If there's one issue that virtually everybody agrees on in Sacramento, it's that California has water problems. Three years of drought, endangered species restrictions on pumping, a growing population, huge areas of the state without natural water supplies, an outdated delivery system -- the list of liquid challenges for the Golden State goes on and on.

The problem was felt last year by urban residents in Southern California who faced mandatory rationing. But the issue also had a big impact on agriculture, the largest water user in the state. In Kings County, supervisors declared a state of emergency all year. Farmers, particularly those who count on water pumped from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta, grew increasingly worried about whether there would be enough. In many cases, fields were left fallow and millions of dollars were lost in production along with thousands of agricultural jobs. Researchers at the University of California, Davis, estimated that water shortages cost the San Joaquin Valley 21,000 jobs in 2009. In Avenal and Kettleman City, unemployment soared past 30 percent.

It's impossible to deny that water is becoming a bigger and bigger issue. But when it comes to solutions, agreement tends to evaporate. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the argument between environmentally-minded conservationists and advocates for new dams.

Case in point: Recent testimony by the Pacific Institute, an Oakland-based think tank specializing in water issues.

Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick testified at a congressional hearing recently that California could save 1 million acre-feet quickly and cost effectively by adopting comprehensive conservation measures in cities and fields. Urban residents, Gleick said, would need to replace $2 billion worth of inefficient toilets, shower heads, restaurant spray rinse nozzles and washing machines. Farmers would need to convert more of their orchards, vegetable fields and vineyards to drip lines and micro-sprinklers. They would also need to apply just the right amount of water at just the right time, with no extra water soaking into the ground.

All these conservation measures promise to save enough water to supply approximately one million households for a year.

"A gallon of water conserved is equivalent to a gallon of new storage," said Heather Cooley, a senior research associate at the Pacific Institute.

Actually, however, the Institute seems to tip the argument in favor of conservation. Gleick, Cooley and others argue that conservation is far more effective and cheaper at providing additional water than building dams.

But many, particularly those in agriculture, say that claim is overstated. They maintain that a new dam would provide far more benefits than the Institute lets on.

Locally, many are still pushing for Temperance Flat, a proposed second dam on the San Joaquin River above the existing one at Millerton Lake in Fresno County.

Millerton Lake, with 500,000 acre-feet of capacity, is inadequate to capture the runoff from the San Joaquin in wet years, argues Don Mills, general manager of the Kings County Water District. Mills points out that Pine Flat Reservoir on the Kings River has double the capacity of Millerton, yet both rivers produce nearly the same amount of snowmelt runoff.

That argument extends into the issue of flood control benefits. Mills noted that in the last really wet year -- 2005-2006 -- one million-acre feet of water from Pine Flat and Millerton flowed out to sea because there was no way to capture it. High flows in the San Joaquin River channel, some if it Kings River water, threatened to flood some Fresno County communities like Firebaugh. Mills and other local water leaders would dearly love to keep that excess Kings River water in Kings County, either by banking it underground or by catching it in above-ground storage.

"The majority of these projects, most of the benefits are flood control,"  Mills said.

When it comes to agricultural water conservation measure recommended by the Institute, Mills said he doesn't believe that they can be fully implemented without sacrificing production. If, as suggested, pistachio and almond farmers practiced a technique called "deficit irrigation" -- meaning they deliberately stress the plant by applying less water at certain times -- yields would drop, he said.

The California Farm Water Coalition doesn't completely disagree with the Institute on the potential for agricultural conservation. The coalition just disagrees on the amount of water Institute analysts think farmers can save. The coalition says actual on-the-ground potential savings that won't sacrifice production are far less than Institute estimates.

But farming interests and other San Joaquin Valley water advocates have bigger arguments on the table. They are convinced that in order for California agriculture to keep enough water and still leave enough for growing cities, more water storage is needed.

Even if you concede the institute's arguments for conservation, they say, you'll still need new storage.

Michael Corbett, a lobbyist for Kings County in Sacramento, said that conservation faces two hurdles: An intense education campaign that might require years to take effect and uncertain levels of compliance. Thus, he argues, even if you can eventually achieve the estimated savings, "there's a continuum in there where you need more water available at some point in time."

This is one of the points where the difference between the hard-core conservationists and the pro-dam people is at its most black and white. The Institute, an environmentally minded think tank, says it's possible to, as Gleick put it, "break the link between water use population and economic growth."

The institute cites statistics from the U.S. Geological Survey indicating that total water use in the U.S. in 2005 was "lower than it was in 1975."

"This suggests that we can and in fact have broken the link between water use, population and economic growth," Gleick said.

Agricultural interests agree that conservation has achieved huge benefits.  Agriculture uses 10 percent more water today than it did 40 years ago, but grows 89 percent more product, Mills said.

"I think conservation as a goal, everybody's got that common ground," he said.

But ag interests and many urban water agencies believe that new water storage is essential.

Mills said that only 35 percent of the precipitation that falls on the state is captured and managed. He believes it's reasonable to capture and manage more of it.

In favor of Temperance Flat, Mills also cited the issue of water supply "reliability," which he said has been "taken away by Endangered Species Act problems." He and others believe a new dam or two would smooth out supply issues not only between fish runs, but also between wet and dry years.

"The Pacific Institute gives little or no recognition to this other important function provided by dams and reservoirs," said Mike Wade, executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition.

The Institute does acknowledge the fact that "we may need to build new infrastructure," in Cooley's words. But in its cost-benefit analysis of new dams, it uses a calculation in which the cost comes out way out of proportion to the benefit. The California Farm Water Coalition uses a different technique that includes flood-control benefits, reliability factors and recreation potential in the equation.

According to Corbett, that's part of the problem in the debate: The two sides often can't agree on basic assumptions. Despite the apparent common ground on the need for greater water efficiency, environmental and agricultural interests can't seem to achieve significant cooperation, he said.

Corbett said the argument often boils down to desperate advocates of new dams facing off against equally desperate advocates of conservation. He is among those who argue that new population growth necessarily requires new storage.

Whether the persistent division between the two camps can be bridged may hinge on the passage of the $11 billion water bond in November. The package was a painstaking compromise reached by state lawmakers last year that blends conservation efforts with money for new storage, including possibly major new reservoirs.

Its fate is uncertain. The Pacific Institute hasn't taken a position on it, while most farm water groups support it.

In the end, the gulf separating the two sides may be as wide as ever.

"Democrats will continue to call for conservation projects and Republicans and Democrats in the Central Valley are going to favor water-storage projects. There's going to have to be a continued amount of pressure put forth by people who want storage," Corbett said.

The reporter can be reached at 583-2432. To comment on this story, go to www.HanfordSentinel.com.

(Feb. 6, 2010)