Subject:
UPDATE 15 on Bay/Delta from EWC
Date:
Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:32:53 PST
From:
Jenna Olsen <jenna.olsen@sfsierra.sierraclub.org>
Reply-To:
EWC Newsletter <COMMONS-CA-ENV-WATER-CAUCUS-NEWS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG>
To:
COMMONS-CA-ENV-WATER-CAUCUS-NEWS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
**********************************************************************
* A BI-WEEKLY UPDATE *
* FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL WATER CAUCUS (EWC) *
* ON THE CALFED BAY/DELTA PROGRAM *
**********************************************************************
Number 15 - Week of January 25, 1998
(First Update of 1998)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Urgent:
*Sacramento area residents: Drop in,comment at Thurs, 1/29 CalFed
Meeting
Contents:
CALFED DECISION EXPECTED IN FEBRUARY/MARCH
Peripheral Canal, More Reservoirs Likely To Take Center Stage
*TAKE ACTION--Urge CalFed's top officials to look at big picture
Attend 1/29 Sacramento Advisory meeting
CHANGING WATER RIGHTS FOR WATER QUALITY
*TAKE ACTION--Send comments on draft plan to Water Board ASAP
MONEY, MONEY--WATER BOND COULD BUY DANGER FOR ENVIRONMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CALFED DECISION EXPECTED IN FEBRUARY/MARCH
Peripheral Canal, More Reservoirs Likely To Take Center Stage
Late February/early March is now when CalFed is expected to reveal
its plan for California water for the 21st century--the first
complete draft to be released after three years of intense planning
by the state and federal governments. All indications are that
CalFed's document will use incomplete analyses and unclear
assumptions to make the case for building more reservoirs and canals,
despite strong public opposition to new water structures.
The soon-to-be-released draft document will include CalFed's plans for
improving water quality, increasing the efficiency of water use,
restoring the ecosystem, and stabilizing delta levees. The document
will also lay out the pros and cons of three alternatives for changing
the plumbing of California's water system:
* maintain the current system
* widen channels in the Delta
* build a canal around the Delta (similar to the Peripheral Canal
proposed and defeated in 1982)
Although CalFed has backed away from presenting a classic "preferred
alternative", statements in the press and in public meetings clearly
show that CalFed has already concluded that the controversial
peripheral canal is their choice. In addition, CalFed is placing
enormous emphasis on increasing storage; each of the three
alternatives would add up to six million acre-feet of new storage,
mostly as off-stream reservoirs (an acre-foot is enough for two
families of four for one year).
Environmentalists, fishers, scientists, and concerned citizens have
repeatedly urged CalFed to complete their analyses and to take an
integrated look at water conservation and recycling as a means of
providing water supply reliability and critical freshwater flows for
ecosystem restoration, which in turn would enhance water quality.
Instead, CalFed has constrained its analysis by narrowly defining and
separating out some topics, while avoiding others--such as guarantees
against increased diversions, the potential of solid conservation
programs, and how much of the bill for building new structures the
public would be asked to foot.
Environmentalists maintain that dams, reservoirs, and diversions
caused the massive water problems of today in the first place.
Building more canals and reservoirs must be proven absolutely
necessary and should only be considered as a last resort. Public
opinion and science are behind a smarter solution--"conserve water."
CalFed plans to hold a series of public meetings, probably in May, to
gather public comment on the plan, and will then announce a formal
"preferred alternative" in late summer. CalFed officials continue to
declare that the plan will be finalized by December 1998, despite
serious doubts that such an enormous, important, and politically
charged issue can be resolved in such a short time. The breakneck
timeline is being driven by the fact that Governor Wilson wants a
conclusion before he leaves office in December 1998. However, the
unrealistic deadline threatens the quality and ultimate success of
CalFed's final product.
***TAKE ACTION***
1. Send a letter or make a phone call to Perciasepe and Wheeler urging
CalFed to improve its decision process by:
* not choosing a solution without adequate information
* analyzing the potential for long-term water reliability and
ecosystem restoration with solid water conservation and reclamation
programs
* ensuring enough time for necessary analysis of the complex issues
Robert Perciasepe
Assistant Administrator for Water
US EPA
Co-Chair, CalFed Policy Group
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Tel: 202/260-5700 (say per-cha-SEP-ee)
Fax: 202/260-5711
Douglas Wheeler
Secretary, California Resources Agency
Co-Chair, CalFed Policy Group 1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: 916/653-5656
Fax: 916/653-8102
2. Citizens living near Sacramento should attend the January 29th
meeting where CalFed receives public advice (the Bay/Delta Advisory
Committee). Drop in during the public comment period around lunchtime
and make a brief statement regarding the above points. (Call
916-657-2666 for the agenda). Or, attend the entire meeting
(9:00-5:00). The meeting is at the Sacramento Convention Center on J
Street.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGING WATER RIGHTS FOR WATER QUALITY
A massive process with potentially far-reaching consequences is
underway to revise the water rights permits held in California,
impacting all Californians who use water from the Central Valley. The
goal of changing the water rights is to maintain and improve the water
quality in the San Francisco Bay/Delta by modifying water use in the
watershed.
