. Or it can be done a lot faster using bio and molecular engineering. While bio and molecular engineering should be employed as soon as possible to avoid the problem there has been a great hue and cry as to the production of "Frankenstein" foods, so we don't see that happening in many countries. In many third world countries, these agricultural shifts and changes will be flash points in maintaining society equilibrium and it is no wonder that many military agencies throughout the world are contemplating such disasters.

Northern California's two large marine sanctuaries and nearby coastal regions will be severely threatened by the planet's changing climate over the next several decades as the sea level rises, the ocean water warms, marine animals migrate and coastal storms and erosion intensify. The scientists, who have been studying the issue for the past two years, said in a report that sea level at the mouth of San Francisco Bay has already risen nearly 8 inches in the past century and noted that the most recent estimates of global warming's impact on the ocean off the California coast indicate a sea level rise of 29 inches in the next 40 years and 75 inches by the end of the century. Some ocean species are already adapting to warming waters off the coast by moving northward, the scientists found. For example, gray whales, which normally give birth in the warm lagoons of Baja California, are beginning to move calving grounds northward. Aside from sea level rise, the climate changes the report refers to include warmer ocean surface temperatures and increasing ocean acidity as carbon from greenhouse gases change the sea's composition. The report predicts that as the ocean warms, changes will occur in the complex pattern of currents off the California coast. Meanwhile, the report said, storms of greater intensity will hit the state, increasing runoff from the state's rivers and causing huge swaths of land to erode into the ocean in the next several decades. The effects will be felt at least from Point Arena in Mendocino to Monterey, the scientists said. Fish of all kinds will be affected by the changing climate in the years to come, the scientists predicted. Coho salmon and steelhead, for example, are severely threatened by loss of their natural habitat and reduced stream flows in the rivers where they have thrived. If climate change results in increased stream temperatures, salmon growth rates may decline while the vulnerability to predators increases, they said.
See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/04/MN691DPET2.DTL
Report: http://farallones.noaa.gov/eco/climate/climate.html

This all may be true. And if so, it is a consequence of changes that will possibly occur, but have occurred in the past without man's intervention. Nature will find a way of dealing with these issues as has happened for millenniums. It's the humans response to the change that is more problematic given politics, economics and our need to rely on a vast food chain from the ocean. What the report doesn't indicate is what other species of fish, for example, will move into areas that become uninhabitable for those now there. So, maybe the shift would have a positive, or at least not as great a negative, effect. Also while its nice to have the whales cave in Baja, if they can find a more suitable place (as they probably have done many times over their millions of years of existence) then that is what they will do.

ARB held a public meeting on December 9, 2009, to receive an update on implementation of the Truck and Bus Rule and to hear a brief update regarding economic indicators related to the off-road regulation.  The Board directed its staff to return in
April 2010 with a new provision for the Truck and Bus Rule that would provide truck fleets more flexibility in cleaning up their
diesel emissions.  The Board also directed staff to report back at the same time with a further assessment of off-road vehicle
emissions, and an evaluation of a projection of off-road vehicle emissions that was prepared by the Associated General
Contractors. The Board's action does not affect the implementation of the In-Use Off-road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. 

The off-road regulation required reporting of all off-road diesel vehicles by August 1, 2009.  Fleets that did not report by
the deadline should do so as soon as possible.  Although the deadlines for all fleets are past, ARB has extended an informal
grace period so that fleets may report their vehicles late without penalty. Fleets that self-report will not face
enforcement action if they report all of their vehicles prior to January 1, 2010 (for large and medium fleets) and March 1, 2010 (for small fleets).  For further information, please see our updated Reporting Enforcement Advisory at 
http://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/advs/advs394.pdf

For further information on off-road regulation requirements, please visit the knowledge center for the off-road regulation at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/knowcenter.htm which is now equipped with a convenient search feature. 

James C. Husting, CGCS
Chairman, Government Relations
California GCSA
jchust@sbcglobal.net

Off road diesel small fleet reference: View Here
Off Road Diesel Early Action Reference: View Here
Guidance Advisory: View Here

"Draft Regulatory Concept tp Prevent Pesticide Contamination of Surface Water"
View Regulatory Draft >>>HERE

March 6, 2009
Government Relations Chairman & Lobbyist in action! 

