The Delta Smelt and the Los Angeles Fires, Part One

Overheard: “This all because of the Delta Smelt.”

A Search for Answers Amidst the Fires

Here in Southern California, fire warnings and alerts are currently part of daily life. It’s natural to wonder why this is happening and to search for answers. Friends and colleagues have lost their homes, while hundreds of thousands of people anxiously wait for assurances that the fires are contained and the winds have calmed. Make no mistake: Los Angeles, and perhaps California as a whole, will never be the same. Even after the fires are out, the region will still face years, potentially decades, of struggles.

We need reflection on the complexities that led to such destruction, both the small and the large. This situation was not created in a day or by any one policy decision. And yet, people confuse education and reflection with buzzwords, unfounded opinions, and slogans. I worry that big issues like water, zoning, flood control, and climate change are being oversimplified or misunderstood. To that end, with the hope that it helps even one person gain some insights, here are some thoughts on whether conservation is mainly to blame for Los Angeles’s plight.

The Desert Climate of Southern California

Most of Southern California is classified as a desert or semi-arid region. Some areas, like those along the coast, receive the benefit of overall cooler temperatures and fog. But overall, the City of Los Angeles typically receives about 15 inches of rain a year, that falls almost entirely between November and March. Cities like Chicago or Pittsburgh get more than twice as much rain (38 inches). Charlotte gets nearly three times as much (43 inches). These cities also have more consistent year-round rainfall, preventing vegetation from drying out during the summer months. In Los Angeles, we get wet and then we get very dry.

Where Does LA’s Water Come From?

Without a consistent local supply of water, Los Angeles gets its drinking water primarily by importing water from distant sources, supplemented by local groundwater and recycled water. Los Angeles obtains its water from three main sources, all outside the region:

The Los Angeles Aqueduct, which brings water to the region from the Owens Vally and Mono Basin. It accounts for approximately 30-40% of our water supply in an average year;The Colorado River, which is continually subject to legal challenges among numerous states and indigenous tribes who all lay some legal claim to its water; andThe State Water Project, which brings water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to Southern California through the California Aqueduct. 

In addition, local groundwater produces between 10-15% of the city’s water supply. The city is also increasing efforts to use more recycled water and stormwater to meet its various needs. It has set a goal of meeting 70% of its water needs through local sources by 2035, but the goal is ambitious and it’s unclear how close the city can get.

Why Doesn’t Rain Solve Our Water Problems

People who live in other areas of the country may find our situation perplexing. After all, don’t we experience enough rainfall to “bank” it? Doesn’t it recharge our groundwater and fill up our lakes and reservoirs? To understand why that isn’t the case, we need to look at geography and man’s determination to control nature.

More than 100 years of policy and planning created the Los Angeles that we see today. As the city grew, we transformed fields and open space into urban landscapes. When rain does fall, less of it infiltrates the ground. When rain hits rooftops, parking lots, and streets, it usually turns into run-off, traveling along paved and impervious surfaces to the nearest drainage point.

Long ago, rivers, creeks, and streams in Los Angeles flowed naturally. But as the city grew, floods became more dangerous. During the Great Flood of 1862, torrential rains fell for over a month, submerging the City underwater. The Los Angeles River changed course, from emptying into Santa Monica Bay to its current path towards San Pedro and Long Beach. Deadly floods in 1914 and 1938 led to construction of an extensive flood control system. This system is designed to force water towards concrete channels and out to the ocean. It prioritizes safety and certainty over water capture.

The Price of Flood Control: Losing Precious Rainwater

On average, Los Angeles County generates roughly 100,000 “acre-feet” of urban stormwater runoff each year. This can increase to 200,000 acre-feet during heavy rainfall. (One acre-foot is enough water to supply 2-3 households a year.) But we lose almost all of our stormwater to runoff, enough to supply water to thousands of households.

In more recent years, policymakers have tried to prioritize projects that infiltrate more storm water. But as humans and citizens, we have a hard time spending money on preventative measures when other pressing needs exist as well. As an environmental lawyer, I’ve heard people say cities can’t afford water projects because it might mean closing hospitals or laying off police officers. I am not insensitive to the fact of limited budgets and many needs. I have also heard people complain when money is spent on water resiliency or when they are inconvenienced by projects. It is easier for our minds to justify these activities after we see the need for them. Until then, these are seen as wasteful or less important.

