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

Plan to revive rivers pits SF against California

Article by Kurtis Alexander

As published in the San Francisco Chronicle on Oct. 14, 2018

The rivers that once poured from the Sierra Nevada, thick with snowmelt and salmon, now languish amid relentless pumping, sometimes shriveling to a trickle and sparking a crisis for fish, wildlife and the people who rely on a healthy California delta.

A state plan to improve these flows and avert disaster, however, has been mired in conflict and delays. And critical opposition is coming from an unexpected place: progressive San Francisco. City water officials worry that the far-reaching effort to revive hundreds of miles of waterways will mean giving up too much of their precious mountain supplies.

Now, as the city water department works to defeat the state plan — pitting itself against environmental groups in an unlikely alliance with thirsty Central Valley farmers, as well as their backers in the Trump administration — some at City Hall have begun wondering if San Francisco is on the right side of California’s latest water war.

In a recent sign of an emerging divide, Supervisor Aaron Peskin is threatening to introduce a resolution that challenges the position of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and declares the city officially in support of the state’s river restoration.

“I’m concerned that the PUC is playing footsie with the Trump administration at the detriment of the environment,” Peskin told The Chronicle. “This is a city that prides itself on its environmental record, and we should be part of the solution.” 

Whether Peskin’s measure could force the largely independent Public Utilities Commission to change course is unclear. So is the resolution’s chance of winning approval from the full Board of Supervisors.

Peskin’s colleagues and those at the water agency remain concerned that forfeiting water, under the state plan, would prompt mandatory water cuts and drive up water rates as the city is compelled to seek out new, pricey supplies, such as desalination.

But what is clear is that, even without a successful resolution, the city’s rift is providing momentum for environmentalists advocating for the rivers. By putting the Public Utilities Commission in the spotlight, they hope to see more of a backlash, and in doing so weaken the hand of San Francisco, which they view as a major hurdle to the state’s effort to rescue the river system.

“The SFPUC is not representing the values of its residents,” said Peter Drekmeier, policy director of the Tuolumne River Trust. “We expect the Central Valley irrigation districts to oppose the plan. But San Francisco?”

“And, yes, (the city has) a lot of influence over this,” he said.

At issue is how much water should flow from the Sierra Nevada’s many rivers to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, a vital ecological and water-supply hub where the state’s two largest waterways converge. As it stands, most of the rivers feeding the delta run at only a fraction of their natural flow because of the heavy draws by cities and farms.

The result has been declining water quality and lost wildlife habitat. The chinook salmon population is collapsing, a blow that has reverberated up the food chain to eagles, orcas and beyond. The delta estuary is menaced with invasive weeds and pollution.

Under the plan, the State Water Resources Control Board is proposing that no more than 60 percent of the flows of the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, on average, be taken from the channels during certain months in the winter and spring. The average flow now is less than 30 percent. A similar proposal is forthcoming for the Sacramento River. 

State officials tout their effort, formally known as the Bay Delta Plan, as a compromise that will save the delta and the rivers while still leaving the bulk of the water for human consumption.

San Francisco and some of the state’s largest irrigation districts, however, contend they won’t get enough water to support their needs.

The Tuolumne River, the source of San Francisco’s famously pure Hetch Hetchy supply, averages just 21 percent of its historic flow at peak runoff. Meeting the state’s target would mean drawing 7 to 23 percent less water from the Tuolumne and other rivers in the San  Joaquin River watershed, according to state estimates.

Officials at the Public Utilities Commission acknowledge that in wet years there wouldn’t be any supply problems. But when it gets dry, they say, residents and businesses would invariably face water rationing — as much as a 40 percent reduction during a severe drought. Over the long run, as new water sources are developed, water rates could increase, they say, up to 17 percent over 15 years.

Much of the hardship would extend to the roughly two dozen Bay Area communities that purchase water from the city.

Michael Carlin, deputy general manager for the Public Utilities Commission, said the city agency is not ignoring the health of the river. The utility invests millions on restoring the Tuolumne’s habitat. But Carlin said he has to look at more than just fish.

“I’m responsible for clean drinking water and protecting the environment, and there’s a cost to doing both,” he said. “It’s a balance sometimes. People don’t always see that balance. But it’s there.”

Officials at the Public Utilities Commission were not aware of any formal push by the Board of Supervisors to block their opposition to the state’s effort, saying only that they had been in conversation with board members about the matter.

“I don’t think we’re going to change course at this point,” Carlin said.

San Francisco has played an outsize role in the statewide debate over the Bay Delta Plan.

While water issues often split between agricultural and urban interests, the city’s resistance to the plan has created an unusually powerful bloc with the farming industry to take on the state.

“I’m totally amazed that the State Water Board has been able to stick to their guns,” said Heinrich Albert, a water committee co-chair at the San Francisco Bay chapter of the Sierra Club. Albert has fought for the state’s initiative but acknowledges the city’s power to derail it.

The city-farm alliance has recently won the backing of the Trump administration. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke this summer criticized the Bay Delta Plan as being unfair to water users while President Trump has taken to Twitter to call the state “foolish” for not wanting to pump more water from rivers.

The latest show of support from Washington came as a subtle, yet surprising move by the Fish and Wildlife Service. This month, the agency shied away from what had been widely construed as an embrace of the Bay Delta Plan’s proposed flow increases. In a letter submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on a separate but related issue of dams on the Tuolumne River, the agency said its strategy for protecting wildlife habitat could be accommodated with lower river flows.

A spokesman for Fish and Wildlife called the change in direction necessary “to balance the needs of people and nature.” But supporters of the restoration were quick to suspect that the shift was the result of pressure from above.

Talks between water users and the state, mediated by former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt among others, have been ongoing. But so far they’ve produced no meeting of the minds. The State Water Board is scheduled to vote to approve the proposed targets for the San Joaquin River watershed next month. The decision has already been postponed once because of the disagreement.

Research by the state and independent scientists has shown that boosting water levels is the only way to salvage California’s river system. A technical report by the State Water Board has recommended maintaining at least 60 percent of the natural flow of the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, though the board is willing to accept 40 percent for the sake of compromise.

The city’s Public Utilities Commission, meanwhile, has put forth alternative research, backed by the Turlock and Modesto irrigation districts, that suggests that the Tuolumne River can be restored without drastically cutting back on the amount of water taken out.

The study, performed by water agency scientists, calls for more habitat improvements, from planting trees along the river banks to enhancing gravel beds for fish to removing the invasive creatures that prey on salmon.

Critics have dismissed the city’s report as simply self-serving.

Supervisor Peskin said he hopes the Public Utilities Commission will eventually stand down, and he’s been speaking with agency officials to encourage them to do so. If they don’t, though, he believes he’s got a good shot at forcing their hand.

A resolution from the Board of Supervisors that proclaims the city in support of the Bay Delta Plan would not necessarily require the Public Utilities Commission to adopt the city’s position. The water agency operates independently of City Hall, with its own governing board, budget and staff.

However, the supervisors hold certain powers over the Public Utilities Commission. They must approve large infrastructure bonds and sign off on budgets, for example, and Peskin said he’d leverage that authority if the agency declines to cooperate.

“The bottom line is that if the Board of Supervisors were to set the policy of the city and county as having larger, unimpaired flows (in the river system), that would be a pretty significant move,” Peskin said. “It would have both political and legal implications.”

At least two of San Francisco’s 11 supervisors have expressed formal support for the Public Utilities Commission in letters to the state. But Peskin believes he could win enough votes from the others to pass a resolution.

Mayor London Breed, who would have veto power over the measure, declined to comment for this story.

The governing board of the Public Utilities Commission, which typically doesn’t get involved in the day-to-day affairs of the agency, like lobbying against the Bay Delta Plan, appears to be taking a greater interest in the issue. The board is nominated by the mayor and approved by the supervisors.

Board member Francesca Vietor told The Chronicle that she has reservations about her agency’s stand.

“As a San Francisco resident and a commissioner, I’m not willing to compromise the well-being of our fish, rivers and ecosystems,” she said. “I’m not convinced we can’t get to a better set of solutions.”

Commissioner Ike Kwon also expressed concern for the health of the rivers but appeared more confident in his agency’s ability to protect both wildlands and water supplies.

“In a sense we’re all environmentalists,” he said, “just to a different degree.” 

 

Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer.

Email: kalexander@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @kurtisalexander