Plaintiffs Prevail in Challenge to Federal Water Transfers

August 2011:

AquAlliance, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and the California Water Impact Network sued the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) in 2010 to protect the economy and the environment of the northern Sacramento Valley. The plaintiffs prevailed in August 2011 because no water was transferred over the two year project period and the comprehensive environmental review that was sought is being developed (see 10-Year Water Transfer Program).

The Bureau’s Environmental Assessment (EA) and Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the 2010-2011 Water Transfer Program revealed plans to export 395,000 acre-feet of Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) water to buyers south of the San Francisco Bay Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. To replace the water sold to San Joaquin Valley growers in low-priority water districts, the plan would have permitted Sacramento Valley surface water right holders to substitute 154,237 acre-feet of ground water to continue rice production. The plaintiff groups alleged that the EA/FONSI violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because, among other things, it:

  • Failed to support the Bureau’s proposed finding of no significant impact,
  • Contained a fundamentally flawed alternatives analysis, and
  • Inadequately analyzed the impacts from implementing the two years transfer program.

The lawsuit sought comprehensive NEPA environmental review for the water transfer program and, as mentioned above, will be released soon. Repeated water transfer projects in the last decade have all occurred without the benefit of thorough federal or state environmental analysis, which would require the establishment of baseline conditions, comprehensive monitoring, and the disclosure of impacts.

READ PRESS RELEASE

Feds sued over north-south water transfer plan Chico Enterprise-Record July 2, 2010

Chico Enterprise-Record July 2, 2010: 

Three environmental groups, including Chico-based AquAlliance, Thursday, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation calling for environmental review of plans for a 2010-11 north-to-south water transfer.

The planning documents call for up to 395,000 acre feet of water each year, moved through both the federal Central Valley Project and California’s State Water Project.

While the deals would be for two years, AquAlliance and co-plaintiffs, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and the California Water Impact Network, have said in court documents that repeated water transfers over the past decade have never included a full federal or state environmental analysis.

This would require a “baseline conditions, comprehensive monitoring and the disclosure of impact,” the lawsuit states. The concern is that the transfer will continue, perhaps each year, leaving the Sacramento Valley exploited “in the same disastrous condition as the Owens and San Joaquin valleys,” AquAlliance Executive Dircetor Barbara Vlamis said in a press statement.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Findings of No Significant Impact for the 2010-2011 Water Transfer Program

Submitted January 19, 2010:

AquAlliance, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, and the California Water Impact Network (“the Coalition”) submitted comments and questions for the Draft Environmental Assessment (“EA”) and Findings of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”), for the 2010-2011 Water Transfer Program (“Project”). We also provided comments about the purpose and need for the 2010-2011 state and federal water transfer programs that are mirror images of the 2009 Drought Water Bank.

CLICK HERE TO READ COMMENTS

 

Comments on Delta Stewardship Council’s recirculated Draft Programmatic EIR

Submitted January 14, 2013:

Comments of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), and AquAlliance to the Revised Draft Delta Plan Program Environmental Impact Report

The RDPEIR for the Delta Plan Project Fails as a Programatic EIR:

A. The RDPEIR Fails to Provide an Adequate Project Description
B. The RDPEIR Fails to Provide an Adequate Disclosure of the Environmental Setting of the Project
C. The RDPEIR Fails to Provide an Adequate Impact Analysis
D. The RDPEIR Fails to Properly Consider the Public Trust
E. The RDPEIR Fails to Properly Consider Climate Change
F. The RDPEIR Fails to Properly Consider Available Science
G. The RDPEIR Fails to Properly Mitigate Impacts
H. The RDPEIR Fails to Provide Adequate Alternatives
I. The RDPEIR Fails to Provide an Adequate Cumulative Impact Assessment

CLICK HERE TO READ COMMENTS

Editorial: Be skeptical of water promises

Chico-Enterprise Record, Dec. 4, 2012: 

Our view: A conference last week in Chico served as a reminder that if an area loses its water rights, it loses much more than that.

If history has taught us anything about water in California, it’s that everybody should be extremely skeptical when somebody who wants to take your water says, “Don’t worry.”

That point was driven home again last week in Chico at a two-day water conference hosted by AquAlliance.

Water managers and biologists spoke about promises made and promises broken. Despite assurances that fisheries and river ecosystems would not be harmed, stories about the health of the Trinity River, Mono Lake, San Joaquin River and more prove otherwise.

Those examples are important for us in the north state to remember. After all, we have water. Most of the state does not. People on the outside see water flowing down the river and see dollar signs. They hear about our massive underground aquifer and think of it as water going to waste.

State and federal water managers trying to craft a delta conservation plan or trying to compensate for water lost through court cases would like to tap into our water. They say, of course, that the north state would not be harmed, that fish and soils would not suffer in the least.

That is, of course, what they said about the Owens Valley and other more recent examples, such as the Trinity River. We should be careful about not falling for the same promises.

Imagine a north state with significantly less water. It would cut into agriculture production, which is a driving force in our economy. Green rice fields and almond orchards could become fallow dirt.

Less water also would mean fewer visitors — and ecotourism is a growing force in our economy, whether it’s canoeing and kayaking, salmon fishing, birdwatching or people visiting farms and wineries.

The natural beauty of the north state is what draws many people to settle here. Shipping more water south could detract from the unique natural setting.

And don’t try to convince us that could never happen. We’ve seen it too often — and people spend years trying to pick up the pieces.

Tom Stokely, for example, has fought for the Trinity River watershed for decades. He spoke at last week’s conference about his long fight. The federal government decided in the 1960s that it would ship a good portion of the Trinity River’s flow east, over mountains and into the Sacramento Valley through a series of tunnels and reservoirs rather than let all of that water flow into the ocean north of Eureka.

That brought more water to “our” river (so more could be sent to San Joaquin Valley farmers) but nearly killed “their” river.

Because of the efforts of North Coast Indian tribes and people like Stokely, some water has been restored to the Trinity. The river’s legendary salmon and steelhead runs have made a comeback. There is, however, a long way to go. They would like to see all water stay in the Trinity River watershed. It’s a lifelong fight.

It’s worth remembering that people in Trinity County, or Mono County or along the San Joaquin River corridor didn’t have much say in the matter. The government just said, “This is what we’re doing.” We all need to be vigilant if we hear something similar about our water.

Water Conference 2012

 

Water for Seven Generations: Will California Prepare For It?

Thursday, Nov, 29 & Friday, Nov. 30 – Sierra Nevada Brewing Co., Chico, CA

This prestigious conference is brought to you by AquAlliance and will be held on Thursday, Nov, 29 and Friday, Nov. 30th  at Sierra Nevada Brewing Company in Chico. Sponsors include the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the California Water Impact Network, the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment, and Sierra Nevada Brewing Company.

To register and pay online, visit our Registration page, or download and print the Registration form and mail it in with your check.

 

Water Transfer Challenged in Court

Demanding Kern Water Districts Entice North State Sales…

May 8, 2012 – Chico, CA – AquAlliance filed a lawsuit against Butte Water District (BWD) to challenge the obfuscation of impacts, both short and long term, from water transfers out of the northern Sacramento Valley to Kern County water districts. The lawsuit seeks compliance with environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

BWD proposes to transfer 16,850 acre-feet (“af”) of Feather River Water (about 60% of the City of Chico’s annual demand) to State Water Project Contractors Dudley Ridge Water District, Kern County Water Agency, and Palmdale Water District. BWD will accomplish this by idling rice fields (3,350 acres) and/or by ground water substitution (5,350 af), which allows a grower to sell surface water while still producing rice. This project continues a decades-old pattern that defers the establishment of baseline conditions, fails to conduct comprehensive monitoring, and denies the potential for project specific and cumulative impacts. The BWD project is also part of a much larger 2012 plan to transfer 250,000 af of north state water from the area of origin to south of Delta interests (BWD Initial Study/Negative Declaration p. 30).
AquAlliance alleges that the project’s environmental review violates CEQA because, among other things, it: Fails to support BWD’s finding of no significant impact, Fails to comply with the most essential review and disclosure requirements of CEQA , thereby depriving decision makers and the public of the ability to consider the relevant environmental issues in any meaningful way, and Inadequately analyzes the project level impacts and the cumulative impacts from the planned 250,000 af water transfers.
“Water contractors south of the Delta continue to see the Sacramento River’s watershed as the last exploitable solution to continue business as usual,” stated Barbara Vlamis, AquAlliance’s executive director. “Our lawsuit seeks compliance with that most basic of all environmental and moral laws: comprehensive analysis and full disclosure of impacts and alternatives,” she concluded.
CONTACT INFORMATION
AquAlliance
Barbara Vlamis, Executive Director
P.O. Box 4024, Chico, CA 95927
(530) 895-9420
###

ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND
AquAlliance was founded in 2009 to protect waters in the northern Sacramento River’s watershed to sustain family farms, communities, creeks and rivers, native flora and fauna, vernal pools, and recreation.

SOME BACKGROUND
State Water Project Contractors Seeking Water in 2012 from Butte Water District and Others Dudley Ridge Water District (4.8 % of the total water transfer), Kern County Water Agency (93.2% of the total water transfer), Palmdale Water District (2.0% of the total water transfer)

Some History
Water transfers from the Sacramento Valley are not just one or two year transfers as often claimed, but many actions in multiple years by state and federal agencies, sellers, and buyers without the benefit of comprehensive environmental analysis under CEQA. It is important to highlight that the BWD project does not stand in isolation, but is part of ongoing programs made up of water transfers in eight out of ten years (BWD Initial Study/Negative Declaration p. 30) and a much larger effort to cure the ills of California’s past mistakes by mining more water from its last, somewhat healthy watershed: the Sacramento River watershed. Here is a partial list of projects and programs:
  • 1991, 1992, and 1994 Drought Water Banks.
  • The Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement was signed in 2002 and the need for a programmatic environmental review was clear and initiated, but never completed. BWD is a signatory to the Agreement.
  • In 2000, the Governor’s Advisory Drought Planning Panel report, Critical Water Shortage Contingency Plan promised a programmatic CEQA document on a drought-response water transfer program, but it was never undertaken. BWD has participated in Drought Water Bank Transfers.
  • Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (2006). BWD serves on the Joint Powers Authority.
  • Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (under development)
  • The Delta Stewardship Council’s Plan.
  • The Bay Delta Conservation Plan.
DWR, the state’s overseer of the State Water Project, has ignored its statutory responsibility to provide programmatic CEQA review for water transfer for over a decade and only deals with the issue when sued (2009 Drought Water Bank). Rather than follow state law, DWR provides its contractors with guiding documents for individual project review at http://www.water.ca.gov/watertransfers/.
~ end ~

Vernal Pools Book Now Available

Based on a series of papers by invited presenters at the conference: Vernal Pool Conservation: Research, Progress and Problems. Is Recovery Possible? presented by AquAlliance on March 26, 2010 in Chico, CA.

Available from the California State University, Chico Herbarium:

RESEARCH & RECOVERY IN VERNAL POOL LANDSCAPES

Studies from the Herbarium

Number 16 — 2011 — 175 pages

Cost: $12 plus $0.87 tax plus $4 shipping = $16.87 total. (Or save shipping costs by purchasing your book in the Herbarium, 129 Holt Hall, 8-5 Fridays).

Click a link for:

 

 

Reliable-Water Ruse a Ploy to Siphon Water South

by Burt Wilson

Member of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan public committee and the 2013 State Water Plan forum subcommittee

I ventured into a January 19 public meeting of the Association of California Water Agencies at its Sacramento headquarters to see what was going on. I expected to hear its views on the financing of the coming water bill. Instead, I listened in awe as ACWA’s executive director Tim Quinn unveiled a detailed political PR campaign designed to convince California voters that “since they are the public, it is in the public interest to invest money in upgrading the Delta infrastructure in order to maintain a reliable water supply for California.”

Of course, the phrase “reliable water supply for California” is really code for sending more water south. In Northern California, we already have a reliable water supply, so it’s just another water grab from Southern California.

The ACWA’s propaganda campaign will originate from a sham organization called Clean Water and Jobs for California. It claims it’s a “broad based public-private partnership.” ACWA’s Quinn himself is listed as president. Some of the “private” partners are the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Building Industry Association, the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, the Western Growers Association, the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. No “public” partners were listed.

Quinn also talked about the necessity of the campaign appearing to be all “grassroots and low cost.” This is the biggest deception of all. It is an admission by the ACWA that the public can be duped by a disingenuously concocted propaganda campaign designed to do just that.

Finally, the ACWA’s purported main message—that it’s in the public interest to support the 2012 Water Bond measure—is a half-truth. A half-truth is the most devious form of lie, because it can be supported in part by fact. Yes, the public might benefit a little, but all the water agencies, corporations, construction industries, developers, etc. stand to profit immeasurably from it—beyond their wildest dreams!

There’s an old political phrase that describes the ACWA’s fallacious campaign best: “enlightened self-interest.”

This short video details the political machinations by the governor and the state legislature to implement elements of the Water Bill without going through the public ballot process. This is the governor’s very sophisticated secret plan to steal Northern California water and send it south to fuel economic development in the high desert regions east of Los Angeles. This is a water grab, pure and simple, and must be stopped because it spells ruin for the delta ecosystem, the fisheries, delta farming and the Northern California environment.

Please help by sending this video to friends and join our cause by emailing us at bwilson5404@sbcglobal.net

Where will the water come from? From the Delta and Northern California!