Author Archives: Francine

Feinstein freezes out north state in water bill talks

Editorial graphicSacramento Bee, 11.19.14: Sen. Dianne Feinstein and House Republicans have been secretly negotiating drought relief legislation that could severely alter California water policy. She should know better.

Any legislation on the topic of water would have far-reaching implications, and ought to receive a full public airing before a congressional vote.

California’s senior senator is negotiating with Central Valley representatives and agencies that rely on water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and is shutting out House members who represent the Delta and Northern California.

The fear among environmentalists and Northern California congressional members, including Feinstein’s fellow Democrats, is that the legislation would override environmental protections so more water could be pumped south to Central Valley farmers and Southern California residents.

They worry that a bill could be pushed through Congress without committee hearings, possibly this week or the week after Thanksgiving. That is no way to make policy, especially when the varied interests of Californians are at stake.

Michael Doyle of the McClatchy Washington Bureau and Mark Grossi of The Fresno Bee reported that only a few congressmen and staff members have seen the documents stamped “confidential draft language, do not distribute.” California’s Republican House members received a briefing last week.

Feinstein issued a statement through her press secretary saying that “the plan has always been to seek broad input.”

“We expect to have draft legislation ready for public comment soon, at which time public input will be sought,” she said.

That sort of top-down manner of legislating might work on national security matters, but will make it difficult for Feinstein to generate trust from the individuals who are not at the table but have a legitimate stake in California’s water future.

Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, said in an interview that the opaque process is “wrong. It’s not the way to do this.” He cited concerns that the legislation could damage the Delta and the fishing industry, and water down the Endangered Species Act.

While Garamendi and other Northern California congressional members are frozen out of the talks, Tom Birmingham, the general manager of Westlands Water District, which depends on water pumped from Northern California, has a seat at the negotiating table.

Westlands clearly has an interest in any legislation. Westlands farmers received no Delta water allocations this year. But Northern Californians have an interest as well, including environmentalists and members of the fishing industry.

There is a fundamental imbalance if interest groups and Republicans have a seat at the table but the congressional member who represents the Delta is left out.

If Sen. Feinstein won’t embrace an open debate on such critical issues, Sen. Barbara Boxer, who will remain chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee through the lame duck session, ought to stand up and object.

Action Alert: Calls Needed Immediately!

Any Congressional bill worth considering must NOT be negotiated in secret!

Action Alert11.18.14: All who are interested in protecting the waters of the Sacramento Valley from the fate suffered by the Owens and San Joaquin Valleys, PLEASE make phone calls today!

Senator Feinstein is urgently trying to reconcile her so-called “drought” Bill (2198) with the House version that is even worse (3964) at the end of 2014. The public will be given about 48 hours to review something that has been negotiated behind closed doors for 6 months! The bill also impacts other states besides California. See also Sacramento Bee editorial, “Feinstein freezes out north state in water bill talks” (11.19.14) and Fresno Bee report, “Talks on drought bill underway on Capitol Hill” (11.18.14).

Because a public version of the present legislation hasn’t been released still, here are destructive elements that were in past versions of the Bill.

  • Water transfers from the Sacramento Valley are expedited circumventing public processes in federal environmental laws.
  • Refuges are pushed to turn to groundwater instead of relying on what the Central Valley Improvement Act requires in the way of surface water deliveries.
  • Most benefits are for desert agriculture in the southwestern San Joaquin Valley – not California as a whole – and especially not the area of origin where most of the water comes from: the Sacramento River Watershed.

If you want to know more about the major players, watch this excellent video created in 2010 by Salmon Water Now (Bruce Tokars): http://vimeo.com/11337689.

Consider the following when making your calls:

1. The process needs to be the issue since the legislation hasn’t been released. Why have discussions been closed for 6 months? Why is it being rushed through the Senate without appropriate hearings?

