Become a River Guide

One great way to be a river activist is to be a river guide!

***Now accepting applications for 2010 Guide Trainings***

The Rafting Program is supported by 300+ river guides who are active volunteers for Friends of the River. The Rafting Program strives to enhance public awareness about rivers and water resources, to make river running accessible and enjoyable, and to raise money to support Friends of the River's statewide river conservation and water policy reform efforts.

The Friends of the River Rafting Program sponsors guide training at the basic and advanced levels. Basic training teaches you how to be a competent and safe Class III Whitewater Paddle Guide while teaching you to be an effective advocate and activist as well. Classes are conducted both on river and off. On shore classes include seminars on conservation issues, river hydraulics, safety and rescue information, trip organization, and much more. Our training program is performed at cost in order to be as affordable as possible. In return, the Rafting Program asks that you make a volunteer commitment to the Program.

Giving Thanks - a portion of San Joaquin River flows again

San Joaquin River flows stop below Mendota Dam

By Mark Grossi, The Fresno Bee, Calif.

Nov. 21--The first revival flows of the San Joaquin River have stopped about 30 miles downstream of Mendota Dam, well short of fully refilling the dried riverbed.

Reconnecting the entire river probably won't happen until next year, but federal officials collected a lot of information from monitoring wells during the seven-week experimental flow that ended Friday.

Officials believe a lot of water was lost in a section that has been mostly dry for the last half-century.
"As we sort out all the data, we'll have a better feel for how much we lost and how the river reacted," said Jason Phillips, restoration program manager for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. "But there were no surprises."

The river restoration began Oct. 1 under a lawsuit settlement signed by farmers, environmentalists and the federal government in 2006. The San Joaquin dried up and salmon runs died after Friant Dam northeast of Fresno began capturing the water in the late 1940s.

The experimental flow was stopped Friday so Central California Irrigation District can perform a regularly scheduled safety inspection of Mendota Dam, 62 miles downstream of Friant Dam.

The Bureau of Reclamation, which owns and operates Friant Dam, will resume water releases Feb. 1.

To completely refill the San Joaquin, the flows would have to travel an additional 84 miles downstream of Mendota Dam to reach the confluence of the Merced River.

Earlier this week, the water moved quickly -- taking about 24 hours -- from Mendota Dam to Sack Dam, 23 miles downstream. That's because the river already had water flowing in it. Irrigation water is routinely sent from the Mendota Pool down that stretch of the river.

But the river moved very slowly in October, inching along for weeks through a 20-mile dry section between Gravelly Ford and the Mendota Pool. The river did not reach the pool until this month.

Throughout the process, officials and the farmers who own Mendota and Sack dams discussed how the water would pass through the dams. Federal officials said the talks helped to create a relationship that they want to continue as the restoration unfolds.

Trip tests waters of revived San Joaquin

Published online on Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009

By Mark Grossi / The Fresno Bee

FLOATING ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER -- My plastic kayak suddenly ran aground in a place where the San Joaquin River has flowed only a few times since the 1950s.

But I was only briefly caught on a shallow gravel bar about 40 miles west of Friant Dam.
It was one of many unexpected encounters on an otherwise smooth float that began Wednesday with a monstrous barn owl and ended with an iPhone.

The kayak trip was an up-close peek at a section of the rejuvenated San Joaquin that not many people have boated over the last several decades because it usually is dry.

It will be months, if not years, before the river becomes fully navigable, but the day is coming when it might provide an important new recreation amenity for the Valley. But questions remain unanswered: Who will settle conflicts between power boats and kayakers? Who will provide access points?

Special report: A River Reborn This trip became so much more than a quick look at a reborn river.
The San Joaquin's split personality -- lush and green below Friant Dam but desertlike beyond Gravelly Ford -- is far more vivid when viewed from a boat.

Such a view wouldn't even be possible except for a federal restoration program that increased the amount of water released from Friant Dam starting Oct. 1. The construction of the dam more than half a century ago left a dry riverbed downstream.

The river's green section from Friant Dam to Gravelly Ford is familiar to many boaters. Officials continuously release water from the dam for riverside property owners, and the river never died here.

But 38 miles downstream at Gravelly Ford, the flow dwindles to nothing in most years. Now, with extra water flowing, that stretch is waking from a half-century of slumber. West of Kerman, the San Joaquin is a gorgeous desert river meandering around cobble islands -- piles of large stones -- as screeching swallows fly in every direction.

Bee photographer Mark Crosse and I started at Skaggs Bridge Park so we could see the transition from sycamores and eucalyptus to cobble and sand.

About two miles down from Skaggs Bridge, we passed through a wide pond where we saw two Fresno fishing enthusiasts, Peter Jew, 36, and Edward Juarez, 31, on the shore. We wanted to chat, but our boats were quickly moving into a swift bottleneck in the river.

We had to navigate around sycamore limbs and arundo -- a dreaded invasive giant reed plant from Asia. Suddenly, we heard a rush of wings. It was the monstrous owl, making a mad rush for a new perch and scaring me silly.

We stopped on a cobble island at Gravelly Ford for lunch and tried to imagine what it looked like here in 1982, when a string of El Niño-influenced storms created November runoff more than twice as high as it was Wednesday.

When we moved on, I tried to spot a bald eagle nesting site that a biologist had described to me. I saw only migrating geese, honking wildly as they flew by. Their calls soon were drowned by the sound of a powerful motorboat.

The guy driving the boat slowed politely to keep the wake down and let us pass. The motorboat was surprising because I had expected the water to be too shallow.

Three young men along the banks apparently didn't expect to see us. They were carrying rifles, seemingly hunting -- perhaps on private property -- for ducks or dove. So we asked which type of bird they were hunting. Suddenly, their rifles no longer were in sight.

"We're just looking," one called out.
We moved onward.

By then, Mendota was in the distance, but we would not get that far. Our pullout point was several miles short of the Mendota Pool, which is next to Mendota.

We weren't sure we could boat much farther anyway. The blades of our paddles were sometimes hitting the river bottom. When we hung up on that pesky sand bar, I climbed out and pushed my boat back into the flow.

Then I solved my last dilemma with the help of an iPhone -- tucked away in a sealed plastic bag. There were no landmarks that I recognized. I needed the GPS program to locate our pullout place along the river. I was surprised at how well it worked.

We were about seven miles from Mendota when we hauled out the boats.

Which leads me to one piece of advice for other boaters: Until the Mendota Pool, there are few places to get out of the river beyond Gravelly Ford without crossing private property.

Ask around, check Google Earth, carry a GPS unit.

Friends of the River Protests “Paper” Water

Friends of the River has filed a protest with the State Water Resources Control Board against the Bureau of Reclamation’s filing to extend its water rights permit for the giant Central Valley Project (CVP). On June, the Bureau filed a petition with the State Water Board for a time extension on CVP permits for approximately 96 million acre feet of water. The current “paper” permits exceed the amount of water available in California’s hydrologic system. The Water Board estimates that the state has granted rights to eight times more water than California normally receives in a year.

The Bureau would like until 2030 to find a way to put this “paper” water to use, although the agency claims that it is not possible to predict what the beneficial use for the water will be between now and 2030 and it is not possible to determine what the ultimate water diversions will be in 2030. In addition, they cannot provide any recommendations for licensing the water for the CVP they are currently using under a permit.

The CVP water rights permits are associated with the Bureau’s massive system of federal dams and canals located on several Central Valley rivers. These facilities include Shasta and the Red Bluff Diversion Dams on the Sacramento River, Folsom Dam on the American River, New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus River, and the Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River.

Friends of the River’s protest argues that the Bureau needs to develop the information necessary to change its existing use to a license (with all the environmental conditions that come with it), and provide more information on the other permits they are attempting to hold on to for the next 20 years. It is not in the public interest to have a water rights system that allows the Bureau to hang on indefinitely to millions of acre-feet of “paper” water that simply does not exist in most years. Friends of the River’s goal in the CVP water rights proceeding is to ensure fair and beneficial use of California’s water. 

Scary Halloween Weekend

Email Your Assemblymember and Senator - NOW - To Save California Rivers!

