Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA)

Shown above leaving the hearings: Mike Guzzardo, Jan McCleery, and Captain Frank Morgan.

STCDA is working with other Delta advocates to stop the tunnels by protesting the state’s attempt to get a permit to take water directly from the Sacramento River. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is currently holding hearings on whether or not to grant this permit. Part I of the hearings are ongoing now; Part II will continue through 2017.

STCDA’s “day in court” was Tuesday Nov 30th. Jan McCleery, Captain Frank Morgan, and Mike Guzzardo represented the Discovery Bay/South Delta viewpoint. In addition, STCDA had hired two expert scientific witnesses to discuss water quality affects from the tunnels on Discovery Bay and the South Delta. Michael Brodsky, STCDA’s legal council, represented us.
First Michael B. provided opening remarks. Next were testimonies of STCDA’s two expert witnesses about how the tunnels would adversely affect Discovery Bay water. Jan’s testimony was about how Discovery Bay relies on fresh water as a community. Frank talked about his tourism business and the algae problem and invasive weeds. Mike G. testified about real estate issues we have already faced due to the toxic algae and how real estate values will go down if the tunnels go in.

It was difficult for us to make some of our key points because Part I does not include recreation, so everything about how we are a boating community and the effect of boating, swimming, or fishing on our economy and lives was censored from our testimonies until Part II. (Yes “censored” – actually redlined out.) After our testimonies, we were cross-examined by DWR lawyers who tried to pick apart our testimonies.

In summary, Brodsky made points about how the Delta Tunnel plan has missing operational procedures and rules that Discovery Bay and the South Delta needs to keep our water fresh. He provided key reasons why the EIR is inadequate and needs to be re-done. Hopefully the SWRCB will have many reasons to not to give the state a permit.

Part I was the economic impact. Part II (next year) includes the impact on Recreation.

This is June’s “Water War Update” Bay and Delta Yachtsman Magazine – Delta Rat Scrapbook – it deserves wider readership. Thanks to Bill Wells, “Delta Rat Scrapbook” writer for his continual efforts in support of the Delta:

“If you live in Northern California you are aware of the current scandal involving Linda Katehi, Chancellor of the University of California at Davis (UCD), hiring consultants to improve her image after students were pepper sprayed by campus police a while back.

I won’t go into all the sordid details here, but according to the Sacramento Bee newspaper, the university spent taxpayer funds to spy on local reporter, Dan Bacher. Dan is a friend of mine, and one of the best investigative journalists in California. He writes for the Fish Sniffer, the River News Herald & Isleton Journal, and other local publications.

Now, many of the scientists at UCD are involved with the Brown/Laird plan to divert the Sacramento River around the Delta via twin forty-four foot diameter tunnels, so I did not think it was much of a stretch to think they would want to keep an eye on Dan.

I asked him what was going on and he showed me a link to a UCD website that names Stuart Resnick and Riley Bechtel as two of Katehi’s advisors. Resnick is a California land and water baron, and a user of a lot of Delta water. Bechtel is the Chairman of the Board of Bechtel Corporation, a company that stands to get a lot of business if construction ever begins on the tunnels. According to my usually reliable sources at UCD, Katehi’s husband teaches a course in ethics at the university.”

My own comments: Maybe it’s just a “coincidence,” but during the whole BDCP/Delta Tunnels/California WaterFix debates, I have continued to be surprised that the UC Davis Scientists continued to weigh in favorably on the Tunnels, contrary to other independent scientists. Just saying . . .

Bay and Delta Yachtsman Magazine – Delta Rat Scrapbook.

(Revised 6/1)
Our Legal Council, Michael Brodsky, sent me an email last week saying “We Won!” He was referring to our law suit against the Delta Plan. After reviewing the legal document (ilk – legalese) I realized that not only did we win our law suit, but how great a lawyer Michael Brodsky is. We are so lucky we have him! Oh, and by the way, he has never charged us for his legal fees. And the time he has spent on Delta issues is, to quote Bernie, YUGE.

Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA) was one of many plaintiffs who had filed suits against the Delta Plan, saying The Delta Plan promoted the tunnels and failed to protect the Delta or the environment.

Because of our win, the Delta Plan will need to be revised to include quantified or otherwise measurable targets associated with restoring more natural flows as required by the Delta Reform Act. This is big!

The plan also needs to incorporate options for water conveyance and storage systems. The loss of ground water storage and no mechanism for recharging the water table has been a center of our arguments from the start.

In addition, two suits were filed by the water contractors, saying The Delta Plan didn’t guarantee them enough water. Go figure.

The stacks of legalese that Michael submitted was amazing. He then attended multiple hearings and argued our case. To remind everyone, Mr. Brodsky has worked tirelessly on behalf of the Delta since the community met him in 2009.

October 2009 was the first Town Hall Meeting held in the Discovery Bay Elementary Gym. The purpose – to hear from the USBR about why they were planning on installing two dams in our waterways – one dam blocking boat traffic on Old River between Discovery Bay and Bethel Island, the other dam on Connection Slough between Mildred and Bethel. The two together would have totally blocked boat traffic whenever the Bacon Island Bridge was non-operational – and back then, it only operated certain hours and certain days, IF it wasn’t down for maintenance issues. The USBR was calling them “Fish Protection Gates” and claimed boat traffic could pass through on ebb tides. The gates would be open for 5-10 minutes every six hours, with the timing depending on the tides. Try to plan your boating excursion around that! So for most of us boaters, we considered them dams. The USBR also said they would only operate part of the year. But, the structure would narrow the river from 180 feet to 75 feet wide. It reminded me of the issue we had in Canada, going through narrow channels. That would create a class 3 rapid during the time of year when not operational and a boat tried to traverse it any time other than ebb tide. No thank you – I’m not taking my boat through there, ever.

The gym was packed to the hilt. The USBR representatives were taken aback. The night before, they had met with a small group of farmers in Fresno, about fifteen, who were very happy about the prospect of installing these gates/dams. Happy, because they were told that then the pumps could export even more water to them. That the gates/dams would block the Delta smelt from getting into the pumps and stop judges’ orders from halting the pumps. THEN they came to Discovery Bay. Five hundred angry boaters and citizens greeted them.

They gave their briefing about the benefits of these so-called Fish Protection Gates. I asked them about what the boaters were supposed to do. They responded with, “They can just go the other way when the gate on Old River is closed.”

I asked, “The other way? What about the Bacon Island Bridge? Will it be operational 24×7?”

They looked at each other and said, “Bridge?” They didn’t even know there was a bridge on Middle River that was often closed and which big boats couldn’t fit under.

But it was when Michael Brodsky stood up, that the meeting took a turn for the worse (for the USBR Project Managers doing the briefing). None of us knew who he was. An articulate, gentleman, who asked to be heard and strode to the front of the room to speak with the presenters.

“I’m a resident of Discovery Bay,” he started. “Why wasn’t I informed about this meeting until the last minute? I just saw signs as I drove into the community tonight?”

The USBR Project Manager hemmed and hawed. His opening statements reminded me a bit of Columbo, starting simple, then getting to the meat.

“Furthermore,” he continued, “I wondered what approval you are planning on before installing these gates. Have you filed your NEPA papers? Your CEQA?”

“Huh?” we in the audience looked at each other. “What’s that?”

The USBR Project Manager said, “We don’t need to file a CEQA report, or a NEPA. These are temporary gates”

“Yes you do,” the stranger countered. And he started listing off the reasons why this project needed to follow all of the National Environmental Protection Act and California Environmental Quality Act requirements.

Then he really got them. He said, “And what about the erosion behind the gates?” He had a more technical term for it. “Have you studied the erosion that will occur to the levees?”

The female project manager replied, “No, there will be no erosion . . ,” while her boss, standing next to her leaned over to her and said, “Yes there will be.”

We didn’t know him at the time, but Michael Brodsky has become the most valuable asset this community and the Delta has. He wouldn’t admit it, though.

Summary of the Delta Plan Lawsuit

There were seven lawsuits filed in all. Two were filed by water contractors (Metropolitan Water District, Westlands Water District, etc.) who rob us of our Delta water. They wanted to weaken what little Delta protections were contained in the Delta Plan. They lost on all points. Another suit was filed by the City of Stockton. Stockton argued that less water should be exported from the Delta, but unfortunately was unsuccessful.

Three other suits were filed by a number of local water agencies, Delta farmers, and environmental groups. And finally, there was our lawsuit. We worked closely with the three other “white hat” groups and all four lawsuits were successful in winning additional protections for the Delta and making it a bit more difficult for the water contractors to go forward with the tunnels. All of the white hat lawsuits made important contributions to the final victory.

The other good guys in these cases on our side are: California Water Impact Network, Friends of the River, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, AquAlliance, Restore the Delta, Center for Biological Diversity, Central Delta Water Agency, Lafayette Ranch, Local Agencies of the North Delta, Cindy Charles, North Coast Rivers Alliance, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association, and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe.

The bottom line is that the Delta Plan will have to show a meaningful effort to reduce reliance on the Delta as a source of exported water, do more to reduce harm from invasive species (including those nasty weeds!), do more to restore freshwater flows and put some numbers on how much water should be left flowing through the Delta, and promote options for conveyance and storage solutions. This last point means the Delta plan may not simply rubber stamp the tunnels.

We should be able to recover our court costs and may be able to recover some attorney fees from the losing parties, but the attorneys have to go back to argue for their legal fees.

I’m hoping Michael gets some his fees awarded – he deserves it! We are so lucky to have him.

However, there are three or four major cases still to go if we are to completely stop the tunnels. It could take years to collect any attorney fees from the Delta Plan lawsuit, so please donate so we can keep up the battle!

Or send donation check made out to “STCDA” and mail to:

STCDA
P.O. Box 1760
Discovery Bay, CA 94505

Good Sac Bee article May 7, Should California’s striped bass be vilified as native-fish killers? that investigates the question whether bass predation on salmon is part of the salmon decline. The article clearly concludes that no, they are not the problem at all. The only groups that are trying to push that idea, are those related to the Central Valley farmers. And, in fact, Sean Hayes, NOAA, says even if the bass were removed, other predators would take their place. Removing the bass would mess up the food chain, and bass eat only a small proportion.

But, as we know, the CV farmers and their advocates keep looking for “solutions” to the Delta problem without admitting it’s the water.

Then today, in the bee, I read a letter to the editor, grrrr:

Eliminate bass, save the salmon”

Re “In state’s water wars, striped bass vilified as predators of native fish” (Insight, May 7): An April 19 report to the state Water Resources Control Board by Dr. Sean Hayes of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration discussed multiple stresses that impact salmon. Hayes’ study confirmed the results of 25 years of similar studies: As few as 3 percent of migrating salmon survive their Delta journey.

Eliminating predatory bass and catfish won’t entirely solve problems in the Delta. Addressing hot spots in numerous areas where salmon numbers suffer their greatest losses should be the first focus of predator control, reducing effects of nonnative species in the Delta.

Allowing unrestricted fishing for bass or other predators in those areas would reduce risk to endangered salmon. That’s a step in the right direction toward a healthier Delta for everyone.

Mike Wade, Sacramento

Hmm, I thought. The Mike Wade I always see commenting on every Delta article is not from Sacramento. So I found an article from last month submitted to the Merced Sun-Star by Mike Wade, Modesto, Executive Director of the California Farm Water Coalition, a name I see often on rebuttal comments to any pro-Delta articles on the internet. The article, “What’s Eating the Salmon,” http://www.mercedsunstar.com/article73248392.html, had the same statements as the “other” Mike Wade’s LTE, opposite of what the Sac Bee article below states.

If you read in the article what Dr. Sean Hayes actually said, Mike Wade says the opposite. That’s just so cheeky. And such a ploy. Quote someone with great credentials, but twist what he says to make it sound like he said the opposite.

So I wrote my own LTE:

Title: It’s not the bass, it’s the water

Re: Eliminate bass, save the salmon (LTE May 18). The LTE submitted by Mike Wade, Sacramento, echoes a Merced Sun-Star article written last month by Mike Wade, Modesto, who is the Executive Director of the California Farm Water Coalition, the ongoing voice for farmers in the Central Valley.

That bass are a culprit in the decline of salmon has been rejected by the Fish & Game and by most scientists. Blaming the bass is just a decoy in the water wars. After a contentious meeting in Sacramento four or five years ago, where a prominent Delta commercial bass fisherman was pushing the Legislature to reduce water exports in order to improve the Delta for all fish species, one of the Central Valley water representatives was overheard to say, “Wait until he sees what we do to his bass!” Shortly after that, Central Valley representatives started pushing legislation attacking the bass.

The Delta problem is clear. The Delta needs more water flowing through it. The export levels increased significantly during the first decade of this century. The salmon and bass both declined as a result. Water flowing to the ocean isn’t “wasted,” as the farmers believe. It flushes out the Delta, taking the salmon with it to return to the ocean. It flushes out and cleanses the SF Bay. Increased exports and overplanting the Central Valley with orchards caused the demise of salmon, influx of invasive plant species, and lower water quality in the Delta. Other stressors exist, no doubt. But without enough fresh water, no other “improvements” can save the Delta.

Jan McCleery, Discovery Bay

We had put the word out to try to get attendees to the Contra Costa Water District meeting last Wednesday, to complain about the CCWD deal with the Delta Tunnels. We wanted people to complain because the CCWD negotiated a secret closed-door deal with the DWR to drop their protest against the salt water intrusion caused by too much pumping in exchange for a guaranteed slice of the pie. See the East Bay Times Editorial. Their deal secretly cut a deal that sold out their constituents as well as Delta fish and farmers.

Did anyone try to attend the meeting? I know lots of people started submitting comments opposing the action.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/editorial/ci_29742556/east-bay-times-editorial-secret-twin-tunnels-deal

In the previous post, I disclosed that the Contra Costa Water District has sold out to the DWR on the Delta Tunnels.

Contra Costa Water District Sells Out

They aren’t the only Northern California water district to follow this route. Santa Clara Valley Water District is also working on an agreement with the DWR.

If you live in the Santa Clara Valley, protest their plans to support the California Water Fix. Go to their website, find their contact form, and submit your comments.

Our comments count!

The Contra Costa Water District is “selling out” to the DWR/State on the Delta Tunnels.

ACTION(S): Attend the meeting Wednesday April 7 at 6:30 or, if you cannot, send in your complaints via their website contact page. Or do both!

Background:

The CCWD signed a “deal” with the DWR is selling the Delta down-the-river. The district had agreed to withdraw its protests against the twin tunnels in exchange for getting a big slug of higher-quality Sacramento River water from the new tunnels.

Really? Well, the water district claims it wouldn’t be getting any more water than before, but just taking some of it directly from the Sacramento.

Let’s think about this. Why would the DWR give CCWD this “free” water? If the CCWD pumps were going to be able to continue to supply water to Los Vaqueros Reservoir for Contra Costa users, what is the problem? The DWR keeps claiming that the new tunnels will not affect Delta water quality, that they would be operated responsibly, blah, blah, blah.

Obviously, by settling, the State is “admitting” that there will be adverse impacts from the California WaterFix project on water quality. That also points out the inadequacy (or errors) of the modeling and environmental impact analyses carried out by DWR and Reclamation.

What can you do? COMPLAIN to the CCWD about this deal.

ACTION 1

The CCWD will be holding a public board meeting this week:
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
6:30 – 9:00 PM (Meet at 6:20 if you want to group with others protesting the action)
Where: 1331 Concord Avenue, Concord, CA
That is the best way to insure they see the public is opposed to this action!

What if you, like me, can’t make that meeting?

ACTION 2

Send your complaints directly to their General Manager, Jerry Brown (yes, there’s another Jerry Brown mucking with our Delta).

Go to their website contact form.

Enter the required fields and in the Comments, it is important to start with:
TO: Jerry Brown, General Manager. This will insure the route it directly to him.

Sample Comments (replace/reword with anything you feel appropriate):
TO: Jerry Brown, General Manager.
I oppose having the CCWD sign the CCWD “deal” with the DWR. If the DWR and the Delta Tunnels are truly going to be operated responsibly, as the state claims, then there is no need for “Insurance.” Signing this agreement is a vote for the Delta Tunnels, a vote to let the state destroy the rich fertile farmland in the Delta, a vote to turn the estuary into brackish saltwater. This agreement helps the state move ahead with their tunnels. If the tunnels turn the Delta into saltwater, will you have communities to serve? If the farmlands turn salty, if the fine Brentwood corn can no longer be grown here, what will happen to the communities your water district serves?

This is not an “insurance policy,” it is bad business. Please do not sign this agreement.

Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA) would like to “Welcome Aboard” a new Board Member. Susan Silva is now the Treasurer of STCDA.

Susan has boated in the Delta for 29 years and says, “The delta is my home, and I am passionate about restoring and protecting the Delta, farmers, communities, bird life.” She and her husband, Terry, are members of the DBYC and the Weber Point Yacht Club.

Her financial background includes 45 years in construction accounting – all aspects of financial accounting including AR, AP, banking, monthly financial statements, and audits with 2 employers.

