Water Becoming Greater Concern on Central Coast

By Keith Carls
KCOY-12 Central Coast News
Aug 12, 2013

SANTA MARIA – Turning on the tap in the kitchen, flushing the toilet or watering the lawn.

They are sights and sounds most of us take for granted in our daily lives.

There’s growing concern in northern San Luis Obispo County the taps may actually run dry.

Water levels in the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin are falling fast.

Wells are drying up, threatening everything from agriculture and ranching to commercial and residential development.

“Our situation is significantly different than Paso Robles, could it ever happen here, yes it could happen here”, says Rick Sweet, Director of Santa Maria’s Utilities Department which oversees the municipal water supply and the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin.

“We closely monitor our basin, our basin would not drop 60, 70 feet without us being completely aware of it”, Sweet says, “we also have restoration through the Twitchell Reservoir Project of our groundwater basin which is substantial, we import state water for domestic supply.”

Northern San Luis Obispo County cities and towns chose not to be a part of the State Water Project when it was built decades ago.

But even imported water can also run dry.

“Next year they are talking about entering the year at a 20 percent (of capacity for the year), Sweet says of State Water Project estimated allocations, “which would be a very, very low number, one of the lowest opening numbers ever.”

“We are at a crossroads in California to see what this winter is going to do as far as water supply”, Sweet says about the coming year, “now if we have a great water supply year, then we will all think this was talk that was unneeded. but if we don’t its certainly going to be a very crucial issue in California.”

Water districts across the Central Coast stress the importance of conserving water wherever you are, at home, work or school.

Not only will it save money, but there’s no guarantee in the near future that water will be there when you need it.

Click here to see article & video.

Final documents on water transfers released

Red Bluff Daily News, 6.22.13: The Bureau of Reclamation today released the final environmental documents for the transfer of Central Valley Project water by CVP contractors located north of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The water will be purchased by up to 10 San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority member agencies located south of the Delta.

The proposed action includes groundwater substitution transfers in 2013 that require Reclamation’s approval. The transfers involve Base Supply and Project Water from eight entities with Sacramento River Settlement Contracts located north of the Delta; a total of up to 37,715 acre-feet of water could be made available for transfer. Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources are currently evaluating each transfer proposal individually to determine if it meets state law and/or Central Valley Project Improvement Act requirements.

The Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact were prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and are available for review at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=13310. If you encounter problems accessing documents online, please contact the Public Affairs Office at 916-978-5100 or email mppublicaffairs@usbr.gov.

For additional information or to request copies of the documents, please contact Brad Hubbard at 916-978-5204 or email bhubbard@usbr.gov.

NOTE: AquAlliance is exploring all options to challenge the Bureau’s relentless pursuit of Sacramento Valley ground water.

California Water Plan Glossary

The glossary for the California Water Plan provides 31 pages of definitions of terms that can help us to understand water issues. Click to view the full Water Plan Glossary.

For example:

Acre-foot (af) – The volume of water that would cover one acre to a depth of one foot; equal to 43,560 cubic feet or 325,851 gallons.

Groundwater –Water that occurs beneath the land surface and fills the pore spaces of the alluvium, soil, or rock formation in which it is situated. It excludes soil moisture, which refers to water held by capillary action in the upper unsaturated zones of soil or rock. Groundwater classified as underflow of a surface water system, a “subterranean stream flowing through a known and definite channel,” is subject to statutory permitting process. However, most groundwater in California is presumed to be “percolating water,” that is, water in underground basins and groundwater which has escaped from streams and is not subject to a permitting process. See also subterranean stream.

Watershed – The land area from which water drains into a stream, river, or reservoir.

Glossary written by California Department of Water Resources.

Statewide Coalition of Fishing, Farming, Environmental Advocates Sues to Halt Delta Plan, Water Export Tunnels

San Francisco, CA – A statewide coalition of fishing, environmental and farming groups today announced the filing of a lawsuit to “vacate” the Delta Plan, which lays the groundwork for Delta water export tunnels. The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of groups from both Southern and Northern California, alleges that the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Plan violates both the Delta Reform Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The coalition seeks to have the Delta Plan and its Preliminary Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) set aside for failing to disclose and analyze the devastating adverse environmental consequences on Northern California rivers, the Delta, and endangered species of fish, resulting from taking enormous quantities of fresh water out of the Sacramento River upstream from the Delta. The lawsuit seeks to suspend any activity based on the Plan that could change the physical environment until the Council has met its legal requirements. This would include constructing the Brown Administration’s proposed water export tunnels.

