Smoke And Mirrors

Voluntary Agreements Purport to Add Water and Habitat, But Might Actually Worsen Conditions for the Bay-Delta Estuary, Rivers, and Native Fish and Wildlife

California’s Bay-Delta estuary is in crisis. Climate change and unsustainable water diversions from the watershed are leading toward the extinction of winter-run Chinook salmon, Delta Smelt, orcas, and other endangered species. This crisis threatens thousands of fishing jobs and decreases water supply reliability. The best available science makes clear that significant increases in water flowing into and through the Delta in most years are necessary to restore our native fish and wildlife. The time to act is now.

Saving the Delta will require a Portfolio Approach that pairs state investments in new water supply projects outside of the Delta to improve water supply reliability, floodplain habitat restoration projects, and significant increases in flow through the estuary and into San Francisco Bay. Many environmental and fishing organizations believe that voluntary agreements (VA’s) can be effective tools to implement new water quality standards and help restore the Bay-Delta. But any durable solution, regulatory or voluntary, must be supported by scientifically credible analysis that it will prevent extinction and achieve the salmon doubling objective required by state and federal law. The VA’s outlined by the Brown Administration in December 2018, and the additional partial project descriptions presented to state regulators on March 1, 2019, purport to be a package of flows, habitat and other measures that will protect the estuary without the need for new regulations.

Unfortunately, these VA’s will not protect and restore the Delta. Our organizations strongly oppose these VA outlines because they:

1. Double-count habitat restoration projects that are already required or planned using existing funds, and that would occur without such an agreement;

2. Fail to provide sufficient flow increases to protect and restore the Bay-Delta estuary, its native fish and wildlife, and the thousands of jobs that depend on it;

3. Fail to include any restrictions on Delta pumping and other operations of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP); such restrictions are necessary to prevent the water projects from diverting any additional flow provided from upstream farms and cities and to prevent the Trump Administration from gutting Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for the Bay-Delta;

4. Fail to include carryover storage requirements in upstream reservoirs to ensure water supplies for future droughts and adequate water temperatures for salmon;

5. Fail to use the transparent approach of flow standards based on a percentage of unimpaired flows, and instead uses the failed approach of State Water Board Decision 1641;

6. Fail to ensure that Bay-Delta standards will be enforced and will respond to new scientific information; and

7. Fail to include investments in water supply reliability and economic development projects that will help cities and farms adapt to a future with less water diverted from the Bay-Delta.

Click here to continue reading.

Water District lawsuit jeopardizes future projects

The Santa Clara Valley Water District made a grave miscalculation in suing the State Water Board over the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. By alienating the remnants of the environmental community who have supported them in recent years, they are jeopardizing future projects and funding measures that will require voter approval.

Santa Clara County residents care deeply about the environment. A public opinion poll conducted by San Jose State University found that environmental protection was the top motivator for people to conserve water.

Similarly, a poll commissioned by the Water District found that 84% of those surveyed believed the following argument was convincing: “Using recycled water is good for our environment. The more recycled water we use, the less we have to take out of rivers and streams and our scarce groundwater supplies. That’s good for rivers, streams, and the fish, plants and wildlife that rely on them.”

In the same poll, statements about the importance of protecting water supply and being prepared for droughts each received 73% – 11 points lower than the environmental argument. The survey also found that environmentalists and medical professionals are the best messengers for delivering the benefits of potable reuse (purifying wastewater to augment drinking water supply).

The Water District had little to gain and a lot to lose by suing the State Water Board. To recap the lawsuit, on December 12 the Water Board adopted new instream flow standards for the lower San Joaquin River and its three main tributaries, including the Tuolumne River. This was the first of several revisions to the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan, which hasn’t been updated since 1995. Meanwhile the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem – starved of freshwater inflow – has spiraled into collapse.

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) relies on the Tuolumne (which fills the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir) for most of its water. The Water District’s supply, on the other hand, was not directly affected by the Water Board’s decision. However, with the SFPUC providing 15% of the water used in Santa Clara County, the District apparently felt the need to intervene.