Attached please find the CARB Announcement to golf courses concerning the upcoming regulations regarding diesel equipment. Please note that most golf courses will fall in the small fleet category and have until August 2009 to register all affected equipment. All golf course superintendents are encouraged to log on the CARB website to get all of the necessary information that is required to comply with this new regulation. These links can be found below for easy reference and guidance. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/documents/offrddieselsmallfltsFS.pdf 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/documents/OffRoadDieselEarlyActionsFS.pdf 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/guidanceadvisory.htm 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bulletin from Department of Pesticide Regulation
"Draft Regulatory Concept tp Prevent Pesticide Contamination of Surface Water" 
View Regulatory Draft >>>HERE 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legislative bills that Jim Husting has marked for tracking/monitoring for the CGCSA
View Bills >>>HERE 

James C. Husting, CGCS 
Chairman, Government Relations 
California GCSA 
jchust@sbcglobal.net 

Thank you for your input on the enforcement advisory regarding new idling limits and disclosure/record retention requirements.  We are currently incorporating changes based on your input.  We will be including a section that details what minimal components should be included in the written idling policy.  If at all possible, please provide me a list of what you think should be included, minimally, in the written idling policy.  Please submit your list by 5 p.m. on Friday.  Thank you.

Sincerely,
Beth White 

Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Strategies Branch Air Resources Board
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 324-1704
Fax: (916) 323-5526

06/04/2008   GAAS:307:08   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Governor Schwarzenegger Proclaims Drought and Orders Immediate Action to Address Situation
Following two straight years of below-average rainfall, very low snowmelt runoff and the largest court-ordered water transfer restrictions in state history, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today proclaimed a statewide drought and issued an Executive Order, which takes immediate action to address a dire situation where numerous California communities are being forced to mandate water conservation or rationing. The lack of water has created other problems, such as extreme fire danger due to dry conditions, economic harm to urban and rural communities, loss of crops and the potential to degrade water quality in some regions.

"For the areas in Northern California that supply most of our water, this March, April and May have been the driest ever in our recorded history," Governor Schwarzenegger said. "As a result, some local governments are rationing water, developments can't proceed and agricultural fields are sitting idle. We must recognize the severity of the crisis we face, so I am signing an Executive Order proclaiming a statewide drought and directing my Department of Water Resources and other entities to take immediate action to address the situation."

Today's Executive Order directs the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to:

Facilitate water transfers to respond to emergency shortages across the state. 
Work with local water districts and agencies to improve local coordination. 
Help local water districts and agencies improve water efficiency and conservation. 
Coordinate with other state and federal agencies and departments to assist water suppliers, identify risks to water supply and help farmers suffering losses. 
Expedite existing grant programs to help local water districts and agencies conserve. 
This Executive Order also encourages local water districts and agencies to promote water conservation. They are encouraged to work cooperatively on the regional and state level to take aggressive, immediate action to reduce water consumption locally and regionally for the remainder of 2008 and prepare for potential worsening water conditions in 2009. As part of the Executive Order, DWR will work with locals to conduct an aggressive water conservation and outreach campaign.

Last month, DWR's final snow survey of 2008 showed snowpack water content at only 67 percent of normal and the runoff forecast at only 55 percent of normal. As conditions continue to worsen across California, it underscores the state's need for infrastructure improvements to capture excess water in wet years to use in dry years like this one.

"This drought is an urgent reminder of the immediate need to upgrade California's water infrastructure. There is no more time to waste because nothing is more vital to protect our economy, our environment and our quality-of-life. We must work together to ensure that California will have safe, reliable and clean water not only today but 20, 30 and 40 years from now.

Beginning with the first Strategic Growth Plan in 2006, the Governor called for a comprehensive plan to address California's urgent water needs. The Governor renewed that call in his 2008-09 budget by proposing an $11.9 billion water bond for water management investments that will address population growth, climate change, water supply reliability and environmental needs. Specifically, the bond includes:

Water Storage: $3.5 billion dedicated to the development of additional storage. 
Delta Sustainability: $2.4 billion to help implement a sustainable resource management plan for the Delta. 
Water Resources Stewardship: $1.1 billion to implement river restoration projects. 
Water Conservation: $3.1 billion to increase water use efficiency. 
Water Quality Improvement: $1.1 billion for efforts to reduce the contamination of groundwater. 
Other Critical Water Projects: $700 million for water recycling, hillside restoration for areas devastated by fire and removal of fish barriers on key rivers and streams. 
The Governor is committed to gaining consensus on a bipartisan legislative solution for California's future.