“The Delta Reform Act gave the Delta Stewardship Council an historic opportunity to remedy 40 years of water policy failures. The council instead failed to use the best available science – biological or economic – and adopted a status quo program that fails to fix the Delta or the water supply problem,” said Santa Barbara resident Carolee Krieger, executive director of the statewide California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), a statewide water advocacy organization. “The Council failed to honor its own mandate: the adoption of an effective strategy for the distribution of water and the preservation of the Delta.”

Bob Wright, Senior Counsel for Friends of the River, said, “Seeking relief from the courts is now necessary to protect our rivers and fish from this arbitrary, destructive action. The Council’s plan is part of the worst threat to Northern California rivers in history, and continues State agencies’ efforts to take the water regardless of the adverse consequences. The Delta Plan calls for the Delta Water Tunnels with one hand. But with the other hand, the Delta Stewardship Council violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to disclose and analyze the devastating adverse environmental consequences on Northern California rivers, the Delta, and endangered species of fish resulting from taking enormous quantities of freshwater out of the Sacramento River upstream from the Delta.”

Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said, “California is in a water crisis and the biological tapestry of the Delta is hemorrhaging. The causes are obvious: we’ve over promised, wasted and inequitably allocated limited water resources. We’ve deprived the estuary of more than half its flow, turned its hydrograph on its head and used its waters as sewers. This crisis evolved because state and federal agencies egregiously failed to enforce and comply with the broad suite of laws enacted to prevent it. We implored the Council to undertake a series of necessary analyses because the responsible agencies have refused to conduct them. Because the Council failed to identify and analyze the root causes of California’s water crisis – over-appropriation, unreasonable use, failure to balance the public trust – the Plan and EIR are little more than a ratification of an unsustainable status quo. It largely recommends that agencies should continue to do the same things that created the crisis in the first place. The Plan and EIR ignore history and are predicated on an artificial reality. They’re little more than omelets of half-truth and distortion to justify predetermined conclusions.”

Adam Lazar, Counsel for the Center for Biodiversity, said, “The welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature. The Delta Plan and water export tunnels would devastate the environment of not just the Delta, but also San Francisco Bay and the estuary it depends upon. We want those who come after us to inherit a California that is still vibrant.”

Barbara Vlamis, of Chico, executive director of AquAlliance, said, “We join this lawsuit because we are the heart of the area of origin for the Sacramento River watershed. The Tuscan Aquifer in Butte, Glenn and Tehama counties is the groundwater foundation that supports the streams and rivers that are vital for farms, fish, and communities throughout California. The Delta Plan’s goal to expand groundwater storage north of the Delta is a fool’s errand. The State of California has failed to protect its groundwater, and has acknowledged serious overdraft in 11 basins. The only reason we don’t know of more overdraft conditions is because the State Dept. of Water Resources hasn’t studied this since 1980! If water transfers increase in scope and duration, particularly when groundwater is substituted for surface water, it will escalate the losses already underway in the Sacramento River watershed’s creeks and rivers and will jeopardize what remains of the hydrologic system that supports the majority of California’s economy, the Central Valley’s fish and flyway, and the largest estuary in North America: the Sacramento/San Joaquin Bay Delta.”

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta, said,” The Delta Stewardship Council failed their legislative mandate to address the protection and enhancement of Delta agriculture, and the Delta as a Place, including failing to analyze the Plan’s regional and statewide economic impacts. The Council failed to conduct failed to conduct a comprehensive benefit/cost analysis indispensable for maximizing the use of limited resources for the greatest good for all Californians. And by not conducting this essential piece of work, they have forgotten the impacts of water diversions on the $5.2 billion annual Delta agriculture economy, the $750 million per year Delta recreation economy, and the $1.5 billion per year California coastal salmon economy. We believe the reason the Council refused to perform all the above analyses is that they expect the science would not support the construction of the Peripheral Tunnels. There is a better solution that includes upgrading Delta levees, reducing exported water to a sustainable level that restores fisheries and investing in regional water projects.”