With This Background In Mind,

Stay tuned for Part Two, where we’ll talk about whether water conservation is really to blame.

In Part One, we noted how Southern California heavily relies on the State Water Project for its drinking water needs.

The California State Water Project (SWP) is a vital part of California's water management system. Here's how they are related:

Overview of the State Water Project (SWP)

• The SWP is a statewide water storage and delivery system designed to provide water to California's residents, industries, and agriculture.It was authorized in 1960 by the Burns-Porter Act and is managed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR).The SWP is the largest state-built water and power system in the United States.

Relationship to California

• Water Supply
  • The SWP delivers water to 25 million Californians and irrigates about 750,000 acres of farmland.
  • It sources water primarily from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, moving it to users in the Bay Area, Central Valley, and Southern California.
• Infrastructure
  • The SWP consists of 700 miles of canals, pipelines, reservoirs, and pumping stations, with key facilities like the California Aqueduct and Lake Oroville.
  • It relies on both gravity and pumps to move water across the state.
• Environmental and Ecosystem Impact
  • The SWP helps manage California's water resources, balancing urban, agricultural, and environmental needs.
  • It has programs to restore ecosystems, such as addressing challenges in the Delta and protecting fish species.
• Energy Production
  • The SWP generates hydropower at various facilities, offsetting some of the energy costs for water delivery.
  • It's one of California's largest energy consumers because of the energy-intensive process of pumping water over mountain ranges.
• Drought and Climate Resilience
  • The SWP plays a critical role in managing water during droughts and adapting to climate change. It provides storage capacity and operational flexibility to deal with variable water supplies.
• Funding and Operation
  • The SWP is funded through water contracts with 29 local water agencies that pay for the water they receive. These agencies include major water providers like the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Challenges

• Water Rights and Distribution: Balancing the needs of urban areas, agriculture, and environmental conservation is an ongoing issue.
• Aging Infrastructure: Much of the SWP infrastructure is aging and requires upgrades.
• Climate Change: Variability in precipitation, reduced snowpack, and rising sea levels impact the SWP's effectiveness.

In summary, the SWP is a cornerstone of California's water infrastructure, enabling the movement of water across a diverse and geographically complex state while addressing both human and environmental water needs.

Fire season in California generally occurs during the dry months when conditions are most favorable for wildfires. These conditions include low humidity, high temperatures, and strong winds. The season has shifted and lengthened in recent years due to climate change, but traditionally:

General Fire Season Timeline:

• Southern California: May through December, with peaks during late summer and fall due to Santa Ana winds.
• Northern California: June through October, often tapering off with the arrival of the first significant rains.

Key Influences on Fire Season:

1. Santa Ana Winds (Southern California): These hot, dry winds typically occur from September to December and can rapidly spread fires.
2. Diablo Winds (Northern California): Similar to Santa Ana winds, these occur in the fall and can exacerbate wildfire risk.
3. Dry Conditions: Drought and prolonged periods without rain contribute to extended fire seasons.
4. Climate Change: Warmer temperatures and drier conditions have made fire season nearly year-round in some areas.

Peak Fire Danger Months:

• Late Summer through Fall: Vegetation dries out after the hot summer months, and wind events become more common.

Wildfire preparedness is critical year-round, especially in fire-prone regions.

Seasonal Firefighters:

• Employed primarily during the peak fire season (spring to fall, depending on the region).
• Commonly work for federal or state agencies like the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), or Cal Fire.
• Focus on wildfire suppression and prevention in forests, grasslands, and other wildland areas.
• Contracts typically last 4-6 months, but durations can extend during longer fire seasons.

Year-Round Firefighters:

• Often employed by municipal fire departments or state agencies like Cal Fire.
• Handle both wildfire and structural firefighting responsibilities, as well as emergency medical services (EMS).
• Participate in wildfire mitigation projects, such as controlled burns, even in the off-season.
• Provide support during off-season wildfires, which are becoming more common due to climate change.

