Central Valley, Environment, politics, Research, sacramento, Science

The BDCP Circus Continues –Toilets, Tunnels, Exports & Scientific Data Ignored


The Tuolumne River is a tributary the San Joaquin River, which flows into the Delta.

Of the 38 million people affected by the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), at least 60 phoned in to get an update last week. The public meeting held in Sacramento was chaotic, with sounds of dogs barking, neighborhood chit-chat and the double-toilet-flush from the call-in listeners who forgot to mute their lines.

Despite the bizarre atmosphere, serious clarifications were made regarding the big-picture plan to build two giant tunnels through or around the Delta—the largest estuary on the West Coast.

Gov. Brown’s tunnel conveyance plan continues to dance around the science, although the project’s leaders have publicly claimed to embrace it.

The latest news? The current plan being pushed ahead is an operations proposal known as Alternative 4. That alternative intends to raise the limit on exports for south of delta contractors from an average of 4.9 million acre-feet to 5.3 million acre-feet.

And that may be a problem—4.9 isn’t an arbitrary number. It’s a vetted biological opinion put in place to keep key species, such as delta smelt, chinook salmon and steelhead from perishing forever. Among other things, water diversions and pumping have severely impacted the beleaguered estuary. Giant pumps sit in the south Delta and send water uphill to drier parts of the state, including Los Angeles, the Central Valley and Santa Clara. When the pumps operate, rivers flow in the reverse direction and entrap fish trying to spawn. On average, 95 percent of juvenile San Joaquin River salmon and 60 percent of Sacramento River salmon don’t survive migration through the Delta. The biological opinion limits the damage.

“It was widely recognized that the alternatives analyzed in the February effects analysis would lead to further fishery declines and the likely extinction of several salmon runs,” said Kate Poole, Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The state has promised that BDCP would be a science-driven process and would recover the ecosystem and imperiled salmon and other fisheries.” Choosing Alternative 4 means that the process is not being driven by science, Poole added.

What’s driving the process seems to be the state and federal contractors who are funding the BDCP, and their interest lies in increasing water exports.

Regardless, fish and other wildlife need fresh water flowing through the system,  and a lot more than they’re getting. The public trust recommendations for flow, as set forth by the State Water Resources Control Board, would limit exports to 3.7 to 3.9 million acre-feet. That’s more than a million-acre feet less than the current proposal.

But there is a caveat. The current plan suggests that by increasing land habitat more water can be exported—although it is unclear whether scientific studies will validate that.

“They keep saying trust us; we will build it now and figure out the science later,” said Bill Jennings,the Executive Director of California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA).  “We no longer trust those who guided these species to the brink of extinction to do the right thing. The science and assurances must come first.”

State and federal wildlife agencies are responsible for permitting the BDCP, and they are trying to ensure that science does come first, but they’re still working out the numbers. Remediating habitat is an important part of that process as well. The Delta has only five percent of its original wetlands intact.

The costs are another matter. It’s an expensive project and who will pay for it appears to be in flux.

“At least they are being honest that they expect more water,” said Dr. Jeffrey-Michael, Director of the Business Forecasting Center at the Eberhardt School of Business. “But from a benefit-cost perspective for the state, 5.3 million acre-feet is still not enough to justify the costs of the project. It is not a good project for the state. The fact that they won’t do an official analysis shows the truth to that. If they could prove its value, believe me, they would do it.”

The project cost hovers around $23 billion, with an additional $1.1 billion in debt servicing for 35 years. The debt costs nearly double the price. Currently, contractors are set to pay 75 percent of the costs, and taxpayers the other 25 percent. But those percentages will be adjusted in the future, as noted at the meeting.

Funds from state bonds provided 78 percent of the financing for the construction of the original State Water Project.

Other details were not discussed, in particular, the total capacity of the system to export water. The topic makes local delta farmers nervous. They rely on fresh water from the Sacramento River to irrigate their crops, and the tunnels may affect that. At the meeting, one commenter verbalized his concern that the project would “bleed the river dry.”

The California Aqueduct along Highway 5

The current alternative decreases the intake size of the proposed tunnels and limits tunnel exports to 6.5 million acre-feet a year. But that’s an incomplete picture of the system. The pumps in the southern end of the Delta will still be there, and they also have a similar export capacity.

Thus, the only physically limiting factor is the size of the California Aqueduct. The system would have the capacity to export nearly 10 million acre-feet a year.

Mike Taugher, Communications Director for the California Department of Fish and Game, carefully noted that the state pumps have always had the capacity to export more water, but they’ve always been limited by operational regulations.

What next? More meetings and a forthcoming Environmental Impact Report.

About Deanna Lynn Wulff

Deanna is an activist, an editor and a writer. She is the Director of the Sierra National Monument Project (www.unitetheparks.org) and the author of the award-winning book, "The Girl's Guide to Getting Lost: Hard Hikes for Wild Women." Follow her blog, Minerva's Moxie, at deannalynnwulff.wordpress.com/.

Discussion

6 thoughts on “The BDCP Circus Continues –Toilets, Tunnels, Exports & Scientific Data Ignored

  1. You also note the State public trust recommendations are 3.7-3.9 MAF/year. Isn’t that the real cap? You acknowledge that the current system has the capacity to export much more than what is actually exported. This is because of limitations placed on exports by the Endangered Species Act and the public trust doctrine. Those limitations will still control, regardless of what the BDCP says, right? If a FWS BO says only 3.7 MAF can be exported in order to protect smelt, then it wouldn’t matter if the cap in the BDCP is 10 Million or 16 Million, exports would be limited to 3.7 MAF, which would be a science based number. If it’s not a science based number, we have the power to call shenanigans in federal court and force the agencies to re-do the science, which is what we’ve done in the past. It seems to me that if we have to export, a North Delta diversion with a science based flow cap, as determined by the ESA and public trust, is a much better alternative for the species that rely on the Delta than the status quo. If, on the other hand, you’re arguing that we should stop exporting from the Delta altogether… well, that’d be fantastic, but I prefer to engage in reality based debates.

    Posted by KC | September 5, 2012, 1:24 pm
    • Another set of great points. Again, I’m not making an argument, as yet. But I will look into the questions inadvertently posed here. Can we live without delta exports? What if the public trust recommendations were applied – how would that work? I don’t have the answers, but I will look into it.

      Posted by Deanna Lynn Wulff | September 5, 2012, 1:35 pm
      • I look forward to your next piece. This is an issue of tremendous importance for California, I’m glad you’re on the beat.

        Posted by KC | September 5, 2012, 1:39 pm
  2. Thanks for your comment. I am not making an argument for a diversion; I am presenting the facts thus far for the current BDCP. The 4.9 number doesn’t cover all the listed species. It is the current average limit. It’s a measure, just like the public trust recommendations, except they cover a larger set of species. Both measures could be used in planning. but applying and using those standards gets complicated. AND Those standards also make the project look less and less financially viable, since the contractors will get less water, regardless of the tunnel conveyance system. The hope is that habitat will somehow make up the difference. That’s the story in a nutshell.

    Posted by Deanna Lynn Wulff | September 5, 2012, 1:18 pm
  3. You make a strong argument in favor of a diversion on the Sacramento, as long as the quantity is limited to protect species: “4.9 isn’t an arbitrary number. It’s a vetted biological opinion put in place to keep key species, such as delta smelt, chinook salmon and steelhead from perishing forever. Among other things, water diversions and pumping have severely impacted the beleaguered estuary. The pumps sit in the south Delta and send water uphill to drier parts of the state, including Los Angeles, the Central Valley and Santa Clara. As they operate, rivers flow in the reverse direction and entrap fish trying to spawn. Today, 95 percent of juvenile San Joaquin River salmon and 60 percent of Sacramento River salmon don’t survive their migration through the Delta.”

    Posted by KC | September 5, 2012, 12:57 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Maven's Minutes Bay Delta Conservation Plan Public Meeting 8/29/2012 | Maven's Water World - September 8, 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: