HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 20, 1998 (66)• •COUNCIL • •
�q< F0R�`4
AGENDA TITLE: CALFED Bay -Delta Program Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report
MEETING DATE: May 20, 1998
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council adopt a resolution providing City comments on the
CALFED Bay -Delta Program Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The State of California and the Federal government (CALFED) have
jointly prepared a programmatic EIS/EIR on a variety of programs
and projects to " ... develop a long-term comprehensive plan that
will restore ecological health and improve water management for
beneficial uses of the Bay -Delta system", as stated in their mission statement. The multi -volume
document consists of thousands of pages of text, tables and graphics. The tremendous scope of the
program makes it very difficult to summarize, but we have attempted to do so by attaching the following
exhibits:
A) Program and alternatives descriptions from CALFED's Phase II Interim Report - this
includes selected pages describing the alternatives and information on the water -quality
and conveyance portions of the project;
B) Summary Comparison of the Environmental Consequences - this includes a table
estimating farmland acreage impacts;
C) "The Delta Fix"- a summary of the program prepared by the California Water
Clearinghouse;
D) Excerpts from a newsletter from the Associations of California Water Agencies, a
supporter of the program; and
E) Commentary on the program from the "California Planning and Development Report"
presenting some critical viewpoints on the program.
A verbal presentation will also be made at the Council meeting.
FUNDING: None required.
RCP/lm
Attachments
"4ud4��,
Richard C. Prima, Jr.
Public Works Director
APPROVED: A��et��4 -
H. Dixon Flynn -- City Manager 41
CALFEDEIR.DOC 05/14/98
-- -- - EXIfIBIT A
CALFED BAY -DELTA PROGRAM
MISSION STATEMENT
AND SOLUTION PRINCIPLES
The mission of the ,CALFED Bay Delta Program is to
develop a long-term comprehensive plan that will
restore ecological health and improve water
management for beneficial uses of the Bay Delta
system.
In addition, any CALFED solution must satisfy the
following solution principles:
• Reduce Conflicts in the System Solutions will reduce major
conflicts among beneficial uses of water.
• Be Equitable Solutions will focus on solving problems in all
problem areas. Improvements for some problems will not be
made without corresponding improvements for other
problems.
• Be Affordable Solutions will be implementable and
maintainable within the foreseeable resources of the Program
and stakeholders.
• Be Durable Solutions will have political and economic
staying power and will sustain the resources they were
designed to protect and enhance.
• Be Implementable Solutions will have broad public
acceptance and legal feasibility, and will be timely and
relatively. simple to implement compared with other
alternatives.
• Have No Significant Redirected Impacts Solutions will not
solve problems in the Bay -Delta system by redirecting
significant negative impacts, when viewed in their entirety,
within the Bay -Delta or to other regions of California.
Agricultural Land Conversion in the Delta - Agricultural land conversion in the Delta
resulting from the Program is limited to that needed for implementation of levee system
improvements, ecosystem restoration, and other facilities. Possible land area in the Delta
affected by Program implementation could range from approximately 140,000 to 200,000 acres,
depending on the alternative. Some of this land is already owned by the government, and other
possibilities such as the reclamation of Franks Tract will be considered prior to converting prime
agricultural land. CALFED seeks to preserve as much prime and unique agricultural land as
possible during Program implementation in Phase IH. To offset Delta regional agricultural
production losses, CALFED is investigating the concept of supporting efforts to preserve
agricultural production on a regional or statewide basis.
Agricultural Land Conversion in Service Areas - Agricultural land conversion in the service
areas (areas served water by the SAP and the CVP) is included in the CALFED alternatives as a
potential measure to improve water quality by reducing discharges from drainage lands with
selenium problems. The CALFED policy is not to convert land to reduce water demands.
However, depending on water supply and water transfer opportunities available in the various
alternatives, farmers may choose to change cropping patterns, temporarily fallow land, or
permanently take land out of agricultural production. Program implementation will require
some land conversion to accommodate new facilities or restoration activities. Possible land area
in the service areas affected by Program implementation of facilities, ecosystem restoration and
water quality could range from approximately 75,000 to 140,000 acres, depending on the
alternative. Third party impacts of such actions will be carefully evaluated and taken into
consideration.
continued maintenance of levees to protect Delta functions
• Ensures suitable funding, equipment and materials availability, and coordination
to rapidly respond to levee failures
• Subsidence reduction helps long-term Delta system integrity
• Increased reliability for water supply needs from the Delta and in -Delta water
quality
• Increased reliability for in -Delta land use
• Increased reliability for in -Delta aquatic and wildlife habitat
For more information see the Long -Term Levee Protection Plan Appendix to the Draft
Programmatic EIS/EIR.
Water Quality Program
The draft Water Quality Program currently includes 25
programmatic actions to further the Program's goal of providing
good water quality for environmental, agricultural, drinking
water, industrial, and recreational beneficial uses of water. The
majority of these actions rely on comprehensive monitoring and
research to improve our understanding of effective water quality
management and on the ultimate control of water quality
problems at their sources.
Determining impairment to a water quality beneficial use is
always a difficult and complicated matter. For some beneficial uses, such as drinking water use
and agricultural water use, water quality impacts on use are generally well known. For other
beneficial uses such as ecosystem use, water quality impacts on species are not understood as
well. As a result, the program has relied on the technical expertise of a variety of stakeholders
representing beneficial uses. The 25 water quality actions include a combination of research,
pilot studies, and targeted activities. This approach allows actions to be taken on known water
quality problems and sources of those problems, while
allowing further research of potential problems and
solutions. Actions will be adapted over time to ensure the I Further research is needed for
most effective use of resources.
In summary, the draft Water Quality Program element
includes the following broad categories of programmatic
actions:
Mine drainage - Reduce heavy metals,
such as cadmium, copper, and zinc, by
source control or treatment of mine
some water quality problems.
For example, for some parameters of
concern, such as mULM not enough is
understood about its sources, the
bioavailability of mercury to various
species, factors contributing to its
bioavailability, and the load reductions
needed to reduce fish tissue concentrations
necessary for human consumption.
CALFED Bay -Deity Program 48 Program Alternatives
Phase II Interim Report March S, 1998
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
M
L
r
r
n
7-
r_VW
`d
drainage at inactive and abandoned mine sites.
Urban and Industrial Runoff - Reduce heavy metals, pesticides, nutrients, and
sediment and subsequent turbidity. Evaluate loadings of total organic carbon
(TOC), salinity, and pathogens in urban runoff and assess the need for source
control measures to reduce these parameters of concern to drinking water
beneficial uses.
Water Quality Program
Issues and Concerns
• There are differing opinions regarding the most effective program approach: a regulatory
framework to enforce the objectives versus an incentive -based or "safe harbor" approach to
encourage voluntary partnerships to reduce non -point sources.
• This element needs to be better integrated with other parts of the Program, including
ecosystem restoration and water use efficiency.
• There is concern that this program element is not sufficiently aggressive or adequately
developed to accomplish more than current water quality efforts.
• There are differing views on the specific drinking water quality targets as well as on the
means to achieve drinking water quality objectives (providing the highest quality source
water versus relying upon treatment methods). A cost comparison is also needed.
• There is disagreement over whether the program should include dilution -oriented actions.
Wastewater and Industrial Discharge - Reduce pathogens (from boat
discharges), oxy_es n depleting substances, selenium, and ammonia. Evaluate the
loadings of TOC, salini , and pathogens from wastewater and industrial
treatment plant discharges and assess the need for source control measures to
reduce these parameters of concern to drinking water beneficial uses.
Agricultural Drainage and Runoff - Reduce selenium (agricultural subsurface
drainage), salinity, pesticides, sediment, TOC (discharges from Delta islands),
nutrients and ammonia, and pathogens (controlling inputs from rangelands,
dairies, and confined animal facilities).
Water Treatment - Reduce formation of disinfection by-products by controlling
TOC, pathogens, turbidi , and bromides.
Water Management - Use water management techniques and improved outflow
CALFED Bay -Delta Program 49 Program Alternatives
Phase II Interim Report March S. 1998
patterns and water circulation in the Delta region to control salinity levels.
Human Health - Reduce impairment of recreational beneficial uses within the
Delta due to human health concerns associated with consumption of fish and
shellfish containing elevated levels of DDT, chlordane, toxonhene, mercury, and
PCBs and their derivatives by research/monitoring and source control.
Toxicity of Unknown Origin - Through research/monitoring identify parameters
of concern in the water and sediment within the Delta, Bay, Sacramento River and
San Joaquin River regions and implement actions to reduce their toxicity to
aquatic organisms.
The water quality program will remain relatively,
unchanged among the alternatives but its
performance can vary significantly depending on the
other Program elements. Storage can help timing for
release of pollutants remaining after source control
efforts. Improved conveyance to south Delta export
pumps will improve water quality for those
diversions but may decrease quality for in -Delta
diversions. Water use efficiency measures can
improve water quality entering the Delta by reducing
some agricultural drain water containing pollutants.
Potential benefits of the water quality program
include:
• Improves Delta water quality by
reducing the volume of urban and
agricultural nmoff/drainage and
Water Quality 'Program
Facts and Figures
• Remains relatively unchanged
between alternatives.
• Provides critically needed
reduction of toxics for fisheries
and an important reduction in
organic carbon to improve
drinking water._
• Does not address health
concerns associated with
bromide without other
Program elements.
• Could exceed $0.75 billion over
20-30 years. May require
annual investment exceeding
concentration of pollutants entering
the Delta
• Improves water quality for the ecosystem by reducing toxicants as a limiting
factor
• Improves drinking water quality and public health benefits
• Reduces concentration of compounds contributing to trihalomethane formation
_ potential and degradation of drinking water supplies
For more information seethe Water Quality Program Appendix to the Draft Programmatic
EIS/EIR.
CALFED Bay -Delta Program 50 Program Alternatives
Phase II Interim Report March 5, 1998
i
Conveyance
Issues and Concerns
• Objective consideration of a new Delta channel (or isolated facility) may not be possible due
to the political stigma resulting from the peripheral canal debate in the early 1980s.
• Consideration of major conveyance modifications requires significant assurances.
• There is concern over potential deterioration of in -Delta water quality if an isolated facility is
built. A more thorough evaluation of in -Delta water quality impairments of each conveyance
configuration is needed. In particular, there are unknowns related to reduced inflows into the
northern Delta.
•
The analysis on the impacts of each conveyance configuration on fish entrainment, Delta
flow circulation, and drinking water needs further refinement.
• There is concern that support for the levee restoration program would wane if an isolated
facility were built.
• Some stakeholders believe that an isolated facility should only be considered as part of a
staged alternative or in the context of linked implementation; the facility would not be
constructed until certain milestones had been achieved (such as in transfers and water use
efficiency).
• Some stakeholders view an isolated facility as essential to improving water supply reliability.
Strong assurances must be developed for water suppliers due to the long lead time to develop
new storage.
Additional exports are expected from the Delta in the future as statewide demands for water
increase. Currently, the combined physical capacity of SWP and CVP export facilities in the
southern Delta is approximately 15,000 cfs. However, a U.S. Corps of Engineers permit limits
exports through the SWP export facility to 6,680 cfs, except during some winter months when
marginal increases are allowed. The CVP has a capacity of 4,600 cfs.
Description of the Three .Alternatives
Based on the analyses described above, CALFED developed the three alternatives to help move
towards a preferred program alternative. They represent the "best" alternatives for each of the
three main categories. Each alternative includes the six common Program elements plus storage
and conveyance. The three alternatives fall within the range of the twelve alternative variations
evaluated in the Programmatic EIS/EIR.
The operation of storage and conveyance facilities in the Bay -Delta system has a significant
effect on all CALFED Bay -Delta Program resource categories, including water supply reliability,
ecosystem health, water quality, and levee system vulnerability. These existing facilities include
numerous reservoirs upstream of the Delta, diversion facilities for local and export water use on
the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems, the Delta Cross -Channel, and the Delta export
facilities of the SWP and CVP.
The following brief overview of operating criteria considerations applies to each of the three
alternatives. Each alternative description later in this chapter includes information on operdting
criteria used in the analyses.
Operating Criteria
A variety of protective measures, implemented under authorities such as the State Water
Resources Control Board Bay -Delta Water Quality Control Plan and the federal Endangered
Species Act Biological Opinions for Winter -Run Salmon and Delta Smelt, govern operation of
storage and conveyance facilities that affect the Bay -Delta system. Together, these protective
measures are known as the Bay -Delta standards.
Bay -Delta standards are not static -- as the health of the Bay -Delta has declined over the past
several decades and the demand for water supplies from the Bay -Delta system has grown,
progressively more protective standards have been implemented. Existing Bay -Delta standards
were developed to provide environmental and water quality protection with today's levels of
demand for Bay -Delta water supplies in mind. The expected increases in demand for water over
the next twenty to thirty years will undoubtedly trigger changes in standards to maintain
adequate protections. If new storage and conveyance facilities were constructed as a component
of the CALFED Bay -Delta Program, new protective measures would be implemented to address
their operation.
Many factors could affect future conditions in the Delta, including population growth and land
use changes, technological developments affecting water use and water treatment, advancements
in scientific understanding of biological processes, introduction and incursion of exotic species in
the Bay -Delta system, and ocean conditions for anadromous fish. All of these factors could
affect the ultimate performance or the time required to achieve a high level of success of -the
integrated Bay -Delta Program elements under any alternative. Ultimately, the health of the Bay -
Delta will drive changes in Bay -Delta standards.
CALFED recognizes the critical role of the regulatory framework in the overall "assurances"
package associated with this program. Given the importance of the regulatory regime to parties
on all sides, it is important to clarify that CALFED isnot proposing changes to Bay -Delta
standards. Assumptions for operating new storage and conveyance facilities considered in the
Program alternatives were made only to aid in the evaluation of the alternatives — no specific
changes in Bay -Delta standards are proposed or endorsed by CALFED agencies through this
evaluation. As information is developed during the course of implementing the Program, this
information will be provided to regulatory agencies for appropriate consideration. Changes in
Bay -Delta standards will be made, if at all, by the appropriate agencies in accordance with
applicable laws and consistent with any agreements in the CALFED assurances package.
In modeling the three alternatives described below, CALFED first evaluated operations using
existing regulations, modified only to account for operations of the new storage and conveyance
facilities considered in each alternative. Specific assumptions regarding operating criteria are
included in the following descriptions of the Program alternatives. For analytical purposes only,
and in recognition of the potential for changes in Bay -Delta standards over the term of the
Program, CALFED performed a "sensitivity analysis" of the three alternatives with respect to
hypothetical changes in the regulatory regime. This was not a formal "sensitivity analysis" in a
technical sense, but was simply a rough consideration of how the modeled water supply results
changed when applicable standards changed. These hypothetical changes were chosen in part for
modeling simplicity, and are not intended to represent a consensus as to whether or how
standards could be strengthened or relaxed in the future. For purposes of this sensitivity analysis,
CALFED evaluated changes in two Bay -Delta standards that are generally recognized as the
major regulatory "controls" on the operations of Delta export facilities — the "Export -Inflow
Ratio" requirement and the Delta "X2" outflow requirement. 'Discussion of this sensitivity
analysis, as it pertains to different aspects of alternative performance, is included as a sidebar in
Chapter 4.
Additional details on operating assumptions Modeling Assumptions and Results Appendix to the
Draft Programmatic EIS/EIR.
r----- ProgramsStorage—Conveyance
r-•----- South Delta North Delta------�- Isolated Facilities 11
N
cOs t GO
ftp ��r tlsfo�
QGOf�� OjO�� ^df�0,
r \ \
0�� o tory \
yo
ID/
a9 °
° q rs � ®4a
®re a 0 �yi��� 0
oa90°a
11,01
r° �i° o y y, o 0
ro 4° ar k9 ei oa S �o
°r Oce y� do°�?y ray °qo g'vi °vr
°nn
Existing
Alt 1 Ax
x
x
x.
X
x
-
N
Through._.___.____.___
Delta
B
_............_._..
x
x
x
x
x
x
_
x
X
X
-
-
_..
Channels
C
X
X
x
X
x
x
3
250
500
1
X
x? X
x
x
Modified
Alt 2 A
x'
x
x
x
x
x
y
X
X1 x
x
rtx
x
X
Delta Through
B
x
._ _
x
._. ..
X
x
_
x
x~
.._
3
500
250
Soo
2
_..
X
x X
x
x
x
x
D
X
X
x
X
X
X
2
._X
,. X..
X
_._...
_X.
. X..
x__
X_.