Volunteer Firefighters:

• Some rural areas rely on volunteers, who may assist during fire season but typically have other primary occupations.

Trends in Firefighting:

• With longer fire seasons caused by climate change, agencies like Cal Fire are increasingly transitioning to hiring year-round firefighters.
• Interagency collaboration ensures that seasonal and year-round crews can respond quickly to large or complex fires.

Whether seasonal or year-round, all firefighters undergo rigorous training to prepare for the physically demanding and dangerous work of fighting fires.

What is the Delta Smelt?

• The Delta Smelt is a small, translucent fish endemic to California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
• It is considered a key indicator species, meaning its health reflects the overall condition of the Delta ecosystem.
• Listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1993, its population has declined drastically due to habitat loss, invasive species, pollution, and changes in water flow.

The Controversy

The Delta Smelt is at the center of disputes over water use in California, especially between:

• Environmentalists and Conservationists
  • View the Delta Smelt as a symbol of the need to protect California’s ecosystems and biodiversity.
  • Advocate for limiting water exports from the Delta to preserve the fish’s habitat and maintain ecological balance.
• Farmers and Water Users
  • Argue that water restrictions imposed to protect the Delta Smelt limit water availability for agriculture, urban areas, and industry.
  • Claim these restrictions exacerbate economic hardships, especially in drought years.

Key Issues

• Water Diversions and Habitat
  • The Delta is a critical hub in California’s water system, with pumps diverting water for the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP).
  • Conservation measures often require reducing water exports to maintain Delta flow conditions favorable to the smelt, directly impacting water deliveries to Central Valley farms and Southern California cities.
• Endangered Species Act (ESA)
  • The ESA mandates protections for the Delta Smelt, requiring adjustments to water operations to avoid jeopardizing the species.
  • Critics argue this results in "wasted" water being sent to the ocean instead of being stored or used for human needs.
• Drought and Climate Change
  • During droughts, water becomes even scarcer, intensifying debates over whether to prioritize human consumption or environmental conservation.
  • Climate change adds pressure as altered precipitation patterns and rising sea levels degrade the smelt’s habitat further.
• Economic Impact
  • Reduced water allocations for farmers, particularly in the agriculturally rich San Joaquin Valley, lead to fallowed fields, lost jobs, and higher food prices.
  • Opponents of conservation measures often frame the issue as prioritizing "a small fish over people."
• Scientific Debate
  • There is disagreement over the effectiveness of water flow regulations in improving Delta Smelt populations.
  • Some argue that other factors, such as pollution, predatory invasive species, and habitat degradation, play a larger role in the species' decline.

The amount of additional water Southern California would have if conservation measures, such as those protecting the Delta Smelt and other environmental priorities, were not implemented depends on various factors, including seasonal water availability, regulatory requirements, and the capacity of water infrastructure. Here's a breakdown:

Estimated Water Impact

• Current Water Allocations and Conservation
  • The State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) deliver water to Southern California, but environmental restrictions limit the volume of water diverted from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
  • During certain years, restrictions to maintain ecological health and protect species like the Delta Smelt can reduce water exports by hundreds of thousands of acre-feet.
  • For context:
    • 1 acre-foot of water = enough to supply 2-3 households annually.
• Potential Water Increases
  • Studies and reports suggest that eliminating Delta-related environmental restrictions could result in 300,000 to 1 million additional acre-feet of water being delivered annually.
  • Southern California could receive a significant portion of this water, given its reliance on imports from the SWP.
• Variability
  • The actual amount depends on hydrological conditions (wet vs. dry years). During wet years, there’s more water available in the Delta, and restrictions might limit larger quantities.
  • In dry years, water availability might still be constrained, even without environmental regulations.

Impact on Southern California

• Urban Use: Metropolitan areas, like Los Angeles and San Diego, could benefit by reducing reliance on other water sources (e.g., Colorado River, local groundwater).Agricultural Use: Farmers in the Central Valley, who also receive water from these systems, might see a greater share of the released water, indirectly alleviating Southern California's dependence on other sources.Cost Savings: More water availability could reduce the need for expensive water purchases or desalination efforts.

