Delta News
 
 

Drought label stays, and some blame politics

S.F. Chronicle-5/16/10

By Wyatt Buchanan

 

This winter, heavy snowfall buried the Sierra Nevada and torrential rains drenched much of California, with storms so intense in January that emergencies were declared in several counties, including Los Angeles and San Francisco.

 

But while El Niño ended California's three years of dry winters, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger does not intend to declare an end to the drought. Critics say the reason is political: In November, California voters will be asked to approve an $11 billion water bond measure that the governor has pushed for years.

 

The bonds would pay for new dams and other water storage projects, drought relief, regional water management and restoration of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, among other things.

 

Jonas Minton, a former deputy director of the state Department of Water Resources, likened the governor's extension of the water crisis to the fabricated drought of the 1974 Roman Polanski film "Chinatown," where Los Angeles officials secretly dump fresh water into the ocean to create a water shortage in order to pass a bond.

 

"California's snowpack at the start of this month stood at over 140 percent of average," said Minton, who is now a water policy analyst for the Conservation and Planning League and is campaigning against the bond measure. "The average voter will be able to tell this is not a drought."

 

The ability to say the state is in a drought helps the bond campaign immensely, said Jim Ross, a veteran San Francisco political consultant.

"Really what it does is simplifies the issue: We have rationing. We need to make sure we have enough water. Here's how," Ross said.

 

Only the governor has the power to declare the beginning and end of droughts in California. On June 4, 2008, after two years of below-average rainfall and snowmelt, Schwarzenegger declared a statewide drought.

 

At that time, the state's final snow survey of the year indicated a water shortage. California gets much of its water from snowmelt and the annual spring measurement helps state officials determine how much water will be available for consumption and irrigation. That year, the snowpack in the Sierra was 67 percent of normal, and water storage in the state's major reservoirs was far below normal: Lake Oroville was at 50 percent of capacity, Shasta Lake at 61 percent and Folsom Lake at 63 percent.

 

This year, the final snow survey in the Sierra, taken April 30, showed the snowpack at 143 percent of normal - double the previous year's level. As of last week, Shasta Lake - California's largest reservoir- was 98 percent full, Folsom Lake was 89 percent full and Lake Oroville was 65 percent full.

 

More snow has fallen since the final snow survey, more rain is forecast - there's a chance of showers on Monday in parts of the state, including San Francisco, Bakersfield and Sacramento - and the National Weather Service predicts river flows to all three reservoirs will exceed historical averages through July.

 

Yet, the governor and his water experts say that, among other reasons, the below-average levels at Lake Oroville, the state's second-largest reservoir, are too significant to declare an end to the drought.

 

So on June 4, California will officially enter its fourth year of drought.

 

Administration officials caution that California may be experiencing a wet year amidst a string of dry years and thus it is premature to end the official drought declaration. But in early 1993, Gov. Pete Wilson declared the six-year drought of the late 1980s and early 1990s, the third-longest in state history, after five months of above-average precipitation.

 

The state's reservoirs did not return to normal levels for another year after Wilson's declaration, according to the water resources department.

Jeff Macedo, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger, said 2010 has "been a great year for rain," but added, "We've only had one good season of rain over the past four years. It isn't time to call an end to the drought."

 

State water officials echo the governor's stance, though they acknowledge that the drought may indeed be over.

"Drought is an imprecise term and arguably most of the state is probably not in a drought at the moment," said Wendy Martin, statewide drought coordinator for the Department of Water Resources. "But you really can't tell until sometime in the future when you can look back."

 

In 1995, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln established the National Drought Mitigation Center to track drought conditions across the United States. The center pulls together federal and academic scientists to monitor and forecast droughts to help governments and institutions plan and prepare.

 

Based on its most recent data, updated Tuesday, the center estimates that 83 percent of California has no drought condition, although some of the state is abnormally dry. Climatologists there estimate that 17 percent of the state, concentrated in the extreme northeast corner, has drought conditions.

 

They base estimates on a number of indexes, including precipitation, vegetation health, reservoir levels, snowpack, stream flow and soil moisture. The long-term forecast shows that drought probably will continue in the handful of affected counties - mainly Modoc, Lassen and Siskiyou - but no drought is expected in the rest of the state, said Brian Fuchs, a climatologist at the center.

 

"We put the information out, and for each state it's pretty much up to themselves if they declare they are in a drought or not in a drought," he said.

What is a drought?

 

Martin, California's drought coordinator, said her department does not have a precise definition of drought. But in 2000, the department published a report on the state's drought of 1987-92 and defined a "drought threshold." According to the report, that threshold is determined by two factors:

 

-- Runoff for a single year or multiple years in the lowest 10 percent of the historical range.

-- Reservoir storage for the same time period at less than 70 percent of average.

 

If those two factors were considered today, there would be little to dispute.

 

The National Weather Service's California Nevada River Forecast Center predicts that runoff for most rivers will be above 100 percent of average, and rivers that feed the state's major reservoirs will all be well above average.

 

Reservoirs in the state are at 96 percent of average for this time of year, according to the Department of Water Resources.

 

But Martin said the department criteria are 10 years old and there are other factors to consider: the effects of climate change are becoming more acute and water demand is increasing because the state's population grew by 10 million people in the past decade. U.S. Census Bureau figures, however, show the state's population grew by about 3.1 million in the past decade.

 

Nonetheless, Martin said, California is a big and complex state and, "people want to generalize things, but they don't lend to being generalized very well."

Water officials also are concerned that declaring an end to the drought could lead to a drop-off in conservation efforts by Californians, and the extra water could be needed if next year is dry.

 

Schwarzenegger's drought declaration includes orders for the state water department to work with local agencies on measures such as fast-tracking water-conservation grants and improving landscape and agriculture water efficiency and leak monitoring. It also calls for "aggressive and immediate action" to reduce water consumption.

 

But because of the high levels in the reservoirs, many water agencies in the state are reassessing their need for mandatory conservation, according to the Association of California Water Agencies.

 

The East Bay Municipal Utilities District ended its call for voluntary rationing last month. Los Angeles still faces mandatory rationing, but an official at the Metropolitan Water District - which supplies water to 26 agencies in Southern California, including Los Angeles, and gets water from Northern California - said restrictions on pumping in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is the main factor for shortages this year.

 

Those restrictions could be extended because of environmental concerns in the delta, and water officials say that is likely to be the new normal.

UC Davis Professor Jay Lund, who is director of the Center for Watershed Sciences there, said the state is "not unambiguously out of drought and we're not unambiguously in a drought," adding that it will depend on whether next year is wet again.

 

He agreed with water department officials that it can be problematic to talk about drought in broad strokes.

"Drought is in the thirst of the beholder," he said.

 

When he declared the drought in 2008, Schwarzenegger - who had long before promised to overhaul the state's water infrastructure - said, "We must work together to ensure that California will have safe, reliable and clean water not only today but 20, 30 and 40 years from now."

 

The bond proposal that will appear on November's ballot is titled the Safe and Reliable Clean Water Drinking Act of 2010. It needs a simple majority to pass.

 

On Wednesday, the campaign to promote the bond issued a news release on why it is critical for voters to approve the measure. Cited, among other reasons, was that California faces severely limited supplies of water that have worsened after three years of drought.#

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/16/MNS51DCF2M.DTL

 
Water Supply Outlook 2010
California Nevada River Forecast Center - NOAA - National Weather Service
Sacramento, California
 
Caltrans will be dry-docking the J-Mack Ferry on January 22, 2010 for U.S. Coast Guard mandated repairs.  We anticipate the ferry to be out of service until early March.  A press release with more information will follow in January.  Here is an informational flyer for your use and distribution.  Please let me know if you have any questions.  Thanks and Happy Holidays!

Traci Ruth
Public Information Officer, Solano County
Caltrans District 4
510.622.0120
 

New Year, New Laws

 

The California Chamber of Commerce put together this list of new laws that impact businesses.

 

Call to Action

 

The State Wants to Force Marina Operators to Become “Marina Enforcers”

We Need Your Help Stop this Outrageous Power Grab that will harm ALL Boaters!

