Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA)

The main topic of the July 22, 2020 Stakeholder Engagement Committee Meeting was a presentation about alternatives “considered”, presented by Carrie Buckman, the Department of Water Resources’ Environmental Program Manager. I purposely added quotes around the term “considered” in “alternatives ‘considered’,” because the report sounded like more of the same to me … an exercise required by the EIR NEPA/CEQA process, but not really being considered by the DWR as alternatives to their preferred tunnel. This was another very upsetting presentation to sit through.

If you don’t want to read this whole report, at least read the summary about The Issue with DWR’s Project Objectives to understand why DWR’s review of alternatives is, in my opinion, invalid.

Ms. Buckman went through a few alternatives and explained why they were all rejected.

1. Garamendi’s “A Water Plan for All California”

This plan proposes a much smaller 3,000 cfs pipe (not a tunnel) – more like the pipes already used near the surface by East Bay MUD to route water to Alameda. It is not as disruptive as tunneling, no RTM (Muck), less disruption to farms, no dewatering of wells needed, no risk to drinking water, sewage treatment plants, the railroad trestle, levees.

First, does it meets basic project objectives? She says ‘no’ because:

• Reliance on channels, canals, and levees provide limited seismic resilience
• Lower flow provides less operational flexibility between the existing and new facilities for the protection of species and capture of excess flows

Wait a minute … if the main Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel is not seismically resilient, don’t you think that should be an emergency project to upgrade it? And we like less flow being removed from the Sacramento River. Sounds like two reasons to consider it, not reject it. She also thought there were significant construction impacts associated with working in West Sacramento to build a fish screen and low head pump station. Construction on the west bank of the Sacramento River would result in noise, transportation, visual, air quality, and other impacts related to construction activities through highly populated areas of West Sacramento.

All right – propose a better location for the intakes.

She also stated that the “fish screen protrudes into the Sacramento River and could be disruptive.” But they are proposing much larger areas of fish screens with their current plan. I may be missing something. It didn’t sound very scientific or logical reasons to reject it.

BUT THE BIGGEST ISSUE WITH REJECTING THIS ALTERNATIVE: Garamendi’s plan also includes:

1. Conservation,
2. Recycling,
3. The creation of new storage systems,
4. Fix the Delta – right sized conveyance, levee improvements, and habitat restoration,
5. Science driven process,
6. Protection of existing water rights.

None of those were included in DWR’s review or Ms. Buckman’s report. She only addressed part of #4, “right sized conveyance.” THAT IS WHY DWR’S REJECTION IS BOGUS. Garamendi is proposing a portfolio of solutions, to work together, to reduce reliance on the Delta through regional self-sufficiency, while trying to address how to meet the State Water Project’s short-term objectives and issues and perceived risks with the current pumps.

2. Dr. Pyke’s Sherman Island Proposal

We knew DWR would reject this alternative again as they have in the past. Why? Because the premise of the proposal is that they should build a reservoir on Sherman Island north of Antioch and pump from there.

WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN is that although DWR “claims” they will operate the new tunnel to still maintain the salinity line to not rise above Antioch, that is not true. The long-term plan is to allow salinity to intrude.

That is the beauty of Dr. Pyke’s proposal … it is designed to keep DWR and the water contractors honest. Hence it, once again, is summarily rejected. It would mean they would need to continue to reduce pumping and increase Delta flows and that is not in their goals or plans.

Whether it would work with sea level rise is another question … but I’ve always liked the concept.

3. No Tunnel and Improving Levees

DWR’s issue with any of these options?

• Improving levees and through-Delta conveyance would not address the water quality component of the project objectives of climate change and sea level rise for the SWP
• Continued use of the existing system (even with upgrades) as a long-term plan does not address seismic resiliency and the associated water supply reliability concerns.

WRONG – it does improve conditions by keeping salinity out … which is, anyway, what the CA Department of Fish & Wildlife is giving as their goal with the Franks Tract Futures project.

And again with the “seismic resiliency” story. Dr. Pyke calls it the “earthquake bogey.” One of the SEC members asked them to update their seismic information with current active (or not) fault lines and risk. They use the “seismic resiliency” as a weapon, yet the tunnels aren’t being constructed in a way to not be damaged in case of earthquake. Totally bogus reasoning.