2. Demand access to the process — e.g., request copies of the bill drafts, agency comments, water district comments.

3. Ask Senator Feinstein what is her intent. Did her staff write this Bill? How much influence did Westlands [1] have on the Bill? A great deal of it is likely incomprehensible in many areas, so once a copy is finally released, rather than trying to figure out the conflicting sections between water rights and the transfer sections or area of origins sections, ask all the Senators to explain who benefits and who loses in this deal. Clearly, if it isn’t special interest legislation, releasing it with time to review and allow public hearings wouldn’t be a threat.

Action Needed: Call the following and express your views.

  • Senator Dianne Feinstein (D- CA) – (202) 224-3841 or (415) 393-0707 (Appropriations Committee)
  • Senator Barbara Boxer (D- CA) – (202) 224-3553 or (510) 286-8537 (Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee)
  • Senator Mark Udall (D-NM) – (202) 224-6621
  • Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) – (202) 224-3753; Bill sponsor (Appropriations Committee)
  • Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) – (202) 224-3441 (Energy and Natural Resources Committee)
  • Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) – (202) 224-3542 or (775) 686-5750 (Reno)
  • Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) – (202) 224-3934 (Energy and Natural Resources Committee)

[1] Westlands Water District is a junior water rights holder located in the southern San Joaquin Valley. They have been trying to garner more secure water using politics for decades. Click here to locate Westlands on ownership maps.

Draft EIS/EIR “seriously flawed” – Butte County Board of Supervisors

11.14.14 — Butte County Board of Supervisors draft comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) on a proposed Long Term Water Transfers Program:

Butte County logo“Based on our preliminary view, we believe that the EIS/EIR is seriously flawed and will need to be revised and recirculated. The relied-upon data is outdated, incomplete and selectively chosen. The result is that the EIS/EIR fails to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act.” Click link to read the full Butte County draft comments document.

A tribute to California’s ‘First Lady of Water’

davis_portraitA former telephone operator from Nebraska, Pauline Davis became the longest-serving woman in the California Legislature and an effective advocate of local water development. 

Click here to read a tribute to Pauline Davis by Tina Cannon Leahy on California Water Blog.

 

 

Letter to Editor: No on Prop 1

Proposition 1 provides a series of benefits and detriments to different constituents much as a legislative bill. It is nonsensical to ask for a simple yes or no vote on a proposition with many complex and contradictory parts. The legislators and governor are not completing their obligations by asking the public to make this decision for them.

The statement “Funds provided by this division shall not be expected to pay the costs of the design, construction, operation, mitigation or maintenance of Delta conveyance facilities.” [Chapter 4, 79710 (a)] is contradicted by a criteria used for funding “Water quality and ecosystem benefits related to decreased reliance on diversion from the Delta or instream flow” [Chapter 9, 79757(b)]. This appears to provide compensation (mitigation) for building the twin tunnels under the delta.

A brief phrase in Chapter 8 lists conjunctive use as eligible for funding [(79751(c)]. This supports the sale of groundwater to be transferred south.

As the state looks at groundwater for storage, they are modifying natural multiple season recharge, and threatening both the legal rights of groundwater users and natural ecosystems (temporary streams and valley oaks). Also, will the control of groundwater recharge under pollution control end up with the state claiming groundwater for state use?

Supporting water storage projects repeats past errors. California does not receive enough rainfall to justify building more dams. Furthermore, dams reduce flood plain and delta ecosystem quality by depriving them of the recharge and cleaning benefits of flood waters.

Vote no on Proposition 1.

Doug Alexander

(Letter to the Editor, Chico Enterprise-Record, sent 10.28.14)

Long-Term Water Transfers EIS/EIR Summary

Click here to view the Executive Summary of the

Long-Term Water Transfers Environmental Impact Summary/Environmental Impact Report

Prepared by:

  • US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Sacramento, CA
  • San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, Los Banos, CA

September 2014

State water bond has too many variables

Editorial graphicChico Enterprise-Record Editorial – Sunday, October 5, 2014

It is with reluctance that we recommend a no vote on Proposition 1, the water bond on the November ballot. It’s likely the best chance our state has to get the badly needed Sites Reservoir built, but we can’t bring ourselves to believe that will happen, based on how the bond is written.

