What a waste of water

By: North County Times Opinion Staff
Thursday, February 8, 2007

Our view: Arguments of canal-lining opponents don't hold water, but they are holding up our delivery at great cost

Colorado River water that should be running from our taps is instead percolating into the Imperial Valley desert floor. Environmentalists are arguing that in this case, it's better to waste water than to conserve it. Lawsuit-driven delays are tacking millions onto the cost of a sorely needed project vital to Southern California's water future.

Regrettably, we're not talking about the Salton Sea again. But think of the controversy surrounding the concrete lining of the All-American Canal as something like Salton Sea 2.0.


The All-American Canal carries Colorado River water 82 miles from northeast of Yuma, Ariz., along the Mexican border into bone-dry Imperial County. The canal-lining project is part of a tangle of deals that in 2003 was supposed to bring San Diego County enough water to sustain more than 135,000 households every year for more than a century.

The big idea is for California to allow other fast-growing states to siphon more water from the Colorado. Along the way, San Diego County struck a deal with the Imperial Irrigation District to give a concrete makeover to a 23-mile stretch of the earth-lined All-American Canal. In turn, Southern California's water baron, the Los Angeles-based Metropolitan Water District, is supposed to ship the amount of water conserved by the canal-lining project down to San Diego County for 110 years.

Who could argue with a project that is projected to prevent many million gallons of Colorado River water, more precious than gold in the arid Southwest, from seeping through the canal bed and disappearing into the desert soil?

Some strange bedfellows, that's who.

Environmentalists, Mexican farming interests and some sympathetic judges are blocking the deal, because they say the wasted water isn't wasted at all, but merely used elsewhere by animals, ecosystems and those same Mexican farmers.

This coalition argues that this manmade water transport system ---- through the desert, mind you ---- shouldn't be made more efficient at doing what it was built to do, which is convey water. Waste not, and you leave these folks wanting a lot, it seems.

These are some of the same folks who have allowed the disaster that is the Salton Sea to cling to fetid life, despite its accidental birth, its wretched condition and the impossibility of its location. The costs of "saving" the Salton Sea were recently pegged at $9 billion to $15 billion, a case study in throwing good money ---- and water ---- after bad.

The canal-lining opponents say that water escaping the canal recharges groundwater supplies for Mexicali farmers, wetlands and endangered animals. But just because an accidental benefit has sprung from an inefficient system doesn't mean that system should continue: The aptly named All-American Canal was built in the early 1940s specifically to keep Mexican farmers from tapping into California's treaty-protected Colorado River water. It's not like water lost from the canal is Mexico's only sip of the Colorado; a 1944 treaty with the U.S. government secured an annual supply of 489 billion gallons for our southern neighbors.

After two Superior Court decisions last year went against the water-wasting coalition, their hopes were revived in August by the infamous U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In December, Congress tried to bypass the Ninth Circuit by passing legislation that ordered the project to proceed forthwith. But the legal case is far from settled. While some sensible judges will eventually wash away the environmentalist/Mexican farmer arguments, this blocking maneuver is adding millions to the canal-lining project's cost and pushing our water security farther into the future.

That we are entitled to the canal's conserved water doesn't let us off the hook, however. North County must do a better job of saving the water we do have. Water officials say we use between 50 percent to 60 percent of our fresh water on lawns, gardens and landscapes. We're dumping the equivalent of the Amazon rainforests' annual precipitation on our lawns each year. That's got to stop, now.

We can't wait until the San Diego County Water Authority rolls out a set of rigorous water-conservation measures in 2010, much as the Regional Water Quality Control Board did last month with its controversial new rules for stormwater runoff. And that's the final irony here: We desperately need concrete beneath a waterway in the Imperial Valley desert; closer to home, not so much.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02 ... 2_8_07.txt

Comments On This Story

Howiek wrote on February 09, 2007 5:08 AM:"Waste of water you state—what about the 175 million gallons a day that is pushed out to sea everyday just by San Diego alone? I think that at least part of that waste water could be recovered and reused—remember, all water from the Colorado is tainted anyway! “River water” I think they call it—otherwise known as sewage water! Recycling is going to happen at some point in time, it would be better to plan for it now rather then later. Your opinion falls to note that if the Colorado water level falls to a certain point that water that you state is “ours” won’t be!"

Howiek wrote on February 09, 2007 6:24 AM:"Also, in case you haven?t seen it yet, this proposal . for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta could also mean less water flowing south. In either case, San Diego as well as most of Southern California will have to rethink how we use what water we do receive and what we do with it after its been used. In any case, water is going to get a lot more expensive in the very near future, especially if the drought in the Rockies continues and Colorado and Utah continue to divert what runoff they get to instate use. You may also want to check out this editorial! "

I thought wrote on February 09, 2007 7:43 AM:"you were talking about Temecula's proposed water park. Silly me."

JP wrote on February 09, 2007 8:33 AM:"Our water vs their water? It should be a shared resource. We are all in this together."

GFN wrote on February 09, 2007 8:56 AM:"The awareness of the need for water conservation will begin when the agencies in charge tell the truth about how dire the situation is...and...they restrict growth to protect the rights of the current residents of Southern Cal."

Mexico has a right to water wrote on February 09, 2007 10:54 AM:"America has starved Mexico of water for years...what was once a beautiful, thriving wetland area is gone...what became a source for farms and food production is being threatend. Are Americans so greedy that they would take the food out of peoples' mouths? The canal diverted water from this area and has been destroying it ever since."

Conservation yes wrote on February 09, 2007 10:56 AM:"Of course we need to do a better job conserving...who doesn't know that are pretty green lawns take about 65% of the water we use in our homes? We live in an arid desert region and must take steps to plant the proper native plants and lessen our irrigation water on decoratives. How about a column on that?"

Mark wrote on February 09, 2007 11:24 AM:"Let us consider farming algae to produce biodiesel and food while cleaning air and water. Farming algae does not require fresh water. Therefore farming algae could replace more freshwater intensive agriculture saving a whole lot more than lining the canal. We'll first need to recognize that both water and energy interests need to find an economic process for large scale algae farming."

Alf wrote on February 09, 2007 11:43 AM:""Conservation yes", a column on native plants? NO! At least ONE COLUMN PER DAY!! YES. How about articles on how to keep water where you want it? When I see sprinklers that deliver 3/4 of their water to concrete I want to scream. If there is someone home, I tell them about better heads that will fit their existing system and volunteer to install them, no charge, if they want. And that, as they say, is just the tip of the iceberg. "

DesertRat wrote on February 09, 2007 7:35 PM:"During the 1970's we had a shortage of water and we had to conseve. No new homes or wasting water on lawns. My town had a population of 35,000. Now we are 200,000 population. I assume most came from places with 40 inches or more annual rainfall and ignorant about living in an arid environment. The big new house and the big green lawn here in an area of annual precipitation of about 11 inches! Education on water conservation and use of native plants in our landscape is a big step forward to save our water. "

Add Your Comments or Letter to the Editor