[env-trinity] Fw: Revised Article: Colusa’s hotly debated Sites Reservoir proposal passes another hurdle for approval

Thu Apr 9 19:18:11 PDT 2026

Thanks Dan!
Tom Stokely Salmon and Water Policy Consultant530-524-0315 tstokely at att.net 

    On Thursday, April 9, 2026 at 04:58:56 PM PDT, Dan Bacher <danielbacher53 at gmail.com> wrote:  

 Tom
Actually, the Sites Authority did issue a statement on the board's draft decision,
Dan 

For Immediate Release: Contact: Quin La Capra March 21, 2026 (858) 926-7006

Sites Project Authority Statement on Proposed Order for Sites Reservoir Water Right

Maxwell, CA – Today, the Sites Project Authority released the following statement after the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) Administrative Hearings Office’s (AHO) transmittal of a draft Decision Conditionally Approving the Water Right Application for the Sites Reservoir Project and associated Draft Water Right Permit:

“We are carefully reviewing these extensive documents and will take the time necessary to fully understand their potential implications on the Project’s operations and the benefits that it can provide to the people of California. Elements of the draft decision and permit are different from the end of the hearing process last year, and we will need to evaluate and reconcile these differences.

In the coming weeks, interested parties will have the opportunity to submit public comment to the State Board on the terms and conditions of the draft decision and permit. The Authority intends to actively participate in this process.

We remain committed to delivering the benefits that the people of California overwhelmingly supported with the passage of Proposition 1 in 2014. Today, the water challenges facing our state remain daunting. We will continue working with our state and federal partners, as well as our statewide participants, to ensure Sites Reservoir can help meet the goals of the California Water Plan.”

Sites Reservoir is a 1.5 million acre-foot, off-stream reservoir proposed north of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that would improve California’s water reliability and resiliency in drier years for farms, families, fish, and fowl. The Project is backed by a broad coalition of cities, counties, water agencies, and irrigation districts across California, as well as the State of California through the Water Storage Investment Program and the federal government under the 2016 Water Infrastructure and Investment for the Nation Act. Additional information can be found at www.sitesproject.org or on Facebook, Instagram, and X at @SitesProject.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 11:10 AM Tom Stokely <tstokely at att.net> wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, the Sites Project Authority has not made a statement about the Draft Water Right Order, allegedly because they don't like it and are talking to the Governor about changing the terms of the draft water right order.  The draft decision may make the project uneconomical, despite all of the subsidies.
"Promoted by the Newsom administration as a response to climate change, the reservoir is a project that C-WIN points out will have to operate based on flow rules for the Sacramento River. The organization notes that the board’s draft decision would impose conditions designed to maintain water quality, which would drive up the cost of any water delivered to downstream customers.

“While the Board should have rejected the permit, the proposed operating conditions demonstrate why building another surface water reservoir is a foolish pursuit,” argued Max Gomberg, Senior Policy Analyst for C-WIN. “There is no business case for storing water for delivery to big water contractors on a river system that is already oversubscribed and needs more flow to sustain fish populations.”"
Additionally, the Draft Water Right Order contains the following language regarding the Trinity River that was uncontested:
TS
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Dan Bacher <danielbacher53 at gmail.com>Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 at 07:12:46 AM PDTSubject: Revised Article: Colusa’s hotly debated Sites Reservoir proposal passes another hurdle for approval
 https://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/colusa-s-hotly-debated-sites-reservoir-proposal-passes-another-hurdle-for-approval/article

Colusa’s hotly debated Sites Reservoir proposal passes another hurdle for approval
By Dan Bacher, special to the Appeal-Democrat  
While California Governor Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump disagree on a number of issues, one project they both strongly support is the controversial plan to build Sites Reservoir in the rolling foothills on the west side of the Sacramento Valley. 

As of last week, that project is one step closer to becoming a reality. The Administrative Hearing Office of the State Water Resources Control Board recently issued a draft water rights decision for Sites, a reservoir that will be located near the town of Maxwell in Colusa County. The Sites proposal is supported by the Yuba-Sutter Farm Bureau, the North Yuba County Water District, the Maxwell Irrigation District and City of Colusa – and a number of business groups – but opposed by an array of regional tribal governments, fishing groups and environmental organizations. Supporters say that Sites will bolster California’s water resilience by capturing large amounts of annual storm runoff, while critics are concerned about its ecological impacts, high costs and perceived limited benefits. 

“The hearing process involved 21 parties, 60 witnesses, 2,115 evidentiary documents and took place over 32 separate hearing days, with a two-day site visit,” the State Water Resources Control Board wrote in a statement. “The draft decision evaluates the evidence and legal arguments received during the proceedings and provides the rationale for conditions contained in the draft water right permit; it is the product of extensive deliberations by the board members during closed sessions over the last two years.”

In drafting the Sites decision, the State Water Board said it “considered multiple competing needs and set draft conditions to protect senior right holders, water quality, and flows for fisheries in the Sacramento River and Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta.”

The conditions proposed in the draft include diversions limited to 986,000 acre-feet of water (that’s roughly the equivalent of Folsom Lake); requirements to align the proposed water right with the planning processes underway for the Bay-Delta watershed; and operating criteria at the diversion facilities to protect fisheries. 

However, a number of water advocates disagreed with the glowing assessment of the draft decision by the Water Board.

The California Water Impact Network, or C-WIN, asserted that the Board’s draft decision allows the Newsom administration to “formalize strategies for diverting water from the Sacramento River for the project,” including the core of the project: a 1.5 million acre-foot ‘offsite’ reservoir in Colusa and Glenn counties. The reservoir’s current construction cost estimate is between $6.2 and $6.8 billion, according to the Sites Project Authority. 

Promoted by the Newsom administration as a response to climate change, the reservoir is a project that C-WIN points out will have to operate based on flow rules for the Sacramento River. The organization notes that the board’s draft decision would impose conditions designed to maintain water quality, which would drive up the cost of any water delivered to downstream customers.

“While the Board should have rejected the permit, the proposed operating conditions demonstrate why building another surface water reservoir is a foolish pursuit,” argued Max Gomberg, Senior Policy Analyst for C-WIN. “There is no business case for storing water for delivery to big water contractors on a river system that is already oversubscribed and needs more flow to sustain fish populations.” 

A little over a year ago, Newsom argued in favor of Sites Reservoir while at a rice farm in Colusa County. 

“We’ve done everything on our end to expedite the permitting of this,” Newsom told reporters. “We have simultaneous droughts and simultaneous rain bombs, so we’ve got to capture flow, and we’ve got to store flow.” 

In January, the Trump Administration and U.S. Department of the Interior approved the Record of Decision, or ROD, for the Sites Project. The ROD authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to provide up to 25% of the total cost for the 1.5 million acre-foot off-stream reservoir. 

“President Trump made clear that federal water projects must deliver real results for American families,” Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said in a statement. “This administration is getting it done in record time. The Sites Reservoir Project and the gains achieved over the past year demonstrate how a disciplined, mission-focused approach can expand water reliability for communities, agriculture and the economy.”

Friends of the River criticized the state board’s recent draft decision on Sites, arguing that the reservoir would inundate thousands of acres of habitat and reduce flows that are critical to salmon and other species, and critical to maintaining water quality downstream. The group believes the project will ultimately “produce relatively small amounts of water at high cost.”

“The draft water right decision clearly shows that the board agrees with our position that the proposed reservoir will cause major water quality and environmental impacts that need to be addressed,” said Keiko Mertz, Policy Director at Friends of the River. “We appreciate that the board adopted some of our recommended safeguards, but important gaps in protection remain for some of the state’s most valuable resources.”

A sixty-day public comment period is now in effect, with comments accepted until May 22. Following consideration of the comments, the draft will be reviewed by the board’s Administrative Hearings Office for possible revision and submission to the Board. A second comment period will follow prior to a final decision.

More information on the Sites water right application can be found on the board website.

  _______________________________________________
env-trinity mailing list
env-trinity at mailman.dcn.org
http://mailman.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20260410/64c02875/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1775755965225blob.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 95227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20260410/64c02875/attachment-0001.jpg>