Trio of bills may put California on the path to groundwater sustainability
California is in the midst of one of its worst droughts in centuries, yet until yesterday, it was also the only western state without a statewide water management plan. That changed on Tuesday, when Governor Brown signed into law three bills that call for extensive oversight of the state’s groundwater resources, thus enacting the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
Photo by Don DeBold
The three-bill legislative package to improve groundwater sustainability was passed by the state senate and assembly in August at a time when the drought was raising serious questions about California’s ability to sustain adequate groundwater levels.
Water rights have long been considered property rights in California, leaving landowners with full discretion about how much groundwater they pumped from the land. Due to this, some water basins have suffered from overdraft, with more water being pumped out than could be replaced through natural processes. The closest the state has previously come to regulating groundwater is to encourage local agencies to adopt their own groundwater plans.
Taken together, the bills — AB 1739 (sponsored by Assemblymember Dickinson, D-Sacramento), AB 1319, and SB 1168 (both sponsored by Senator Fran Pavley, D-Angoura Hills) — will work off of the existing local management structure while also laying out a comprehensive statewide water management scheme. “We have to learn how to manage wisely water, energy, land and our investments,” Governor Brown stated in a press release regarding the legislation. “That’s why this is important.”
SB 1168 directs local agencies to develop sustainable groundwater management plans. These plans must contain measurable objectives to achieve groundwater sustainability within 20 years. The bill also classifies state water basins as either low-, medium- or high- risk based on risk of overdraft. Low-risk basins are monitored, but otherwise generally left alone. Medium- and high-risk basins trigger action at the state level to improve basin sustainability.
AB 1739 dovetails with SB 1168, providing for state intervention and interim management when local agencies aren’t satisfying management requirements. In a signing message, Governor Brown emphasized that the State’s primary role will be to provide guidance and technical support to local authorities, rather than to intervene.
"I think this truly is …more
USFWS plans to shower world’s most mice-infested archipelago with rodenticide-infused food pellets.
About 30 miles off the coast of San Francisco, the Farallon Islands are craggy, other-worldly outposts, a seasonal home to a variety of marine life such as elephant seals and sea lions, dozens of species of shore and seabirds, and a few government researchers. The archipelago, which is protected as congressionally designated wilderness area, serves as one of the last refuges for many of California’s native nesting birds. Unfortunately, the Farallones also happen to have one of the largest mice populations of any island chain in the world, and the rodents are wreaking havoc on the islands’ ecosystem. The rodents, mostly Eurasian house mice, have reached numbers exceeding 60,000. Southeast Farallon Island — the largest island in the chain and only island where scientists conduct research on the ground — has become so overwhelmed by mice in the past few years the ground is said to “move with mice” during peak breeding season.
Photo by Erik Oberg, Island Conservation
Researchers who stay on the island have told horror stories about going on bird counts at night and having the ground crawling with so many mice that one researcher stopped counting nest sites and started breaking mice necks with his bare hands.
Last year, the US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), which oversees the islands, and a handful of conservation nonprofits, came up with a plan to get rid of the pesky rodents called the South Farallon Islands Invasive House Mouse Eradication Project. The plan, which reviews 49 suggested ways of getting rid of the pest, concludes that the only way to get rid of the mice is by poisoning them.
How mice came to overrun the islands is something of a mystery. It is speculated that mice came with nineteenth century marine mammal hunters who inadvertently carried rodents aboard their boats. Looking for fatty seal meat and pelts from fur seals, many Americans and Russians took part in the trade. Towards the middle of the century, the islands also fell prey to egg collectors, who ended up decimating bird populations by the beginning of the twentieth century.
President Theodore Roosevelt signed an Executive Order in 1909 to protect the northern Farallon islands from these threats, which was extended to the southern patch of …more
Vertical farms are gaining traction from Illinois to Singapore, but questions remain about their role in urban agriculture.
Skyscraper farms seem like a thing of the future: Lettuce growing in windowless rooms under red-tinted LED lights while scientists check nutrient levels and calculate optimal harvest times. Basil plants stacked 10-feet high. Tilapia swimming in large troughs. While these images may contrast with our romantic notions of farming, the truth is that intensive indoor farming isn’t just a sci-fi fantasy – but a thing of present. There are already indoor farms cranking out 10,000 heads of lettuce a day.
photo by Plant Chicago, on Flickr
During the past decade, enclosed vertical farms have popped up around the world, from Singapore, to Japan, to the United States. These farms strive to grow fresh produce in indoor settings and to fill gaps in local food production. In a world of rapid population growth, growing food insecurity, and global climate change, this type of innovation in agriculture seems like a good thing. But for all the promise that vertical farming may hold, it also raises serious questions about energy-use, food justice, and the fundamentals of how we want our food to be grown.
The first question is: What exactly constitutes a vertical farm? Indoor vertical farms come in many different shapes and sizes, but generally speaking, they are “vertical” because they stack plants from floor to ceiling (often in several stories of a building). Some are constructed in abandoned warehouses, while others, like the Plantagon under construction in Sweden, are stunning examples of modern architecture. Regardless of size and shape, they generally employ one of three technologies: aquaponics (growing plants adjacent to fish, and using the nutrient rich water from the fish tanks to fertilize plants), hydroponics (growing plants without soil, in sand, liquid, or some other solution), or aeroponics (growing food with roots suspended in the air).
Using these indoor technologies, farmers are able to grow food just about anywhere, allowing for “ultra-local” farming.
“There are a number of factors that go into the farm and why we do what we do, and the majority of it has to do with being able to provide local produce to people and to customers that otherwise, traditionally, especially in the Midwest, are getting products that are …more
New study only relevant to the Eastern Pacific Ocean; other blue whale populations around the world remain severely depressed
A recent report that the blue whales along the California coast in the Eastern Pacific Ocean have recovered from the severe damage done to the population by commercial whaling, which continued up until the mid-1960s on these giants, has gone viral on the Internet. While the story is a positive one, there is room for some caution.
Photo by millerm217/Flickr
The headlines imply more scientific certainty about the findings than may be warranted, and blue whales still swim in an ocean with many dangers, including possible renewal of commercial whaling if some countries have their way. And, sadly, other populations of blue whales around the world remain severely depressed.
The blue whale is the largest animal on Earth, growing in the Eastern Pacific to a length of 80 to 90 feet. Their brethren in the Antarctic can exceed 100 feet and weigh up to 200 tons.
The increase in numbers over the years is not new news — whale-watchers, fishermen, and researchers have known for two decades that blue whales (along with gray whales and humpback whales) have increased in numbers offshore since the 1970s when interest in whales began to rise. Intense research with photo identification of blue whales to count the numbers has come to a conclusion that about 2,500 blue whales can be found in the Eastern Pacific from the equator to Alaska. Researchers photograph the blue whales on the surface and can identify individuals from coloration, scarring, and the shape and size of their small dorsal fins.
We know these whales can swim enormous distances, likely looking for feeding areas where their main prey, krill, are found in abundance, especially during the summer and fall months. They can communicate with each other using very loud low frequency sound, which can travel substantial distances in the ocean.
The new study from the University of Washington analyzed the historic records from whaling vessels of blue whale kills and, using computer models, estimated the original carrying capacity of the Eastern Pacific. They conclude the current population is around 97 percent of the historical carrying capacity, suggesting that the population has indeed recovered.
Of course, studies were never conducted on …more
The US Forest Service is beginning to decommission some of its roads, opening the way for a wildlife comeback
On a crisp afternoon last October, beneath a canopy of larch, lodgepole, and red cedar, Pete Leusch led me up a trail in the heart of the Yaak Valley, the densely forested corner of northwest Montana that remains one of the wildest ecosystems in the Continental United States. A steep mountain stream coursed to our left and the broad, star-shaped leaves of thimbleberry lined the path – “A little mushy, but just delicious,” Leusch said of the berries. We picked our way around scattered clusters of elk pellets, nodded at the parallel scars that bears had etched in bark. The morning hung earthy and moist, like aerosolized mulch.
Leusch lowered his long, angular frame into a crouch to better examine a pine seedling that had thrust its head above the trail. “I’m really psyched about the way this is looking,” he said, his eyes alight beneath the knitted purple beanie pulled low over his forehead. “This is a lot better than it was in spring. Last time I was here, this was all raw.”
Without the commentary from Leusch, watershed restoration coordinator at the Yaak Valley Forest Council, it would have been impossible to tell that just a year ago, this wooded trail was a rutted logging road operated by the US Forest Service. Though the road had been officially closed for years, it had continued to inflict damage upon the stream below. As rivulets of water coursed down the adjacent slope and across the roadbed, they picked up loads of loose dirt, which was eventually deposited into the creek. Once in the watershed, the sediment could smother the eggs and spawning grounds of native westslope cutthroat and redband trout. Leusch and the Forest Service had identified the five-mile-long road as one of the most harmful in the Yaak.
That’s why the time had come to destroy it.
If interstates are this country’s arteries, Forest Service roads are its capillaries: its most minuscule, ubiquitous vessels. Although President Bill Clinton’s 2001roadless rule protected nearly 60 million acres of national forest from logging and road-building, our forests are …more
Voters must decide whether the bond can lead the state toward a sustainable water future
As California remains parched with drought, everyone’s mind is on water – and that includes state lawmakers’. During the final days of the legislative session, both houses passed a $7.5 billion water bond with broad bipartisan support. The new legislation will be placed before voters this November.
Replacing an earlier $11.1 billion bond, the slimmer measure provides funding to water recycling, water storage, safe drinking water, watershed protection and restoration, and flood management, among other projects.
The question is: Will the bond improve water sustainability and prepare the Golden State for future droughts? Environmental groups are divided.
photo by Lyle Rains, on Flickr
A number of organizations – including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and The Nature Conservancy – think the bond is a step in the right direction. “ I think there are some really positive things about this bond, and potential for some really valuable investments,” says Doug Obegi, a staff attorney with NRDC’s Western Water Project.
In particular, Obegi points to the $1.5 billion the bond provides for water efficiency, water recycling, stormwater capture, and other local water supply projects. “If we were to create one or two million acre-feet of water from these projects, that would be a tremendous feat in California,” he says. “I think [the bond] is a really important step forward, or at least it could be.”
NRDC’s California director, Ann Notthoff, echoes those sentiments. “California’s drought brought a diverse set of interests together in support of a new bond that protects our environment and our economy, instead of one that creates a false choice between the two,” Notthoff stated in a recent press release. “The new water bond proposal is the right response to this drought.”
Although the bond’s proponents boast of its broad support among agricultural, business, environmental, and labor groups, not everyone agrees the bond will take California in the right direction. Within the environmental community, the inclusion of $2.7 billion in the bond for surface and groundwater storage projects is particularly controversial, with several groups – including the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity – concerned that the money will fund construction of environmentally destructive dams.
“In general, I think that the bond really misprioritizes the water needs of California in the context of a drier …more
Documentary film about upcoming People’s Climate March hits all the right notes
In case you missed it (and I’m really hoping you haven’t), environmental, labor and social justice groups are organizing what they promise will be the biggest climate march in history on September 21. Some 100,000 people are expected for a rally in Manhattan on the eve of a major climate summit at the United Nations, with similar marches planned for London, Rio de Janeiro, Melbourne, and Delhi. The groups behind the People’s Climate March are running ad campaigns in the New York and London subways, plastering cities with leaflets and posters, and pounding the pavement as they make a final push for a big turnout. On Sunday night, organizers added a new weapon to their public outreach arsenal: A slick documentary film, Disruption, about the climate crisis and the citizen effort to push political leaders to finally, belatedly address the threat of an out-of-whack atmosphere.
I’ve never seen anything quite like Disruption. Of course, there have been plenty of climate change documentaries, Inconvenient Truth and Chasing Ice being standouts. Documentary films have helped spark movements (for example, Josh Fox’s Gasland, about fracking) or bolster existing ones (see Food, Inc., Robert Kenner’s Big Ag takedown). But Disruption seems to belong to a unique genre: A documentary produced with the single goal of mobilizing for a political march. It’s like an infomercial for a rally. Perhaps this has done before and I just missed it. In any case, Disruption would seem to be in a league of its own – because, even though it’s propaganda of a sort, the film is just so bloody good.
Filmmakers Kelly Nyks and Jared P. Scott have succeeded in creating a film that at once supplies an easy-to-understand rundown of the science of global warming; lays out the history of international leaders’ half-hearted attempts to address the crisis; explains the political and psychological reasons for continued inaction; and offers a stirring call-to-arms for people to get off the couch and get into the streets. Disruption is like a unified field theory of climate change politics – delivered in a brisk 52 minutes that seems like far less.
The film is anchored by interviews with some of the progressive movement’s leading luminaries. We hear from climatologist James Hansen, MSNBC host Chris Hayes, author Naomi Klein, CNN Crossfire host and Rebuild the …more