Mike Jackson, attorney for C-WIN, Restore the Delta, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, and AquAlliance, said, “This lawsuit challenges the foundation that is being laid to build the water export tunnels. Without the Delta Plan in place, the tunnels cannot win approval for the needed permits. This is the opening salvo in what will be an epic legal battle over California’s water future.”

— end —

Click here to download Press Release

CONTACTS:

AquAlliance
Barbara Vlamis, Executive Director
530.895.9420
530.519.7468 (cell)
barbarav@aqualliance.net

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Bill Jennings, Chairman
(209) 464-5067
deltakeep@me.com

California Water Impact Network
Carolee Krieger, President
(805) 969-0824
caroleekrieger@cox.net

Center for Biological Diversity
Adam Lazar, attorney
415.436.9682 x320
alazar@biologicaldiversity.org

Friends of the River
Bob Wright, attorney
916.442.3155 x 207
bwright@friendsoftheriver.org

Restore the Delta
Barbara Barrigan Parilla, Executive Director
209.479.2053
Barbara@restorethedelta.org

Empty wells leave some area residents high and dry

Modesto Bee, June 15, 2013, by Garth Stapley:

On June 2, water pressure at the rural home of Peter and Nancy Bakker slowed to a trickle.

Puzzled, they checked all over the house and yard for leaks or open spigots and found none.

By June 4, the water disappeared altogether.

No more filling a glass from the kitchen tap. No more washing dishes or laundry. No more showers. “It’s a bad issue,” Nancy Bakker said.

Nothing’s wrong, a service man said, with the pump that used to deliver water from their domestic well. The problem is that the well has been sucked dry by new wells nearby that are much stronger and deeper.

New wells are keeping alive millions of young trees in orchards stretching across an estimated 150,000 acres to the east of most valley communities. Their owners usually can’t join irrigation districts to receive canal water, leaving groundwater as the most viable option.

Making matters much worse is a second consecutive year of little mountain snowfall. That keeps irrigation districts from delivering normal amounts of water to customers, meaning they, too, must pump from wells to augment water needed for all kinds of crops.

At least a dozen of the Bakkers’ neighbors between Denair and Turlock are drilling new wells at a cost of roughly $10,000 each, or extending old ones. Dozens more, all east of Highway 99 cities from Oakdale to Merced, face similar conditions.

“I’ve never seen it like this since 1976-77,” said Blake Hennings of Calwater Drilling Co., citing a previous drought that emptied many shallow wells. Those near Hughson, Hickman and Denair dried up first in those years as well, said Michael Frantz, board chairman of the Turlock Irrigation District.

Most other states regulate groundwater with restrictions on how much can be pumped by each landowner, but not California. And farm bureaus on the state level and in Stanislaus County, hoping to protect the area’s No. 1 industry, want to keep it that way.

“It’s such a huge investment to take grazing land and turn it intoan orchard or vineyard,” said Wayne Zipser, executive manager of the Stanislaus County Farm Bureau. “How do you say, ‘You know what? We propose you can only pump so much, so take out half your acreage.’ ”

What are people like the Bakkers supposed to do?

“We’re on Social Security and it doesn’t go very far,” Nancy Bakker said. “If you can afford (a new well), fine; if you can’t, it’s too bad.”

For nearly two weeks, they’ve made regular trips to fast food restaurants to keep hydrated. To flush toilets, they siphon gray water from a small cistern in their yard collecting runoff from their washing machine and dishwater, but that source is smelly and nearly gone. They visit friends for showers.

“I don’t mind telling you, I don’t sleep much at night with all these things going through my head,” Peter Bakker said. “It doesn’t look good, but we’ll get through it somehow.”

They are checking options with nonprofit groups helping underserved communities of people with limited incomes. Traditional rescue organizations provided no relief, they said.

They also pleaded for help at Tuesday’s TID board meeting, but understand that the irrigation district has no authority over groundwater and can offer little help.

Frantz said a meeting with local and state water representatives is being arranged to discuss options.

“These are good people,” he said, “and we need to work hard to find them some solutions.”

Water officials say the best long-term fix would be more surface water storage, meaning new reservoirs, whether above or below ground level. But environmental laws, they say, have made it nearly impossible to do that these days.

Hennings, whose company drills for farmers as well as ranchette owners, predicted more victims like the Bakkers “until politicians and environmentalists finally realize we can’t keep mining water, and create more surface storage.”