 

The State Water Resources Control Board wants to make marina operators responsible for the quality of the water that flows into their marinas!  The Water Board is proposing a permit for ALL coastal marinas (including many inland marinas that are in “bays” and “estuaries”) that would FORCE them to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to conduct expensive water quality testing and monitoring and to report that information to the State.  It also gives the Water Board the authority to MANDATE “manage ment practices” on the marina as the board sees fit.  Such mandates could include testing the bottom paint of the boats to see if they contain copper and even DEMAND the elimination of slips to reduce the amount of copper in the water!  While copper seems to be a focus, the permit calls for testing and monitoring for many other constituents in the water, even trash!  In short, it forces a wide range of testing and monitoring and gives extremely broad authority to the Water Board to mandate changes at the marina based on the testing and monitoring that the marina has to pay for!

 

Who should care about this permit?  All marina operators, all boaters, and all coastal local governments.  Every boater should care because this program will raise slip fees several hundred dollars per-slip, per year, and it could reduce the number of available slips and restrict boating access.  All marinas should care about this because while coastal marinas are the initial target, this permit is likely just the beginning.  And, finally, local governments could take a significant budget hit to fund this program at the marinas they own and operate.

 

How can I help? You can contact the Governor, your local legislator, and the Executive Office of the State Water Resources Control Board to express your opposition to this proposed permit. The letter and instructions are attached here.

 

What should I tell those I contact?  The following are several key points you can make in your e-mail, letter, or phone call.

  • Forcing Marina operators to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to try and improve water quality will not improve water quality.  The water in a coastal marina cannot be controlled by the marina so forcing them to spend this money will not be effective.
  • There is no evidence that the boats in marinas are causing a water quality problem. Forcing such a major expenditure without real evidence of a problem caused by the boats is unethical and extremely harmful in these tough economic times.
  • The authority given to the Water Board to demand changes to how the marina is operated is far too broad and could lead to abuses.  This permit would allow a staff level individual to force changes at a marina, even to the point of reducing slips based on their own assessment and not based on clear criteria.  This permit could put someone out of business based solely on a low-level decision-maker’s “opinion”.
  • The $200,000 cost per marina of this program will put many small marinas out of business.
  • The “Clean Marina Program” run by the marina industry is the best approach to improving water quality in marinas.  This is an excellent program that is working to enhance the marine environment through voluntary participation and should be seen as the venue to address the State’s water quality goals for marinas.
 

And the biggest losers are the 5 million residents of the 5 Delta Counties.

  

Posted: 11/08/2009 12:00:00 AM PST

Updated: 11/08/2009 05:17:43 AM PST

Follow California's water as it falls first as snow in the Sierra, melts and flows down rivers, through the Delta and out the Golden Gate, and you get a pretty good idea of where the "no" votes came from in one of the most important water policy shifts in decades.

 

Northern California lawmakers by and large voted against the main provisions of a water policy reform package last week while lawmakers from farther south mostly voted for it.

 

To many water managers in Northern California, the twin goals of the five-bill package — to stabilize water supplies in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California while also dedicating more water for environmental restoration — sounded like a threat.

 

"It's going to call for more exports," said Dennis Diemer, general manager of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. "It's going to call for more for the environment. Where is that water going to come from?"

The Oakland-based district, like other agencies that take water upstream of the Delta, wanted greater assurances that more water for the environment and other water users would not come at their expense.

 

They got some, but not all, of what they wanted. And while some Northern California agencies toned down their criticisms or went silent as changes were made, the East Bay district remained one of the plan's most persistent critics.

 

In the wee hours of Wednesday morning, lawmakers passed the five-bill package after months

of grueling negotiations and a marathon all-night session that ended near dawn. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two of the bills Friday and is expected to sign the other three within days.

Together, the bills set new standards for a proposed "peripheral canal," create new agencies to improve water and environmental management in the Delta, require more efficient use of water statewide and, for the first time, begin a statewide groundwater management plan.

 

They create a Delta conservancy, add 25 employees to the chronically understaffed agency that polices water rights and declare several new policies that set the state on course to increase environmental protection in the Delta.

 

They also included an $11.1 billion bond that voters will decide on next year to pay for new dams and other projects.

 

Who's in, who's out

Whether the plans will lead to a new era of more reliable water supplies and an increasingly healthy environment is yet to be seen, but some winners and losers are already apparent.

