[env-trinity] Delta tunnels plan still makes zero sense

[Dan Bacher]

  http://redgreenandblue.org/2016/06/01/delta-tunnels-plan-still-makes-zero-sense/
Delta tunnels plan still makes zero sense
By Dan Bacher

The state and federal governments pleaded their case for Governor  
Jerry Brown’s controversial Delta Tunnels plan in testimony submitted  
to the State Water Resources Control Board on May 31 and in a media  
teleconference held on June 1, claiming that the planned new water  
diversion points won’t endanger other water users.

The Department of Water Resources (DWR) and Bureau of Reclamation  
submitted their testimony and evidence as required for upcoming public  
Water Board hearings regarding their request to add three new points  
of diversion on the Sacramento River for the California WaterFix.  
That’s the new name for the plan to build two tunnels under the Delta  
to export water to agribusiness interests on the west side of the San  
Joaquin Valley and Southern California water agencies.

In response, Restore the Delta, a coalition opposed to the project,  
described the testimony as “largely a rehash of unsubstantiated claims  
about the Delta Tunnels project that have not been proven, despite  
more than 40,000 pages of environmental review that the US  
Environmental Protection Agency has declared is still  inadequate (a  
failing grade.)”

Part 1 of the hearings, scheduled to begin July 26, focuses on two  
questions: Does the new point of diversion alter water flows or affect  
water quality such that there would be injury to any legal user of the  
water, and does the project in effect initiate a new water right?”

In Part I of the hearings and with the submitted testimony, DWR  
claimed it will “present evidence” to show that the proposed change  
“will neither initiate a new water right nor injure any other legal  
user of water.”

John Laird, Secretary for the California Natural Resources Agency,  
touted the alleged water supply reliability and environmental benefits  
of the Delta Tunnels Plan.

“With California WaterFix, we seek to improve upon the unreliable way  
water is now conveyed through the Delta, reduce or eliminate costs to  
the environment and economy from our aging water infrastructure and  
better prepare the state for effects of climate change,” said Laird.  
“The key elements of California WaterFix have long been part of the  
State’s comprehensive vision for the Delta, and the Water Board  
hearings are an important step in the advancement of the project.”

In the conference call, Laird claimed the Delta Tunnels plan “protects  
and restores” the Delta ecosystem.

“We believe that WaterFix mitigates the risk to our water supply due  
to climate change and earthquakes, and protects and restores the Delta  
ecosystem, and offers clean and secure water for much of California,”  
Laird said. “Without this, California and the state’s economy risk  
devastating losses of water supply.”

Mark Cowin, Director of the Department of Water Resources, contended  
that the California WaterFix would not establish a new water right.

“Through hundreds of pages of testimony submitted yesterday in advance  
of the hearings, DWR’s team of engineers, lawyers and water experts  
shows that WaterFix will not establish a new water right, will not  
injure any other legal user of water and will not negatively impact  
flows or water quality,” said Cowin.

DWR also claimed in their testimony, “New, properly screened intakes,  
as proposed in the California WaterFix, would better protect fish and  
allow us to use the existing south Delta pumps in a strategic and  
flexible manner in a dual conveyance system with the proposed north  
delta diversions.”

“To this we say, prove it!” Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive  
Director of Restore the Delta (RTD), responded. “The environmental  
impact report for the project already tells us you can’t! Show  
Californians, and federal wildlife agencies, proof that the Delta  
Tunnels plan will protect West Coast fisheries, because that proof is  
certainly not found in the environmental impact report.”

In fact, the CalFed Record of Decision of 2000 required the  
installation of state-of-the-art fish screens to protect salmon,  
steelhead, striped bass, Delta and longfin smelt and many other fish  
species, but the water contractors have refused to pay for these new  
screens to stop the massacre of millions of fish at the Delta pumping  
facilities every year. Delta advocates are very skeptical that  
effective new fish screens would ever be installed at the new intakes  
when the mandated screens were never built for the South Delta pumping  
facilities.

“And when it turns out the Tunnels are not protective of endangered  
species, what then? Will the Delta Tunnels remain dry from ongoing  
drought?” Barrigan-Parrilla asked. “If not, where is the proof with a  
water availability analysis?”

“The CA WaterFix is nothing more than a very expensive gamble based on  
cherry picked science. But now we have the opportunity to get at the  
facts in a formal hearing process. We relish the opportunity,” she said.

Tim Stroshane, policy analyst for RTD, challenged DWR’s contention  
that their petition is  not a new water right.

“DWR’s case-in-chief maintains that an old diversion point in their  
permits at Hood in the north Delta is ‘close enough’  to the new  
Tunnels intakes at Clarksburg and Courtland to justify the Board  
deciding this is a small change in their permits,” said Stroshane.

“Instead we think Hood is a different location than either Clarksburg  
or Courtland. Board rules require that water availability analysis is  
done for new water right applications. And the outcome of this  
decision could result in the Tunnels getting water rights that are  
over fifty to seventy years junior to the rest of the State Water  
Project,” he stated.

DWR also argues that their petition is not a new water right because  
they claim that several operational aspects of the Tunnels, including  
upstream storage, and overall Banks/Jones pumping, will not change  
materially; this is merely a “modification” of the existing CVP and  
SWP permits.

“Delta advocates beg to differ,” said Stroshane. “Any added diversion  
point requires issuance of a new water right permit. If the State  
Water Board agrees with Delta advocates and decides it’s a new water  
right, Tunnel backers would need to do a water availability analysis  
to follow their procedures.”

“We doubt they would find enough water to sustain the Tunnels project.  
They already don’t have enough,” Stroshane said.

Stroshane also noted that DWR provided no costs-benefits analysis in  
its submissions.

“While DWR submitted over 5,000 pages for its case to the Board, they  
submitted no exhibits addressing why the economic benefits and costs  
of the Delta Tunnels proposal are in the public interest. This is a  
huge omission,” he emphasized.

“It appears likely that the agency has refined its modeling to  
buttress their existing talking points, such as the alleged benefits  
of dual conveyance providing flexible response to listed fish for real  
time operation of diversions. They also continue to claim that water  
rights holders will not be injured by Tunnels operations, without  
specifics,” Stroshane stated.

Tunnel opponents say the construction of the two massive water  
diversion tunnels under the Delta would hasten the extinction of  
Sacramento River winter run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead,  
Delta and longfin smelt and other species and endanger family farms on  
the Delta. The project will also imperil salmon and steelhead  
populations on the Klamath and Trinity rivers, since massive  
quantities of Trinity River water are diverted every year through a  
tunnel through the Trinity Mountains to the Sacramento River watershed  
every year.

Part II of the hearings is expected to take place in early 2017 and  
“will focus on the extent to which fish and wildlife and other  
beneficial uses will be affected by the requested change in point of  
diversion and any measures needed to protect fish and wildlife from  
any unreasonable impacts of the change,” according to DWR.

DWR’s testimony regarding its petition for change to its water right  
permit is available here: cms.capitoltechsolutions.com/…

The petition for the new points of diversion can be found here:www.waterboards.ca.gov/ 
…

On the same day that DWR and the Bureau submitted their testimony,  
Governor Jerry Brown endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic  
presidential primary. It is believed that one of the key reasons why  
Brown endorsed Clinton is to get her to support the Delta Tunnels and  
his other controversial water policies.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20160606/b72c6a7d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: california-waterfix-animation-500.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 19175 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20160606/b72c6a7d/attachment.jpg>