---
E—
X
x
X
X
X�
X
3
500
250
600
2
X
X X
T
X
X
X
Dual
Alt 3 A
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X x
x
x
X.
x
x
System
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
500
250
500
2
200
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
500
250
500
2
200
X
X I X
X
X
X
H
X
_X
X
X
X
X
X
3
500
250
500
2
X
X j X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X I
X
X
3
500
250
500
2
100
X
X,
X
X
X
X
CALFED Bay -Delta Program
Phase II Interim Report
78 Program Alternatives
March 5. 1998
COMPARISON OF OPEN CHANNEL AND PIPELINE
OPTIONS FOR ISOLATED FACILITY
Conveyance Types and Environmental Impacts - The 44 -mile canal would generally consist of a trapezoidal
section with gentle side slopes and a top width of around 600 feet and a depth 27 feet. The pipeline facility
would consist of side-by-side buried concrete pipelines. The total distance of the pipeline route disturbed
acreage is approximately the same as the canal alignment. The construction activities to bury the pipeline
would disturb similar acreage as the canal. However, the buried pipelines would allow easier terrestrial access
from one side of the alignment to the other.
Pumping Plants - Pumping plants would lift up to 10,000 + 2,000 cfs into the conveyance facility. An open
channel would utilize a single low operating head (10 feet) pumping plant and the pipeline would require a
pumping plant with operating head of 150 feet. The increased operating lift would substantially increase
operating and energy cost from around $2 million per year for the canal option to around $24 million per year
(based on a power rate of 40 mills) for the pipeline option. Given that the site acreage for the two pumping
plants are about the same there would little differences in environmental impacts between the two plants.
Water Crossings - In order to convey water across rivers and sloughs, the open canal would require 11
inverted siphons. The siphons would cross under four major rivers and seven sloughs. The pressurize buried
pipeline would cross under the same waterways. The environmental impacts of these crossings would be
similar for both alternatives.
Bridge and Utility Relocations - For the open canal, bridges would be constructed over the canal for all
county roads, state highways, and railroad crossings. The pipeline will cross under the same facilities. The
construction impacts of the two methods would be similar; however, the elevated bridges across the canal
would have more visual impact than the buried pipeline.
Water Quality Protection - The buried pipeline is less vulnerable than an open canal to introduction of
pollutants, such as those introduced by spills, storm water and agricultural runoff, and sabotage. Given that
there is many miles of open water above the intake and miles of open water from the pipelines exit into Clifton
Court Forebay to the point of use, the added benefit of this protection appears minor.
Safe - Both facilities would be designed to current safety standards and the safety components included in the
project cost. There would be substantially less safety measures needed along the route of the buried pipeline
than the open canal.
Seepage Protection - There would be insignificant, if any, seepage from the pipeline. Monitoring wells along
the route of the canal would be installed to identify areas that may have excess and facilities such as seepage
interception wells would be installed to protect adjacent lands from seepage problems.
Seismic - Both the canal and the pipeline would be designed to the California design code for seismicity. The
cost for design and construction for seismicity are included in the cost estimate.
Right -of -Way - The right-of-way width for both conveyance methods is similar.
Costs Comparison - Preliminary capital cost for the canal conveyance is around $1.4 Billion. The pipeline
conveyance would be about $2.4 Billion. In addition, the pipeline energy requirement is $22 Million more per
year that the canal.
Comparing the 1982 Peripheral Canal and CALFED Alternative 3
CALFED Alternative 3 includes dual Delta conveyance, using modified Delta channels and an isolated
facility to convey water from the Sacramento River to the SVVP and CVP pumping plants in the south
Delta. How does this alternative compare to -the 1982 proposal for a peripheral canal? Both include a
new facility to move water around the eastern edge of the Delta, but that's where the similarity ends. The
main differences include the scope of the programs, conveyance capacity and method, strategy to
maintain in -Delta water quality, and impacts on local resources.
A big difference between the old peripheral canal and any of the CALFED alternatives is their scope.
Each of the CALFED alternatives offers a comprehensive program to solve problems in the Bay -Delta
system related to water supply reliability, water quality, ecosystem quality, and levee system integrity,
with flood control improvements integrated with ecosystem restoration in both the north and south Delta.
The peripheral canal was primarily intended to increase water project exports and reduce fish entrainment
caused by these exports.
The old peripheral canal had a proposed capacity of 23,000 cfs. Among the variations of Alternative 3,
only 3e approaches this magnitude of isolated conveyance with a 15,000 cfs diversion on the Sacramento
River. The main benefits of the isolated facility in Alternative 3 are improvement in export water quality
and a reduction in fish entrainment caused by Delta exports, rather than an increase in export water
supply.
The CALFED alternatives would improve water quality with a broad range of actions that emphasize
point and non -point source control. The through -Delta conveyance included in Alternative 3 would help
maintain in -Delta water quality, although salinity levels would increase in some areas. The peripheral
canal included a feature to discharge Sacramento River water from the canal into Delta channels to
improve in -Delta water quality. This feature is not included in Alternative 3 because these releases could
cause anadromous fish to stray from the Sacramento River into the Delta, a very serious environmental
impact.
A final difference between CALFED's Alternative 3 and the old peripheral canal is the impact on local
resources related to the way any new canal would cross existing Delta streams and channels.
Construction of the peripheral canal would have blocked several existing waterways in the eastern Delta.
This could have caused local drainage problems during high flows, and would have separated valuable
habitat in the eastern Delta from the rest of the Delta ecosystem. Alternative 3 would prevent local
drainage problems and maintain the connection of the aquatic ecosystem by using siphons to carry water
in the isolated facility underneath existing Delta channels.
4
r
r
4
DM
r.
4
e
e
3 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The environmental consequences of the three
CALFED program alternatives are summarized in
Table 3-1, for each environmental resource
category included in this Programmatic EIS/EIR.
The affected environment and environmental
consequences of the ' program alternatives are
described in detail in Chapters 6, 7, and 8. The
information in this table provides a brief synopsis
and summary comparison of the adverse and
beneficial impacts of the No Action Alternative
and CALFED Program Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. In
general, the impacts to each resource resulting
EXHIBIT B
from the storage and con-eyance program element
would vary by altemative. The impacts resulting
from program elements other than storage and
conveyance would be less sensitive to the
alternative selected. Therefore, in Table 3-1, the
impacts associated with storage and conveyance
are described separately for each alternative, and
the other program elements are not grouped by
alternative. For details of how each of the
Program elements is affected by the various
alternatives, please see Chapters 6, 7, and 8 of this
Programmatic EIS/EIR.
CALFED Bay -Delta Program Draft Programmatic EISBIISUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
3-1
w
N
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF CALFED BAY -DELTA PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
Environmental No Action Storage and Conveyance
Resource Category Alternative Alternative I Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Other Programs
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Surface Water Resources
Bay -Delta
Hydrodynamics and
Riverine Hydraulics
Water Quality
Minor changes in
stream flow in the
rivers and Bay -Delta as
a result of increased
demand.
Gradual deterioration in
Delta water quality.
Small to moderate increases
occur in mid-range
Sacramento River flows
due to increased releases
from storage for 1 C. Little
change in Delta circulation
patterns for 1 A and 1 B for
Alternative ],but increased
south Delta pumping in 1 C
leads to small increases in
magnitude of reverse flows
in central Delta.
Shift in timing of Delta
inflow results in some
improvements in Delta
water quality for 1 C.
Improvements are offset by
increased south Delta
pumping. No change in
water quality for
configurations without
storage component.
Small to moderate increases
occur in mid-range
Sacramento River flows
due to increased releases
from storage for 2B, 2D,
and 2E. Potential reduction
in through -Delta flow
velocities (greater residence
time) and reductions in
frequency of reverse flows
associated with changes in
channel geometry and
distribution of Delta
inflow.
Reduction in salinity and
bromide concentrations due
to improved circulation
pattern and shift in timing
of Delta inflow with
storage component. Water
temperature may increase in
east Delta from channel
widening for habitat
improvements.
Temperature effects
partially offset by shading.
Small to moderate increases
occur in mid-range
Sacramento River flows
due to increased releases
from storage for 3B, 3E,
3H, and 3I. Reduction in
north Delta inflow, reduced
frequency of reverse flows
in San Joaquin River, and
substantially reduced
influence of south Delta
pumping on Delta
circulation pattern.
Quality of water exported
to SWP-CVP Area South
of Delta improves
substantially with isolated
facility because water is
taken from Sacramento
River instead of Delta.
Salinity increases, however,
at Rock Slough.
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 1 of 10)
Ecosystem Restoration pulse flows
and Delta outflow targets result in
potentially substantial short tern
increases in Sacramento River and
San Joaquin River•flows during
selected periods from March to
May.
The Ecosystem Restoration and
Levee System Integrity programs
significantly increase sediment
loading and turbidity during
construction and initial operation.