An agricultural advisory committee to the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors on Monday put final touches on recommendations for a controversial groundwater ordinance, after years of study, and it could go before the board in September. But that proposal would clamp down on pumping groundwater for sale out of the area and doesn’t address excessive pumping for local use.

Modesto Irrigation District board member Larry Byrd said his idea to sell surface water in wet years at inflated prices to new orchard growers is a partial solution. Reduced pumping together with water from flooded fields seeping down would replenish groundwater while providing the utility with much-needed cash, he said.

His own well near new orchards in east Stanislaus County, built in 1940, sputtered in early May, forcing him to drop its pump from 80 feet below the surface to 120 feet.

“It’s a politically sensitive subject,” Byrd said. “If you’re a farmer, you own that water below you. But without water, it could become a desert in a hurry.

“When you see dead orchards, everyone will get on board,” Byrd said, “but by then it will be too late.”

http://www.modbee.com/2013/06/14/v-print/2763475/empty-wells-leave-some-modesto.html

Bee staff writer Garth Stapley can be reached at gstapley@modbee.com or (209) 578-2390.

Copyright © 2013, The Modesto Bee, 1325 H St., Modesto, CA 95354

 

Will Angelinos Be Submerged in a New Water Tunnel Tax?

CityWatch, June 11, 2013, by Brenna Norton:

VOICES – It’s still Chinatown, and like Jake, we can’t forget it. On Tuesday (June 11), the powerful Metropolitan Water District (known as Met) will vote to take the first step towards raising property taxes to help pay for Governor Brown’s coveted twin-tunnel project 350 miles north of Los Angeles at an estimated price tag of $50 billion. The tunnels would deliver more water to California’s biggest corporate agribusinesses and oil companies in the Central Valley while southern California taxpayers and ratepayers would get most of the bill and no new water. 

The two billion-dollar questions are: will Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), which sits on Met’s board, vote in favor of the tax hike, and if they do, will the mayor and city council allow LADWP to submerge Angelenos with this unfair tunnel tax?

Met imports water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and sells it to southern California cities to supplement their water supply. Met has teamed up with the mighty corporate agribusinesses and oil companies who dominate the Kern County Water Agency and the Westland’s Water District to push for the construction of two 35-mile, 40-foot tunnels to suck down the Sacramento River.

The tunnels represent the return of the Peripheral Canal, a nearly identical project that was backed by the same corporate interests and the same Governor and ultimately rejected by California voters in a historic referendum in 1982. Thirty years later it’s déjà vu as Governor Brown is back and again working to ram this project through at the behest of Kern, Westlands, and Met.

Contrary to popular belief, Southern California does not need more water from Northern California. Due to increased efficiency, Los Angeles uses overall less water today than it did in 1982 despite the population growth of 1.1 million people. LADWP’s water plan calls for buying less Met imported water, as it is getting more expensive, and increasing the local water supply, which is more cost effective.

LADWP is smartly planning to invest in local water development; most notably by cleaning up groundwater aquifers that are essential for capturing and storing storm water and increasing water recycling. In the next 20 years, LADWP plans to generate a six-fold increase in recycled water supplies to a total of 50,000 Acre-Feet per Year (AFY) and increase efficiency to save another 50,000 AFY.

The cities of Santa Monica, Long Beach and others have similar goals. In recent years Met’s water sales have declined by approximately 30 percent. Thus, there is no real need for the tunnels by the people of Southern California.  Met, however, wants us to subsidize its water grab.

Sensing growing public concern about the enormous costs of the tunnels, Met is now considering raising property taxes. In a blatantly backdoor and undemocratic move, the Met board of directors will consider sticking Southern Californians with higher property taxes to pay for their tunnel dream. A study by EcoNorthwest, an independent economic analysis firm, illustrated that building and operating the tunnels would raise water bills in LA by an additional $9 to $16 per month for the next 40 years.

Combined, that totals $1.6 to $5 billion of ratepayer money for a construction project 350 miles away. Now Met wants to shift some of those costs onto the homeowners.