Susan will be replacing Judy Smith who is moving to Bend, Oregon. We would like to express our great thanks to Judy for being our Treasurer for the past years and handling the job so effectively and well, as well as passing out flyers and providing other support at various events. And for being such a pleasure to work with. She will be missed.

Dams, Dams, and more Dams:

• Some Won/Some Lost: The state partially listened to concerned communities (Good) but still installed one of the three proposed salinity dams this year, the False River Dam (Bad). That dam caused the destruction and damage the locals were concerned it would (Bad). It was removed when promised (before the salmon runs) in November (Good). The state is proposing to install the False River Dam again in April (Bad).
• Even More Dams?: Five more gates (or dams) have been proposed, but to-date this remains a study and has not gone forward for review.

Bad Legislation:

• Good News: Another bad Bill sponsored by the San Joaquin agricultural members which would have devastated the Central Valley salmon populations was brought up to the new 2015 Congress in January but did not pass the Senate. The fish win.
• Bad Executive Order: In April, Gov. Brown issued Executive Order B-29-15 which streamlined the permitting and review of emergency drought salinity barriers (and expedited the False River Dam).

California WaterFix (aka Delta Tunnels):

• Here Comes the New Plan (Same as the Old Plan): Gov. Brown released a new plan in July 2015 to replace the defeated BDCP Tunnel Plan, named the “California WaterFix.” It is the same old BDCP plan regarding the Tunnels, but without any pretense that it will help the Delta or the environment.
• Rushed Comment Period: Two pseudo-meetings were held in the Northern Delta in July. Protesters attended. The scene was like something from the 1960s at Berkeley. Hundreds crowded onto the sidewalk in front of the Sacramento Grand Sheraton protesting to an un-listening governor bent on building water tunnels. Thousands of comments opposing the tunnels were submitted.
• The permitting process started for the Delta Tunnels. The Army Corp of Engineers has not been open to postponing the permit process until the California WaterFix EIR is final, nor were they willing to come to Discovery Bay so that communities in the South could meet with them. (Bad)
• SWRCB Hearings Announced: The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) announced the schedule for hearings in 2016 concerning the permits for the tunnels. This is the next battlefront. STCDA is preparing their protest to submit by January 5, as required by the STCDA process. The battle continues into 2016. This could be a positive turning point against the Delta Tunnels. (That would be Good).

Four Delta Island Proposal

• Metropolitan Water District plus two large Central Valley water districts push to buy four Delta islands (Bad).
• At the end of 2015, the deal had not been completed because of prior restrictions on those islands’ use (Good).

Westland’s Wins – Northern California’s Losses:

• In August, Westlands farmers try to destroy the Klamath Basin. Destroying the Delta isn’t enough for them. (Bad)
• In September, a bad-for-the-Delta agreement was reached between the U.S. Government and Westlands which would relieve Westlands of its $350 million debt for their portion of the Central Valley Project and would lift limits on the size of Westlands farms eligible for subsidized water deliveries. As of the end of the year, this has not yet been approved by Congress.

2015 Progress Made:

• Working Together: While the California WaterFix (Delta Tunnels) plan is still high on Gov. Brown’s must-do list, the Northern California legislators, communities, boaters, and environmental groups continue to be united in battling to defeat the tunnels. No, Gov. Brown. We will not “Shut Up,” nor will we stop educating the public on the damage the tunnels would do. More people are understanding the real issues involved with the Delta Tunnel. Our legislators continue to work to replace the Delta Tunnels with viable water plans.
• Large Coalition Pushing the SWRCB to Reject the Plan: A large Coalition (including STCDA) sent a letter to the State Water Board, urging them to reject the demand by water agencies to abandon the ‘unimpaired flow’ approach in the update of the State Board’s update to the Delta’s water quality control plan. In other words, to do what the 2009 legislature dictated to the Delta Plan/BDCP: To start with the Delta Flows report. That report proves that the Delta cannot continue to be the single source of water for the state – other projects and plans are needed.
• Delta Independent Science Board Slam: In October, the Delta Independent Science Board Slams the California WaterFix.
• Four Delta Island proposal stalled: The Four Delta Island proposal is stymied and hopefully will not go through.
• STCDA ready to continue the Battle: The Save the California Delta Alliance Board of Directors vote to continue the battle into 2016. In addition, all of the Board members and our Legal Council have agreed to remain in their positions. (Thank you).

Happy 2016! Together we will Save the Delta!