In February, Governor Schwarzenegger sent a letter to Senators Perata, Steinberg, and Machado clarifying the administrative actions under consideration as part of a comprehensive solution in the Delta. 
Also in February, the Governor hosted a meeting with Senator Feinstein, legislative leaders and key stakeholders to discuss rebuilding California's water infrastructure. 
In December 2007, the Governor applauded the work of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force and committed to continuing to work with legislative leaders on a comprehensive water solution. 
In September 2007, the Governor introduced a comprehensive water infrastructure proposal during the legislative special session, building off of the plan he introduced in January 2007 as part of the 2007-08 budget. 
In July 2007, the Governor directed DWR to take immediate action to improve conditions in the Delta, to help restore its natural habitat and protect the Delta smelt and other species. 
Text of the Executive Order: 

EXECUTIVE ORDER S-06-08

WHEREAS Statewide rainfall has been below normal in 2007 and 2008, with many Southern California communities receiving only 20 percent of normal rainfall in 2007, and Northern California this year experiencing the driest spring on record with most communities receiving less than 20 percent of normal rainfall from March through May; and 

WHEREAS California is experiencing critically dry water conditions in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins and the statewide runoff forecast for 2008 is estimated to be 41 percent below average; and

WHEREAS water storage in many of the state's major reservoirs is far below normal including Lake Oroville, which supplies the State Water Project, at 50 percent of capacity, Lake Shasta at 61 percent of capacity and Folsom Lake at 63 percent of capacity; and

WHEREAS the Colorado River Basin has just experienced a record eight-year drought resulting in current reservoir storage throughout the river system reduced to just over 50 percent of total storage capacity; and

WHEREAS climate change will increasingly impact California's hydrology and is expected to reduce snowpack, alter the timing of runoff and increase the intensity and frequency of droughts in the western United States; and

WHEREAS diversions from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta for the State Water Project (SWP) and federal Central Valley Project (CVP) are being greatly restricted due to various factors including federal court actions to protect fish species, resulting in estimated SWP deliveries of only 35 percent, and CVP deliveries of only 40 percent, of local agencies' requested amounts for 2008; and

WHEREAS dry conditions have created a situation of extreme fire danger in California, and these conditions resulted in devastating fires last year, resulting in proclamations of emergency for the counties of El Dorado, Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and San Diego, with wildfires there causing millions of dollars in damages; and 

WHEREAS on May 9, 2008, I signed an Executive Order directing various agencies and departments within my administration to respond to these dry conditions and prepare for another potentially severe wildfire season; and

WHEREAS the current drought conditions are harming urban and rural economies, and the state's overall economic prosperity; and

WHEREAS some communities are restricting new development and mandating water conservation and rationing, and some farmers have idled permanent crops and are not planting seasonal crops this year, because of unreliable or uncertain water supplies; and 

WHEREAS recent supply reductions have jeopardized agricultural production in the San Joaquin Valley; an

WHEREAS it is not possible to predict the duration of present drought conditions; and

WHEREAS while communities throughout the state have worked to significantly improve their drought preparedness, the readiness to cope with current and future drought conditions varies widely; and

WHEREAS immediate water conservation measures are needed this year to address current conditions and prepare for a dry 2009; and 

WHEREAS the State of California is committed to enhancing drought response and drought preparedness and to protecting the state's economy and its environment

NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, do hereby proclaim a condition of statewide drought, and in accordance with the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, do hereby issue the following orders to become effective immediately

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department of Water Resources (DWR) shall take immediate action to address the serious drought conditions and water delivery limitations that currently exist in California, and that are anticipated in the future, by taking the following actions:

Expedite existing grant programs for local water districts and agencies for new or ongoing water conservation and water use reduction programs and projects that are capable of timely implementation to ease drought conditions in 2008 or 2009.
Facilitate water transfers in 2008 to timely respond to potential emergency water shortages and water quality degradation, and prepare to operate a dry year water purchasing program in 2009. 
In cooperation with local water agencies and other water-related organizations, conduct an aggressive water conservation and outreach campaign. 
Immediately convene the Climate Variability Advisory Committee to prioritize and expedite drought-related climate research that will assist in responding to current drought conditions and help prepare for a potentially dry 2009. 
Provide technical assistance for drought response to local water agencies and districts for improving landscape and agricultural irrigation efficiencies, leak detection and other measures as appropriate. 
Review the water shortage contingency elements of Urban Water Management Plans and work cooperatively with water suppliers to implement improvements. 
Coordinate and implement State Water Project operations and water exchanges to alleviate critical impacts to San Joaquin Valley agriculture. 
Implement additional actions to facilitate drought response, preparedness and promote water conservation in 2008 and 2009, and which will contribute to achieving long term reductions in water use. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DWR and the Department of Public Health (DPH) prioritize processing of loan and grant contracts for water suppliers and public water systems demonstrating drought-related hardships.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DWR and DPH coordinate with the State Office of Emergency Services and local offices of emergency services to identify public water systems at risk of experiencing health and safety impacts due to drought conditions and water delivery limitations, and to mitigate such impacts. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DWR and DPH work with local water districts to evaluate system interconnections among the state's large water purveyors, review the status or availability of mutual aid agreements among those large water purveyors, and work with the parties to those mutual aid agreements to correct any deficiencies that restrict the movement of water in an emergency situation

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DWR coordinate with the California Public Utilities Commission to identify investor-owned water utility systems at risk of experiencing health and safety impacts due to drought conditions and water delivery limitations, and to mitigate such impacts. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DWR work with the Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Bureau of Reclamation to identify potential federal funding for local water agencies and farmers to facilitate the rapid installation of best available irrigation management and conservation systems.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the CDFA work with county Agricultural Commissioners and others as necessary to identify and gather data on crop losses and other adverse economic impacts caused by the drought and, when necessary, transmit that information to the appropriate federal and state agencies.

IT IS FURTHER STRONGLY ENCOURAGED that local water agencies and districts work cooperatively on the regional and state level to take aggressive, immediate action to reduce water consumption locally and regionally for the remainder of 2008 and prepare for potential worsening water conditions in 2009. 

This Order is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person.

I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this Executive Order be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given to this Executive Order. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 4th day of June 2008.

                                    ________________________________

                                    ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
                                    Governor of California
                                     ATTEST:
                                    ________________________________
                                    DEBRA BOWEN
                                    Secretary of State

James C. Husting, CGCS
Chairman, Government Relations
California GCSA
jchust@sbcglobal.net

 Governor to issue drought decree, press for more conservation
By Michael Gardner 
SAN DIEGO UNION –TRIBUNE SACRAMENTO BUREAU

June 4, 2008

SACRAMENTO – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will formally declare today that the state has plunged into a drought, putting Californians on notice that rationing could be next if conservation efforts are not stepped up.

“The governor is ringing the bell. We're heading over a cliff,” Lester Snow, director of the state Department of Water Resources, said in an exclusive interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Schwarzenegger will issue an accompanying executive order to launch an aggressive campaign to transfer water to parched regions, pursue federal aid, quickly funnel more state money to conservation projects and to lay the foundation for a emergency water bank, beginning in 2009, that would be filled by supplies purchased from farmers.

The state is already feeling repercussions of drought conditions, from idled farmland to reduced deliveries to metropolitan areas between San Diego and the Silicon Valley. Relief is a gamble, given the changing weather patterns blamed on global warming, Schwarzenegger plans to say.

This will be the first statewide drought declaration since 1991, when Gov. Pete Wilson declared an emergency in the fifth year of a punishing dry spell that extended into 1992.

Much of California endured a record dry spring. The numbers are grim: Runoff in the vital Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins is 41 percent below average. Snowfall was a dismal 67 percent of normal.

The picture doesn't improve with the state's reservoirs. Lake Oroville is half full, Lake Shasta is at 61 percent capacity and Folsom Lake is 63 percent of normal. Along the Colorado River, despite a better-than-average snowpack in that basin, lakes Mead and Powell are about half full.

