BILL ANALYSIS 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Darrell Steinberg, Chair |
| 2007-2008 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 59 HEARING DATE: 4/24/07
AUTHOR: Cogdill URGENCY: No
VERSION: Introduced CONSULTANT: Dennis O'Connor
FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Reliable Water Supply Bond Act of 2008.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
CalFed
The August 28, 2000 CalFed Record of Decision (ROD) was designed
to do 4 things:
1.Restore the ecological health of a fragile and depleted
Bay-Delta estuary;
2.Improve the water supply reliability for the state's farms and
urban areas that draw water from the Delta and its
tributaries, including 7 million acres of the world's most
productive farmland;
3.Protect the drinking water quality of the 22 million
Californians who rely on the Delta for their supplies; and
4.Protect the Delta levees that ensure its integrity as a
conveyance and ecosystem.
To accomplish this task, the ROD established 12 program
components:
Governance Ecosystem Restoration
Watersheds Water Supply Reliability
Storage Conveyance
Environmental Water Account Water Use Efficiency
(conservation and recycling)
Water Quality Water Transfers
Levees Science
According to the ROD:
All aspects of the CALFED Program are interrelated and
interdependent. Ecosystem restoration is dependent upon
water supply and conservation. Water supply depends upon
water use efficiency and consistency in regulation. Water
quality depends upon improved conveyance, levee stability
and healthy watersheds. The success of all of the elements
depends upon expanded and more strategically managed
storage.
Also according to the ROD:
DWR and Reclamation will work with other CALFED Agencies to
take the necessary steps to pursue expansion of two
existing reservoirs [Enlarged Shasta and Expanded Los
Vaqueros] and construction of a new offstream reservoir
[Delta Wetlands], with a combined capacity of 950 TAF and a
major expansion of groundwater storage for an additional
500 TAF to 1 MAF. DWR and Reclamation will also study two
potential storage projects through partnerships with local
agencies [Sites Reservoir and Upper San Joaquin Storage,
aka Temperance Flat]. However, these two additional sites
will require substantial technical work and further
environmental review and development of costsharing
agreements before decisions to pursue them as part of the
CALFED Program.
The ROD also included a schedule for completing the
environmental review, documentation, and preliminary design for
each of the storage projects. These dates ranged from the end
of 2002 for the Delta Wetlands project to the middle of 2006 for
Temperance Flat.
Recent Voter Approved Bonds
Last November, the voters approved Proposition 84, which
authorized nearly $5.4 billion in general obligation bonding
authority to improve flood protection, water supply reliability,
water quality, fish and wildlife, parks and open space, and
other natural resources. Of this amount, just over $1.5 billion
was for water resources investment.
According to the Legislative Analyst, since 1996 the voters have
approved an additional $3.2 billion in general obligation
bonding authority for various water resources investments and
the support of the CalFed program.
The Legislative Analyst also reports that by the end of this
fiscal year, the state will have spent $62.6 million for CalFed
surface storage studies since the signing of the ROD. This is
in addition to $55.4 million in federal expenditures for the
same purposes.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would authorize $3.95 billion in general obligation
bonds for water storage projects, delta sustainability, water
use efficiency, and resource stewardship and environmental
restoration programs, as follows:
$2,500 M Water Storage Development Projects
$2,000 MSurface Storage Reservoirs
500 M Groundwater Storage
$1,000 M Delta Sustainability
$500 M Bay Delta Conservation Plan
300 M Implement Delta Vision Strategic Plan
200 M CalFed Water Quality Program
$200 M Water Use Efficiency
$250 M Resource Stewardship and Environmental Restoration
$3,950 M Total
Surface Storage Reservoirs
The funds would be continuously appropriated to the Department
of Water Resources (DWR) for the design, acquisition, and
construction of Sites Reservoir in Colusa and Glenn Counties and
Temperance Flat Reservoir in Fresno and Madera Counties. If the
projects are deemed infeasible by DWR, then the funds would be
authorized for alternate surface water storage projects, as
determined by DWR, that are included in the ROD.
Funding for these projects would be contingent upon all of the
following actions:
A finding by the director and the secretary that the project
is feasible, legal, and would advance the objectives of
CalFed.
Development of a comprehensive financing plan for the project
that includes the state's cost share, the federal government
share, and any other state or local public agency or private
cost share for water supply, power generation, or other
benefits generated by the project. The state's cost share is
capped at 50 percent of the total project costs.
Agreements with potential water users to contract and pay for
not less than 75 percent of the agricultural and urban water
supply benefits of the project.
State bond funds could only be used to finance any of the
following:
Major ecosystem restoration.
Water quality improvement of a major river or water body that
serves as a water supply source for more than one region of
the state and provides significant public trust resources.
Flood control benefits, including increases in flood
reservation space in existing reservoirs by exchange for
capacity in a new offstream reservoir.
Emergency response, including securing emergency water
supplies and flows for dilution and salinity repulsion
following natural disasters or acts of terrorism.
Response to the effects of changing hydrology and decreasing
snow pack on California's flood management systems.
Recreational purposes.
DWR may issue revenue bonds to finance the share of costs of
surface water storage projects allocated to providing
agricultural and urban water supply benefits, the department
Groundwater Storage
The funds would be continuously appropriated to DWR for locally
managed conjunctive use and groundwater storage projects that
are consistent with an adopted integrated regional water
management plan and provide any of the following benefits:
Interregional water supply benefits, including, but not
limited to, evaluation of the groundwater resources of the
Sacramento Valley.
Mitigation of conditions of groundwater overdraft, saline
water intrusion, groundwater quality degradation, or
subsidence.
Replacement of water supplies that were previously committed
or that will be committed for environmental benefits.
Major ecosystem restoration, including improvements to
riverine ecosystems and fisheries habitat through flow,
temperature, and diversion management.
Water quality improvement of a major river or water body that
serves as a water supply source for more than one region of
the state and provides significant public trust resources.
Flood control benefits, including, but not limited to,
increases in flood reservation space in existing reservoirs by
exchange for capacity in a new offstream reservoir.
Emergency response, including securing emergency water
supplies and flows for dilution and salinity repulsion
following natural disasters or acts of terrorism.
Delta Sustainability
Upon appropriation by the Legislature, funds would be for public
benefits associated with projects needed to assist in the
delta's sustainability as a vital resource for fish, wildlife,
water quality, water supply, agriculture, recreation, and
enjoyment by the people of the State of California.
Water Use Efficiency
Upon appropriation by the Legislature, grants would be for
agricultural and urban water use efficiency implementation
projects, as well as feasibility studies, technical assistance,
education, and public outreach, and projects that result in
water savings, increased instream flow, improved water quality,
or increased energy efficiency.
Eligible applicants are public agencies, investor-owned
utilities, and mutual water companies. Grants to investor-owned
utilities and mutual water companies must be for projects that
have a clear and definite public purpose and benefit the
customers of those respective water systems.
Resource Stewardship and Environmental Restoration
Upon appropriation by the Legislature, funds would be available
for the following:
Restoration of the San Joaquin River system.
Restoration of the Sacramento River corridor.
Restoration of the Salton Sea.
Other ecosystem restoration projects and programs.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
General Arguments In Support
According to the author:
California's Water System Is In Great Need Of Improvements .
California's population is expected to grow by more than
600,000 each year; by 2020, California's population is
expected to reach 42 to 48 million.
Recent studies project that California will lose 25% of its
snowpack by 2050. These anticipated changes in hydrology
necessitate greater storage capacity for dry years, as well
as increased flood protection for wet years. The
Department of Water Resources' projections show
California's average annual water demands will increase by
between 1.7 and 6 million acre-feet by 2030.
To accommodate for growth in California as well as these
anticipated hydrological changes, California must be
prepared to manage its water in a comprehensive, efficient
manner. There are many impediments to doing so, including
a tangible shortage of facilities, the lack of effective
conveyance, and the problems with the Delta.
According to the California Landscape Contractors Association
(CLCA):
Water Is Obviously A Crucial Requirement For The Success Of
The State's Landscaping Industry . That is why CLCA has
long championed the conservation of water used in landscape
irrigation, the use of more recycled water for commercial
and public landscapes, and increasing the supply of water
for the state's growing population. We firmly believe that
no single approach to water management will be sufficient
to address the water needs of California. There must be a
combination of approaches involving water conservation and
water resource development, including the construction of
cams and reservoirs when economically and environmentally
justified.
Support for Storage in General
According to the California Chamber of Commerce:
The Water System That Contributed To California's Emergence
As One Of The World's Major Economic Powers Is Failing .
Additional water storage through new reservoirs and
expanded underground storage capacity will help the state
meet future demands. To help mitigate this problem
regional storage projects have come on line to help combat
current water shortages in drought scenarios. However, the
do not address the need for increased water supplies to
cope with future demands, or the need for operational
flexibility due to early snow pack melt brought on by
climate change.
Support for Surface Storage in General
According to the Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of
California:
It Has Been More Than 25 Years Since The State Last Built A
Reservoir to help address our ever-increasing water supply
needs. In this same period of time, California has
experienced a population increase of more than 15 million
people. SB 59 could play a critical role in providing for
the long-term viability of our State's future water supply.
It is imperative all Californians have additional water
resources to meet the diverse needs of our growing
population. Furthermore, additional surface water storage
facilities will ensure a reliable water source during
drought years, reduce flooding during wet years and enhance
underground water storage/water banking programs.
According to the California Farm Bureau Federation:
Expanding Existing Surface Water Capacity Is A Critical
Need for the state of California, particularly capacity
that is strategically located in the source watersheds, in
order to increase flexibility of uses for water supply
yield and its value for flood protection. Surface storage
is just one of the tools that California needs to meet its
future water needs, but it is an essential tool
nonetheless. Growth in California's water demand will come
particularly from the urban and environmental sectors, and
these projects will help meet those growing needs in a
flexible manner that will at the same time reduce pressure
on existing agricultural water supplies. This increased
flexibility of supply will be critically important during
the next multi-year drought.
According to the Association of California Water Agencies:
Additional Storage Would Provide A Valuable Tool for
meeting the needs of people and ecosystems. The storage
projects envisioned today would increase water system
flexibility with minimal environmental impacts. And as
evidence mounts that California's climate is changing and a
significant portion of our snow pack may be replaced with
intensive rainfall events over the next few decades,
additional storage will be critical to make up for lost
storage in the Sierra snow pack, capture higher levels of
peak runoff and facilitate programs that conjunctively
manage surface water and groundwater.
According to the State Building and Construction Trades Council:
These Publicly Funded Projects Will Create Thousands Of
Good, High Paying Jobs for the skilled workers laboring in
their chosen professions while also providing excellent
training opportunities for thousands more young workers
pursuing their construction apprenticeships.
According to the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC):
SB 59 Sets Forth A Number Of Actions Which Must Occur Prior
To The Expenditure Of Funds for any surface water project.
These include a finding that the project is consistent with
all applicable laws and regulations, the development of a
comprehensive financing plan that allocates all project
costs among all the project beneficiaries in relation to
the benefits received, and agreements with potential water
users to contract and pay for not less than 75 percent of
the agricultural and urban water supply benefits of the
project. SB 59 also specifies the types of activities that
can be funded with the state's share. These include major
ecosystem restoration, water quality improvements, flood
control benefits, and recreational purposes. RCRC believes
that general obligation bonds are an appropriate mechanism
to fund costs associated with benefits widely provided to
the general public as is proposed by SB 59.
Support for Specific Dams: Temperance Flat
According to the Tulare Irrigation District:
This District ? Depends on Imported San Joaquin River Water
to provide surface water supplies and to reduce regional
groundwater overdraft. Because of a portion of this water
is soon to be committed to river and fishery restoration,
conditions of overdraft will likely worsen until projects
to further capture and regulate high-flow San Joaquin River
water are completed. The Temperance Flat Reservoir project
cited in SB 59 could serve this purpose. More broadly,
this project can be a key element in shaping a plan to
satisfy a myriad of water needs linked to the San Joaquin -
a river system having insufficient regulatory storage at
present to satisfy all of them.
According to over 70 of the supporters on file, verbatim:
Research To Date Indicates That Construction Of Additional
Surface Water Storage Facilities Such As Temperance Flat
will ensure a reliable water source during drought years,
reduce flooding during wet years, protect vulnerable local
jobs, promote the reintroduction of salmon to the San
Joaquin River, bolster tourism and recreational activities,
and enhance the efficacy of underground water storage/water
banking programs.
Support for Delta Sustainability
According to Kern County Water Agency:
Senate Bill 59 also begins to address the serious water
supply, water quality and ecosystem problems facing the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). The funding provided
for the Delta is linked to implementation of the Bay-Delta
conservation Plan, the Governor's Delta Vision Process and
water quality projects identified as part of the CALFED
Program. This approach represents a necessary first step
for the Delta's ecosystem and we will work with you during
the coming months to provide additional linkages that
ensure the Delta's water supply and water quality issues.
According to the Santa Clara Valley Water District:
Santa Clara County Is Highly Dependent On Imported Water
Supplies : in a typical year, more than half the water used
in the county comes from the Bay-Delta watershed. Ensuring
that these supplies are sufficient and reliably now and
into the future is a priority of the District. SB 59 would
help meet this priority by providing $1 billion for Delta
sustainability efforts, including $500 million for the
state's share of a Bay-Delta conservation plan to provide
long-term regulatory certainty. SB 59 would also provide
funding for water conservation, groundwater storage and
environmental stewardship programs, all key areas of
interest to the District.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
Opposition to Dams in General
According to a coalition of 58 environmental organizations:
Surface Storage Is Not Needed - Two of the three scenarios
analyzed in the 2005 California Water Plans indicate that
water demand will decrease in California through 2030 even
with anticipated economic and population growth if we
invest wisely in efficiency, reclamation, and additional
groundwater storage. In fact, in the last 40 years, per
capita consumption of water has been cut in half. We can
realize even greater savings by implementing cost effective
programs identified by the Water Plan which would produce
another four million acre feet of water through additional
efficiency and programs. In addition, we have established
approximately 6 million acre feet of groundwater storage
the last 20 years, which is preferable to surface storage.
There Are Cheaper And More Effective Alternatives To
Surface Storage - The best and most cost effective dams
sites in California have already been used. New additional
dams produce much less water at a higher cost than more
environmentally beneficial alternatives such as urban water
use efficiency and recycling. In general, a dollar invested
in urban water use efficiency produces four times more
water than twelve dollars invested in costly and
environmentally destructive new surface storage.
Unfortunately, due to lack of funding, we are only
currently achieving about 20% of the reasonable water
savings target that could be met if we invested more money
in water use efficiency. Investing billions of dollars in
new surface storage only competes for limited state funds
that could be invested in less costly and more effective
efficiency and reclamation programs.
Dams Are Not A Solution To Global Warming - Most experts
agree that California's 1,200 major dams can be operated in
a manner to adjust to possible changes in run-off caused by
global warming. In addition, storing and moving water to
where it is needed is the single largest use of electricity
in California and building new surface storage will likely
result in increased energy use and greenhouse pollution to
increase water exports. Also, existing large surface
storage reservoirs are known sources of the greenhouse
gases such as CO2 and methane. Creating more surface
storage will simply add to the pollution that causes global
warming.
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council:
California has Made Major Storage Investments in Recent
Years : Contrary to the assertions made by some surface
storage advocates, California has made major investments in
storage in the past 15 years. The Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California and the Contra Costa Water
District have each constructed major new surface storage
facilities. In addition, MWD and others, with the
assistance of state bond funding, have constructed large
groundwater storage facilities. Together, these projects
total at least six million acre-feet of new storage. Much
of that storage is groundwater. However, in all cases,
water users were willing to invest their funds only
following careful analysis. We urge the state legislature
to be just as vigilant in protecting taxpayer funds.
According to Environmental Entrepreneurs:
Willingness of water users to invest should be a
prerequisite for project approval given the high cost of
proposed water projects. Since 2000, when CalFed require
that any new surface storage projects be paid for by
beneficiaries, no water users have expressed a willingness
to provide the hundreds of millions or billions required to
finance the construction of these projects. Instead water
agencies have chosen to invest their funds in alternatives
that they believe are less expensive, generate cleaner
water, are more reliable in droughts and produce results
more rapidly.
Opposition to Specific Dams: Both Sites & Temperance Flat
A coalition of 58 environmental organizations raises the
following points regarding both Sites & Temperance Flat:
Surface Storage Costs Are Increasing - SB 59 implements the
Governor's proposal made in January of this year to provide
$4 billion in bonds to build these two projects. Since,
January, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
estimates that the cost of these projects have already
increased 10% to $4.4 billion. This price tag will increase
more when the Bureau of Reclamation recomputes the cost of
the Temperance Flat Dam and includes likely "escalation"
costs common in the development of large dam projects. The
current $4.4 billion cost will increase even more once
environmental mitigation and interest is computed into the
price.
Surface Storage Is Too Wasteful - Sites and Temperance Flat
will produce less water than is lost through evaporation in
a year from California's major surface storage reservoirs.
DWR estimates that the projects will produce about 470,000
acre feet annually. In comparison, a DWR study found that
California's existing major surface storage projects lose
approximately 500,000 acre feet in a year through
evaporation. New surface reservoirs will only increase this
evaporative loss.
Projects Are Power Losers - The Temperance Flat Dam would
produce far less power than currently generated by existing
hydroelectric power plants that will drown under its
reservoir. Sites would use a huge amount of electricity to
pump water into the reservoir from the Sacramento River.
Although Sites could generate peak demand power at certain
times, it would be net user of base power.
Studies Not Completed - Environmental studies for the Sites
and Temperance Flat projects are not yet completed and
neither the public nor the Legislature have had the
opportunity to review the studies to determine the
effectiveness, benefits, and environmental impacts of these
projects. We should not fund construction of surface
storage projects before these essential studies are
completed and the public and decision makers have the
opportunity review and comment on them.
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council:
Potential Environmental Impacts : Dam projects in California
have a long history of causing dramatic environmental
impacts. In several cases in the past, advocates have
asserted that dam projects would have significant
environmental benefits. In reality, most of these projects
have produced significant environmental damage. The same
may be true of the proposed projects contained in SB 59.
For example, in the case of Sites Reservoir, diverting
additional water from the Delta - one of the most likely
uses of this project - could further damage an ecosystem
that is already in a state of collapse. There is no
reliable information available that would justify a
conclusion that these two projects would reliably produce
real, cost-effective environmental benefits.
Opposition to Specific Dams: Temperance Flat
According to The Bay Institute and Natural Heritage Institute:
Temperance Flat Won't Deliver Significant Water Supply
Benefits . A large new reservoir at Temperance Flat would
create very little new water for agricultural or urban
users. Existing diversions along with restoration flows
specified in the NRDC/Friant/USBR settlement will use the
entire flow of the river in all but the wettest years
leaving no additional water for storage in a Temperance
Flat Reservoir. Surplus water to fill a new reservoir and
to create additional yield is only available sporadically,
leaving the reservoir at very low levels for years at a
time. Even without restoration flows, a Temperance Flat
reservoir with 1.4 million acre feet of capacity would only
increase average annual water deliveries from Friant Dam by
as little as 10% or 128,000 acre-feet, according to the
USBR 128,000 acre-feet amounts to less than 5 percent of
the average total annual water demand in the Friant long
term contractors service area (or abut 1% of the regional
demand). The yield will be significantly less with
restoration flows and would be further reduced if the
current system fully developed the less expensive
conjunctive use and groundwater banking opportunities.
Restoration Flows Will Reduce Flooding on the San Joaquin.
Restoration flows will create space in the existing storage
facilities to absorb and control flows and reduce the
duration and frequency of flood events. Although climate
change may reduce the snowmelt runoff from the San Joaquin
River watershed and increase winter rain runoff, so much of
the watershed is at a high elevation that the natural
storage and runoff provided the snowpack can be managed
with the existing system for the foreseeable future.
Flood Bypasses And Overflow Basins Would Provide Flood
Protection At A Much Lower Price . Creation of flood
bypasses and overflow basins similar to the Yolo Bypass is
the least-cost option for reducing risks associated with
the largest flood events on the San Joaquin River. The San
Joaquin flood control system is currently designed to
convey flood waters downstream to the Delta as fast as
possible. Creation of flood basins upstream of the Merced
would attenuate flood releases from Friant Dam and increase
operational flexibility so that dam operators could more
easily avoid dangerous flood conditions on the Lower San
Joaquin. In all but the wettest months of the wettest
years, land in the bypasses could still be used for
agriculture. The state or federal government could purchase
10,000 acres of flood easements for $25 million at $2,500
per acre - far less than the $2 billion price tag for
Temperance flat.
Opposition to Specific Dams: Shasta Dam
According to the Winnemem Wintu Tribe:
We are the "middle water" people, from the McCloud River,
caretakers who pray for and sing to the water that
generates from Mt Shasta and the springs within the McCloud
Watershed. Our history has been well documented, as has
our struggle to protect our cultural lifeway from being
erased by the actions f the government, in particular the
proposed raise of the Shasta Dam. ... [W]e find the below
excerpted language troubling:
(3) If the surface water storage projects identified
in paragraphs (1) and (2) are deemed infeasible by the
department, alternate surface water storage projects,
as determined by the department, that are included in
the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Programmatic Record Of
Decision, dated August 28, 2000.
The CALFED record of decision includes the raising of
Shasta Dam ? The [Bureau of Reclamation] has now initiated
a 'partial' National Historic Preservation Act
investigation in order to present a report to the United
States Congress to assist them in deciding whether the
Shasta Dam Raise is feasible. This report is being rushed
and we fear will not adequately nor accurately reflect the
damage to our traditional cultural properties and will in
effect assist in the cultural genocide of the Winnemem
tribe.
[T]he proposed Shasta Dam project will irreparably harm the
free flowing, scenic nature of the McCloud River, a
protected river under the California [Public] Resource Code
Section 5093.542 ? We also ask whether this bill sets the
stage for the state to abrogate the PRC by allowing:
'any agency of the federal, state, or local government
in the planning or construction of any dam, reservoir,
diversion, or other water impoundment facility that
could have an adverse effect on the free-flowing
condition of the McCloud River, or on its wild trout
fishery.'
COMMENTS
Current Debate Is All About Dams .
This committee received comment letters from over 170
individuals and interest groups. Practically all of the
substantive comments were either pro or anti dams. Those few
letters that did mention the other parts of the bill were
generally favorable.
Dam Debate Is 2 Parts Religion, 1 Part Analysis .
When it comes to dams, people believe what they believe. In the
absence of substantive and impartial information to the
contrary, persons on both side of the debate will likely
continue to embrace their previously established perspectives.
Unfortunately, CalFed has been extraordinarily slow in producing
the studies as required in the ROD, studies that were supposed
to provide the necessary substantive and impartial information.
Current Status of CalFed Storage Program. According to the
Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee (BDPAC) Program Performance
and Financing Subcommittee's Water Supply Reliability Program
Performance, dated March 30, 2007:
Status: Work continues on surface storage investigations
for four of five potential projects. DWR and USBR released
an update of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Surface Storage
Investigations Progress Report in May 2006. The In-Delta
Storage Project State Feasibility Study Report was
completed in 2006. Feasibility and environmental studies
are underway for the Shasta Lake Water Resources
Investigation. Studies for the North-of-the-Delta
Off-stream Storage project and Los Vaqueros Reservoir
Expansion project are expected to be completed in calendar
year 2008. Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage
investigations will be completed in calendar year 2009.
Deadlines included in the ROD were unrealistic and the
state and federal agencies are moving forward with
completing the necessary studies to determine the priority
and implementability of the 5 projects under consideration.
Despite the need, surface storage remains a divisive issue
in the state which may be contributing to the lack of
urgency by the state and federal agencies in moving forward
with the necessary investigations. Further slowing the
progress on these projects are concerns by water
contractors over potential future conveyance restrictions
in the Delta resulting from pelagic organism declines and
the unwillingness of beneficiaries to commit to funding
until conveyance issues are resolved.
It is worth noting that two major surface storage projects
(Diamond Valley Lake in Riverside County and Los Vaqueros
Reservoir in Contra Costa County were brought on line
during the past decade. These projects were financed
solely by local agencies and were developed outside the
CALFED process. Altogether, counting projects assisted by
CALFED and those developed independently, groundwater and
surface storage capacity south-of-the-Delta has increased
by more than 4 million acre-feet.
According to the Legislative Analyst's 2007-08 Analysis of the
Governor's budget:
The budget proposes $9.8 million in bond funds for the
Department of Water Resources, under CALFED, to continue
feasibility studies for surface water storage projects. We
find that the CALFED surface storage program has reached a
point where these feasibility studies cannot practically
move forward unless nonstate entities-parties who would
benefit from the projects being studied-step up to the
plate and share in the costs of studying and developing
these projects. We recommend denying the budget request,
given the lack of matching local or federal funding.
Questions, the Answers to Which Might Move the Debate Forward
The only time the Legislature authorized and funded surface
storage projects was for the State Water Project through the
Burns-Porter Act. The projects authorized by that Act were
subject to intense debate, particularly in the Senate. The
discussion was well framed by three state reports:
Water Resources in California (1951) - an inventory of water
in California, including data on precipitation, detailed
stream hydrologies, and water quality.
Water Utilization and Requirements of California (1955) - an
inventory of current and projected uses of water in the state.
The California Water Plan (1957) - a comprehensive review of
statewide water needs, including a basin-by-basin review of
potential water development projects.
Among other things, that debate lead to Governor Brown
developing his contracting principles. Those principles were
designed to address the many questions raised by the
Legislature.
The following sets of questions are similar to the questions
raised by the Legislature nearly 40 years ago.
Project Definition
What are the facilities of the proposed project? How large will
the dam be? How large will the reservoir be? What
pumping/power facilities will be constructed and what would be
their rated capacity? What additional conveyance facilities
will be constructed to move water into or out of the facility
and what would be their conveyance capacity? What existing
facilities will be needed to be used to operate the facility;
e.g., existing conveyance facilities. What existing facilities
will need to be modified, decommissioned, or abandoned?
Project Yield
What is the estimated water supply yield of the project? For
Temperance Flat, does that estimated yield take into
consideration the settlement agreement for restoration of the
San Joaquin River? How much of the project yield would be
allocated to what purposes? What is the estimated impact of
climate change on the project yield?
Project Power
Will the project produce and/or consume electricity? If so, how
much power in an average water year will the project produce?
How much will it consume? Will the project require the
decommissioning or abandonment of existing power facilities? If
so, will the project replace that power? If so, how? If not,
what will be the effect of that reduced power production on the
state's power users? Who will pay the power costs and who would
receive the revenues? Will there be a separate allocation of
capital costs for power? Will there be a preferred class of
customer for the power? Will there be a preferred source of
power?
Flood Operations
Has the Army Corps of Engineers agreed to participate in the
project? If so, how much of the reservoir pool will be reserved
for flood operations? What will be the federal contribution for
the construction of the flood storage space?
If the Army Corps of Engineers has not agreed to participate in
the project, would the project still be operated for flood
management benefit? If so, who would assume the costs of the
flood control benefit? How would the size of the flood pool be
determined? How would those flood operations be coordinated
with the Army Corps of Engineers and the other flood control
facilities within the watershed?
Other Project Benefits
How would the project be operated for each of the following
purposes? Would a specific amount of the yield be dedicated for
each use? Would such yield be fixed across all water year types
or vary depending on hydrologic conditions? Would the project
include non-flow related benefits any of the purposes? If so,
what?
Major ecosystem restoration.
Water quality improvement of a major river or water body that
serves as a water supply source for more than one region of
the state and provides significant public trust resources.
Emergency response, including securing emergency water
supplies and flows for dilution and salinity repulsion
following natural disasters or acts of terrorism.
Response to the effects of changing hydrology and decreasing
snow pack on California's flood management systems.
Recreational purposes.
Project Operation
Who would determine operations for each purpose of the facility?
Would DFG, for example, act as a joint operator for the
operation of water for environmental purposes? What if those
operations are in conflict with flood operations or water supply
operations? Would there be a priority system for operational
uses of the facility? If so, what would be the priorities? If
not, how would conflicts among operational purposes be resolved?
For Temperance Flat, how would operations be coordinated with
Friant Dam? What operational constraints would arise because of
Friant's senior water rights? Would the Bureau of Reclamation,
by virtue of its senior rights and the location of Friant Dam,
be able to essentially override operational decisions on
Temperance Flat, for example, by diverting water released by
Temperance Flat for environmental purposes? What legal and
other mechanisms would be necessary to assure the operations of
Friant Dam do not conflict with Temperance Flat, and vice versa?
How would shortages/surpluses be allocated across purposes? How
would shortages/surpluses be allocated across water supply
contractors?
Project Cost
What is the estimated cost for the project? What will be the
cost categories for the project (e.g., fixed capital costs,
variable transportation costs, etc.) and what are the expected
cost of the project by category? What cost allocation method
will be used allocate costs among project purposes? What are
the expected costs of the project by project purpose? Will cost
allocations be recalculated periodically? If so, how
frequently? What will be the cost for a typical water supply
contract?
Project Financing
How will the water supply be priced? Will there be different
prices for different classes of contracts? Will there be a
different price for different water year types? Will
transportation costs be priced separately or be bundled with the
water supply costs? Will the contracts be "take or pay"
contracts? Or will some other pricing structure be used? Will
contractors be allowed to sell, lease, or transfer contract
rights? If so, under what circumstances?
Project Ownership & Management
Will the project be a part of the State Water Project? If so,
will those desiring to contract for water from the facility need
to become SWP contractors? How would that affect current SWP
contractors, especially those who chose not to participate in
the new project? If the project will not be part of the State
Water Project, will DWR establish a separate management unit for
the project? If so, what management activities and authorities
would need to be addressed before such a separate management
unit would be operational?
For Temperance Flat, why should this be a state project? Why
wouldn't it make more sense for the project to be simply an
expansion of the Bureau of Reclamation's Friant Unit?
Project Participants
Who are the expected contractors for the water supply? Have any
of them formally stated a willingness to contract for water from
a specific facility? If so, for how much water under what
terms?
Who will be allowed to contract for water from the project?
Will they be required to have taxing authority?
Alternative Projects
Why these two dams and not any of the other three projects
identified in the CalFed ROD? What is the relative advantage of
these two projects over the other three? What alternative
methods are there for providing the benefits of each project and
what are the relative costs for those alternatives? If DWR
determines that these two dams are infeasible, would the
provisions of the current proposal override the state's wild and
scenic river protections on the McCloud River?
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
None
SUPPORT
Agricultural Council of California
Association of California Water Agencies
Borba Farms, Inc.
Business, Industry and Government (BIG) Coalition of the South
San Joaquin Valley
C2 Farms
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Business Roundtable
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grape & Tree Fruit League
California Landscape Contractors Association
Chowchilla Water District
City of Avenal
City of Bakersfield
City of Clovis
City of Coalinga
City of Corcoran
City of Delano
City of Dinuba
City of Farmersville
City of Firebaugh
City of Fowler
City of Fresno
City of Hanford
City of Huron
City of Kerman
City of Kingsburg
City of Lemoore
City of Lindsay
City of Madera
City of Maricopa
City of Mendota
City of Orange Cove
City of Parlier
City of Porterville
City of Reedley
City of Sanger
City of Selma
City of Shafter
City of Tulare
City of Visalia
City of Wasco
City of Woodlake
College of the Sequoias
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California
Contra Costa Water District
County of Fresno
County of Kern
County of Kings
County of Madera
County of Merced
County of Tulare
Delano Chamber of Commerce
Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District
Diversified Benefit Services, Inc.
Economic Development Corporation
El Dorado Irrigation District
El Monte Dairy
Fresno County Farm Bureau
Fresno EDC
Friant Water Authority
Granville Homes
Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce
Greater Tulare Chamber of Commerce
Hanford Chamber of Commerce
Home Builders Association of Tulare/Kings Counties
Kern County BIA
Kern County Farm Bureau
Kern County Water Agency
Kern EDC
Kings County EDC
Kings County Farm Bureau
Kings County Water District
Lemoore Chamber of Commerce
Long, Richert & Patch
Lower San Joaquin Levee District
Madera County Farm Bureau
Merced Irrigation District
Modesto Irrigation District
Northern California Water District
Olcese Water District
Orange Cove Irrigation District
Porterville Chamber of Commerce
Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC)
Reynen Bardis Communities
RWD Consulting
San Diego County Water Authority
San Joaquin River Association
San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors
SUPPORT (continued):
San Joaquin River Resource Management Coalition
San Joaquin Valley BIA
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District
Southwest California Legislative Council
State Building and Construction Trades Council
Stockton East Water District
Taxpayers Association of Madera County
The Evans HR Group
Tulare County EDC
Tulare County Farm Bureau
Tulare Irrigation District
Tulare/Kings Counties BIA
United Water Conservation District
Valley Ag Water Coalition
Valley Water Alliance
Visalia Chamber of Commerce
Visalia EDC
West Hills College
Private Citizens - 5
OPPOSITION
Adventure Connection, Inc.
Alameda Creek Alliance
Alliance for Democracy
All-Outdoors
American Canoe Association
American Rivers, Inc.
American Whitewater
Baykeeper
Bridgeport Indian Colony
Butte Environmental Council
California Hydropower Reform Coalition
California Indian Environmental Alliance
California League of Conservation Voters
California Native Plant Society
California Outdoors
California Save Our Streams Council
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
California Trout, Inc
California Water Impact Network
California Wilderness Coalition
Californians for Western Wilderness
Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation
Central California Canoe Club
Community Clean Water Institute
Defenders of Wildlife
Endangered Habitats League
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
Environmental Center of San Luis Obisbo
Environmental Defense Center
Environmental Entrepreneurs
Environmental Working Group & EWG Action Fund
Federation of Fly Fishers
Forest Guardians
Friends of the Eel River
Friends of the River
Friends of the Santa Clara River
Friends of Trinity River
International Rivers Network
Klamath Forest Alliance
Mono Lake Committee
Natural Heritage Institute
Natural Resources Defense Council
Northern California Council
Planning and Conservation League
Protect American River Canyons
Public Trust Alliance
Revive the San Joaquin
Rural Quality Coalition of Nevada County
Sacramento River Preservation Trust
San Joaquin Paddlers
Sierra Club California
Sierra Forest Legacy
Sierra Nevada Alliance
Snowlands Network
South Yuba River Citizens League
Southern California Watershed Alliance
The Bay Institute
The River Project
W.E.T. River Trips
WildPlaces
Winnemem Wintu Tribe