Substantial potential benefits from
source control measures of the
Water Quality Program in all
regions.
maimift
-7., !
w
w
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 2 of 10)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF CALFED BAY -DELTA PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
No Action
Storage and Conveyance
Environmental
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Resource Category
Alternative
Other Programs
Water Supply and
Increased demand, no
Increased availability and
Increased availability and
Increased availability and
Levee System Integrity Program
Management
additional supply, and
reliability with IC.
reliability with 213, 2D, and
reliability for all 313, 3E,
increases water supply reliability
increased allocation to
2E.
3H., and H. In addition,
instream flows under
isolated facility conveyance
results in increased
reduces sensitivity of
unmet urban and
export's quantity and
agricultural demand.
quality.
Groundwater
Increased groundwater
Additional surface water
Impacts similar to those
Impacts similar to those
Ecosystem Restoration, Water
Resources
use and potential
and groundwater storage
described under Alternative
described under Alternative
Quality, and Levee System
adverse impacts.
which would potentially
1.
I .
Integrity programs would increase
reduce the significant
groundwater recharge. The Water
adverse impacts to
Use Efficiency and water transfer
groundwater resources
program can result in greater
throughout all regions as
reliance on groundwater resources
compared to No Action.
during dry periods, and potential
reductions in groundwater recharge,
both potentially adversely
impacting groundwater resources
for Std party users.
Geology and Soils
Conditions are
Reduced channel erosion
Reduced potential for
Impacts similar to those
Ecosystem Restoration is expected
expected to be similar
and sedimentation in the
erosion of channel, levee,
described under Alternative
to have beneficial long-term effects
in type but of greater
Delta Region through
and interior island soils
2.
in all geographic regions except the
magnitude than
channel enlargements.
through levee setbacks and
SWP and CVP Service Areas with
existing conditions due
Applied salt loads would
shallow flooding of Delta
respect to soil erosion,
to continued soil
be reduced in the Delta and
island interiors. Applied
geomorphology, and sediment
erosion, sediment
San Joaquin River regions
salt loads would be reduced
transport. The Water Use
contamination,
under all alternatives due to
in the Delta and San
Efficiency program is expected to
subsidence, and
increased flows from
Joaquin River regions
reduce erosion from agricultural
channel degradation.
additional storage facilities.
under all alternatives due to
lands. Coordinated Watershed
increased flows from
Management efforts may have
additional storage facilities
adverse short-term impacts on
and Water Use Efficiency.
surface soil and channel erosion in
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 2 of 10)
W
IL
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 3 of 10)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF CALFED BAY -DELTA PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
No Action
Storage and Conveyance
Environmental
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Resource Category
Alternative
Other Programs
Geology and Soils
the Sacramento San Joaquin
(continued)
watersheds, but are expected to
have beneficial long-term impacts
on stream geomorphology by
reducing sediment inputs from
hillslope, bank, and channel
erosion.
Noise
Conditions are forecast
Construction of storage
Impacts are expected to be
Impacts are expected to be
Construction activities associated
to be similar to existing
facilities in IC is expected
similar to Alternative I for
similar to Alternative 1 for
with the Ecosystem Restoration
conditions.
to result in overall greater
213, 21), and 2E.
313, 3E, 3H, and 3I. In
Program, and Levee System
potential noise effects but
addition, construction of
Integrity would not cause
would not be significant in
the isolated facility would
significant noise impacts in any
any region.
generate noise.
region.
Transportation
Conditions are forecast
Significant but mitigable
Impacts similar to those
Impacts similar to those
Construction activities associated
to be similar to existing
short- and long-term
described under Alternative
described under Alternative
with Ecosystem Restoration and
conditions, but traffic
impacts to roads where
1, for 213, 21), and 2E.
1, for all configurations
Levee System Integrity
demands and traffic
construction of levee and
except 3A.
improvements may cause
volume on existing
storage and conveyance
significant short-term impacts to
roadways are expected
improvements may cause
roadways and traffic routes if
to increase.
re -muting or temporary
detours or road closures occur.
closure of some traffic
routes for 1 C.
Air Quality
Conditions are forecast
Significant but mitigable
Impacts are expected to be
Impacts from construction
Construction activities associated
to be similar to existing
short-term adverse air
similar to Alternative 1, for
of storage facilities are
with Ecosystem Restoration and
conditions.
quality effects in the
213, 213, and 2E. Other
expected to be similar to
Levee System Integrity,
Sacramento and San
short-term impacts would
Alternative 2, for 313, 3E,
improvements are not expected to
Joaquin River Regions
occur as a result of
3H, and 3I, All
cause significant air quality impacts
from construction of
construction of conveyance
configurations would have
in any region.
storage facilities for 1C.
facilities.
impacts associated with
construction of conveyance
facilities.
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 3 of 10)
w
iA
0
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF CALFED BAY -DELTA PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
Environmental No Action Storage and Conveyance
Resource Category Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Other Programs
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
Fisheries and Aquatic
Ecosystems
Conditions would be
similar to existing
conditions, although
increased input of
contaminants and
increased Delta exports
would adversely affect
some aquatic
organisms.
Vegetation and Wildlife Conditions are forecast
to be similar to existing
conditions.
Adverse impacts, including
increased entrainment loss,
reduced productivity, and
delayed migration of fish
species could result from
diversion to new off -stream
storage (1C) and increased
exports. Construction of
new storage facilities would
have potentially adverse
impacts on spawning and
rearing habitat.
Minimal adverse impacts
on vegetation and wildlife
communities, except 1C,
which would cause
disruption and reduction of
habitats from construction
and operation of storage
facilities.
Impacts would be similar to
those for Alternative 1, for
2B, 2D, and 2E.
Additional adverse impacts
would include increased
entrainment, reduced Delta
productivity, reduced
survival of aquatic
outmigrants and habitat
loss or degradation.
Beneficial impacts would
result from Delta flow
conditions in the lower San
Joaquin river that improve
fish migration to the Bay.
Greater adverse impacts on
vegetation and wildlife for
2B, 21), and 2E, than 1 C,
but would provide benefits
to some species as a result
of the creation of aquatic
habitats.
Alternative 3 is expected to
have greater impacts than
Alternative 1 but would
have the highest potential
for beneficial impacts in the
cast, central, and south
Delta Regions due to
reduced entrainment losses,
increased productivity and
improved aquatic
outmigration.
Most adverse impacts on
vegetation and wildlife
resulting from extensive
facility construction;
however, the numerous
aquatic habitats that are
created would benefit
numerous species
dependent on such areas.
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 4 of 10)
Ecosystem Restoration and Water
Quality would improve aquatic
habitat and species under all
alternatives in all regions except
SWP and CVP Service Areas
outside the Central Valley. The
Water Use Efficiency Program is
expected to create ecosystem
benefits through reduced diversion
entrainment impacts, modifications
in flow timing, improved in -stream
water quality, and Water Transfers
for ecosystem purposes.
Ecosystem Restoration and Water
Quality Program elements would
lead to improved habitats under all
alternatives. The Water Use
Efficiency program may result in
adverse impacts to some habitats
from reduced surface water runoff.
Changes in crop mix as a result of
increased efficiencies and Water
Transfers may reduce the amount of
wildlife friendly crops.
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 5 of 10)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF CALFED BAY -DELTA PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
No Action Storage and Conveyance
Environmental
Resource Category
Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Other Programs
_and Use, Economics, and Social Environment
kgricultural Resources
Igr►eultural Land and
3hi is in production
Prime and unique farmland
Impacts would be similar
[mpacts would be similar
Ecosystem Restoration would
Nater Use
rom field crops and
and other agricultural lands
but more pronounced than
3ut more pronounced than
convert agricultural lands to other
;rains to fruits and
would be converted to
hose associated with
hose associated with either
uses in the Delta, Sacramento River,
iegetables are expected
other uses, and potential
Altemative 1.
Alternative 1 or 2.
and San Joaquin River regions.
.o occur.
conflicts between proposed
The Water Quality Program would
actions and regional land
result in improved water quality of
use plans and policies
irrigation water, higher crop yields,
could occur. Storage
and greater crop selection
facilities would potentially
flexibility. Retirement of lands in
increase the amount of
the San Joaquin River region could
water available for
significantly affect up to 45,000
agricultural production.
acres of agricultural land. Levee
System Integrity program would
convert Delta Region farmland, but
provide greater protection to
farmland from flooding and salinity
intrusion.
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 5 of 10)
AM AM An Am MM AMA M■rs am ,ttittttil An� ttttttttttti. 4r...1. so&
1
i
�I
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 6 of 10)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF CALFED BAY -DELTA PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
No Action
Storage and Conveyance
Environmental
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Resource Category
Alternative
Other Programs
Agricufluraf Economics
The cost of water is
Conversion of farmland
Similar but more
Similar but more
Ecosystem Restoration and
expected to continue to
may result in adverse
pronounced effects than
pronounced effects than
Coordinated Watershed
increase.
economic impacts.