Rather than conduct its own analysis, the District simply accepted the SFPUC’s narrative, which is based on false and misleading information. In reality, the SFPUC has little to worry about. At current water demand, the SFPUC could manage any drought on record, even with the new flow standards in place. Yet the SFPUC claims the Bay Delta Plan could lead to 40 to 50% rationing. How could this be possible?

The answer is that the SFPUC has manufactured a “design drought,” which arbitrarily couples two of the worst droughts from the last century. They also assume water demand will increase by 26% to support all of the development projected for the region. Under their policy, every year is either the beginning or middle of the “design drought,” so severe rationing would have to begin immediately. Even if all of their reservoirs were full – enough water to last six years – people would be forced to ration.

The Water District, on the other hand, currently plans for a three-year drought, yet they appear to accept the SFPUC’s 8.5-year “design drought” scenario as prudent. It would be virtually impossible for the Water District to manage such a drought, so they better hope their customers don’t demand similar planning.

When people learn that the water they conserve, or the recycled water they’re asked to drink, does not benefit the environment, but instead just enables more development, they will think twice about who and what they vote for. The Water District must do more than feign concern for the environment. If they want support from the environmental community, they would be wise to drop their lawsuit immediately.

Peter Drekmeier is the Policy Director for the Tuolumne River Trust. He formerly served on the Palo Alto City Council and Santa Clara Valley Water Commission.

 

Original article: Mercury News (January 23, 2019) https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/23/opinion-water-district-lawsuit-jeopardizes-future-projects/

Photo Courtesy of Dino Vournas

State Water Board Approves Bay Delta Plan, 40% Flows

The vote is in!

On Wednesday, the State of California Water Resources Control Board approved mandatory flow requirements on the Tuolumne starting at 40% (between February and June). The 4-1 vote came after 10 hours of testimony and deliberation.

Other state agencies used typical bait-and-switch tactics at a glorified attempt of demonstrating good faith “collaboration over conflict” with their proposed “compromise” agreement. Don’t be fooled by this cloying.

As our Policy Director, Peter Drekmeier, shares, “The proposed Tuolumne River settlement is essentially what the water agencies have been offering for the past few years, and we know it won’t work. Similar proposals in the past have always failed due to the lack of adequate instream flows.”

As the “powerful bloc” (and uncanny bedfellows) of SF Water, Power, Sewer (SFPUC) and Central Valley irrigation districts prepare to counter attack with the help of the Trump administration, we must remain vigilant.

Many thanks to our allies and friends Trout UnlimitedNRDCThe Bay Institute, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Friends of the San Francisco EstuaryGolden Gate Salmon AssociationFriends of the RiverSan Francisco BaykeeperDefenders of WildlifePacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s AssociationsAmerican RiversRestore the DeltaSierra Club

California Adopts Landmark River Plan to Bring Back Salmon

As published by KQED Science on December 13, 2018

In a landmark vote, California water officials adopted a revolutionary water plan on Wednesday, aimed at restoring the state’s ailing rivers. But they left the door open for a future compromise with the water districts that would bear the brunt of the plan.

The vote means that some water districts, such as San Francisco’s, would likely get less water in order to keep more in the rivers where salmon populations have crashed.

The state water board’s plan, almost 10 years in the making and delayed several times, was thrown another curveball by last-minute negotiations between water districts and the Brown Administration.

In the face of tightening supplies, the board asked water users several years ago to put together their own agreement to share water and boost habitat for salmon.

In the hours before the water board’s vote, a tentative agreement had been reached on one river, but not others, so the board voted 4-1 to move ahead.

“Commercial salmon fisherman have experienced decades of disastrous decline,” said Noah Oppenheim, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman’s Association. “Today’s vote could be the turning of the tide.”

The vote means that some water districts, such as San Francisco’s, would likely get less water in order to keep more in the rivers where salmon populations have crashed.

The voluntary agreements are still on the table and could be adopted later on. State officials say they could include an even broader array of water districts with millions of dollars in restoration, potentially becoming a “great compromise” of California’s water wars.

What’s at Stake

The plan affects rivers flowing down from the Sierra Nevada, which are heavily used by both farms and cities. In some years, 90 percent of the water is siphoned off.

That’s contributed to a crash in salmon populations, down from around 70,000 in the mid-1980s to about 10,000 in 2017.

So, the state water board has drafted a plan to boost the flows on three rivers, the Tuolumne, Stanislaus and Merced, as part of a water quality analysis for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that hasn’t been updated for more than 20 years.

“Science shows the delta has been out of balance far too long and is in ecological crisis,” said water board chair Felicia Marcus.

Water districts cried foul, saying the plan would mean losing water that feeds their local economies. That included the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which supplies millions of Bay Area residents with water from the Tuolumne River.Wildlife groups said the flows wouldn’t be nearly enough to bring salmon back.

“This is not easy,” said Marcus. “This is one of the hardest decisions the board has had to make.”

The divisive debate fit a familiar script in California water of “fish vs. farms,” so the water board put out a challenge: Water districts could come up with their own plan to share water.

The negotiations began, stalled and picked up again. The water board delayed its vote, twice, to give the parties more time.

On Wednesday, state officials presented the water board with the outline of a settlement on the Tuolumne River. Water users on the Stanislaus and Merced couldn’t come to an agreement.

Still, the agreement went beyond the Tuolumne River, including the Sacramento River and other tributaries. The water board is scheduled to consider the flows on those rivers in the next phase of its water quality plan.

Depending on your view, the agreements are either a rare moment of groundbreaking cooperation or a last-ditch effort to delay something long overdue.

“I view this as a way to come up with a comprehensive solution for the Bay-Delta,” said Michael Carlin of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. “If you look at the whole system, that’s how you recover the fishery.”

The plans include habitat restoration, seasonal water flows for salmon and fallowing thousands of acres of land to free up water.

Still, environmental groups were quick to point out, the plans likely won’t provide the river flows currently in the water board’s plan.

“On the Tuolumne River, it really doesn’t represent that significant an improvement over existing conditions in many ways,” said Gary Bobker of the Bay Institute.

“While there was a lot of lipstick that was presented today, underlying that seems to be a pig in the poke,” said Doug Obegi of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The water board plans to do an environmental analysis on the voluntary agreements, which are expected to be more fleshed out by March.

Some water districts cautioned that the agreements may fall apart if the board voted to adopt the flow plan.

“There’s a risk, in my opinion, that we’re all going to be diverted into other processes and that very elusive thing called momentum might be lost,” said Kevin O’Brien, an attorney representing water districts on the Sacramento River.

To actually return water to the rivers, the water board will undertake a water rights review, which could limit some of the oldest water rights holders in the state. Litigation will almost certainly follow.

Article by Lauren Sommer

Original article can be found at https://www.kqed.org/science/1935707/california-water-officials-say-find-way-to-share-water-or-well-do-it-for-you?fbclid=IwAR1MhI9Gim8VWdzCMZhReY1qpSZ-aYr4VMs_axjuj1kGcehqxOK3hkeBuVQ

KQED Forum Discussion

A plan to restore rivers and salmon habitat is pitting environmentalists against the city of San Francisco. Originating in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, the rivers are diverted to provide water to farms and cities across California. Now, the State Water Resources Control Board has proposed its Bay Delta Plan, which would reinstate 40 percent of the flow to rivers and help the struggling salmon. Critics of the Bay Delta Plan — including the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission — say it would lead to mandatory water restrictions and raise the cost of water. Meanwhile, some farmers in the Central Valley say the plan will cost jobs. Listen in as TRT Policy Director Peter Drekmeier discusses this latest chapter in California’s water wars with Michael Carlin of the SFPUC, KQED staff, and listeners.

Guests:

Lauren Sommer, science and environment reporter, KQED

Peter Drekmeier, policy director, Tuolumne River Trust

Michael Carlin, deputy general manager, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission