Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA)

We first met two of the new Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority (DCA) reps in October, at a Delta meeting of the Delta Activists (groups throughout the Delta fighting the tunnel project). The meeting was held at the Delta Farmer’s Market at the corner of Highways 160 and 12, hosted by Ken and Laura Scheidegger. One of the two DCA reps was Nazli Parvizi.

Delta Farmers Market

At that October 2019 meeting, Nazli assured folks that the DCA’s process would be different from what we’d gone through during the prior BDCP and WaterFix tunnel projects (FOR TEN YEARS!), where Delta voices were never heard. We were told that the DCA was forming a Stakeholder’s Committee to “listen to” the Delta folks and mold the project into something of value for everyone. I must say, we who have been involved with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and related efforts for years were very skeptical. Yet Karen Mann, bless her heart, in an attempt to do her part for the Delta, volunteered to be on the committee.

[The SEC’s supposed charter is to represent Delta communities in the design of the Single Tunnel project, by giving feedback early on, during the design process. Our South Delta representative for local businesses is our STCDA President, Karen Mann.]

Repeated points made by the stakeholders during the SEC meetings are:

1. The “Central Corridor” route (which was the WaterFix “Through-Delta Alignment”), is horrible, destructive, will kill Delta communities’ economies, and should be abandoned. The DCA’s own Independent Technical Review Committee agreed. The ITRC proposed a route further east, along the I-5 corridor, to reduce impact on the inner Delta. But the DCA rejected that recommendation.
2. The site of the Intakes in the North must be moved. The current location will destroy the historic legacy communities of Hood, Clarksburg, and Courtland. Also, the Native American SEC members have reported that the north intakes will destroy a sacred burial ground!

THEN THE PANDEMIC HIT!

Karen, as well as the local businesses she is supposed to be representing and gathering feedback from about this project, are scrambling to keep their small businesses afloat or facing severe financial burdens, kids are home being homeschooled, people have parents and other who are sick battling this disease, health care and service workers are concerned with their own health, and streets are empty.

Most of the SEC committee sent in pleas to the DCA requesting the project be postponed until the pandemic is over. Delta communities are reeling. Many small Delta communities have limited internet infrastructure so cannot get the information about the Tunnel plans except in Town Hall meetings or one-on-one. In addition, no one wants to think about yet another attack on our lives – the huge construction project ripping up the Delta – at a time like this.

Karen’s request to postpone is here.

Yet at the DCA Board Meeting, it was reported that the SEC Members wanted to continue. (That has caused several emails disputing that report!)

At the SEC meeting Wednesday, April 22, (videoconferenced due to the pandemic), the SEC members pushed back strongly on holding the meeting as planned with the agenda item to discuss postponement moved down to Item #5. They wanted to discuss Item #5 first. They wanted to vote on it. They wanted to halt meetings during the pandemic.

Kathryn Mellon, the DCA lead, basically told them (my memory, paraphrasing), “We [the DCA] have a schedule to maintain. We are going to move ahead and complete the tunnel design. It is up to you [SEC Members] if you want to not attend. That would be unfortunate for your Delta stakeholders that you represent. They would not have their voices heard. But I guess they can comment during the CEQA process.”

It was very upsetting to me, listening to the videoconference. Very condescending and browbeating.

Wait for the CEQA process? We all know how that goes. We’ve been commenting on EIRs, opposing this project FOR TEN YEARS! When they get to their CEQA design, they are unmoving. What changes after that point? Nothing. The SEC members were not really given a choice. Yet, as they said, they cannot get valid input from their constituents at a time like this. THIS IS JUST WRONG!

Osha R. Meserve, Legal Council for the North Delta Agencies made this comment during the SEC Meeting public comment period:

A majority of the committee does not want to meet and there should be a vote to decide. The committee is being told that there is a deadline but not what the deadline is. The DCA materials from April 16th show that the Conceptual Engineering Report is due at the end of September so there should be time for stakeholder input. Yet the SEC members are being told they must continue meeting or their input will not occur. This is not correct.