Alternative 1.
Alternatives 1 or 2.
Management efforts could
potentially convert agricultural
lands from production, resulting in
adverse economic impacts to
revenue generation, employment,
and local spending. The Water
Quality Program would reduce
long-term production costs and
generate higher crop yields. A loss
of jobs and economic income in the
San Joaquin River region as lands
are retired. Levee System Integrity
could potentially convert some
agricultural land from production
but can provide increased
protection to farmlands, thereby
resulting in short-term adverse
impacts for long-term benefits.
Water Transfers may result in
changes to local economics as a
result of the sale of water. The type
of impact would be dependant on
how revenues from the sale are
spent and how local economies are
impacted because of the transfer of
water into or away from a region.
Coordinated Watershed
Management would alter land use
practices in upper watershed, which
may result in forgone economic
opportunities.
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 6 of 10)
w
00
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 7 of 10)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF CALFED BAY -DELTA PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
No Action
Storage and Conveyance
Environmental
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Resource Category
Alternative
Other Programs
Agricultural Social Issues
Conditions are forecast
Job losses could occur as
Jobs loses are expected to
Jobs loses are expected to
Ecosystem Restoration could result
to be similar to existing
agricultural land is
be more pronounced than
be more pronounced than
in a significant loss of jobs due to
conditions.
converted to other uses.
for Alternative 1.
for Alternatives I or 2.
the conversion of agricultural lands
for habitat restoration. The Water
Quality Program would result in a
loss of jobs in the San Joaquin
River region as lands are retired.
The Water Use Efficiency Program
would result in increased yield for
farmers, but may reduce on-farm
jobs associated with irrigation
activities. Water Transfers may
result in the loss of farm worker
jobs and other job related impacts
in the selling region. The loss of
farm worker jobs in the receiving
region, if the water is purchased for
agricultural use, may be avoided by
a transfer.
Urban Resources
Urban Land Use
Continued
Urban impacts could
Impacts would be similar to
Impacts would be similar to
Other prorams are expected to have
development trends
include displaced residents,
Alternative 1, but
Alternative 1, but
only negligible effects on urban
would cause
disrupting of existing
potentially more
potentially more
land uses but could require
displacement of some
communities, and
pronounced.
pronounced than either
relocation of major infrastructures.
residents, disruption of
inconsistencies with local
Alternative I or 2.
some existing
and regional land use
communities, local and
plans.
regional land use plan
inconsistencies.
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 7 of 10)
MAMA AMMA"Mann iks QM
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 8 of 10)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF CALFED BAY -DELTA PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
No Action
Storage and Conveyance
Environmental
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Resource Category
Alternative
Other Programs
Urian Water Supply
Water supply reliability
Water supply costs could
Water supply costs could
Water supply costs could
Other programs are not expected to
Economics
would continue to
increase.
increase.
increase.
significantly affect urban
decline and supply
economics.
costs would increase.
Utilities and Public
Demand for utilities
Alternative 1 is expected to
Altemative 2 is expected to
Alternative 3 is expected to
Ecosystem Restoration may require
Services
and public services is
increase the demand for
have similar but more
have similar but more
the relocation of utility
expected to increase
utilities and public services
pronounced effects than
pronounced effects than
infrastructure components under all
significantly,
and require the relocation
Alternative 1.
Alternative 2.
alternatives.
of some utility
infrastructure components.
Recreational
Continuing increased
New storage and
New storage and
New storage and
Ecosystem Restoration could
Resources
demand for recreational
conveyance facilities under
conveyance facilities under
conveyance facilities under
convert existing open space uses in
facilities.
1C would create new
2B, 2D, and 2E would
313, 3E, 3H, and 3I would
the Delta, Sacramento River, and
recreational opportunities
create new recreational
create new recreational
San Joaquin River regions. Levee
while displacing some
opportunities while
opportunities while
System Integrity improvements
existing opportunities.
displacing some existing
displacing some existing
may result in beneficial impacts by
opportunities.
opportunities.
creating beach slopes associated
with new levees and reduced
exposure to flooding for existing
recreational facilities. Some
facilities could be closed or
relocated depending on the location
of the levee improvements.
Flood Control
Property values in the
Small potential benefits or
Benefits to flood control in
Conveyance facilities and
The Levee System Integrity
Resources
Delta Region would
costs to flood control in the
the Delta, Sacramento
channel improvements are
Program is expected to have
continue to increase,
Sacramento and San
River, and San Joaquin
expected to provide
substantial beneficial impacts on
but flood protection
Joaquin River regions.
River regions from channel
additional benefits in the
flood control. The Ecosystem
levels would slightly
improvements and
Delta. Other impacts are
Restoration and Water Quality
decline.
additional upstream
expected to be similar to
programs will also have flood
storage.
those described in
control benefits.
Alternative 2.
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 8 of 10)
w
0
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 9 of 10)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF CALFED BAY -DELTA PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
No Action
Storage and Conveyance
Environmental
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Resource Category
Alternative
Other Programs
Power Production and
No Action Alternative
Configuration 1C is
Configurations 213 and 2E
Configurations 311, 3E,
Other program elements may affect
Energy
would impact power
expected to increase
would cause the same types
3H, and 3I would cause the
power production and energy but
and energy resources,
average dry year energy
of impacts as 1 C.
same types of impacts as
would not significantly impact
due to changes in water
generation and capacity as
1C.
CVP and S WP hydroelectric
demand, conveyance
new hydropower facilities
generating capacity, power
and pumping strategies.
are added. It would
production economics or energy
increase project energy use
generation.
as operations change,
would decrease the amount
of CVP energy available
for sale, and would increase
the SWP's net energy
requirement. Westem's
composite energy rate
would increase
significantly under this
alternative. DWR's net
power costs could also
increase.
Regional Economics
No Action conditions
Adverse impacts are
Impacts similar to those
Impacts similar to those
Other program elements would
are forecast to be
expected from loss of
from Alternative 1, but
from Alternative 1, but
remove agricultural lands from
similar to existing
agricultural production and
provide more beneficial
provide more beneficial
production, resulting in adverse
conditions adjusted for
beneficial effects from
recreational impacts.
recreational impacts. In
economic impacts.
population growth.
increased recreation and
addition, this alternative
water supply and
would provide greater
reliability.
water supply reliability as a
result of additional
conveyance flexibility.
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences of CALFED Program Actions (page 9 of 10)
Table 5-2. Estimated Acreages of Important Farmland Impacted by Program Actions
5-6
Water
Alternative
Region
ERP
Levees
Storage
Conveyance
Quality'
Total
P
S
U
P
S
U
P
S
U
P
S
U
0
Alt I
Delta
93,000-
3,500-
1,500-
31,000
2,500-
500-1,000
0
0
0
0-300
0-100
0
0
132,000-
105,000
6,500
3,500
3,000
150,400
Sacramento
17,000-
2,500-
500-1,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
0
0
0
26,000 -
River
22,000
3,000
134,000
San Joaquin
8,200-
500-1,000
300-500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35,000-
44,300-'
River
9,500
45,000
56,000
Alt
Delta
93,000-
3,500-
1,500-
31,000
2,500-
500-1,000
0
0
0
3,500-
100-3,000
400-1,500
0
136,000-
105,000
6,500
3,500
3,000
24,500
179,000
Sacramento
17,000-
2,500-
500-1,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26,000 -
River
22,000
3,000
34,000
San Joaquin
8,200-
800-1,000
300-500
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
0
0
35,000-
44,300-=
River
9,500
45,000
56,000
Alt 3
Delta
93,000-
3,500-
1,500-
31,000
2,500-
500-1,000
0-14,000
0-2,000
0
3,500-
200-5,000
300-1,500
0
136,000-
105,000
6,500
3,500
3,000
27,000
199,500
Sacramento
17,000-
2,500-
500-1,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26,000 -
River
22,000
3,000
34,000
San Joaquin
8,200-
800-1,000
300-500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35,000-
44,300?
River
9,500
45,000
56,000
Types of Farmland
• Prime (P) -Land with the best combination of physical and chemical features for the production of agricultural crops
• Statewide Importance (S) -Land with a good combination of physical and chemical features for the production of agricultural crops
- Unique (U) -Land of lesser quality soils used for the production orthe State's leading agricultural cash crops
'Estimated acreages of important farmlands cannot be attained at this time because mapping has not been completed in the San Joaquin Region. It is possible that Important Farmlands
will be affected by the Water Quality Program in the Grasslands subarea of the San Joaquin River Region.
