by Tom Kenworthy

Western states that rely on snowpack for their water supplies are going to face a challenging future because of climate change, a senior Department of Interior official warned a Senate subcommittee Thursday.

“Warming and associated loss of snowpack will persist over much of the western United States,” Assistant DOI secretary Anne Castle said in her written testimony to the water and power subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. A recent Bureau of Reclamation report, Castle said, has concluded that “this loss of snowpack storage is expected to result in a decrease in the amount of reliable water supply in areas where snow has been a major component of the hydrologic system.”

The Senate subcommittee hearing comes a week after the Global Climate Project reported that worldwide carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels had risen by 5.9 percent in 2010, the biggest annual increase in history.

Climate change is already producing dramatic changes in the water cycle in the U.S., and more changes are coming, according to the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program’s 2009 report on climate change impacts.

“Evidence is mounting that human-induced climate change is already altering many many of the exsiting patterns of precipitation in the United States, including when, where, how much, and what kind of precipitation falls,” the report says. And it predicts that “dry areas will become drier and and wet areas wetter,” with particularly severe effects in the Southwest which is expected to have more severe and more prolonged droughts.

Read more

JR:  In one District west of Fort Worth, “the share of groundwater used by frackers was 40% in the first half of 2011, up from 25% in 2010.”

– RL Miller has more on the collision between Texas’s record drought and its water-guzzling fossil-fuel dependence in this Daily Kos cross-post.

In case anyone missed it, Texas had a big drought last summer — the worst one year drought in the state’s history [see "Worst Texas Drought in Centuries].  Lakes dried, animals were slaughtered, cities imposed lawn watering restrictions, the governor prayed for rain. About the only part of the state unaffected were the wind turbines of West Texas, spinning merrily along and oblivious to near-apocalyptic conditions.

Droughts end, and places recover. Unless they don’t.

Talk has been circulating among the doom-and-gloom sector of the Left of Texas as a failed state. It’s easy to dismiss as a tit-for-tat, revenge for Texas’ talk of secession. Until one looks hard at the water.

The state’s water shortage is structural, warns the Texas Water Development Board. Currently the state needs 18 million acre-feet of water, and it has 17 million acre-feet available to it. Aquifers deplete. Population grows. By 2060, the state is expected to need 22 million acre-feet but only have 15.3 million acre-feet available to it. Because some dry places simply can’t have water piped, the total shortfall is projected to be 8.3 million acre-feet. Roughly, the state will have 2 gallons of water available to it for every 3 gallons it needs.

Houston, we have a problem.

Read more

UpStart [uhp-stahrt]n. 1. A company or organization with innovative approaches to energy use, carbon pollution, resource consumption, and/or social equity, 2. A company or organization overcoming market barriers to build the new clean energy economy.

by Adam James

In 2009, America earned a D- in drinking water, according to the ASCE Infrastructure Report Card. Why? Every day leaking pipes lose an estimated seven billion gallons of clean drinking water (over 11,000 swimming pools). That, combined with the $11 billion annual shortfall to replace aging water facilities, makes the U.S. a very water-inefficient country.

By 2020, California estimates it will incur “water shortages equal to the needs of 4-12 million families of four.” Sadly, with a growing population, increased migration to urban areas, and global warming, these shortages promise to become far more common. A study released by the NRDC found that more than 1,100 U.S. counties face water shortages as a result of climate change. Of those, 400 are in the “extreme risk” category, representing a 14x increase over previous estimates.  The agricultural value of the crops in those 400 counties represents over $105 billion in GDP.

Compounding the problem is that the emissions from the 7,000,000 gallons for water lost from leakage are estimated to contribute 13.5 million kg of CO2e to the atmosphere daily — accelerating climate change and further exacerbating the vicious cycle.

The UpStart Solution:

Read more

By Tom Kenworthy, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress.

A little more than a week ago, a grand experiment long in the making began unfolding on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State: the removal of two large dams on the Elwha River and one of the most important river restoration efforts ever undertaken. Dave Reynolds of the National Park Service explained the beginning of the process at Glines Canyon dam, while jackhammers and construction crews work behind him:

I think this is a historic day for the National Park Service and for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the start of this three-year process here at Glines Canyon dam and, in a few days, at Elwha Dam. Of course preparations have been ongoing all summer, but this is a great day to really get removal started and the beginning of this process. It’s a new beginning for the Elwha River.

Watch it (video courtesy of Peninsula Daily News):

Appropriately enough, much of the media coverage – including an ambitious multi-media report by the Seattle Times – focused on how the removal of the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams will restore epic salmon runs that were destroyed nearly a century ago and heal a 70-mile river ecosystem stretching from the ocean to the mountains of Olympic National Park.

But almost lost in the coverage was another important story: that restoration of rivers and landscapes scarred by old commercial enterprises can be an economic boon as well. At the Elwha River, a National Park Service study of the dam removal project found that 1,150–1,240 jobs will be generated by dam removal and river restoration, while even more jobs will be generated from increased tourism to Clallam County, Washington.

Restoration, especially in the western U.S., is a serious job creator. As the Center for American Progress’ recent report entitled “The Jobs Case for Conservation,” concluded in regard to restoration:

Thousands of long- and short-term jobs can be created through restoration and reforestation of public lands. Various government and independent analyses have found that every $1 million invested in restoration activities such as river and road restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, and tree planting creates between 13 and 30 direct, indirect, and induced jobs, many in the private sector.

And so it will be on the Elwha River project. In its 2005 environmental and economic analysis of the proposal to remove both dams, the National Park Service projected that total benefits over the 100 years following removal would be about $355 million, almost twice the cost of actually removing the structures. Most of the benefit would come from increased fishing, recreation and tourism opportunities.

At the same time as excavators began breaking down the concrete of the two Elwha River dams, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced the completion of technical studies on another possible Pacific Northwest dam removal project: a plan to tear out four dams on the Klamath River near the border of California and Oregon. That project would create some 450 jobs annually from both dam removals and improvements to fisheries and water quality.

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber said the studies were proof of the great economic potential in restoring degraded natural resources:

This is just one example of the tremendous opportunity we have to get Oregonians back to work across the state restoring the health of our watersheds, fisheries and forests and better position Oregon for long-term prosperity.

How hot has it been?  The first 9 days of August saw “Heat Records Outnumbering Cold Records by Amazing 24 to 1,” CapitalClimate reported.

This year’s record heat has spawned cow-killing algae, caused sidewalks to explode, and turned reservoirs blood-red. Now it’s causing an even costlier problem for communities in the U.S. – exploding water pipes.

As severe heat dries out the ground, old pipes shift around and are more susceptible to breaking. The problem is exacerbated by an increased demand for water during hot days. Towns across the U.S. are seeing increased rates of water pipe failures; Oklahoma saw 685 water main breaks since July – about four times the normal rate.

Kemp, Texas was the most recent victim. Last Wednesday, town officials were forced to shut off water supplies for the 1,110 residents after 14 water pipes burst:

Kemp Mayor Donald Kile says the old infrastructure has a lot to do with the problem. The local water treatment plant was last replaced 40 years ago, and a lot of the town’s 30 miles of pipelines were installed in the 1930s and haven’t been updated in years.
“It’s sad to say, but it’s poor planning,” said Kile, who was elected mayor recently. “When they put that water treatment plant in, they should have implemented something then….  It just wasn’t ever done.”

With virtually no updates to its water infrastructure in 40 years, Kemp is facing a serious water-reliability crisis. And the town is representative of the rest of the country: the Environmental protection agency says that about 700 water main ruptures take place in the U.S. daily because of aging pipelines. The EPA estimates the U.S. will need to invest in over $334 billion in water infrastructure over the next 25 years.

Climate change will make the problem far worse.

Read more

Most people don’t realize that we have a lot of hydropower potential left in this country — particularly small hydro.

Amidst all the talk about increasing offshore drilling in the arctic, permitting massive renewable energy projects in remote areas, and building out expensive transmission lines around the country, we often forget about the simple things.

A few years back, I wrote an article asking if the U.S. was on the verge of a small hydropower boom. I’m sad to say that despite the myriad compelling reasons for developing small hydro projects around this country, we’re still in the same place we were when I wrote that story.

Why? Because we have a terrible regulatory framework in place.

A 2006 study put together by the Idaho National Laboratory found that we could feasibly develop up to 30,000 MW of small and “low-power” hydro projects (between 10 kilowatts and 30 megawatts) around the country. All of those projects could be run-of-river — meaning they don’t require any damming — or could be built on existing dams.

There are over 81,000 dams around the U.S. and only 2,400 of them have any electrical generating capacity. Many of the power-less 78,600 dams are close to existing infrastructure, making it easier to build and maintain a project compared with a centralized wind or solar farm located far away from where the electricity is used.

So while the government has focused heavily on streamlined permitting for centralized, large-scale renewable energy projects, almost nothing has been done for small hydro.

Due to regulatory morass, the U.S. is not a good place for small hydro companies to do business. In order to build even the smallest facilities, a developer must go through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, State Environmental Departments, State Historic Preservation Departments, and many more. Each of these agencies is just doing their job — but the cumulative impact weighs down small hydro and makes projects prohibitively expensive.

“The regulatory environment is not friendly at all. It’s incredibly difficult and expensive to build these facilities,” explains Lori Barg, CEO of Community Hydro, a developer based in Vermont. “It’s absurd, really.”

Read more

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) has reintroduced legislation to help prepare our nation’s water supply against the damages of global warming. Greenhouse pollution from burning fossil fuels is destabilizing our hydrologic cycle, worsening droughts and floods and increasing sea level rise, while drastic cuts are being made on the maintenance of our aging water infrastructure. Capps’ bill, the Water System Resiliency and Sustainability Act of 2011 (HR 2738), will “establish a new Environmental Protection Agency competitive grant program to help drinking water, wastewater and stormwater utilities prepare for the impacts of climate-related risks on their operations.” Capps explained why the legislation is needed in a statement:

As we suffer through severe droughts, more intense rainfall and flooding, and sea level rise along the coast, the nation’s drinking water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure is coming under increasing levels of stress. In the face of these costly challenges, and to help our nation’s water agencies continue delivering safe and uninterrupted water services to the communities that rely upon them, we must begin planning now. That’s why I’ve introduced the Water System Resiliency and Sustainability Act, which will help jump-start this critical local planning and create new jobs updating water infrastructure to meet the significant challenges posed by climate change.

“The funds would be awarded to owners or operators of water systems based on their vulnerability to climate-related risks and the number of users who would benefit from their proposals to manage those risks,” E&E News summarizes. “The legislation would authorize $50 million a year for the matching grant program through 2016.”

Capps, who introduced similar legislation in 2009, worked on the bill with the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, environmental organizations and other stakeholders. The bill has 11 Democratic co-sponsors, and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) is expected to introduce companion legislation in the Senate.

Powered by polluter cash, the House of Representatives last week passed legislation designed to dismantle the Clean Water Act. Described as “an assault on Americans’ health, environment and economy” by the Sierra Club, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is currently awaiting a Senate vote after passing the U.S. House 239-184 on July 13 to much fanfare from GOP lawmakers and corporate polluters. The president of the West Virginia Coal Association, Bill Raney, praised the bill’s passage:

HR 2018 is a bipartisan bill that would rein in the Obama EPA and end the agency’s destructive abuse of authority and restore the balance needed to get America working again.

But the West Virginia Coal Association did much more than offer written support for the act; the organization is one of 44 such groups who donated a combined $28.9 million to House lawmakers in a push to secure the bill’s passing and thus limit the EPA’s role in the making, promulgation, and enforcement of clean-water regulations.

Lobbyist money played a pivotal part in what Earth Justice calls the fight of “clean water versus dirty water.” Interest groups working in support of the bill spent 23 times more money than did the opposition. In some instances, lawmakers received as much as $100,000 from lobbyists in support of the measure and not a cent from those opposed.

House Majority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) alone took in over $325,000, and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) made close to $550,000.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL), who sponsored the bill, received $102,000 from those in favor of his legislation. Mica characterized the act as a defense against the EPA’s bullying. “Everyone has called this a huge power grab by EPA and EPA has indeed created a regulatory nightmare that affects almost every state in the union,” Mica said.

But what specifically attracts water polluters and their money to this piece of legislation? It essentially takes the EPA’s long-held power to regulate water pollution and gives that authority back to individual states where corporate interests and ill-informed lawmakers can control the show. The EPA explains what the act proposes in its press release:

H.R. 2018 would roll back the key provisions of the Act that have been the underpinning of 40 years of progress in making the nation’s waters fishable and drinkable.

H.R. 2018 could limit efforts to safeguard communities by removing the federal government’s authority to take action when state water quality standards are not protective of public health. In addition, it would restrict EPA’s authority to take action when it finds that a state’s Act permit or permit program is inadequate and would shorten EPA’s review and collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers on permits for dredged or fill material.

All of these changes could result in adverse impacts to human health, the economy and the environment through increased pollution and degradation of water bodies that serve as venues for recreation and tourism, and that provide drinking water sources and habitat for fish and wildlife.

H.R. 2018 would disrupt the carefully constructed complementary Act roles for EPA, the Army Corps and states in protecting water quality. It also could eliminate EPA’s ability to protect water quality and public health in downstream states and could increase the number of lawsuits challenging state permits.

Fortunately, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act must clear both a Democrat-controlled Senate and the threat of a presidential veto before it can become the law of the land. But what is clear from the July 13 vote is that House members are selling something that shouldn’t be sold for any price–our right to clean water.

Appalachian Voices is fighting the War on Water.

–Sarah Bufkin