If there's no dramatic improvement next rainy season, California will have less water in storage in 2009 than it had during the worst of the disastrous 1976-77 drought, Snow said.

The governor plans to challenge water purveyors, even those with sufficient local supplies, to accelerate savings.

“Not everybody is sending the same message,” Snow said of the different responses to looming shortages. “The governor is saying the entire state has a problem.”

The threat varies by region, depending on water sources. That makes it politically difficult for water agencies to tell their customers to turn off the tap when there is no local shortage. For example, the water district serving Oakland and Berkeley has imposed rationing, but the district serving San Francisco has not. In Southern California, Long Beach is the only major metropolitan area to order conservation.

Metropolitan Water District directors on Tuesday plan to issue a regional supply alert that encourages agencies that buy its water to actively enforce conservation ordinances, such as those limiting outdoor use.

If that fails, “the next step is rationing,” said Jeffrey Kightlinger, Metropolitan's general manager.

And that appears to be the governor's message as well, Kightlinger said.

“He is trying to give people a warning . . . trying to not hit people with the Draconian step first,” Kightlinger said.

The San Diego County Water Authority has been relying on voluntary conservation encouraged by an extensive outreach program.

It's unclear just how far the governor's powers extend if he moved toward rationing statewide, his aides said. What is certain is the governor can set priorities for where the state delivers supplies, perhaps using that authority to persuade reluctant agencies to cooperate.

The governor also plans to renew his demand that lawmakers pass a $11.7 billion bond measure that would finance storage facilities, conservation programs and projects to revitalize the troubled Sacramento delta, the hub of the state's water supply network.

“We're going to living from snowstorm to snowstorm until we do a long-term fix,” Snow said.

In many respects, this water crisis could be more threatening than the 1987-92 drought, water officials say.

California is already losing vast amounts of water – enough for more than 1 million households a year – under a federal court order to protect a rare tiny fish, the delta smelt.

A multistate deal to share the Colorado River resulted in Metropolitan Water District losing the rights to about 700,000 acre-feet, enough for 1.4 million households for a year.

At the same time, California continues to grow. And much of the easiest and cheapest conservation has been implemented.

Schwarzenegger had previously issued a call for 20 percent conservation by 2020. Democrats are pushing Assembly Bill 2175 that would gradually enact that target, and the governor is in negotiations with the author.

“We're expecting 10 million more people in California over the next 25 years,” said Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, who is carrying the bill. “It's time to do everything we can for our water future. This is one piece of what we have to do.”

Schwarzenegger's directives to be released today may draw some criticism from environmentalists, many of whom oppose new reservoirs and will question why it is does not include specific actions to safeguard fish and wildlife from water shortages.

Snow, the state water official, said water set aside to protect the smelt will also benefit other fish and the Sacramento delta estuary. Lake Oroville levels also are being managed for optimum releases to help salmon.

“We already have the environment covered in other processes,” Snow said.

The governor's executive order will create two posts to coordinate the state's response to the drought and to facilitate transfers.

Crucially, the governor will order his water planners to concentrate on working with the federal Bureau of Reclamation, which delivers supplies to much of the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The bureau has dramatically reduced deliveries there, raising the specter of plowed-under cotton fields and withered almond trees.

The action comes as the Westlands Water District, coping with the driest spring in eight decades in the San Joaquin Valley, sharply cut irrigation supplies leading into the scorching summer.

“Yields will fall, quality will decline, fields will be abandoned, trees may die and unemployment will skyrocket,” farmer Mark Borba told the Fresno Bee this week.

Although the state is counting on more water transfers, questions of where the fresh supplies will come from and at what price do not have easy answers.

Rice farmers, the traditional relief well because of ample groundwater and historic rights to supplies in reservoirs, are reaping record profits and may be reluctant to sell.

Snow, however, is confident the state can broker some deals.

Contact Information

Telephone: 866-643-8707       FAX: 559-643-8707 

Postal address 221 W. Palm Ave.  Reedley, CA 93654

Electronic mail: rtillema@comcast.net  Webmaster: rtillema@comcast.net