This formal proceeding, initiated by the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB), will evaluate how to allocate among the state's water
users the responsibility for meeting the Water Quality Standards
established in 1995. The proceeding will also evaluate ideas for how
to make up for financial or other impacts, if any, on water users from
fulfilling that responsibility. The ultimate decisions of the SWRCB
could define the regime for water rights and for operating the state's
existing water facilities that will define the playing field of
CalFed's final solution.
The two largest diverters, the State Water Project and the federal
Central Valley Project, currently hold full responsibility for meeting
the 1995 water quality standards. That obligation expires at the end
of this year, by which time the SWRCB may allocate a portion of that
responsibility to other water rights holders, such as ranchers,
vineyard owners, businesses, cities, and local water districts.
The current standards were adopted in 1995 after decades of very weak
water quality standards and no enforcement. At that time, the state of
California faced federal intervention and the threat of continuing
legal challenges by many environmental groups over the lack of
standards. Finally, these conditions forced California to adopt new
standards designed to protect the health of the Bay/Delta and its
Central Valley watershed by establishing criteria for freshwater
flows--the critical element which affects water quality parameters
such as salinity.
The proceedings had a very quick timeline, but the SWRCB just
announced that it would extend the deadlines for a limited period (the
specifics will be announced in the next few days). The new deadlines
are likely to extend a week or more beyond the old deadlines, which
are listed below.
Jan. 30-written comments on the plan for implementing the standards
Feb. 6-submit evidence for the Board to consider in their
deliberations.
March- a series of hearings across the state
For more information contact Jenna Olsen (see contact info below) or
Victoria Whitney at SWRCB (916-653-2516).
***TAKE ACTION***
The State Water Resources Control Board is considering several key
measures. Please send in comments as soon as possible on the SWRCB
Draft Environmental Impact Report.
In your comments, urge the Board to:
* Require Friant water users to put water back in the San Joaquin
River
Background: Since construction of Friant dam in the 1950s, the San
Joaquin River runs dry for long stretches in certain years. The dam
extinguished the spring-run chinook salmon on the river, which was a
major salmon fishery. Lack of freshwater from the San Joaquin affects
the water quality of the Delta. Friant users should have to
contribute to improving that quality.
* Restore wild salmon by requiring all water users to cooperate with
federal programs designed to double the populations of wild salmon.
Background: The 1995 standards specify doubling wild salmon
populations as a key water quality standard. Since the federal
government already has a program in place to double salmon and other
fish, the SWRCB does not need to re-create the wheel, but ought to
require water users to meet this standard by contributing to the
federal plan
* oppose the plan to facilitate increased pumping of water (by
allowing state and federal projects to share pumping facilities)
unless delta habitat and fish are protected
Background: One plan to mitigate (help find more water) for rights
holders who are required to contribute to the quality standards would
increase pumping in the delta by allowing the state and federal
projects to share their facilities. Without very specific and
stringent guidelines, such increased pumping could in fact place delta
water quality and delta fish at greater risk than they are now.
Send comments to:
Victoria Whitney
Division of Water Rights
901 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: 916-657-1485
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MONEY, MONEY--WATER BOND COULD SPELL DANGER FOR ENVIRONMENT
After a flurry of publicity in early January, it appears that Governor
Wilson's press office may have gotten ahead of his policy staff.
Wilson's bond proposal reported in newspapers would include money for:
-flood control
-increasing water supply (including a feasibility study for a "delta
facility," presumably the peripheral canal)
-watershed management and water quality
However, there are currently no bills before the legislature
containing Wilson's water funding proposals. The legislature must
first pass a bill before a bond measure can appear on a statewide
ballot.
Mid-January talk of adding the water-related components of Wilson's
funding proposals to a Costa/Machado flood bond (SB 312/AB 254)
remains under negotiation. The Costa/Machado bond measure focuses on
flood control and has been carefully negotiated. Environmentalists
unanimously cautioned that adding new components from Wilson's
proposal could ruin the negotiated compromise on the flood bond.
The flood control bond would raise about $400 million, split fairly
evenly between the following programs: levee repair; nonstructural
control such as levee setbacks; and financing debt for State Water
Project facilities. The bond measure is considered by
environmentalists to be acceptable, though it could have been better
had it included more policy recommendations to discourage building in
the floodplain. A debate and full vote on the bond measure is
expected on the floor of both houses within the next two to three
weeks.
Water users may still attempt to add amendments to the bill.
Legislators and environmentalists have warned that additional
amendments to this bill could jeopardize it, especially controversial
measures related to the as-yet undefined CalFed program and the
"isolated facility" (CalFed's term for the peripheral canal).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR MORE INFORMATION, OR TO SUBMIT AN ITEM FOR THE NEXT UPDATE
please contact jenna.olsen@sierraclub.org
address: Environmental Water Caucus
c/o Sierra Club
85 Second Street, second floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Fax: 415/977 5702
Phone: 415/977 5728
This update is also available by fax.
The Environmental Water Caucus is a coalition of organizations working
toward a sustainable water future for California. The EWC steering
committee includes: Environmental Defense Fund, Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations, The Bay Institute, United
Anglers, Natural Heritage Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Friends of the River, Sierra Club, Save San Francisco Bay Association,
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, The Nature Conservancy,
California League of Conservation Voters, Clean Water Action, and Bay
Area Audubon Chapters.
The Environmental Water Caucus focuses on improving the CalFed
Bay/Delta program, a joint state/federal planning process to solve
problems associated with the San Francisco Bay/Delta.