Controversial Delta water policy and water bond bills have proliferated over the last week in the California Legislature like brain-eating zombies. As of Friday, October 30, there were no less than 20 water bills introduced and few of them are any good for California rivers. Many of the new bills are over 100 pages long and the Legislature is expected to vote on them by Monday, Nov. 2!

Click here to Take Action NOW!

EBMUD Approves Pardee Dam Expansion

By Katherine Evatt and Steve Evans

In the face of overwhelming opposition and impassioned public testimony, the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) board recently voted 4-2 to include options for a new and expanded Pardee Dam on the Mokelumne River in its 2040 water plan. At the same time, the board voted 6-0 to work with river conservation interests to secure National Wild and Scenic River protection for the Mokelumne River. In response to the vote to expand Pardee, Friends of the River, the Foothills Conservancy and other conservation groups are considering possible litigation.

The EBMUD board approved its water plan after much debate, following hours of testimony from nearly 70 speakers — including foothill residents who traveled to the meeting by bus and EBMUD ratepayers who braved the rain and wind to speak directly to their elected representatives. At the meeting, the dam opponents presented a long list of elected officials, public agencies, organizations and businesses opposed the Pardee expansion.

The EBMUD board was split over whether to retain the dam in its plan, but ultimately approved a motion that retained four different Pardee options. The smallest would avoid flooding any of the Mokelumne upstream of the existing Pardee Reservoir. The largest would drown the river, its cultural and historical resources, the historic 1912 Middle Bar Bridge, whitewater recreation areas, and wildlife and fish habitat up to 1,000 feet upstream of the Highway 49 Bridge. Three of the four options inundate part of river recommended for National Wild and Scenic River protection by the Bureau of Land Management.

EBMUD Board President Doug Linney was one of two board members to oppose the proposed expansion, which he thinks will be an “albatross” around EBMUD’s neck. “It’s a symbol of everything the East Bay Municipal Utility District is not,” he said. Fellow board member Andy Katz voted with Linney against the expansion, while Lesa McIntosh, John Coleman, William Patterson, and Katy Foulkes voted for expansion. Board member Frank Mellon missed the vote.

River advocates found little comfort in the adopted resolution, which states that EBMUD will not build a new dam without support from “upcountry” community, government, conservation, historic preservation, business, tribal, and recreation stakeholders. The adoption of the four Pardee expansion alternatives in the water plan is a programmatic decision. In order to actually build an expanded Pardee dam and reservoir, EBMUD will have to spend considerable effort and money to produce a site-specific environmental impact report (EIR).

Nevertheless, as noted by Friends of the River’s Ron Stork, “The decision means that EBMUD’s political and planning energies have been committed to drowning more of the Mokelumne River. For a District that isn’t growing in land area and has just completed a major expansion of its water supply system by tapping into American River water through the newly constructed Freeman Diversion, the decision to embark on an expensive, environmentally damaging, and unreliable new supply is puzzling and troubling.”

Although EBMUD’s support of Wild & Scenic protection of the Mokelumne River is a step in the right direction, it seemed clear from the companion motion to expand Pardee that at least a slim majority of the EBMUD Board won’t support protection of the portion of the river downstream of Highway 49 that would be flooded by an expanded Pardee.

Friends of the River, the Foothill Conservancy, and other conservation organizations are considering their legal options to challenge the adequacy of the current programmatic EIR for the water plan. It’s clear that EBMUD ignored viable alternatives, such as improved demand management and partnering with the Contra Costa Water District to reserve water storage behind CCWD’s proposed enlargement of the offstream Los Vaqueros Reservoir. In addition, EBMUD’s plan completely fails to address the high cost of dam expansion and the impact on utility rates. Enlarging Pardee is undoubtedly the most expensive water option under consideration by EBMUD and it is likely that EBMUD ratepayers may eventually object to this cost by voting in new board members.

For more information,  visit: www.friendsoftheriver.org/savethemoke

Dam Removal Uncertain In Proposed Klamath Settlement

Cartoon published by Sacramento Bee, Artist Rex Babin

The Oregon-based utility PacifiCorp, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and Native American Tribes are releasing a draft settlement agreement on Wednesday, September 30 that could lead to the removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River and restoration of the river’s once fabled salmon runs.