Considerations and Trade-offs

1. Environmental Costs
   • Removing restrictions could lead to ecosystem collapse in the Delta, harming fisheries, water quality, and overall ecological health.
   • This might have long-term consequences for water reliability and biodiversity.
2. Water Quality
   • Increased pumping from the Delta could allow more saline water from the San Francisco Bay to enter the Delta, degrading water quality and potentially raising treatment costs.
3. Legal and Political Challenges
   • Environmental protections, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), make it unlikely that such restrictions would be entirely lifted.
   • Balancing these trade-offs requires cooperation between stakeholders.

Conclusion

If conservation measures were removed, Southern California might gain hundreds of thousands to over a million acre-feet of water annually under ideal conditions. However, the broader environmental, legal, and economic implications make this a contentious and complex issue. Conservation efforts aim to balance immediate water needs with long-term sustainability, making the debate about priorities, trade-offs, and equitable water management.

Los Angeles loses a significant amount of water annually to urban runoff, which is rainwater or other water that flows over impervious surfaces (like roads, sidewalks, and rooftops) instead of infiltrating the ground or being captured for reuse. Here's an estimate based on available data:

Estimated Urban Runoff in Los Angeles

1. Volume of Urban Runoff
   • On average, Los Angeles County generates 85,000 to 100,000 acre-feet of urban runoff annually during a typical year.
   • In wet years, this number can increase dramatically, with some estimates exceeding 200,000 acre-feet during periods of heavy rainfall.
2. Context for Scale
   • 1 acre-foot of water is enough to supply 2-3 households for a year.
   • Thus, the water lost annually to runoff could supply 170,000 to 300,000 households or more.

Where the Water Goes

Storm Drains to the Ocean: Most of the runoff flows into storm drains and is discharged into the Pacific Ocean, carrying pollutants and sediment.Missed Opportunities: Without adequate capture infrastructure, this water is not stored or reused for local supply, representing a missed opportunity to address water shortages.

Efforts to Address Urban Runoff

1. Stormwater Capture Programs
   • The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and other agencies have implemented programs to capture, treat, and reuse urban runoff. Examples include:
     • Green Streets projects that incorporate permeable pavement and bioswales.
     • Spreading Basins that allow water to percolate into underground aquifers for future use.
     • In recent years, these efforts have captured about 65,000 acre-feet annually, with plans to expand.
2. Measure W (Safe Clean Water Program)
   • Passed in 2018, Measure W funds projects to improve stormwater capture and reduce runoff pollution.
   • The goal is to significantly increase the volume of captured runoff over the next few decades.
3. Long-Term Goals
   • LADWP aims to double the amount of stormwater captured by 2040, potentially saving 150,000 acre-feet or more annually.

Challenges

• Infrastructure Costs: Expanding stormwater capture infrastructure requires substantial investment.
• Urbanization: Highly impervious areas limit the natural infiltration of water.
• Pollution: Runoff often contains pollutants, requiring additional treatment before reuse.

Conclusion

Los Angeles loses an estimated 85,000 to 200,000 acre-feet of water annually to urban runoff, depending on rainfall. This highlights a significant opportunity for improving water sustainability through enhanced stormwater capture and reuse programs. If fully leveraged, capturing this runoff could substantially contribute to the city’s water supply, reducing reliance on imported water.

How SWP Water is Allocated

1. SWP Contractors
   • The SWP supplies water to 29 contractors statewide, including water agencies serving urban areas (like Los Angeles) and agricultural regions (like the Central Valley).
   • Historically, the split between urban and agricultural uses is roughly:
     • 70% for agriculture (primarily in the Central Valley).
     • 30% for urban areas (including Southern California cities like Los Angeles).
2. Metropolitan Water District (MWD)
   • The MWD, which serves Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California, is the largest urban contractor of the SWP. It typically receives about 30-40% of the total SWP deliveries allocated to urban use.