She is exactly right!

So now we know. All that talk about listening, about the stakeholders having input, was a just that – talk.

There is one final test coming up. I sent in (*) Comments on the Project identifying issues with this project. Kathryn Mellon replied that they would like to have a conference call in May to review my document and provide their responses, to be sure they understand the issues. If there is any change in their plan (like if the Central Corridor route is dropped, the route most damaging to the Delta waterfowl and to boating, recreation, and tourism), “maybe” they are listing. The plus if the intake locations are changed. And if they commit to improving Highway 4 if they are going to overload it with construction trucks. If they do that, maybe they are listening.

I’m not going to hold my breath.

——————————————————————————————
(*) Note – There is an error in my comments submitted above. I had thought the DCA had said they would try to move the barge landing out of the popular “The Bedrooms” anchorage on Little Potato Slough and not work on the weekend. They did not. So we will need to see the next pass at the design to find out if the SEC inputs caused any change.

In the news: Hurdle with L.A. Water District buying Delta Islands; Ground Water Table Collapse; Sites Reservoir; Sites, Temperance Flat, Raising Shasta.

Hurdle with L.A. Water District buying Delta Islands

A controversial plan that would put Southern California’s most powerful water agency in control of a group of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta islands has run into a potentially significant hurdle. Yea! Hopefully it ends up being more of a roadblock, than just a “hurdle.” There’s no good in Metropolitan Water District (L.A.’s water district) owning Delta farm islands. http://digital.olivesoftware.com/olive/odn/sacbee/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=MSB%2F2015%2F12%2F29&entity=Ar00100&sk=3D7081FF

Ground Water Table Collapse

This is why, during the worst four years of drought in California’s history, the profit from almonds continued to rise, year over year. Instead of cutting back on the amount of almond orchards, the farmers have recklessly over-pumped the ground water. U.S. Geological Survey researchers later called the sinking land in the Central Valley, one of the “single largest alterations of the land surface attributed to humankind. (Not to mention, communities in the Central Valley are completely without water due to their wells going dry.)
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/58e0c7bfe91442f79e304fbdc1bec95d/damage-sinking-land-costing-california-billions

Sites Reservoir

The SacBee editorial today recommends using Water Bond money for the Sites reservoir, to aid the environment, the Delta, and, by the way, the farmers. I remain skeptical.

First, they say “Proper operation of the reservoir would have downstream benefits for the Delta, waterfowl habitat and for fisheries.” There’s my worry. Until the state proves itself able to operate the system in-place now, I do not agree with adding another reservoir to flow through the Delta to Clifton Court Forebay, further impacting salmon runs. They managed the system horribly during these four years of drought. Let’s first reduce acreage to match available water, then talk about whether more dams make sense. Besides, dams end up reducing water until they are full. Building the Friant Dam is what destroyed the San Joaquin salmon runs. I’d vote to restore the Tulare Lake Basin, a natural lake in the Central Valley which used to recharge the aquifers.

Second, they say the bond would only cover a portion of the cost. While they say farmers and urban users should pay, they also recommend congress and “environmental organizations” pay. Why should congress pay for more water for ag when there is a continued, irresponsible expansion of almond orchards for profit? Also, aren’t all environmental organizations non-profits? It’s also not for urban users – it’s to continue to expand almonds.
I vote for regional self-sufficiency, ground water recharge where it’s needed, in the Central Valley, and better ag water recycling/clean-up.
http://digital.olivesoftware.com/olive/odn/sacbee/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=MSB%2F2015%2F12%2F27&entity=Ar06201&sk=FA571622