But the defining characteristic of the complex 130-page agreement is “could.”
“Although an important step towards restoration of the Klamath River, the draft settlement provides little certainty that PacifiCorp’s fish-killing and polluting dams will be removed by the proposed target date of 2020,” said Steve Evans, Conservation Director of the California-based statewide river conservation organization Friends of the River.

“It’s going to take a lot more work and effort by all parties to ensure that the dams are actually removed and the Klamath River salmon are restored in our lifetime,” Evans said.

In addition to failing to guarantee removal of the Klamath River dams, Friends of the River noted that the draft settlement provides broad liability protection for PacifiCorp against future lawsuits (even in circumstances where PacifiCorp could be negligent), and will rely on the multi-million dollar appropriations from the State of California and the federal government to implement dam removal and river restoration.

“California budget cuts have caused drastic cutbacks in public safety, health, education, and environmental programs. It doesn’t seem possible that the state will have the money any time soon to help implement the restoration project,” Evans said.
Despite its flaws, Friends of the River will seriously consider signing the proposed settlement agreement.

“If we don’t sign the agreement, we won’t be at the table to protect the public interest and advocate for swift removal of the dams,” Evans said

Great American River Cleanup

Friends of the River helped to organize the Great American River Cleanup. Below are some of the pictures that include FOR staff and volunteers cleaning up our beloved American river. Photos by Robert Sewell.

Water interests argue new state dam proposals

Aricle published by the San Francisco Chronicle.  Posted below in its entirety.
To read the article on the Chronicle's website, click here.

By Kelly Zito, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

(09-28) 19:38 PDT -- Thirty years ago, a chunk of chain, an eyebolt and Mark Dubois helped end the era of big dam building in California.

Dubois, a bearded, 6-foot-8, 30-year-old river guide from Sacramento, chained himself to a rocky outcropping on the north bank of the Stanislaus River and stayed there for a week, determined to prevent the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from filling the canyons behind New Melones Dam and submerging the limestone caves, verdant meadows and petroglyphs of the river valley.

Dubois lost that fight: New Melones had been approved in the 1940s and was well under way when he and the nascent Friends of the River got involved. But he and hundreds of others who celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Stanislaus Campaign next month believe their work is echoing through a new generation as another dam debate emerges in California.

"We didn't win 30 years ago, but the world has changed," Dubois said in a telephone interview from his home on Bainbridge Island in Washington state. "Even though (Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger) is pushing these dams, people know they don't make sense."

As California grapples with an aging water-delivery network, growing population, worsening water quality, a drought and the potentially far-reaching effects of global climate change, dams are again on the table.

Last month Schwarzenegger insisted he would not sign off on any major overhaul of the water system without money for new dams and reservoirs.

The governor has the support of conservatives and the vast Central Valley, where many farmers are convinced that new, man-made lakes will help offset dry spells and ease the federal rulings that have cut water pumped through the ailing Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

A costly option
But environmentalists and their liberal backers contend dams are a costly, ecologically dicey option set against the backdrop of California's unprecedented budget cuts and alarms over the decline of fisheries, waterways and water quality.

By most accounts, New Melones was not the boon promised. When federal engineers studied the project, they far overestimated the water supply and underestimated demand. As a result, for years much of the water has gone to flush out the delta and to fulfill contracts in Stockton and elsewhere; little went to local water suppliers.

"It wasn't surprising to us at all," said Steve Evans, conservation director at Friends of the River. "New Melones was a project looking for a purpose."

Memories die hard
The several dams under consideration do not have quite the same scenic or recreational pull as the Stanislaus River. But memories of landscapes lost behind dams die hard. River advocates point to the flooding of picturesque Hetch Hetchy Valley for San Francisco's water interests and Friant Dam's catastrophic effect on salmon in the San Joaquin River.

Dams "make sense if you don't care about taking care of the natural world," according to Ronald Stork, senior policy advocate for Friends of the River.

These days, however, the debate has shifted to the economics of dam building.

California already has upward of 1,000 dams that provide water supply, flood control and hydropower - built on the most productive and accessible sites, experts say. Each time another dam is added to a river, billions are spent and the water supplied is minimal.

"We have to look further than this reflexive, historical impulse that says building dams will solve all our problems," said Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael. "It's not true. Water recycling, conservation, efficiency... dwarf the amount of water we could get through any (reservoirs) we build."

Reasonable compromise
Conservatives and their supporters however, think they've forged a reasonable compromise that, though expensive, will add an important tool for managing the state's water system.

"The magnitude of the problem is so enormous that we can't afford to say no to one solution," said Chris Scheuring, environmental attorney for the California Farm Bureau.

Scheuring's group and others stand behind three big projects they argue would not inflict the environmental harm of past dams: The expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County, the Temperance Flat dam on the San Joaquin River above Friant Dam, and Sites Reservoir, which would flood the Antelope Valley in Colusa County.

The $3.8 billion Sites proposal, in particular, marks a departure from the norm because it is an off-stream reservoir that does not obstruct a river. Through canals connected to the Sacramento River, the Department of Water Resources says, water would be pumped into the lake where it would be used to supplement flows into the delta or allow deeper, colder reservoirs to hold back water for critical salmon runs.

Reservoir supporters say Sites presents the best of all worlds. And they seem determined to ensure that Sites and similar projects make it into any water legislation package.

"We're not going to approve another water bond package for billions that haven't improved water reliability," said state Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto. "These are not high dams on wild and scenic rivers. We're talking about a very responsible approach."

Not worth it?
Peter Gleick, president of Oakland's Pacific Institute, a nonpartisan water think tank, acknowledges that Sites or Temperance Flat could add a certain amount of flexibility to the system. But, he says, that slight improvement simply isn't worth the economic, environmental and political cost.

"Many of dams we built in the last century brought us great benefit," Gleick said. "But I think the era of new dams is over in California."

E-mail Kelly Zito at kzito@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/28/MNRO19SUMN.DTL#ixzz0SWsv7K7f

California River Awards

You're Invited
Friends of the River cordially invites you to share an experience of a lifetime and help us honor the unsung heroes and founders of California's river protection movement.

FOR’s California River Awards celebrates those who have made outstanding contributions to the preservation of California’s rivers. This year Friends of the River will honor the "Stan Campaigners" -- the passionate and dedicated volunteers who poured their hearts and souls into trying to save the Stanislaus River more than three decades ago. Their efforts catalyzed river protection movements in California and across the country.

JOIN US for a festive and unforgettable evening of fine wine, delectable food and live and silent auctions!

Friday, October 16, 6-9pm
At The Presidio Officers’ Club, 50 Moraga Avenue, San Francisco

Proceeds from this event will support FOR’s efforts to preserve and restore California rivers and maintain opposition to legislation causing further harm to the Delta.

To learn more about the event, visit: www.friendsoftheriver.org/cara
To purchase tickets, www.friendsoftheriver.org/caratickets
To become a sponsor, visit: www.friendsoftheriver.org/carasponsor
Are you a Stan Campaigner? visit: www.friendsoftheriver.org/stancampaigner

Southern California Voters Support Wild Rivers

A recent poll of 400 likely voters in the San Gabriel Valley of southern California demonstrates strong support for the protection of wild places in the adjacent San Gabriel Mountains. Approximately 72% of those polled supported Wild & Scenic River protection for the mountain range’s waterways, while 67% supported wilderness protection. Click here, to learn more about this poll and FORs work to protect Southern California rivers.

Delta Policy Package and Water Bond Stalled For Now

An ambitious plan to rush through complex Delta water policy legislation and a budget-busting water bond fell apart on Sept. 11 a few hours before the California Legislature recessed for the fall. But the Delta bill and bond will likely return.

Conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats alike balked at approving a 142- page bill introduced the evening of September 11 that few had an opportunity to read. Furthermore, the $800 million annual price tag for the proposed 30-year water bond caused misgivings as California continues to suffer from a chronic budget deficit and a recession-crippled economy. Public employee unions, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the California School Employees Association (CSEA), joined with Friends of the River and other conservation organizations in opposing the bond.

Friends of the River and its allies worked into Friday evening urging legislators to oppose the water bond and shelve the complex Delta policy bill for further consideration later in the legislative year. Nearly 1400 supporters, 700 hand written letters from members on FOR outings and 700 emails during the 48 hours of bill consideration, sent their concerns to their state legislators urging a “go slow” approach to the Delta policy package, opposing the water bond, and encouraging proven conservation solutions over building ineffective dams.

Although there were many positive aspects to the proposed Delta policy package (which prompted some conservation groups to support the policy bill while opposing the water bond), Friends of the River was particularly concerned that the legislation could lead to the construction of a controversial Peripheral Canal around the Delta that could be as long and as wide as the Panama Canal.

Friends of the River and other conservation organizations oppose the dam funding part of the water bond because the proposed dams are costly and will produce little additional water, particularly during drought. Public investments in water conservation, reclamation, and improved groundwater management are far cheaper and produce far more water.

These bills could be reconsidered in a special legislative session to be called by the Governor this fall or when the Legislature returns from its normal fall recess in January 2010.

To learn more about the proposed Delta water package and water bonds, which may resurface during the next legislative session, visit: www.friendsoftheriver.org/waterbond and www.friendsoftheriver.org/waterbills

In Just a Few Clicks...you can help Ca Rivers

Just a few clicks...You can help Friends of the River win a $10,000 grant!!!
Skinny Dip, a beer by New Belgium Beer Company focused on water advocacy, is offering a $10,000 grant to a water advocacy non-profit based on number of votes by September 30!

Step 1: Go to the New Belgium skinny dip website: http://www.newbelgium.com/skinnydip
Step 2: Click on the "I am over 21 button" then "Vote for a Cause"
Step 3: Scroll down, click on "Friends of the River," and cast your vote
Step 4: Click "Tell A Friend" above or press Forward to encourage everyone you know to help Friends of the River protect California rivers through this much needed grant

Will Peripheral Canal Be Considered After the August Recess?

By Steve Evans
Conservation Director
Friends of the River

The controversial Peripheral Canal may or may not be included in a package of water bills that the Legislature expects to take up after its arduous budget battle and the August recess. The water package will likely propose an appointed council or water master to manage water operations, provide overall direction for ecosystem restoration, and attempt to implement the Governor’s goal of reducing water use by 20%. Some capitol insiders claim that the package will not expressly authorize the giant canal, which will divert massive quantities of fresh water around the beleaguered estuary for export to the southern Central Valley and southern California.
It is also unclear whether this initial water package will include funding mechanisms, either in the form of a proposed multi-billion dollar general obligation bond (essentially borrowing money in the name of the taxpayers) and/or water fees. The cost of a Peripheral Canal could be at least $10 billion. New or enlarged dams needed to supply water to the canal will cost billions more. Funding is usually the key to California’s convoluted water politics since the typical goal is to get the taxpayers to pay for the water from which only a few benefit...Read more.

Truth #9

The Peripheral Canal will not improve water quality in the south Delta.



A recent science review of the Bay-Delta Conservation plan found that the canal will do little to improve poor water quality and San Joaquin River salmon survival in the south Delta.

Truth #8

The Peripheral Canal will not benefit salmon or Delta smelt.



According to the Public Policy Institute of California, there is only a 50% likelihood of viability for Sacramento River salmon with a Peripheral Canal. For Delta smelt, only a 40% likelihood of viability.

Truth #7

The Temperance Flat Dam will destroy the San Joaquin River Gorge.



Thosands of acres of public recreation lands and wildlife habitat will be drowned. Thousands of years of Native American heritage lost. Existing hydroelectric power plants will be buried, making Temerance Flat a net energy looser.

Truth #6

All the best dam sites in California are taken.



New dams will not store much additional water since most watersheds have fully developed surface storage capacity.



The proposed Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River will only sotre a small amount of water 1 year out of 3.

Truth #5

New dams produce far less reliable water than conservation, recycling and groundwater storage.

Truth #4

The proposed Peripheral Canal will be as long and as wide as the Panama Canal.

Nine years ago, state and federal agencies promised to restore the Delta. They failed.

Can we really trust the same agencies to operate the Peripheral Canal in a way that protects and restores the Delta?

Truth #3

Water conservation.

Water recycling.

Water reclamation.

Groundwater storage.



These are the solutions to California's current and future water needs. Not building costly, destructive, ineffective, and contraversial new dams and canals.