Potential Distribution of Additional Water

If more water were available due to relaxed environmental restrictions or increased Delta exports:

1. Farmers (Central Valley)
   • Likely to receive the majority of the additional water due to their high share of SWP contracts and water demand for irrigation.
   • Could see an increase of 500,000 to 800,000 acre-feet annually, depending on hydrological conditions and system capacity.
2. Los Angeles (via MWD)
   • As part of the urban share, Los Angeles would receive a smaller portion, likely around 150,000 to 300,000 acre-feet of additional water annually.
   • The exact amount would depend on:
     • The MWD’s ability to negotiate a larger share of the urban allocation.
     • Local storage and distribution capabilities.

Considerations

1. Priorities and Contracts
   • Farmers typically have senior water rights, giving them priority in drought years or when supplies are limited.
   • Urban areas like Los Angeles rely more on diverse water sources (e.g., Colorado River, groundwater, local recycling) and have historically been able to adjust to limited SWP allocations.
2. Infrastructure and Storage
   • The availability of infrastructure to store and transport additional water plays a role. Southern California has extensive storage facilities like the Diamond Valley Lake, allowing it to manage surpluses effectively.
3. Future Reforms
   • Discussions about rebalancing water priorities in California could shift allocations. For example, increasing urban needs due to population growth might lead to adjustments in favor of cities like Los Angeles.

Conclusion

If more water became available through the SWP, farmers in the Central Valley would likely receive the majority, reflecting their dominant share of SWP allocations. Los Angeles, through the MWD, could expect a smaller but still significant share, likely ranging from 150,000 to 300,000 acre-feet annually, depending on overall water availability and policy decisions. This distribution underscores the competing demands between agricultural and urban water users in California.

The California State Water Project (SWP) is a monumental water management system that serves as a lifeline for millions of Californians and the state’s agricultural industry. Its history is deeply intertwined with California's growth and its complex relationship with water. Here's a detailed overview:

Origins and Early Planning

1. California's Water Challenge
   1. California’s geography creates an imbalance in water distribution:
      • 70% of the precipitation occurs in the northern third of the state.
      • 80% of the demand is in the southern two-thirds, where agriculture and urban centers like Los Angeles are concentrated.
      • The need to transfer water from north to south became critical as California’s population and economy grew in the early 20th century.
2. Initial Proposals
   • In the 1930s, the federal government’s Central Valley Project (CVP) was designed to meet some of these water needs, primarily for agriculture.
   • However, as urban areas like Los Angeles expanded, it became clear that a larger, state-managed system was necessary to serve municipal and industrial users alongside agriculture.
3. Feather River Project
   • The SWP originated as the Feather River Project, conceived by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in the 1950s.
   • This plan envisioned using the Feather River to create reservoirs and canals that would capture and convey water to the Central Valley and Southern California.
4. Legislation and Approval
   • The Burns-Porter Act (1960) authorized the SWP and provided funding through a $1.75 billion bond measure. California voters narrowly approved the measure by less than a 2% margin, reflecting regional tensions over water distribution.

Construction and Development

1. Initial Construction (1960s-1970s)
   • The project’s backbone was built during this period, including:
     • Lake Oroville: The SWP’s largest reservoir, completed in 1968.
     • California Aqueduct: A 444-mile canal that delivers water from the Delta to Central and Southern California.
   • Major pumping stations, pipelines, and additional reservoirs were constructed to move water across the state’s diverse terrain.
2. Expansion and Adaptation
   • Over the years, the SWP has expanded with additional facilities to improve storage, delivery, and environmental management.
   • Key additions included Diamond Valley Lake in Southern California, completed in 2000, to enhance local water storage.

Key Features of the SWP

1. Infrastructure
   • Reservoirs: Includes Lake Oroville, San Luis Reservoir (shared with the CVP), and others.
   • Aqueducts: The California Aqueduct is the system’s main artery, transporting water from the Delta to Southern California.
   • Pumping Stations: Massive pumps lift water over mountains, including the Tehachapi Mountains, where the Edmonston Pumping Plant raises water nearly 2,000 feet—the highest lift of any water system in the world.
2. Energy
   • The SWP is both a major consumer and producer of electricity.It generates hydropower to offset the energy costs of pumping and transporting water.