 

Among the winners: Delta "exporters" in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California that now have a clear path to building a new aqueduct to move Sacramento River water south, and land conservancies who would collect $1.8 billion if voters next year approve the bond.

 

Among the losers: Delta counties, taxpayers and the state's general fund, which eventually would have to pay $600 million or more to service debt from bonds if voters approve them next year.

 

In the Delta region itself, ground zero for the state's water conflicts, lawmakers and local officials were united against the plan and were largely left out of negotiations.

 

"We were completely rolled," said Mary Piepho, a Contra Costa County supervisor who worked with supervisors from the four other Delta counties.

 

The plan will require counties to give up some authority over land use to a new state agency, and, perhaps more importantly, could see a decline in tax rolls as land is converted from farmland and potential housing developments to make way, possibly, for a massive new aqueduct and to restore wetlands habitat.

 

Lawmakers did provide some protection for the Delta's economy and, if the bond passes, the region would be in line for funds. But Piepho and others say that is not enough.

 

The environment is supposed to be a winner in the deal — after all, the guiding principle was to increase protection for fisheries that have traditionally been overwhelmed by the demand for water and make the two goals equal.

 

Turning point?

But environmental groups are deeply split on the package. Big environmental groups that were involved in writing the package are confident its passage is an important turning point.

 

"There really aren't losers here,"said Cynthia Koehler, a senior consulting attorney to the Environmental Defense Fund. "This is moving water policy forward for everybody. Certainly the environment has been a huge winner."

 

Koehler said the policies will greatly improve the Delta by requiring regulators to determine how much water the Delta needs to protect fish and other "public trust" resources, something that has never been done, and by requiring that ongoing plans to build a canal around the Delta (or a tunnel beneath it) to move water meet a very high environmental standard.

 

Still, for every environmental group in favor of the plan there's another who is opposed. For some, the fact that the plan lays out a clear path that would enable big water agencies to build a canal to circumvent the Delta is anathema, no matter how high the environmental hurdles are that it must clear.

Environmental critics also contend many of the new policies lack funding or teeth to ensure they are effective. For example, the flows that the Delta needs must be determined, but they don't necessarily have to be met.

 

"This entire package fails to deal with the significant overallocation of California's water resources," said Jonas Minton, a water policy adviser to the Planning and Conservation League, which opposed the bills. "It perpetuates business as usual."

 

The $11.1 billion bond measure, which required two-thirds approval in the Legislature, passed by a single vote hours after $100 million for regional drought relief projects was earmarked for a dam expansion in San Diego County. (After the floor vote, another "yes" vote was added to the final tally.)

 

Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego, voted for the bond to the surprise of environmentalists who thought after earlier meetings with her that she was against it.

 

Jim Metropolis, a Sierra Club lobbyist, said Saldana told him and other environmentalists during a meeting weeks ago that, "I'm voting no on the bond and I'm voting no on the policy. ... She was very adamantly against."

 

Reached Friday and asked about the late earmark and her vote, Saldana said she did not tell anyone how she was going to vote.

 

She acknowledged that during a meeting with other lawmakers before the vote — she thought it was Tuesday afternoon — that she asked that the San Diego County Water Authority be allowed to compete for money to enlarge San Vicente Dam.

 

"I never requested the $100 million," Saldana said. "I did not request a carve-out."

 

The bond measure is scheduled to come to voters next November.


Schwarzenegger Begins Signing Canal/Dams Water Package

by Dan Bacher

After an all night session, the California Legislature on November 4 passed a water package including an $11.1 billion bond that provides a clear path to the construction of the peripheral canal and more dams.  Two days later, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two of the bills, SBX76 and SBX7 8 by Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), that the Governor describes as “parts of an historic legislative package to reform and rebuild California's water system.”

 

While Schwarzenegger and Darrell Steinberg lauded the package for being an “historic compromise,” Delta legislators, fishermen, family farmers, environmentalists and Indian Tribes slammed the legislation for leading to the destruction of the Delta, its farms and its fish and indebting Californians for decades to come.

 

"Water is the lifeblood of everything we do in California," said Schwarzenegger. "Without clean, reliable water, we cannot build, we cannot farm, we cannot grow and we cannot prosper. That is why I am so proud that the legislature, Democrats and Republicans, came together and tackled one of the most complicated issues in our state's history. This comprehensive water package is an historic achievement."  

Schwarzenegger praised the efforts of his Democratic collaborator, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, to push the water policy and bond package through the legislature. "He has been a tireless leader, a relentless advocate for the environment and a true statesman,” said Steinberg.

 

Steinberg said the legislation enacts “landmark improvements to the environment and investments in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta – the heart of California’s water supply system – to ensure the restoration of the Delta’s fragile ecosystem while enhancing water reliability for all Californians.”

 

“Over the last several decades, numerous efforts to comprehensively address the state’s water problems have consistently failed,” Steinberg gushed. “But the Senate this week rose to the occasion, overcoming enormous regional, philosophical, and political obstacles to forge an historic, bipartisan compromise.”    

 

On October 11, Schwarzenegger issued a proclamation calling for the legislature to meet in an extraordinary session to address California's water crisis, in effect strong arming the legislature to pass the water package that he wanted.

 

While the Legislature approved the water policy and bond measures, they killed a bill by Assemblywoman Alsyon Huber that would prohibit the construction of a peripheral canal around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta without a full fiscal analysis and a vote of the state legislature.  

 

“I offered up a simple bill, a common sense approach,” Huber stated. “Unfortunately, my bill was killed without a hearing.” She  vowed that she will resubmit this bill so it will have a full debate.

 

 “I opposed the water package because it creates a new layer of bureaucrats who will make decisions on water that will impact the communities I represent, without allowing us to have a voice, “ she emphasized. “I opposed the bond, especially because of the billions in pork for LA. This dead of night pork giveaway is exactly why voters give us low marks.”

 

Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta, agreed with Huber’s assessment. “The package lost any semblance of rational debate and turned into a pork festival with the water bond ballooning to over $11 billion dollars. With our state already facing a massive debt and more red ink on the horizon, how can we afford this?”  

 

The “pork festival” bond measure includes $455 million for drought relief, $1.4 billion for regional water supply, $2.25 billion for Delta “sustainability, $3 billion for water storage , $1.7 billion for watershed conservation, $1 billion for groundwater and $1.25 billion for water recycling and water conservation. The $1.7 allocated for watershed conseration includes $250 million for California's portion of funding to remove four dams on the Klamath, directly linking Klamath Dam removal to building the peripheral canal and Temperance Flat and Sites reservoirs.

 

Representatives of fishing groups were outraged by the Bill’s passage. "Today is a sad day for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary," said Roger Mammon, board member of Restore the Delta and the West Delta Chapter of the California Striped Bass Association. “The implications are unbelievable and could possibly lead to the worst ecological disaster to ever hit the United States."   

The passage of the water package could not have taken place without the back room negotiations that large national environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and the Nature Conservancy, made with Westlands Water District, Metropolitan Water District, Steinberg and Schwarzenegger to craft the package.

 

Laura Harnish and Spreck Rosecrans of Environmental Defense, strong supporters of the water policy reform package, said, “It is important to realize that the legislation does not authorize a peripheral canal.”

 

However, the legislation sets up a Delta Stewardship Council of seven members, 4 of whom are appointed by the Governor. The Governor reaffirmed that he wants to build a peripheral canal at a press conference in Stockton the same day the package was passed, so it is clear  that he will make the canal’s construction a priority for the council members he appoints. In addition, the water bond sets up the infrastructure that will be used in tandem with the canal.

 

The vast majority of environmental organizations lobbied against the water package. The water package was opposed by the Sierra Club California, Planning and Conservation League, Friends of the River, Butte Environmental Council, Restore the Delta, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN), California Striped Bass Association, Clean Water Action, the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Center for Biological Diversity, Organic Sacramento, Save the Delta, Northern California River Watch, the Public Trust Alliance and the Environmental Protection Information Center.   

 

Major unions including the California Teachers Association and SEIU, the five Delta counties and regional governments throughout the Sacramento region opposed the legislation also.

 

During the water package's development, the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) had insisted that any solution focus on reducing reliance on an already over-allocated Delta and require dedicated in-stream flows through the Delta and the San Francisco Bay for endangered and threatened fish populations.