Sites Reservoir, Temperance Flats, Raising Shasta

Here’s another article about Sites and other dams the Central Valley growers are pushing for, despite multibillion dollar price tags and studies that show the new reservoirs would do little to boost the state’s overall water supplies.
Jay Lund, director of the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences, says: “It makes more sense, Lund said, to modify the operation of existing dams so they capture and release more winter flows for long-term storage in the ground, replenishing the state’s overtaxed aquifers for use in future droughts.”
I agree with him. The main problem with reservoir management during the drought was that way too much was released in the first few years of the drought. We need to replenish the aquifers as the real long-term solution.
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-water-dams-20151227-story.html

The EPA submits a 43-page report warning that the Delta Tunnels could violate Federal law.” See the Sacramento Bee Report. Also reported in the LA Times.

The 43-page review against the Delta Tunnels agrees with what we and other BDCP opponents have been saying all along:

• The tunnels may be good for the farmers and municipalities that receive the water but not for farmers and municipalities who divert water directly from the Delta.
• The project failed to analyze environmental effects both upstream and downstream of the Delta, particularly on San Francisco Bay.
• The BDCP plan to restore the Delta by habitat projects yet there is no evidence that restoration would be effective.
• The EPA recommends the BDCP ensure sufficient water flow through the Delta for it to remain healthy. The Delta needs fresh water to remain healthy, a fact the water contractors have ignored from the start.

The EPA Review itself: http://www.epa.gov/region9/nepa/letters/ca/bay-delta-conservation-plan-deis.pdf

The EPA review also advocates consideration of a variety of approaches, a suite of measures, including water conservation, levee maintenance and reduced reliance on the Delta. Sounds like what our Northern California legislators, Mary Piepho, Jerry McNerney and John Garamendi have been proposing all along!

water http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/28/6662668/epa-says-californias-delta-water.html

Good Op Ed in the SF Chronicle today by C-WIN’s Carolee Krieger making the link between the almond growing craze and the Monterey Plus Amendments, which eliminated the urban preference in times of drought and turned the Kern Water Bank over to the Resnicks.

She writes: “We need equitable policies that accommodate ratepayers, the environment and sustainable agriculture. It must be noted that industrial almond production is not sustainable in the arid San Joaquin Valley.

“We, the public, can reclaim our water, but we must break the unholy alliance between Sacramento and the San Joaquin agribusiness cabal. It may be 2014, but our water policies remain rooted in the 19th century. It is high time we brought them up to date.”

Read the entire article here: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Why-almonds-cover-California-5655309.php

More is coming out in the mainstream media about the private ownership of the Kern Water Bank by Central Valley farmers – primary ownership Stewart Resnick’s Paramount Farms.

Linda Yee who produced a great two-part piece on the Delta Tunnels from the Delta’s perspective just released on CBS Evening News Group Sues California for Privatizing Massive Water Reserve .

She says “There is one place where there’s no shortage of water. The bountiful pomegranate, almond and pistachio fields of paramount farms are as green as ever.
You wouldn’t know it because you can’t see it. But there is a huge underground water reservoir on the south end of the Central valley, near Bakersfield. It’s four times as big as Hetch Hetchy reservoir.”

There is a great deal of money that can be made transferring water at cheap subsidized agriculture rates to urban users at their much higher rates. Cathy Yee interviewed Katy Spanos, an attorney with the California Department of Water Resources, who disagrees. “We don’t see any signs that it will be used to sell water outside the service area,” she said.

Oh yeh?

Today another article came out tracking down the convoluted way water IS getting transferred from the Kern Water Bank to urban use, even though the Bureau of Reclamations Contract with the Kern Water Bank owners is for ag use only.
See Lois Henry: Water From Kern County Sprawls Home Growth in Madeira, CA.

While Sacramento is on water rationing, Delta flows are being cut back (which will be devastating for the salmon) and Eastside Central Valley farmers need to chose between depleting their ground water with those dire effects or letting crops die, Paramount Farms orchards are flush with water and a handful of Westside Central Valley mega-farmers can profit from their privately owned, full water bank.