Impact

1. Urban and Agricultural Water Supply
   • The SWP supplies water to 25 million people and 750,000 acres of farmland, making it indispensable to California’s economy and daily life.
   • Urban areas like Los Angeles and agricultural regions in the Central Valley are the primary beneficiaries.
2. Economic Growth
   • The availability of reliable water has enabled the growth of Southern California’s urban centers and the development of one of the world’s most productive agricultural industries.
3. Environmental Management
   • The SWP plays a crucial role in managing California’s rivers and Delta, balancing water supply with ecological needs.

Challenges and Controversies

1. Environmental Concerns
   • The SWP has faced criticism for its impact on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where water exports affect fish populations and ecosystem health.The decline of species like the Delta Smelt has prompted legal and operational restrictions.
2. Climate Change
   • Reduced snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and more variable precipitation patterns are challenging the SWP’s reliability.
   • The system was designed for 20th-century hydrology and is being adapted for future conditions.
3. Aging Infrastructure
   • Many SWP facilities are decades old and require upgrades to ensure safety and efficiency, such as repairs to the Oroville Dam spillway after its 2017 failure.
4. Political and Regional Conflicts
   • Northern and Southern California often clash over water rights, with critics in the north accusing the SWP of draining resources to benefit urban and agricultural users in the south.

Looking Forward

The SWP remains a cornerstone of California’s water strategy, but its future will depend on:

• Modernizing infrastructure to withstand climate change.
• Balancing urban, agricultural, and environmental needs.
• Expanding water recycling, conservation, and stormwater capture to reduce dependence on imported water.

The SWP is both a triumph of engineering and a reflection of the ongoing challenges in managing California’s most precious resource.

Capturing rainfall as groundwater in Los Angeles is a challenge due to a combination of historical, geographical, and infrastructural factors. However, efforts are underway to improve water capture systems. Here's why more rainfall isn’t captured effectively and what’s being done:

Key Challenges

1. Urbanization and Impervious Surfaces:
   • Los Angeles is highly urbanized, with vast areas covered by concrete, asphalt, and buildings, which prevent rainwater from soaking into the ground. Instead, rainfall runs off into storm drains, rivers, and ultimately the ocean.
2. Historical Infrastructure Design:
   • The city’s stormwater system was designed to quickly drain water to prevent flooding, especially after severe floods in the early 20th century. 
3. Limited Groundwater Recharge Areas:
   • Natural recharge areas, like open fields and wetlands, have been developed over the years.Groundwater basins in LA are limited in capacity and require specific conditions for water to seep in effectively.
4. Pollution:
   • Urban runoff often contains pollutants like oil, chemicals, and debris, making it unsuitable for direct recharge without treatment.Treating this water for groundwater recharge requires expensive and complex systems.
5. Climate Variability:
   • Rainfall in Southern California is highly variable, with long dry periods and short bursts of heavy rain. This makes it harder to design systems that can efficiently capture and store water.

Efforts to Improve Rainfall Capture

1. Stormwater Capture Projects:
   • Green infrastructure like permeable pavements, rain gardens, and bioswales are being implemented to allow more water to soak into the ground.
   • Large-scale projects like the Los Angeles County Safe, Clean Water Program fund initiatives to capture and clean stormwater.
2. Groundwater Recharge Basins:
   • The city is expanding recharge basins, which are designed to let water percolate into aquifers.
   • For example, the Sepulveda Basin and other spreading grounds are being upgraded to improve infiltration capacity.
3. Rain Barrels and Cisterns:
   • Programs encourage homeowners to install rain barrels or cisterns to capture water for irrigation and reduce runoff.
4. Water Recycling and Treatment:
   • Treated wastewater and captured stormwater are increasingly used for groundwater recharge, with projects like the Groundwater Replenishment System.
5. Dechannelizing the LA River:
   • Efforts to remove some concrete and restore natural riverbeds aim to increase infiltration and reduce runoff to the ocean.

While historical decisions and urbanization have limited LA’s ability to capture rainwater as groundwater, ongoing efforts aim to improve stormwater management and increase the city's resilience to water scarcity.