Sites is important to the north state because it’s the best way we can help the rest of the state with its water problems without harming ourselves. And it’s naive to assume the rest of the state doesn’t expect us to solve their problems.

You just have to look at reservoir levels to understand that. The reservoirs actually collecting water where the rain and snow falls are emptier than those at the end of the pipe, where it rarely rains and water is collected from elsewhere and stashed for Southern California’s use. Lake Oroville’s 30 percent full; Lake Shasta and Trinity Lake, 25 percent; Folsom Lake, 35 percent. At the end of the pipe, Diamond Valley Reservoir is 50 percent full; Pyramid Lake, 93 percent full.

We’re already solving problems that are not of our making. We didn’t put the second largest city in the nation in a location that might have enough native water for a burg the size of Fresno. And we didn’t change hundreds of thousands of acres in the naturally arid western San Joaquin Valley from annual crops like cotton — that could be fallowed in a drought — to orchards and vineyards that have to have water each year.

So what? If you haven’t noticed, “ That’s not fair” doesn’t cut any weight in a political debate in this state.

Editorial insertWe in the north state are expected to solve the water problems south of the delta. We will be compelled to solve those problems whether we like it or not. Sites would allow us to help by collecting the excess water that is undeniably here sometimes — the stuff that floods the dips on Ord Ferry Road for instance — for use elsewhere when things finally dry out.

The alternative is to tap our aquifers, specifically, the Lower Tuscan Aquifer, which runs deep under the central Sacramento Valley. It’s been coveted by the state Department of Water Resources for decades, and they’ve been studying how to exploit it for all that time. The research hasn’t really answered any of the critical questions, like how much water is there, how does the water get there, and how much water could you draw from it without damaging it.

The only question that had been answered is that the aquifer is the foundation for our local ecosystem, upon which our agricultural economy is built, upon which all of the other economic pursuits of the Sacramento Valley depend, though many people here probably don’t realize their white- collar jobs depend on the folks with dirt under their fingernails.

If Sites doesn’t get built, the state will still come here looking for water. And the sweeping groundwater bill passed this year gives them access to the Tuscan, the authority to ignore local government, and the ability to undercut the economy of the north state. They’re just missing the money to do it right now.

That’s why if this proposition actually came out and explicitly said most of the $ 2.75 billion earmarked for water storage would actually go to Sites, to ease the threat to the Tuscan, we’d be in favor of it. We’d still have reservations as the bond measure is for $ 7.5 billion, and $ 3 billion to $ 4 billion appear to be nothing more than pork to garner support from people who can’t see the big picture.

But the storage money could go for anything, and below- ground storage (which isn’t an option up here) seems to have the upper track in some circles. Indeed, the counsel for the Natural Resources Defense Council — a fairly radical environmental group that backs Proposition 1 — was quoted Tuesday by the Associated Press as saying it wasn’t about building “ new big dams.” Curiously, every representative the north state has in the Legislature thinks that’s exactly what it’s about.

We have to think our folks are wrong. They are so outnumbered.

The Legislature, or even voters, wouldn’t decide how that $2.75 billion for “ water storage” is spent. The proposition says that would be decided by the California Water Commission, a nine-member board appointed by the governor and accountable to nobody.

That nine-member board has one person from north of Sacramento. It has a person from the building industry, an attorney, people who have worked for Defenders of Wildlife and the Nature Conservancy … and just one person with a farming background.

They could decide to spend $2.75 billion on anything that resembles “ water storage” and the voters would have no recourse to say that they didn’t get what they expected.

Those familiar with the bullet train proposition will see parallels.

In our view, Proposition 1 gives the state $7.5 billion to mess around with the state’s water system, with no guarantee any of the money will actually be spent on what would really solve the problem, and the potential to fund activities that would seriously damage the north state.

We eye Proposition 1 with suspicion, because history has taught us it’s wise to do so.

It’s a $ 7.5 billion dollar crapshoot that we’re likely to lose, no matter how the dice fall.