This is especially outrageous when LADWP has over 1,000 water mains that break every year and already needs to spend billions to fix and upgrade its local infrastructure. Just this week, an Environmental Protection Agency survey ranked California as the state needing the most repairs to fix its crumbling water infrastructure in the country. We simply don’t have money to waste on new tunnels for special interests. These tunnels will do nothing to shore up LA’s dilapidated local infrastructure and it could actually pull funding away from local repairs to cover cost of an expensive conveyance.

So far, LADWP has played along with Met’s scheme. Tuesday’s Met board meeting will reveal if they are going to side with their ratepayers and oppose the property tax scam, or side with Met.

It’s time for Southern Californians to fight back. We don’t need two gargantuan concrete tunnels siphoning water away from the state’s largest and most important estuary to slake the thirsts of wealthy agribusinesses and developers. We need more good local jobs, better plumbing for our city and more money – not less – in our own pocketbooks.

(Brenna Norton is the Los Angeles Organizer for Food & Water Watch, a member of Californians for a Fair Water Policy – a statewide coalition of businesses, consumers, environmentalists, fishermen, farmers, Native Americans and community-based organizations support investing in smart, efficiency-centric projects to improve California’s water security and maintaining responsible levels of water exports from the Bay Delta.)

http://citywatchla.com/lead-stories-hidden/5221-will-angelinos-be-submerged-in-a-new-water-tunnel-tax

 

Environmental groups, water users sue over Delta Plan

Chico Enterprise-Record, June 15, 2013, by Heather Hacking, Staff Writer: 

Lawsuits have been filed to challenge plans for tunnels to divert water from the Sacramento River and under the delta.

Chico’s AquAlliance has joined a coalition of groups in a lawsuit on the Delta Plan, which sets out the groundwork for water tunnels around the delta.

“The Delta Reform Act gave the Delta Stewardship Council a historic opportunity to remedy 40 years of water policy failures,” a press release sent by the coalition Friday states.

“The council instead failed to use the best available science — biological or economic — and adopted a status quo program that fails to fix the Delta or the water supply problem.”

The group plans a press conference Monday to discuss the lawsuit details.

Members include AquAlliance (www.aqualliance.net), California Water Impact Network, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Restore the Delta, Friends of the River and the Center for Biological Diversity.

Northern California “plays a pivotal role because of the location, geography and focus on groundwater,” said AquAlliance Director Barbara Vlamis, who has been working on issues in the lawsuit for the past two years.

“Groundwater was not on the radar of the environmental community 10-15 years ago.”

After the droughts in the early ’90s, and drop in groundwater, “I and others started beating the drum on how important groundwater is up here.”

She’s been working to submit documents with colleagues, attending meetings and “emphasizing how important the hydrology is to not just this region, but the entire state.”

“You can’t ignore the source when you’re trying to fix the delta,” Vlamis said.

Also Friday the State Water Contractors announced a separate lawsuit against the Delta Plan.

The contractors (www.swc.org), represent landowners from the Bay Area to San Diego who receive water from the State Water Project, which originates at Lake Oroville.

Members include Kern County Water Agency and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, among dozens of others.

The press release on that lawsuit states that the current Delta Plan “exceeds the legislature’s express grant of jurisdiction,” and “violates the California Environmental Quality Act.”

The plan would result in less water delivery from the delta through a concurrent Bay Delta Conservation Plan, but “fails to identify feasible replacement water sources, and it fails to analyze the many significant impacts of the plan that will occur outside of the Delta region,” the release states.

Reach Heather Hacking at 896-7758, hhacking@chicoer.com or on Twitter @HeatherHacking.

AquAlliance a Major Contributor to Reduced Exports Plan

AquAlliance was a major contributor to the Reduced Exports Plan that was produced by the Environmental Water Caucus. The Plan provides tangible and cost effective means with which to right California’s floundering water ship. Our expertise in ground water protection and historic understanding of water transfers from the Sacramento Valley provided important material for the area-of-origin that is viewed as the “solution” for all the mismanagement of California’s water.

Click here for Responsible Exports Plan May 2013

We must avoid Delta disaster

By Bill JenningsExecutive Director of California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and Executive Committee Member of Restore the Delta

Published: May 26, 2013 12:00 AM

Jerry Meral, Gov. Jerry Brown’s point man to build the peripheral tunnels, scolds The Record for its April 18 editorial, “Wishful thinking on the Delta,” for assuming that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan’s proposed tunnels under the Delta would continually divert 9,000 cubic-feet-per-second around the estuary. Meral claims in his May 19 op-ed piece, “Clarifying issues with Bay Delta Conservation Plan,” that “No additional water withdrawal from the Delta is being sought under the application for this permit.”

Nonsense.

Present restrictions limit average annual exports to about 4.8 million acre-feet and the peripheral tunnels could almost double export capacity. The state and federal water contractors aren’t going to pay $18 billion for project construction and operation and $50 billion or more, including financing costs, if they don’t get more water. The increase in cost per unit of water would undermine their economic viability and be a political nightmare to try and sell to their customers.

Speculative risks to the export delivery system from potential earthquakes, floods and sea level rise can be virtually eliminated by spending $2 billion or more to transform existing Delta levees into Dutch-like super levees. This would protect not only the water delivery system but also the people, farms and communities of the Delta, which tunnels alone will not accomplish.

Nor would building the tunnels and adding a point of diversion in the North Delta reduce fish losses or immunize the export projects from restrictions of the Endangered Species Act. The problem isn’t only where the water is diverted but also how much water is taken from the Delta. Upwards of half the water will still be diverted from the present facilities, and the BDCP explicitly rejects constructing new state-of-the-art fish screens in the south Delta.

The Delta’s ecological fabric is hemorrhaging because no estuary in the world has been deprived of more than half its historic flow and survived. Restoration depends upon the Delta receiving more water, not less.

The California Legislature, in the 2009 Delta Reform Act, directed the State Water Resources Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to undertake public proceedings to determine how much water the Delta needed. The agencies gathered together resource and water agencies, academia, independent scientists, as well as water users and public interest groups.

Following separate extensive public proceedings, the two agencies issued their findings and conclusions in two 2010 reports that found that substantial increases in Delta outflow and a return to a more natural hydrograph were critically necessary to protect the public trust resources of the Delta. Meral and the water exporters are ignoring those reports in their quest to divert the Sacramento River under the Delta because increased outflow threatens exports.

Meral suggests that surely The Record could support the 136,723 jobs that would be created. Actually, that is an absurdly low number of about six jobs per $1 million. Economists point out that investment in conservation, reclamation and reuse would create 10 to 20 jobs per $1 million and create millions of acre-feet of new water to reduce demands for Delta water.

California is in a water crisis and the Delta’s environmental tapestry is collapsing because the broad suit of laws enacted to allocate water and protect fisheries has long been ignored. Now, those responsible for creating and chaperoning this crisis ask us to trust them in an elaborate scheme to increase exports under the disguise of restoration.

If approved, the BDCP would be a disaster for the fisheries, farms and communities of the Delta. It would be a death sentence for one of the world’s great estuaries.

Read more at recordnet.com

Delta Protection Commission opposes water tunnel plan

By Matt Weiser

Published: Friday, May. 24, 2013

 

The Delta Protection Commission, a state agency, voted Thursday to oppose Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal to build two giant water diversion tunnels in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, saying it is not supportive of agriculture, recreation and water quality.The project, known as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, calls for three intakes on the Sacramento River near Courtland. They would serve two giant tunnels that would divert a portion of the river’s flow to existing state and federal canal systems near Tracy. It also includes 100,000 acres of habitat restoration, which will require buying out farmland.The commission was created by state law in 1992 and is mostly composed of local government officials from throughout the five-county Delta region. So the vote is not entirely unexpected, given that local government officials almost unanimously oppose the tunnel project, which will dramatically transform the Delta’s landscape.The $14 billion Bay Delta Conservation Plan will not be released as a formal proposal until the end of this year. But the Department of Water Resources, which is leading the project, has released thousands of pages of draft documents over the past three months. That was enough to spur the commission to formally voice its opposition.”What has been released is not something they feel is supportive of the Delta,” said Michael Machado, the commission’s executive director.

The commission’s vote was 9-2. The dissenting votes came from two officials appointed by Gov. Brown who represent the Natural Resources Agency and the Department of Food and Agriculture.

The commission has no legal power to approve or review the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. At the meeting in Courtland on Thursday, commissioners directed staff to prepare a letter to state officials expressing their concerns.

Contact The Bee’s Matt Weiser at (916) 321-1264 or mweiser@sacbee.comFollow him on Twitter @matt_weiser.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Read more at sacbee.com