 

“The package missed the mark on both fronts,” said Charlotte Hodde, water policy coordinator for PCL. “Instead of guaranteeing the flows that species in the Delta need to recover, the package provides no regulatory assurance that the water will be there. Even the legislators' own staff analyzed this portion of the bill as unenforceable.  This will only worsen the fishery collapse and may lead to even more restrictions on water supply exports from the Delta.”

 

The plans by Schwarzenegger and Steinberg to build the canal in order to export more water from the Delta to agribusiness and southern California will be met by years of lawsuits, protests, direct action and other resistance by the communities impacted. When the water bond goes to a vote by the taxpayers, I predict that it will be voted down just like the peripheral canal initiative was defeated in 1982.  

“There is no way that when the state is cutting budgets for schools, fire departments, health care for children and other services that the voters are going to approve an $11 billion bond that will create a total ecological nightmare,” said Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. “The children of our tribe have suffered for seven generations and now our children for seven generations ahead will be paying for this if this measure is approved.”

 

 “We will continue to use every means possible to oppose this package which sets in motion the canal and allows an unelected body to make key decisions that will impact our Delta Communities, while we are left on the sidelines,” Barrigan-Parilla concluded. “It’s no wonder Californians have such a low opinion of their elected representatives.”  

 

For more information about the battle against the peripheral canal, go to www.restorethedelta.org.

 
 
PRESS RELEASE Congressman Jerry McNerney
California’s 11th District

                                                For Immediate Release

October 23, 2009

Contact:

Sarah Hersh, 202-225-1947

sarah.hersh@mail.house.gov

ADVANCING FIGHT FOR SAN JOAQUIN DELTA COMMUNITIES,

MCNERNEY PRESSES GOVERNOR FOR LOCAL VOICE ON WATER DECISIONS

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Jerry McNerney (CA-11) sent a letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today regarding potential changes to the state’s water policy that may be considered by the California legislature.

 

The letter urges the Governor to take into account input from the families, farmers and businesses that live in the communities surrounding the San Joaquin Delta as these changes as considered.  It also reiterates the Congressman’s plan to closely monitor initiatives that require federal participation and his concern about any proposals that lay groundwork for a peripheral canal.

This letter to the Governor also comes on the heels of Congressman McNerney calling on Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to actively solicit input from the residents who live in the San Joaquin Delta area and ensure their seat at the table as any federal proposals on the Delta are considered.  

The text of the letter to Governor Schwarzenegger is below:

 

October 23, 2009

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor

State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

As California legislators and agencies evaluate significant changes to water policy in our state, I am writing to bring your attention to matters of federal concern.  Initiatives to improve water quality and availability in California are dependent upon coordination by federal, state, and local agencies.  I will closely monitor any actions, particularly those that require federal participation, and will continue to insist that water proposals provide benefit to families, farmers, and businesses in the counties encompassing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

 

Drought conditions are a serious concern in California, and federal, state, and local partners should work together to provide relief.  Efforts to improve water supplies in drought-affected areas, however, must also protect clean water availability for the four million people living in the counties that are most directly dependent on the San Joaquin Delta.  I am honored to represent hardworking families in Contra Costa County and San Joaquin County – two of the five “Delta Counties” – and we are committed to working with you to advance effective water solutions.  However, the voices of families, farmers, and businesses in San Joaquin Delta communities must be heard as federal and state collaborative processes advance.

 

I am deeply concerned by initiatives that may be intended to lay the groundwork for a canal that diverts additional fresh water from the San Joaquin Delta.  Such a canal would further erode water quality for several million people.  A canal and related proposals are expected to threaten jobs by turning family farms into uninhabitable salty marshlands and could raise water rates by decreasing the supply of clean water for families and businesses in the San Joaquin Delta area.  Public health and economic opportunity in Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, and other San Joaquin Delta communities should not be sacrificed in pursuit of expensive and counterproductive water projects.  I will oppose federal support for water proposals that threaten the millions of people that call the San Joaquin Delta home.

As you know, a Memorandum of Understanding for San Joaquin Delta projects was recently signed by the Department of the Interior and several other federal agencies.  The memorandum pledges to develop a coordinated work plan for the San Joaquin Delta in consultation with state and local partners.  I have requested that the Department of the Interior take into account feedback from residents of the San Joaquin Delta Counties, and I urge you to do the same.  Together, I believe we can advance helpful solutions that benefit every region of California.

 

Thank you for your attention to this letter, and I look forward to your reply.  

 

Sincerely,
 

Jerry McNerney

Member of Congress        


 
 
    An important Bay Delta Conservation Plan workshop will be held at the Ryde Hotel on September 29th from 4:30 - 9:30 pm.  The workshop topic is the BDCP's "Conservation Strategy" --  which is its draft plan to modify Delta land and waterways to restore the ecosystem and provide water supply reliability. 
      The Working Draft of the BDCP's Conservation Strategy can be found online at:  http://baydeltaconservationplan.com   (go to Draft Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy Released.)  The draft of Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy is 200 pages long; however, the following excerpt characterizes the BDCP's Conservation Strategy quite well: 
                [A] Cornerstone of the BDCP strategy is the widely shared conclusion that the existing water conveyance system is fundamentally flawed and that continued reliance on that system as it currently exists is incompatible with the long-term restoration needs of the Delta. Given the incapacity of the existing conveyance system to meet ecological and water supply goals, and in light of the ongoing and anticipated changing conditions of the Delta brought about by climate change, anticipated seismic events, invasive species and other stressors, the BDCP contemplates wholesale, systemic modifications to the Delta.  Modifying the water conveyance infrastructure to convey water around the Delta is essential to creating new opportunities to restore the ecological health of the Delta and to achieve improvements in water supply reliability.  (page 3-7 of Working Draft)
 
    The BDCP's proposed Conservation Strategy poses a serious threat to the chosen way of life of everyone who resides, does business, or recreates in the Delta.  This workshop will provide an opportunity to learn more about it, as well as provide response and input to the planned strategy.  Anyone wishing to speak at the workshop, however, should review the Conservation Plan at the website above, as well as the format for the workshop. 
 
    Even if you do not plan to speak, please attend the workshop -- even for only a portion of the time -- to show your concern with what's being planned for the Delta.  We who live here may not be large in number compared with other parts of the state, but we are at Ground Zero of the "wholesale, systemic modifications" being planned for the Delta.
                                                                              

Save Our Delta's Future

P.O. Box 1279

Walnut Grove, CA 95690

www.saveourdeltasfuture.org

email: info@saveourdeltasfuture.org

 

Delta project could cost $50B

$23 billion low estimate for water transfer around estuary

Kevin Parrish

By Kevin Parrish

Record Staff Writer

September 03, 2009 12:01 AM

 

SACRAMENTO - The high-end cost of trying to ship Northern California's water around the Delta could be a staggering $53.8 billion, according a consultant's report delivered last week to state lawmakers. At minimum, the report estimates, the price tag would be $23 billion.

 

And San Joaquin County's voice on Delta issues was further diminished this week when state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, was left off a key legislative conference committee reviewing an ambitious package of five water bills that could shape California policy for years to come.

 

The draft Delta finance report was released by Sacramento's Steve Kasower of Strategic Economic Applications Co. His estimates for constructing a conveyance system - including associated mitigation and habitat restoration costs - are two to three times higher than amounts previously reported.

 

"This is the only cost estimate we have," said Wolk, whose district includes much of Manteca, Stockton and Tracy; much of the eastern end of the Delta; and Yolo County. "This is the only report that tries to make sense of the overall costs. And this is significant in the next nine days as we try to figure out the funding mechanism for this legislation."

 

Wolk said she was disappointed and more than a little frustrated that she had been left off the panel that will work out the legislative details on the complex package of bills.

 

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, named seven members of the California Senate to the 14-member conference committee on water. Wolk, chairwoman until last year of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, was not among them. Of the seven appointees from the state Senate, three are from the Los Angeles area and two others are also from districts beyond the Delta.

 

Wolk said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger "is pushing hard" to get what he wants: agreement on conveyance around the Delta and additional water-storage facilities. "But there is no money, no clarity," said Wolk, who is worried about the rush to complete the water-reform package by Sept. 14, when the Legislature goes into recess.

 

Steinberg, speaking at a Sacramento news conference Tuesday, called the opportunity historic for dramatic changes in the Delta. "We'll be working 24/7 to achieve something that's absolutely essential to California," he said.

 

The conference committee is expected to meet today and Friday and bring a final recommendation to the floor of both houses Tuesday.

 

Kasower's 11-page report breaks down the costs associated with two basic conveyance proposals: an above-ground peripheral canal or some variation on it, and a tunnel that would go under the estuary. The wide variance in overall costs is based on methodology.

 

Both plans include costs associated with off-stream storage, restoration, mitigation and conveyance.

A canal has been described as a "monumental project approximating the Panama Canal." It would be 500 to 700 feet wide and up to 49 miles long, according to an August 2006 engineering report from Washington Group International.

 

A tunnel, according to Kasower, would be "reasonably equivalent to the London-Paris Channel Tunnel, or Chunnel." The 31-mile Chunnel was built in 1994 at a cost of $21 billion.

 

Wolk believes there is a third proposal that should be considered. The Contra Costa Water District has proposed a smaller tunnel that would be less expensive ($9 billion), quicker to construct (10 years) and less invasive to Delta farmland (100 acres vs. 5,000).

 

But she won't be in the room as lawmakers consider the legislative package that will go to the governor.

"Things are in play," Wolk said. "It is inconceivable that such an ambitious group of bills would satisfy the various interests involved." She said normally such endeavors "would take years" to complete.

San Joaquin County and the other four other counties adjacent to the Delta have let Steinberg and California Secretary of Natural Resources Mike Chrisman know they are not pleased with the committee's makeup, said San Joaquin County Supervisor Larry Ruhstaller, the board's point man on water issues.

He said the five counties have worked together to advocate for Delta interests. Wolk's 5th Senate District encompasses portions of three of those counties - San Joaquin, Sacramento and Solano.

"What we're trying to say is: The people who live in and around the Delta have got to be represented," Ruhstaller said.

 

Record staff writer Zachary K. Johnson and Record wire services contributed to this report.

Contact Assistant Managing Editor Kevin Parrish at (209) 546-8264 or kparrish@recordnet.com


 
Stop the Canal Friends,

In case you missed it, Saturday, December 8th's front page article in the Contra Costa Times entitled "Secret Study Shows Canal Back in Play" disclosed an ongoing plan by Southern California water interests and the Department of Water Resources to begin the planning process for a new canal.

In short, these outside water interests are in the process now of calculating the dollar costs for building a new canal or Delta bypass for inclusion in a Sacramento water bond that will go to the voters sometime in 2008.

This strategy is moving fast and continues behind the scenes between special interests that want to see more of our quality water moving south faster and more efficiently.

I am writing for your help. We need our local city leaders to take a formal position IN OPPOSITION TO THE BUILDING OF A NEW CANAL.

Please contact your Mayor and City Co uncilmembers as soon as possible to ask them to support a resolution in opposition to ANY MOVEMENT to build a new canal which will send our good water South and have a devastating effect on our Delta ecosystem.

Thank you, again, for your continued commitment to Stop the Canal!

Regards, Joe Canciamilla
www.StoptheCanal.org
Joe@StoptheCanal.org

 

 

Delta E-News (5/27/10)

    • Delta Stewardship Council meeting to be webcast today, tomorrow
    • Delta Council clarifies role with BDCP
    • Sacramento River Watershed Program sets forum for next Wednesday
    • Delta Regional Report now available on Water Plan website
    • DWR plans public forum next week on flood projects
    • Antioch Recycled Water Project gets funds from USBR

 

Water Plan eNews (6/2/10)

    • Mountain Counties Regional Report posted; Vol. 4 nearly complete
    • CPUC will present water discussion on July 14 in San Francisco
    • DWR posts latest California Drought Update
    • Federal EPA sets workshop on climate change and water management strategies
    • Ag groundwater subject of June 15-17 conference in San Francisco
    • Save the date: Oct. 13, 14 for CBC session titled ‘Restoring our Forests

Purchase the NEW California Delta Map to exploring the fabulous California Delta.

 
Subscribe to the FREE
Email Newsletter
"The Delta Scuttlebutt"
Click Here
   
Email the Webmaster
© 2007 California Delta Chambers, all rights reserved ~
Site Design by Delta Webs