Copyright © 2014 Chico Enterprise-Record 10/05/2014

Notice of Availability & Notice of Public Hearings for Draft EIS/EIR for Long-Term Water Transfers

What the NorthState gained from AquAlliance’s water transfer lawsuit this year has been released: the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s 10-Year Water Transfer Plan’s Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/EIR). This form of environmental review requires more analysis and disclosure of impacts for a project – our attempt to force some honesty. AquAlliance sued the Bureau in 2014 because it and the state have been transferring water in 12 of the last 14 years, claiming that they were “temporary” transfers and therefore they only needed minimal or no environmental review. Our lawsuit changed that.

Now we will have a 60-day comment period to analyze and comment on the large EIS/EIR.

The 10-Year Water Transfer Program seeks to transfer up to 600,000 acre-feet per year from the NorthState to desert agriculture in the southwestern San Joaquin Valley. The 10-year water transfer total is equivalent to what a city the size of Chico would use in 200 years!

AquAlliance has been preparing for this challenge and we hope that all of you will support our efforts on your behalf. We plan to disclose all vulnerabilities in the EIS/EIR and prepare to litigate if necessary..

Three hearings to receive oral or written comments will be held by the Bureau of Reclamation:

  • Sacramento: Wednesday, October 15, 2014, 2-4pm – Quality Inn & Suites at Cal Expo, 1413 Howell Avenue – (916) 922-9833
  • Los Banos: Thursday, October 16, 2014, 6-8pm – San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, 842 Sixth Street – (209) 826-9696
  • Chico: Tuesday, October 21, 6-8pm – Chico Masonic Family Center, 1110 W. East Avenue – (530) 34207143

Send written comments or requests for copies to Mr. Brad Hubbard, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825 or via e-mail to bhubbard@usbr.gov.

Click link to view:

 

AquAlliance Opposes the Water Bond

NewsClick here to download printable document.

Click here to view PACs that support and oppose Proposition 1.

AquAlliance opposes the Water Bond, Proposition 1 on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The measure does have funding for some beneficial and cost effective items, but the damage that will occur outweighs the benefits for one major reason:

The Bond expands groundwater banking and conjunctive use.[1] [see definition below]

This is a horrible idea for the NorthState. To store water in a groundwater bank there must first be space. Most areas of the NorthState have little “space” for recharge despite the intense interest by state and federal water agencies and local irrigation districts that sell surface water regularly to desert agriculture south of the Delta. These same agencies and districts have been and still are seeking to sufficiently manipulate groundwater into their transfer schemes, so that space is created to store surface water during wet years.[2] Over time, this conjunctive use activity may remove the legal right to groundwater for overlying landowners. [3]

The U.C. Cooperative Extension office for Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, and Shasta counties published a flyer that highlights some of the problems with conjunctive use activity:

“While conjunctive use may prove successful for an individual or group of water users to manage an immediate situation, it is also possible for conjunctive use to unintentionally harm the groundwater basin and other groundwater users who are not involved in conjunctive use but are reliant on the same groundwater basin.” [4] Even the state agency that is pushing conjunctive use projects acknowledges that, “Because most groundwater systems are slow responding systems, any damage to the system may require long periods to recover.” [5] The Bond funds for groundwater recharge and conjunctive use may harm thousands of groundwater dependent farms, communities, tens-of-thousands of domestic well users, streams, and urban and native landscapes in the NorthState. This has already happened many times over in the San Joaquin Valley.

AquAlliance seeks to prevent groundwater collapse in the NorthState, but it is widespread in some areas of southern California where groundwater basins have been so badly emptied that recharge has become an expectation. It is also unfortunate that some managers of southern groundwater look to the NorthState to supply water to refill their abused basins. This only continues California’s destructive practices and fails to require water managers to live within the hydrologic boundaries of their watersheds.

Here are some very specific Bond sections without geographic limitations that commingle positive projects like preventing groundwater pollution with detrimental ones that could adversely affect groundwater in the NorthState:

  • Chapter 6 [$1.495 billion for all listed activities]

o   79735. (A) Promote groundwater recharge…

  • Chapter 7 [$810 million for all listed activities]

o   79743. (c) Local and regional surface and underground water storage, including groundwater aquifer cleanup or recharge projects.

  • Chapter 8[$2.7 billion for all listed activities]

o   79751. (b) Groundwater storage projects and groundwater contamination prevention or remediation projects that provide water storage benefits.

o   (c) Conjunctive use and reservoir reoperation projects.

AquAlliance has additional concerns about Proposition 1.

The Bond seeks public funds to build storage projects that realize very little water and are very expensive (see graph on homepage at www.aqualliance.net). [6]For example, after 30 years of study by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the proposed Sites reservoir west of Maxwell in Colusa County does not yet have a feasibility study, a yield study, an estimate of public benefit, identified beneficiary partners, or a financing plan. When compared to the water yield and affordability of Urban Water Efficiency in our graph, building or expanding the reservoirs proposed in the Bond is a debt Californians don’t need. We have plenty of existing reservoirs that aren’t being filled. According to analysis by the Sacramento Bee, “The projected water yield from the new reservoirs is relatively low because most of the water they are capable of storing already belongs to someone else, or is obligated to fishery protection. The reservoirs would be required to pass this water through at the appointed time rather than selling it as a ‘new’ supply.” [7]

The Bond facilitates the Bay Delta Conservation Plan’s Twin Tunnels project.

The $137.5 million allocated for habitat restoration, water quality and fish protection facilities in the Delta is potential mitigation for BDCP’s Twin Tunnels and/or existing water export projects. Taxpayers should not be on the hook because regulators fail to require special interest projects to mitigate their adverse impacts. And anything that facilitates the construction of the Twin Tunnels moves the draining of the NorthState that much closer. For more information on BDCP, see AquAlliance’s comments on the Environmental Impact Statement/Report here.

The Bond decreases water recycling projects by 44% from what was in the 2009 Bond [8] and does nothing to respond to drought. If we are to protect the NorthState from the state and federal habit of taking water from healthy watersheds that leave them devastated, then water recycling, conservation, and reclamation are exactly what California needs most. These lower cost and easily-implemented projects produce more reliable water quickly and actually create more jobs. They also lead California to watershed sustainability, which is what is desperately needed in the long-term.

—————————————————————————

[1] According to the State of California, conjunctive use means the following:”The deliberate combined use of groundwater and surface water is commonly termed ‘conjunctive use.’ Conjunctive use means actively managing the aquifer systems as an underground reservoir. During wet years, when more surface water is available, surface water is stored underground by recharging the aquifers with surplus surface water.  www.cd.water.ca.gov/groundwater/conjunctiveuse.cfm

[2] U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, September 2006. Grant Assistance Agreement.
 “GCID shall define three hypothetical water delivery systems from the State Water Project (Oroville), the Central Valley Project (Shasta) and the Orland Project reservoirs sufficient to provide full and reliable surface water delivery to parties now pumping from the Lower Tuscan Formation. The purpose of this activity is to describe and compare the performance of three alternative ways of furnishing a substitute surface water supply to the current Lower Tuscan Formation groundwater users to eliminate the risks to them of more aggressive pumping from the Formation and to optimize conjunctive management of the Sacramento Valley water resources.”

[3] http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/city-los-angeles-v-city-san-fernando-27778

[4] Dudley, Toccoy and Allan Fulton, 2005/2006. CONJUNCTIVE WATER MANAGEMENT: WHAT IS IT? WHY CONSIDER IT? WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES? http://cetehama.ucanr.edu/files/20596.pdf

[5] California Water Plan 2009, volume 2, Resource Management Strategies, Chapter 8, Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage p.8-28 www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/cwpu2009/0310final/v2c08_conjunctmgmt_cwp2009.pdf

[6] Water yield numbers and costs for the three storage projects have varied widely in the last decade. AquAlliance chose to use the numbers put out by the agencies that promote them to err on the high side of water yield. The references are provided on our web site with the graphic comparison.

[7] www.fresnobee.com/2014/06/01/3956458_should-calif-add-new-dams.html?rh=1

[8] Sacramento Bee, August 14, 2014. New Water Bond on Ballot. http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/13/6626961/california-lawmakers-reach-deal.html