Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA)

Updated 8/16/13

Breaking News:

The BDCP is proposing altering the tunnel path which they say is to reduce the impact on the farming towns and farmers in the north. Some changes were announced as improvements on the impacts on the towns of Hood, Courtland, Clarksburg and possibly Walnut Grove. For example, the pumping station will be 30 feet high instead of 60 feet, slightly lessoning the impact on those town’s scenic views but still over 3 stories high.

The BDCP’s new plan is to leave less tunnel muck in the Delta and now Daniel Wilson, the farmer who was threatened to lose his home and fruit packing plants, is out of danger. But Wilson was quoted in the Sacramento Bee as still opposing the project because of other fundamental changes it poses, including altered Sacramento River flows and water quality, and disruption of roads, traffic and scenery.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/15/5652161/water-plan-may-shift-delta-tunnels.html#storylink=cpy

Some believe it was motivated more by the need to reduce costs to keep the contractors involved. The new plan cuts the total path from 35 miles to 30 miles and reduces some of the acreage mitigation costs from muck storage by finding uses for it (a new release claims muck will now be “reusable tunnel material”).

THE BAD NEWS:

There is no change in the route through the South Delta. The plan will still cut the South Delta in half impacting marinas, restaurants, boating and recreation. The new route goes through Staten Island, the 9,100-acre island between two forks of the Mokelumne River that California taxpayers spent $32 million to preserve the island as wildlife habitat and may be a disaster for sandhill cranes. While the new plan removes some of the muck areas, there is now an even bigger muck pond shown south of Discovery Bay.

In addition, the long-term water quality issues, salmon issues, and other negative impacts from the tunnels remain.

Updated map: http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Libraries/Dynamic_Document_Library/Map_of_Proposed_BDCP_Changes_8-15-13.sflb.ashx

California Members of Congress Demand that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan Be Fair and Equitable
Call the current delay the “the last, best opportunity” to improve the far-reaching plan

Washington, D.C. – Calling the most recent BDCP delay the “last, best opportunity to stand up to… unreasonable demands,” Reps. Jerry McNerney (CA-11), George Miller (CA-7), Mike Thompson (CA-1), Doris Matsui (CA-5), and John Garamendi (CA-10) called for specific steps to be taken for the BDCP to move forward in a fair and transparent manner. The five members from the California congressional delegation have been vocal in calling for changes to the BDCP and have demanded that any plan has significant input from the Bay-Delta region.

In letters sent today to Governor Jerry Brown and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, the lawmakers said, “We recognize that some are now calling for an immediate decision, but we believe that it is critical to get this right; a rushed and inadequate Bay-Delta planning effort will lead to increased litigation, uncertainty, and expense.”

“I will not accept any plan for the Delta that is harmful to the farmers, families, and small business owners in the Delta region. To date, the planning process for Delta water has been unduly influenced by wealthy water contractors from south of the Delta who would steal our water, costing us millions of dollars and countless jobs. This delay provides an opportunity for the state and federal governments to stand up to the water contractors and ensure that the BDCP includes the input of our region. I will continue to fight against any measures that would destroy the Delta and our way of life,” said Rep. Jerry McNerney.

“More than five years into this process, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan still hasn’t met basic legal or scientific requirements,” said Rep. George Miller. “This is the last chance to fix it, and that’s why this delay is so important: it gives the scientists time to get it right. The Bay-Delta’s health is key to California’s future – we can either work out a good plan that reduces reliance on the Delta, or we can end up with increased litigation, uncertainty, and expense.”

“So far in this process we’ve seen too many back-door deals that put the interests of South-of-Delta water contractors before our farmers, fishermen and local communities. Many of our families and small businesses that depend on the Delta would have their livelihood stripped away and the Delta’s diverse wildlife would be destroyed if these politically driven deals were put in place. Federal and state officials need to use this delay to come up with fair and transparent plan that is based on sound science so that our communities, businesses, fish, wildlife and environment in the Delta and north of the Delta are not harmed,” said Rep. Mike Thompson.

“A 50-year permit needs to be done not only right, but with due diligence and equitable treatment to all those affected. I want to see the federal and state agencies take this opportunity to put forward a process and a plan for the Delta region that recognizes the input they’ve received not just from south of Delta interests, but north of Delta interests as well. Our state can’t afford to get this wrong,” said Rep. Doris Matsui.

“As the lynchpin of California’s water system, the economic and environmental sustainability of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta must be made front and center in this discussion. It’s the law,” said Rep. John Garamendi. “In addition, using the best available science, we must focus on conservation, storage, and recycling to preserve our state’s ecosystems and to meet the water needs of nearly 40 million Californians.”

The full text of the letter is below.
——————————————————

May 16, 2012

The Honorable Ken Salazar
Secretary
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

Dear Secretary Salazar:

We write in response to the recently-announced delay in the timeline for releasing additional details of the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). We believe that acknowledging the need for changes and additional scientific review is an important first step towards transforming the BDCP into a plan that meets state and federal legal requirements and into a process that is fair, transparent, and inclusive of communities in the Delta region and Northern California. We recognize that some are now calling for an immediate decision, but we believe that it is critical to get this right; a rushed and inadequate Bay-Delta planning effort will lead to increased litigation, uncertainty, and expense.

As you know, we have raised many objections during the skewed process that has led to this point. We have reached out to state and federal officials repeatedly, as a group and as individuals, to express our view that the BDCP is failing to adequately address the needs of our constituents and the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Our concerns have been largely reinforced by numerous independent analyses and the release of draft environmental documents which show that the leading BDCP proposal will not meet biological goals and may even lead to the extinction of several species, including some of California’s iconic salmon runs. The recent “red flag” comments from state and federal agencies are just the latest indication that the BDCP must be overhauled if it is to be successful.

We also understand that, despite the many flaws with the BDCP, state and federal agencies still hope to make a significant announcement on the plan this summer. We would like to reemphasize our conviction that, before making a determination of a preferred project, state and federal agencies have an obligation to ensure that the BDCP will:

Vigorously and meaningfully engage local officials from the Bay-Delta region and Northern California in the BDCP process.

• Reflect the best available scientific understanding of the Bay-Delta ecosystem’s needs as required by state law, including the reduction of water diversions from the Bay-Delta.
• Demonstrate an understanding of the economic issues identified by the Delta Protection Commission’s Economic Sustainability Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
• Fully analyze a complete range of alternatives, including non-diversion alternatives, the State Water Resource Control Board’s alternative, and proposals put forth by experts from the Delta and Northern California. A cost-benefit analysis of each alternative should also be conducted.
• Define and meet biological goals and ensure that the preferred BDCP proposal is fully consistent with the best available science and relevant federal and state environmental laws.
  Protect water quality and reliability for farmers and communities in the Delta and Northern California.
• Rebuild the Bay-Delta’s fisheries and the thousands of jobs they sustain.
  Preserve flood protection for communities in the Delta and Northern California and include a focus on levee improvements.
• Commit to choosing, clearly and with intent, the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” as federal law requires.
• Meet the requirements of state law by including alternative water supplies as a way to increase water supply reliability and reduce dependence on the Delta.

Our constituents have repeatedly demonstrated that they are ready, willing, and able to participate in a BDCP process that is truly collaborative and transparent. Despite the good intentions of our constituents, the BDCP has been dominated by south-of-Delta contractors with a long history of opposing balanced solutions to the challenges facing California’s water system.

The recently-announced delay in the BDCP may represent the last, best opportunity to stand up to the unreasonable demands of south-of-Delta water contractors and change the BDCP into a plan that can enjoy support throughout the entire state of California.

Thank you for your attention to this letter. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Congressman Jerry McNerney
Congressman George Miller
Congressman Mike Thompson
Congresswoman Doris Matsui
Congressman John Garamendi

SENATE PANEL HEARS FROM ANGRY DELTA RESIDENTS ON DELTA PLAN AND PERIPHERAL CANAL
(reported by Michael Brodsky who attended the meeting representing STCDA)

Sacramento March 13, 2012.

The California Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water held an oversight hearing at the Capitol Tuesday morning to hear about progress in developing the Delta Plan and to hear about the planning process for the Peripheral Canal.

As expected, California and federal officials painted a rosy picture. Roger Paterson, Assistant General Manager for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, told the senators that a new Peripheral Canal would be good for the Delta. He denied that there was any water grab driven by souther California interests underway. He said that Delta residents should rest easy because MWD has the best interests of the environment at heart.

When it came time for public comment, the senators heard a very different story. Speaker after speaker complained that plans to build the Peripheral Canal were secretive, that the science underlying the supposed environmental benefits of the canal was faulty, and that MWD and the other water contractors were being given secret access to the process leaving the public in the dark.

The panel also heard criticism of the Delta Plan, in particular that the Delta Plan favors increased water exports to southern California with no meaningful requirements for water conservation. The Delta Plan, being developed by a newly minted government agency called the Delta Stewardship Council, will be the master plan for the Delta for decades to come.

The Peripheral Canal is being planned in a separate process called the Bay Conservation and Development Plan, or BDCP for short. After completion, the BDCP will become a part of the Delta Plan.

Both of these planning processes are nearing critical phases and it will be especially important for Discovery Bay residents to attend upcoming meetings so our voices are heard. STCDA will be organizing trips to Sacramento and sending out notice to members well in advance so Discovery Bay residents can let their voices be heard.

If you have been as dismayed as I have been about the recent attempts to eradicate the striped bass (erroneous claims that the bass, instead of excessive exporting of water from the Delta, are the cause of the decline of the salmon) then happily note that the Fish & Game Commissions yesterday voted unanimously to reject the Department of Fish and Game’s striped bass regulation change proposal.

The proposal was introduced by the DFG as a settlement agreement resulting from a 2008 lawsuit. In that lawsuit, the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta claimed that striped bass are “harming” native species, including endangered Central Valley chinook salmon and steelhead and Delta smelt.

But the slight-of-hand being attempted is clear when you find out that three executives of Stewart Resnick’s Paramount Farms in Kern County founded the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta. Resnick is the politically connected Beverly Hills billionaire who has made tens of millions of dollars annually from buying and reselling water back to the public for a big profit. It’s the same profiteers who are making millions from water that are behind efforts to build the Peripheral Canal and recent legislation to give Paramount Farms easier access to water contracts (causing more and more excessive exporting) and water rights over family farmers who have farmed for generations. And bass fisherman have been loud opponents to the Two Gates and Peripheral Canal efforts these millionaires want in order to increase exports.

The article concludes: “Hoorah to the integrity of the Fish and Game Commission to see through this ‘fishery management by lawsuit’ and defend the autonomy of the regulation process. Particular credit goes to outgoing Commission President Jim Kellogg who, as his last piece of business in his term, declared striped a native species,””

Read the entire article at http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2012/02/02/commission-votes-against-pursuing-striped-bass-eradication-proposal/