Sustainable & Resilient California: The Central Valley Project is California’s cardinal critical infrastructure
The United States Bureau of Reclamation and Western Area Power Administration should provide information and participate with interested water & power contractors to quantify and communicate the measurable value of the Central Valley Project to Californians, including flood control, water supply, irrigation water for agriculture, carbon-free electricity, social and economic benefits, environmental restoration activities and other ecosystem services.[1]
The CVP is Critical Infrastructure
The Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the United States Bureau of Reclamation, provides measurable value to all Californians, including flood control, municipal water supply, agricultural water supply, recreation, ongoing ecological restoration activities and other ecosystem services. The water, power and agriculture critical infrastructure systems,[2] as well as healthy ecosystems and environments, are key to California’s economic and social well-being. Achieving the integrated sustainability of both engineered and natural infrastructure systems[3] presents many challenges and requires critical infrastructure systems that are robust, reliable, cost-effective and resilient, i.e., having the capacity to withstand and recover quickly from natural and human-made disasters. Functionally, the many engineered and natural infrastructure[4] systems within the CVP watersheds operate interdependently. We must recognize these interdependencies among critical infrastructure systems and pursue collaborative, systems-based approaches to leverage available resources and provide for cost-effective solutions benefiting all Californians.
The CVP has multiple authorized uses
The CVP has numerous authorized uses across four distinct critical infrastructure types,[5] two of which are deemed “lifeline infrastructures.”[6] CVP operations enable capabilities to: (a) store and deliver water; (b) generate and transmit carbon-free electricity; and (c) protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife and associated habitats.[7] When considered as an integrated whole, the CVP is California’s cardinal critical infrastructure. It is likely true that without the CVP, California could not have built or currently sustain: (a) many of the cities now in existence that serve as important centers of technology, critical manufacturing and government; or (b) the agriculturally productive Central Valley that grows more than half the nuts, fruits and vegetables in the United States.[8] Moreover, it is surely true that without these urban and rural areas which encompass many types of critical infrastructures, California could not support many of the current activities making it the world’s 5th largest economy.
California’s cities are dependent upon proper operation of the CVP
Without the CVP and its progeny (i.e., year-round water supplies, carbon-free energy and plentiful food production), much of California’s “techno-industrial society is inherently unsustainable because modern cities are “dissipative structures.”[9] In short, this term means that cities are completely dependent upon having access to abundant energy and material resources flowing in from outside their borders. Stated more bluntly in terms of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, “[h]igh-income consumer cities are concentrated nodes of material consumption and waste production that parasitize large areas of productive ecosystems and waste sinks lying far outside the cities.”[10] This statement does not demonize cities, but rather, posits that for cities to flourish, they must rely upon resources from outside their borders.
California’s agriculture is dependent upon proper operation of the CVP
Stating the obvious and coining a phrase, “food grows where water flows.” To a large extent, the delivery of water requires energy. In the decision-making for CVP development and operations, Californians must always consider the CVP’s essential role in California’s energy, water, and food nexus.[11]
The health of California’s ecosystems is dependent upon proper operation of the CVP
Ecosystems functioning in more natural ways provide many services that benefit humans, fish, wildlife and the associated habitats. Californians should recognize that sustainable and healthy ecosystems are comprised of both built and natural infrastructures, and will depend on the continuing stewardship of the myriad stakeholders, i.e., those benefiting from the CVP’s manifold benefits.[12]
[1] These materials are in support of proposed Assembly Constitutional Amendment Number 17 stating that: (a) It is the intent of the people that hydroelectric generation facilities be treated as the most environmentally protective and carbon-neutral electrical energy resources for purposes of all state-supported programs and electrical program-related laws; and (b) The State’s programs relating to renewable energy and climate change shall include hydroelectric generation facilities as renewable electrical generation facilities, eligible renewable energy resources, and zero-carbon resources, and shall not differentiate between the electricity generated by hydroelectric facilities and the electricity generated by other renewable electrical generation facilities, eligible renewable energy resources, and zero-carbon resources. ACA 17, Section 10(a)-(b), (presented July 7, 2019).
[2] The Department of Homeland Security’s National Infrastructure Protection Plan identifies 18 types of critical infrastructures. The American Society of Civil Engineers identifies 15 types.
[3] “Natural infrastructure is the preservation and/or restoration of ecological systems, or the use of engineered systems that employ ecological processes, to increase resiliency to climate change and/or manage other environmental problems. Natural infrastructure solutions can rely solely on natural systems (i.e., green infrastructure) or can integrate natural systems with more traditional “grey,” or human-constructed, infrastructure.” California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number: SUM-CCCA4-2018-013, Sacramento, CA.
[4] “Natural systems adjust and maintain desirable ecosystem characteristics in the face of change. Infrastructure and built systems withstand and adapt to changing conditions and shocks, including changes in climate, while continuing to provide essential services.” California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Id.
[5] The four critical infrastructure sectors are Dams, Water & Wastewater, Energy and Food & Agriculture.
[6] Water and power are considered “lifeline” critical infrastructure systems without which other infrastructure systems cannot operate as intended (e.g., food & agriculture, critical manufacturing and government facilities). California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment notes that “[w]hen infrastructure is impacted by an extreme event, communities can lose “lifeline” systems, leaving people vulnerable and in need of services. The impacts of connected lifeline systems on vulnerable communities are a significant barrier toward building and retaining their resilience to climate change and extreme events.”
[7] Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title 34, Public Law 102-575 (1992).
[8] California Agricultural Statistics Review 2017-2018. California Department of Food & Agriculture. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/
[9] Rees W.E. (2012) Cities as Dissipative Structures: Global Change and the Vulnerability of Urban Civilization. In: Weinstein M., Turner R. (eds) Sustainability Science. Springer, New York, NY. “A Dissipative Structure is a thermodynamically open system operating far from thermodynamic equilibrium, that exchanges energy, matter, and information with the external environment.” Tiezzi, Elisa B. P., Riccardo Maria Pulselli and Nadia Marchettini (2008) Dissipative structures in nature and human systems. Shih-Kung Lai, Haoying Han & Po-Chien Ko (2013) Are cities dissipative structures?. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 17:1, 46-55, doi:10.1080/12265934.2013.766504.
[10] See supra, Rees. These large areas constitute the cities’ true “ecological foot-prints” and, I calculate that San Francisco, for instance, has an ecological footprint roughly the size of the entire Central Valley.
[11] Bazilian, M., et al., Considering the energy, water and food nexus: towards an integrated modeling approach. Energy Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.039.
[12] See Zedler, J.B. (2000). “Progress in wetland restoration ecology,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 15(10), pp. 402-407; Kondolf, G.M. (1998); “Lessons learned from river restoration projects in California,” Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, Vol. 8, pp. 39-52. Jackson, S.T. and R.J. Hobbs (2009); “Ecological restoration in the light of ecological history,” Science Vol. 325:567-568; Alexander, G. and J.D. Allan (2007). “Ecological success in stream restoration: Case studies from the midwestern United States, Environmental Management, Vol. 40, pp. 245-255.