19 June 2009

Waterflows II (Shawn for Spreck)

A guest post by Shawn Coburn*

This [image -- click for larger view] is what Spreck bases his claim that WWD is at 86% of normal, well why doesn’t he use the last five years of rescheduled water data, WWD would be at 1000% of normal. Cherry picking data from previous years is disingenuous at best. Spreck did not inform the readers of his article that this data at best is a rough estimate, example 1 transfer water at 172, we will be lucky if we can get the south of the delta transfers done this year which is 80 not 172. Ground water pumping is used in his scenario to prove his point that WWD is at 86%, first no one knows what is going to be pumped, my standing water levels on all of my properties east or west are going down, secondly I find it quite interesting that this “Estimate” does not account for any ground water pumping for Friant, more water is pumped in Friant than has ever been annually pumped in WWD simply based on aquifer constraints and quality. Just this omission of fact should shed some light on the validity of this draft.

Do the words Working Draft mean any thing?

I am biased for sure with regard to this situation; the future of my operation is at stake. But I will not cherry pick number from a “Working Draft” even if it would benefit water users south of the delta. I have something we farmers refer to as “common sense” , using bad numbers to make yourself feel better just gets you one step closer to bankruptcy.

Get ready for July 1st.
* A Westlands farmer who appeared in this recent post.

1 comment:

Spreck Rosekrans said...

Spreck responds:
As stated in EDF's blog, the numbers projecting that Westlands' water supply will be at 86% of normal this year were provided by Westlands to the Department of Water Resources. DWR, in turn, attached the estimates in a letter to Senator Feinstein. We simply made the information publicly available.
Shawn is right to point out that the numbers are not final - we will not really know until the growing season is over. DWR identifies the data as a working draft - our blog notes that the information is "subject to change".
What the data clearly show is that earlier reports of "zero deliveries" and photographs of dry aqueducts were clearly misleading.