Talking about risk, combining sea level rise and seismic issues, there is risk in the future of Delta islands flooding … primarily Bacon, Mandeville, Jones. Yet those are EXACTLY the same islands that they are talking about building their tunnel shafts on without ever addressing what will happen if one or more of those islands floods during construction or after. That is why their plan for putting construction through the Delta on Delta islands is so crazy. Or at least inconsistent.

Ms. Buckman didn’t cover Desalination, Recycling, etc. (or I zoned out by then … I’ll add more when the meeting video is available).

The Issue with DWR’s Project Objectives

Here is the major problem with DWR’s process and alternative evaluation. The objectives they are analyzing alternatives against is:

DWR is focused SOLELY on the State Water Project (for L.A.) and by association, the Central Valley Project for the farmers in the south. Their four objectives look only at it.

But the Delta Reform Act written by the Legislature in 2009, and the Delta Plan which was a result, state the objectives for the Delta are to:

Continuing to focus on the Delta for all of the state’s water needs, particularly when climate change will continue to reduce the snow pack levels, is insanity. Only new technologies, new approaches like desalination, recycling, conservation, better groundwater management, and reduction of need in the Central Valley can actually meet either of the primary objectives.

Here is the official Save the California Delta Alliance response to the Single Tunnel (Delta Conveyance) NOP comment period, ending today.

We’d like to thank our Legal Council, Michael Brodsky, for the time and effort he has put in creating this comprehensive and impactful response. He clearly cites how the current project violates the Delta Plan (the overarching document for what projects are allowed and what are not allowed to be undertaken in the Delta).

In legalese, the proposed project is:

not consistent with the Delta Reform Act, the Delta Plan, the Public Trust Doctrine, California Constitution Article X, section 2, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the legal uses to which the State Water Project (“SWP”) may be put, environmental justice principles codified in Government Code section 65040.12, …

His argument is that the only viable alternative is the “No Tunnel” alternative, or a better phrase he uses is a “Natural Systems Alternative,” that “reduces exports in order to provide more water for through-Delta seaward flow and includes strengthening and restoring Delta levees through the use of setback levees and channel margin habitat.”

He further argues that the old WaterFix plan is outdated and now newer technologies (desalination, replacing lawns with desert landscaping, etc.) are more cost effective and more appropriate for SWP’s stated long-term goal of reducing reliance on the Delta.

He effectively argues that the old tunnel approach is not appropriate given climate change. He presents interesting facts and backup information about how the SWP is the biggest consumer of electricity in the state, and how pumping water over the Tehachapis to send Delta water to L.A. is a huge percentage of that power cost, definitely not in line with today’s climate change conservation goals.

This is a document worth reading. The appendices in the back include the testimony provided at the Water Board Hearings and Delta Stewardship Council which resulted in the prior WaterFix being remanded back to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to be corrected. One appendix also is the survey clearly showing how tunnel construction would practically end boating in the Delta.

BOTTOM LINE: The new NOP is just the old WaterFix with one tunnel instead of two, but none of the issues have been resolved.

A California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Scoping Meeting Slide:

Some of us would like to start with some earlier milestones:

• June 8, 1982 – The voters soundly reject the California Proposition 9, the Peripheral Canal Act.
• August 27, 2014 – DWR announce postponement of the BDCP Tunnels due to comments received. “The comments revealed that certain areas of the plan need additional study.”
• August 28, 2014 – The EPA submits a 43-page report warning that the Delta Tunnels could violate Federal law.”
• July 10, 2015 – Revised BDCP Plan (now called the “California Water Fix”) was released with only the Tunnel portion. Another plan, “EcoRestore” is the habitat restoration plan. [Comment: Has anyone heard anything about EcoRestore in the last five years? Crickets.]

Ah well, bygones. The list of key milestones presented by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) at the beginning of each of their Single Tunnel Scoping Meetings begins:

• July 2017 – DWR approved a two-tunnel conveyance project (California WaterFix).
• February 2019 – Gov. Newsom announced support for a single tunnel conveyance project.

Wait a minute here. That leaves out some very pertinent milestones.

• November 2018 – The Delta Stewardship Council Staff recommended that WaterFix failed to meet the requirements to be incorporated into the Delta Plan. The certification for the Delta Plan was a requirement before DWR could obtain their permit for the tunnel intakes in the north. The plan should be remanded to DWR to fix. This was a big win for STCDA and others. Why did the Staff say not to sign off on WaterFix?
  • DWR didn’t use the latest “Best Available Science.”
  • The water suppliers hadn’t addressed “Reduce Reliance on the Delta through Improved Regional Water Self- Reliance.”
  • California WaterFix will have a significant adverse environmental impact.
  • WaterFix desn’t meet the Delta flow objectives.
  • And the biggie: WaterFix conflicts with land uses in existing Delta communities, conflicts with existing land uses due to impacts on cultural and historical resources, conflicts with existing Delta parks and recreation uses, traffic impacts, and conflicts with existing land uses due to noise impacts.

  The Staff recommended that the Council remand the matter to the Department for reconsideration.

• December 2018 – Rather than wait for WaterFix to be officially ruled as “inconsistent” with the Delta Plan (hence unable to be built), DWR withdrew its certification request.

They ignored those two major milestones, significant wins for STCDA.

Then yes, in May 2019 DWR finally withdrew WaterFix. Up until that time, DWR had still been trying to pretend one tunnel would “fix” the problems with the twin tunnels and trying to move forward without writing a new plan or new Environmental Impact Report (EIR). But taken before a judge, it was clear that DWR couldn’t have it both ways. The DWR finally accepted the fact that they would need to write a new plan and a new EIR. In January they issued the Single Tunnel Notice of Preparation.

But wait . . . they didn’t “rewrite” the plan. The new plan has the same issues as the old, rejected plan. How does simply going from two tunnels to one solve the problems? Unless the Eastern Corridor is selected, all of the in-Delta impacts remain the same. And regardless of tunnel route, the impacts to the legacy communities in the North have not been corrected.

As far as “Reduced Reliance on the Delta through Improved Regional Self-Sufficiency,” a tunnel will never do that. A tunnel will increase reliance.

For L.A. to improve regional self-sufficiency, there needs to be a ten-year goal to stop pumping Delta water up over the Tehachapis to L.A. The State Water Project is the biggest consumer of electricity in the state yet, ironically, a priority of the Single Tunnel objectives to address climate change. The Delta water should be replaced with desalination, recycling, and conservation, such as replacing L.A.’s lawns with drought-resistant landscaping.

The Central Valley can reduce reliance on the Delta by desalination for Santa Barbara which now uses Delta water pumped over the coastal range. Some have proposed pumping ocean salt water pumped to the Central Valley to desalination plants there. There are plenty of areas in the Central Valley with damaged land laced with salts and selenium. More salt from a desalination plant will not be an environmental issue there. But of course, the Central Valley’s biggest issue is the loss of their aquifers. The Tulare Lake used to provide a natural percolation pond effect for those wells. At times of high rain, we should implement an approach to recharge ground water. Santa Clara Valley Water District has a good approach using Vasona Lake (water from Lexington Reservoir) as both a percolation pond and a nice park. A Tulare Lake replacement is needed. And, of course, a logical change would be to better manage what crops are right to be grown in the arid desert land there instead of orchards and almonds. To quote Dr. Michael, “As water becomes more scarce, but it may be less costly and more efficient to move crops, farm workers, and capital to more water rich locations in the Valley than it is to move water long distances out of watersheds.”

There are better alternatives to a tunnel that need to be evaluated.

Say what?

The “Central Corridor” tunnel route goes through the largest natural gas field in California, the Rio Vista gas fields. At the Stakeholder Engagement Committee Meeting on Wednesday, February 12, Karen Mann, South Delta Local Business representative, asked the Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority (DCA) engineer about how they tunnel through gas fields.

She asked, “Don’t you build a tunnel in a straight line?”
Kathryn Mallon, lead DCA Engineer, answered, “Yes that is what we like to do.”
Karen then asked, “What happens if you accidentally pierce a gas or water pocket underground.”
The engineer presenting the slides replied that the gas was 1,000 feet underground so no worry.

Really?

Rio Vista Gas Fields

DCA is an organization established by the water contractors, primarily Metropolitan Water District (MWD), assigned to work on the design of the Single Tunnel project.

MWD has a history of ignoring risks. MWD ignored warnings of gas fields when tunneling the Sylmar Tunnel from the Castaic Reservoir (which is Delta water) to L.A. First came the smell of gas, then the blast that killed 17 miners deep beneath the San Fernando Valley neighborhood of Sylmar.

MWD is again ignoring the risk.

For more details on tunneling through gas fields, please see California Water Research’s report on Tunnel Construction and Gas Wells