'Total includes lands potentially affected by Water'Quality Program.
Table 5-2. Estimated Acreages of Important Farmland Impacted by Program Actions
5-6
EXHIBIT C
- THE DELTA FIX -
CALFED BAY -DELTA PROGRAM AND STATUS
How The Decision
Will Be Made
Now that CALFED's draft environ-
mental review for the Bay -Delta solution
has been released for public review,
many people are asking what the process
and timing are for reaching a final
decision. The schedule is as follows:
• Public hearings will wrap-up at
the end of May. Following the hearings,
CALFED agencies will review the
public and written comments and
develop responses, which will undoubt-
edly include revisions to the proposed
programs. In early summer, CALFED
will hold a workshop to discuss the
received comments and how it is
addressing them.
• Throughout the entire process,
CALFED will work with the various
stakeholder interest groups to resolve
outstanding issues and clarify the overall
program. Planning on how to implement
the overall program will also be ongoing.
• By this summer, a decision will be
made by the CALFED agencies on a
preferred alternative, that is, which of
the three comprehensive programs, as
modified by public review, will be the
selected course of action.
• A final environmental report will be
issued for public review December 1 and
completed within 60 days. At that point,
program elements will begin to be
implemented. Special programs that
may require additional permits will be
analyzed through additional environ-
mental reviews.
• It is expected to take 25 to 30 years
to implement a CALFED solution, at a
cost of upwards of $10.5 billion.
SPECIAL INSERT To ACWA NEWS: MAY 1998
Water For All Californians
The stakes could not have been greater when the unique partnership of
state and federal resource agencies known as CALFED began developing a
solution to the problems of the Bay -Delta estuary nearly three years ago.
By the early 1990s, two Delta fish species were protected under the
federal Endangered Species Act,
and others were under consider-
ation for listing. The water that
lubricated much of California's
trillion -dollar economy and
supplied drinking water to
22 million people was becoming
ever more unreliable.
And then there was the
politics: north, south, city, farm,
environmental — the political
and regional constituencies that
had fought over California's
most precious resource were
only beginning to learn how to work together for common solutions.
A Public Process
To navigate this maze of technical and political obstacles, CALFED's
Bay -Delta Program devised the most open, public water policy process in
California history. They started with the premise that no option was preferred
nor precluded. Everything was on the table.
This process was working against hard deadlines and real problems.
It was, as the program's Executive Director Lester Snow kept reminding the
participants, "the last, best chance for saving the Delta"
(continued on nage 4)
CALFED Decision Time Frame
Public Comment
Preferred Alternative
Selected
Final Environmental -
Report Issued
March '98 June August December
This update prepared by the California Water Clearinghouse has been reprinted as a special ACIIfA Neu•s insert.
For further information access the California Water Clearinghouse web site at www.bay-delta.org.
Three Proposals Offer Different Strategies To Meet Goals
The three proposed Bay -Delta
solutions packages released by the
CALFED Bay -Delta Program in
mid-March all share the same goals:
restore the BaY-Delta ecosystem to
self-sustaining health and improve
the dualit'v and reliability of waler
supplies. But they represent distinct
approaches in meeting those goals.
The major stakeholder groups —
agricultural, environmental and urban
water interests — are now engaged in
thorough analyses of the alternatives.
Each alternative is endlessly complex,
embracing hundreds of coordinated
actions. A major challenge for those
reviewing the documents is to under-
stand how each component interacts in
the overall program.
The public debate in recent
months has become spirited. Emerging
key issues in the debate include:
Water Use Efficiency and
Conservation: The draft CALFED
Program proposal includes the most
aggressive water conservation and
recycling program ever envisioned in
the nation's history. For every gallon of
new water yield developed by their
program, up to four gallons would be
created through conservation, accord-
ing to CALFED. Access to new water
supplies by any agency would be
conditioned on demonstrating efficient
use of existing water supplies.
Nonetheless, the Environmental
Water Caucus (EWC), a coalition of
environmental interest groups, has
called for reducing Bay -Delta water
diversions by as much as 3 million
acre-feet, an amount equivalent to
nearly a year's supply from the State
Water Project. Such a reduction in.
demand would dramatically reduce the
impacts on fish and other environmen-
tal resources, they argue.
Water users, however, note that
improving the reliability of supply is
one of the co -equal objectives of the
CALFED Program, and that the state
could not absorb the economic impacts
of such a drastic reduction in the water
supply. Significant investments in
conservation have occurred over the
past two decades — more than
$160 million in Southern California
alone — and more will be made under
the CALFED program. But with an
expected population increase of
18 million people over the next
20 years, the state needs to develop,
not reduce, reliable water supplies.
In addition, based on initial
review of the program, some water
Broad Public Support For CALFED Goals
Recent opinion sampling has shown strong and consistent public support
for the goals of the CALFED Bay -Delta Program.
What the Public
Thinks
6 out of 10 Californians 90% of Californians agree
say improving water that a reliable, affordable
quality is atop priority water supply is needed to
maintain a strong economy
12,1
users feel CALFED's conservation
targets may be unrealistically high.
Assurances and Linkages:
The CALFED proposals are complex
and inter -related. However, many
groups feel that the various program
elements need to be linked so that
all interests receive roughly equal
benefits at about the same time.
Key to keeping the various parties
engaged will be devising a program
schedule that accomplishes this goal.
(continued on page 3)
Who Benefits From a
Delta Fix? .
Northern California:
• enhances local watershed
management efforts
• restores ecosystem
• improves balance between Delta
water supply and demand
Central California:
• protects natural resources
• fixes levees
• protects farms and towns
Bay Area:'
restores Bay -Delta ecosystem
• increases water supply reliability
San Joaquin Valley:
• better water quality
• improves water supply reliability
Southern California:
• protects water quality
• improves water supply reliability
• increases water supply
Source: CALFED Bay -Delta Program
Proposals Conlinued.froni jlt,ge 2FEW11413
I�
tion shows
Just as important, mechanisms need to be developed
U to 3.0 MAF Surrace Stamw
to 250 TAF Groundwater Storage
that will provide the various interests with the certainty that
Storage and Conveyance Features
,
the program is not just promises, but real projects that will
Vice -Chair, Bay -Delta purpose of the
restore the environment, improve water quality, and bolster
N
ModifiPypfccations
CALFED's dual-
conveyance system would be to provide better quality..
water supplies. For any new facilities, binding guarantees
water, not increased supplies. In fact, the facility is pro-
posed to be likely about half the size of the old Peripheral
Canal. Better quality water would be possible by changing
evill need to be developed that will spell out how such,
the point where water is diverted to improve the source
projects will be operated to protect different interests from
+5,000 cis
–
adverse impacts.
3
=,
station
Facilities: CALFED's third alternative, the dual-
the estuary. An additional water diversion point also would
conveyance option, calls for construction of a new channel
:
a' ``
to the east of the Delta. Some groups have called this
Channel Enlargement �� '' ,
-�'"{
0
*`OperableF/ow
proposal a revival
+5,000 CIS
re Y
Fish Screens —�_�F ,/
and Pump
Control Barriers
Y Operable Fish
Control Barrier
supply reliability, strengthen Delta levees, and improve
t
Station lntertie--7►;
s.•
of 1982's Periph-
Nater Quality: Alternatives two and three — calling
- - uprosoorAF
• Delta is in eral Canal, but a;,";'°"I
Up to? 0 MAF
Surrace Storage
+R n5=r
I
drinking water quality. However, alternative two shows
Storage
trouble, 1economycloser examina-
tion shows
is in 1uble. The Delta is
dramatic differ-
broken, 1' '1
ences between
Storage and Conveyance Features
' '' the two facilities.
+o,000 cls screened Intake
Bay 1 The primary
Vice -Chair, Bay -Delta purpose of the
N setback Levee.
and Channel
1 1 1 new channel in
ModifiPypfccations
CALFED's dual-
conveyance system would be to provide better quality..
water, not increased supplies. In fact, the facility is pro-
posed to be likely about half the size of the old Peripheral
Canal. Better quality water would be possible by changing
the point where water is diverted to improve the source
water into the system.
+5,000 cis
The dual -conveyance system would keep water
Fish Screens
and Pump In
exporters tied to the Delta for some of their supply, thus
station
ensuring their continuing concern for the overall health of
the estuary. An additional water diversion point also would
provide important fisheries benefits, shielding them from
the impacts of pumping operations in the southern Delta.
Importantly, the facility is just one component of a
Storage and Conveyance Features
vast program to restore the ecosystem, improve water
+0,000 eta ±2,000 cis
Screenedintake(s)
r
supply reliability, strengthen Delta levees, and improve
N
water quality.
Nater Quality: Alternatives two and three — calling
for channel enlargements in the Delta and a new isolated
channel to the east of the Delta — show major benefits for
drinking water quality. However, alternative two shows
improvements in quality more for in -Delta users, while the
dual -conveyance option shows improvement primarily for5000
cis s2,000cis,
A0, Screens and
export water users. The fact is all interests need better
Pump Station
quality drinking water supplies. The challenge will be to
refine the water quality program so that happens. Graphics/maps
by Mark McCourt, In'
(Colllinued on page 4) CALFED
Bay -Delta Program
X j
Up to 3.0 MAFSudace Storage
Up -.1 5oTAF
Grourhrater Storage
Shallow Channel
--r Isolated from
Snodgrass Stough
Flooded
�- McCormack -
Williamson Tract
Operable Flow
i' Control Barriers
'c ,Operable Fish
Control Barrier
Up to 20A
Gg-AOued
Storage .
E]
to
I
Possible Channel
Modifications
Operable Fish
_ Control Barrier
Water For California
Continued firm page I
Fear of failure was one motivating
force keeping all parties — urban and
agricultural water users, environmental
interests, and business and political
leaders — at the table because to do
otherwise was practically unthinkable.
The nation's largest state economy
depends on a reliable, high-quality
Bay -Delta water supply. The vast
environmental resources of the West
Coast's largest estuary require a healthy
Bay -Delta to survive and flourish.
And progress was made. In
November 1996. California voters
resoundingly passed Proposition 204,
a bond measure that devoted about
$600 million to environmental restora-
tion work for the Bay -Delta. The
President and Congress did their part,
pledging another $430 million for the
Bay -Delta environment.
Also, first-ever agreements were
reached among water users to help
meet their water supply needs, protect
Bay -Delta water quality and contribute
to the recovery of declining salmon
stocks and other fish.
People were.beginning to under-
stand that for the first time ever, a
comprehensive solution was in reach.
Solution Proposals Released
CALFED has released an environ-
mental report on three comprehensive
proposals for "fixing" the Delta.
The proposals aim for the same
broad goals: a restored Bay -Delta
ecosystem; improved water quality;
increased and more reliable water
supplies; and a strengthened Delta
levee system to guard all of those
resources. Each of the three.alterna-
tives builds on a foundation of equal
effort in some key areas: water quality,
water -use efficiency, environmental
restoration, levee improvements,
watershed management, and water
transfers.
Differentiating the three alterna-
tives is how each proposes to store
and move water across the Delta.
Each proposal includes additional
water storage ranging up to 6 million
acre-feet (one acre-foot = 326,000
gallons).
The Alternatives
The first alternative would simply
reoperate the current Delta water
supply system, essentially by changing
the timing of diversions at the state and
federal water projects to minimize
environmental impacts. The second
alternative proposes widening some
channels in the eastern Delta to further
reduce the environmental impacts of
diverting water at the export projects
while allowing improved flows for
water users.
The third alternative builds on the
second, proposing an additional canal
be built just east of the Delta to divert
water from the Sacramento River to
provide better quality and eliminate
adverse pumping impacts.
Each of the alternatives has its
strengths and weaknesses, both techni-
cally and politically.
The final plan will likely blend
together the best elements of the
current proposals. Nonetheless, the
options each represent a different path
for addressing California's most
persistent water policy issue.
a
Proposals
Cowinued from page 3
Costs: A CALFED solution
will be expensive — ranging from
$9 billion for alternative one to
$10.5 billion for alternative three,
according to estimates. The costs
when compared to a trillion -dollar -
a -year economy in need of investing
in its water infrastructure are not
overly burdensome. But there are
concerns about identifying exactly
who benefits from each program
component, and fairly apportioning
those costs among the beneficiaries.
Other issues are certain to
emerge in the unprecedented
CALFED water policy debate.
Clearly, Californians are facing a
once-in-a-lifetime decision on how
to meet the state's water needs well
into the future. Close attention and
open minds are required.
How can I learn more?
• CALFED has a number of
documents available, Call toll-free
, 1-800-900-3587.
• Web sites: http://CALFED.ca.gov
or htip:/hvww.acwanet.com, or the
California Water Clearinghouse
at http://www.bay-delta.org.
A Ri«-eekly Newsletter
for ACM Members
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AUENCIES • SINCE 1 9 1 0
EXIIIBIT D
[BIT'S BEEN SAIDm
"The CALFED agreement, which
comprises a unique multi -agency
partnership that addresses ecological
and water supply problems simulta-
neously, is of significant value to our
state.
"I, along with many members of the
California congressional delegation,
have worked diligently to secure federal
funding for this project. Bay -Delta was
funded at $85 million in Fiscal Year
1998, and I fully support the Fiscal Year
1999 budget request of $143 million.
"While I am still evaluating my
position on the various alternatives
presented in the CALFED Bay -Delta
Programmatic EIS/EIR, any final
solution that is adopted must be
equipped to handle the necessary
improvements in the operation of the
CVP [Central Valley Project] and the
State `Pater Project for the long-term
environmental, water quality, water use
efficiency and flood protection needs
for the future of the state of California.
Furthermore, any final solution should
include the utilization of an open -
channel isolated facility.
"California's water needs are best
met by maximizing an 'adaptive
management' strategy for ecosystem
restoration and water quality and
efficiency improvements.
"In summary, the solution to
California's water needs must include
providing a reliable water supply and a
healthy environment at the same time."
— Excerpts from comments by U.S.
Representative George Radanovich April
22, 1998, on CALFED alternatives for
fixing problems in the Bay -Delta
M-1,414 Nowc • 11 Mav 1 qqR
Views and Perspectives
Quotes Heard at CALFED News Conferences
It's not always the photo that's worth a
thousand words; in this case, it's the words
themselves that are telling the story.
Here's a smattering of quotes from the
news conferences March 16 where the
CALFED options for fixing the problems
in the Bay -Delta were announced.
■ "Since the signing of the Bay -Delta
Accord in December 1994, an unprec-
edented coalition of state and federal
agencies, together with concerned
stakeholders, has worked tirelessly to
develop a long-term `fix' that suits
Californias economic and environmen-
tal needs. Now that we have the answers
before us, I suggest the time has come
to speed up our efforts. For we still
have plenty of work ahead if we are to
meet a deadline by year's end." —
Governor Wilson in a prepared statement
■ "In phase two, we have undertaken
the largest ecosystem restoration
program anywhere in the world. Over a
"If there's not enough water to go
around, I will gladly share it with
someone because I still have some in
my cup," said Sunne McPeak, vice
chair of the Bay -Delta Advisory
Council. in her comments at the
CALFED news conference, she urged
stakeholders to "stay at the table."
billion dollars is available for projects
to restore the environment and habitat
for fish and other species." — Deputy
Interior Secretary john Garamendi at the
CALFED news conference. He told the
reporters and photographers in attendance
that they should turn their cameras around
and pan the audience — comprised of the
stakeholders and the public — as they played
a vital role in the CALFED process.
■ "Anything short of success is
unacceptable to the public." — Secretag
of State Bill Jones at Governor Wilson's news
conference
■ "The effort to date has not been
easy. Today marks another milestone in
California's water history." — Senator
jim Costa, Chair of the Senate Agriculture
and Water Resources Committee, at
Governor Wilson's netvs conference
■ "We call today a `commencement
ceremony.' The hard work is just now
beginning." — Lester Snow, Executive
Director, CALFED Bay Delta Program, at
the CALFED news conference
■ "Today's event is a really big deal ...
We need folks to approach this docu-
ment with open minds and open hearts.
There's something for everyone to love,
something for everyone to hate,
something for everyone to fear." —
Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator,
U.S, Environmental Protection Agency, at
the CALFED news conference
■ "A document won't solve our
problems, discussion will. This isn't a
pop quiz. This is a take-home exam. We
all have to rise to this occasion or miss
the opportunity [to fix the Bay -Delta].
There is too much at stake not to do
so." — Felicia Marcus, Regional Adminis-
trator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, at the CALFED news conference
■ "We must put behind us the water
wars of the past and move into the next
century." — Sunne McPeak, Vice Chair;
California Resources Secretary Doug Wheeler addresses a standing -room -only
crowd at the CALFED news conference. Seated (1-r) are Felicia Marcus, regional
administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Deputy Interior Secretary
John Garamendi; Sunne McPeak, vice chair, Bay -Delta Advisory Council; and
CALFED Executive Director Lester Snow.
Page 4 ACWA News • 30 March 1998
Bay -Delta Advisory Council, at the
CALFED news conference
■ "The common programs are the
cornerstone of a water management
plan in California." — Sunne Weak,
Vice Chair; Bay -Delta Advisory Council, at
the CALFED news conference
■ "CALFED is a model for the kind of
state -federal partnership we need to
embrace if we are to develop lasting
solutions to complex environmental
issues. The Bay -Delta is on par with the
Florida Everglades and Chesapeake Bay
in terms of important ecological
Stakeholders are interviewed after
the CALFED news conference.
resources. We must meet the challenges
it faces for the good of California and
the nation." — Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt in a prepared statement
■ "We enter [this phase] with no
predisposition to any of the three
alternatives. The only option not
available to us is failure... Unless we
seize this opportunity, future genera-
tions will have us to blame." —
California Resources Secretary Doug Wheeler
at the CALFED news conference
■ "The historic Bay -Delta Accord
broke the gridlock on water policy in
California, and began the hard work of
finding a consensus -based, long-lasting
Bay -Delta solution. Such a solution
must guarantee a healthy environment
and meet the needs of California's
farmers, fishers and families." — Carol
M Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency; in a prepared
statement
■ "CALFED's collaborative approach
is the best hope for a sustainable
solution that addresses water quality
objectives in the Bay -Delta and sup-
ports the state's long-term water needs."
—Peter M. Rooney, Secretary, California
Environmental Protection Agency, in a
prepared statement
■ "California's trillion -dollar economy
depends on a healthy environment and
a safe, reliable and adequate water
supply. The CALFED process is an
unprecedented effort to address these
two vital needs." — Commerce Secretary
William Daley in a prepared statement
■ "The business community strongly
supports the CALFED process. We have
[through this process] people who want
to find solutions to the problem." —
Allan Zarember,, president, California
Chamber of Commerce, at Governor
Wilson's news conference
■ "We cannot fail. We have to find a
way to make it work." — Bill Pauli,
president, California Farm Bureau Federa-
tion, at Governor [Wilson's news conference
A crowded CALFED Bay -Delta Program news conference March 16 at the Sacramento Convention Center — where the
CALFED options to fix the Bay -Delta were announced.
Page 3 ACWA News • 30 March 1998
nvironmentalists say that a smaller,
modified version of the Peripheral
Canal will be embraced by govern-
ment officials as part of the answer to
restoring the Sacramento River -San Joaquin
River Delta. But a spokesman for the Wil-
son Administration denied that the canal -
oriented alternative is preferred over other
alternatives
A draft environmental impact report
released in March suggested the canal as
one of three options for the restoration
work. Public hearings on the EIR begin
around the state on April 21, and a public
comment period lasts until June 1.
Plans for the Delta are expected to cost between S4 billion and
SIO.S billion to implement. The most controversial alternative calls
for creating a canal to transfer water around the Delta itself to the
southern Delta area near Tracy. a project somewhat similar to the ill-
fated Peripheral Canal proposal that failed to win voter approval in
1983.
The Delta is where the state's two largest rivers, the Sacramento
and the San Joaquin. meet San Francisco Bay. It is home to about 300
species of birds, animals and fish. many of which are at risk of
becoming endangered. Fish often are sucked into the pumps used to
move water from the Sacramento River to the south Delta. where the
water is used to irrigare the state's farms and serve urban users.
The Delta also provides two-thirds of the state's population with
drinking water and irrigates crops in the Central Valley.
The problems in the Delta date back oyer 100 years, when the land
was diked and levees were built for agricultural uses. In 1994. the
state and federal governments announced an accord that began the
CALFED program to restore it and save endangered species.
If carried out, the Delta restoration would be the largest ecosystem
restoration project in the United States. Funding is expected to come
from state. federal and user fees, although so far. most of the monev
hasn't been earmarked. California voters did okay $450 million for
the restoration work by passing Proposition 204 in 1996. The federal
government is also committed to providing 5430 million over the next
three years.
The alternatives in the EIR were created throueh meetings and
studies by representatives of state and federal agencies, with input
from environmentalists. business and agricultural groups, and urban
w ater users. Those alternatives are:
• Alternative 1. which makes the fewest changes to the status quo.
It would lead to the construction of neo reservoirs and expand others
to store up to 6 million new acre-feet of w iter.
• Alternative 2. which would incorporate the first alternative. but
would also dredge Delta channels deeper to hold more water and
widen channels to help fish.
• Alternative 3, which would incorporate the elements of the first
MO. but would also include a 44 -mile canal between the Delta's east-
ern edge to the state water product aqueducts near Tracy. The canal is
known as an "open channel isolated facilin."
Environmentalists have compared .alternative 3 to the Peripheral
Canal, which was defeated by the state's voters in 1983. But
CALFED officials have taken pains to distinguish the two projects.
noting that the latest proposal would carry less water than the canal.
The CALFED channel would carry 15.000 cubic feet per second. tier -
sus the Peripheral Canal's 33.0(X) cubic feet per second.
Frrvironmcnial groups have been critical of the draft EIR, asserting
that in the end the canal will be chosen as the best alternative. They
Environment Watch
Larry Sokoloff
Enviros Don't Like
CALFED
Alternatives
EXHIBIT E
also claimed that the report does not do
enough to promote water conservation.
"Number three is going to be the clear
preferred alternative," said Wil Burns. com-
munications director for Save San Francisco
Bay, who said that implication was clear
from the "tenor" of the document.
Burns said the EIR understated the eco-
logical problems that will be created by
building the canal. He said that diversion of
water for the canal will decrease water flows
in the Delta.
But a Wilson administration spokesman
denied that Alternative 3 had been chosen.
'.There is no preferred alternative. It's
been made very clear by all the players involved," said Jim Youngwn,
assistant secretary for resources. Youngson noted that the speakers
making these statements were both Democrats and Republicans.
including Sen. Jim Costa, D -Fresno. Deputy Interior Secretary John
Garamendi. also a Democrat, and Republican Governor Pete Wilson.
Environmentalists also criticized the EIR for failing to emphasize
conservation more.
"There's a whole ranee of conservation based alternatives
CALFED has not yet explored:" said Ronnie Cohen, a policy analyst
with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Cohen said that while
the EIR does mention water conservation, much more should be con-
sidered.
For example. the EIR calls for saving less than % of agricultural
water used in the state, she said. But a recent NRDC report shows
farmers who have reduced their water usage by 20- 30%. she said.
The Delta program will have an impact on prime agricultural land
in the Delta, especially if the canal is built. "Use of land already
owned by the government and other possibilities will be considered
prior to converting prime agricultural land, and additional measures to
mitigate these impacts will be included:' according to CALFED docu-
ments.
The final EIR on the Delta is supposed to be released in late 1998.
The restoration project itself is expected to last for up to 30 years.
■ Contacts:
Ronnie Cohen, Natural Resources Defense Council, (415) 777.0220.
Jim Youngson, Assistant Secretary for Resources, (916) 653-5656.
Wil Burns, Save San Francisco Bay. (510) 452-9261.
Flood Law Delayed
Implementation of AB6x, which w as scheduled to go into effect on
March 1. has been delayed until June 1. The delay was sought by the
California Association of Realtors (See CP&DR, March 1998).
AB6x, introduced by Assemblyman Tom Torlakson, D -Martinez.
would have required home sellers and real estate agents to disclose to
home buyers if a home is in a designated flood plain.
Currently, homeowners must disclose whether a house is in an area
where there is a threat of wildland fires and earthquakes.
AB6x grew out of the severe floods that occurred in the Central
Valley in 1997. It requires the disclosure of whether a home is in a
designated flood plain or could he flooded if a dam collapses. It also
requires greater disclosure of fire dangers.
The Realtors organization requested the delay because specific
information on flood risk and other hazards were not available in all
area,.. of the state.
The bill granting the delay. SB 'l by Senator David G. Kelley,
was signed by Governor Wilson on Feb. 23. D
J 2
Summary Evaluation oaf Most significant Technical
Distinguishing ct6ristics
6
Cn
Cn
w
U
`'
Cn
o
�
a
Cn
N
LOc3r
V
v
.
C;
�
-
U
0
N
C.
M -F
tenatie '
!
L
L
L
L
L
L
Iter-nativa
FA+
AN
PA+
L
M
L
m
m
ftemat 6 3.
% L
H
L
M+
M+.
M
H
H
6
Points to consider for inclusion in CALFEC c+aMfits:
1. The program appears to do little if anything,to hdlg solve tate
groundwater overdraft and supply shortage far Sef '64quin
County. The EIR/EIS on the preferred alternative Modd address
this issue.