June 14, 2011 - The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is up and running. Staff with the California Natural Resources Agency, working under the direction of Undersecretary Jerry Meral, sent out an announcement giving community and civic groups a whole four-day notice to decide which of the thirteen working groups they would like to join.
Restore the Delta staff decided to forgo participating in this labyrinth of bureaucratic processes as it would require a significant number of staff members, which we do not have, to effectively monitor the workings of thirteen groups. ( See our Opinion Piece in The Record from June 4, 2011.) Clearly, this short notice given for BDCP public participation is a deliberate attempt to ensure that the public is not prepared to engage with BDCP materials in a thoughtful manner.
Then again, there's that matter of who is really controlling the BDCP. The former Steering Committee, which has not met since late in 2010, is no longer the primary group formulating the BDCP. However, it is still listed on the BDCP website. Meral reported at the last public BDPC meeting that a management committee had been formed solely to handle day-to-day operations of the BDCP.
The Management Committee, which is still not listed on the BDCP website includes a number of agency officials along with water exporters. Restore the Delta knows that a fair number of these committee members are the people who are pushing for how large the peripheral canal should be, how it should be repackaged with "scientific" window-dressing to support project construction, and how much land and water should be stripped away from Delta fisheries and Delta communities. The Management Committee includes:
Dr. Jerry Meral, California Resources Agency; Karla Nemeth, California Resources Agency; Scott Cantrell, Department of Fish and Game; Mark Cowin, DWR; Dale Hoffman-Florke, DWR; Cathy Crothers, DWR; Ron Miligan, Bureau of Reclamation; Sue Fry, Bureau of Reclamation, Federico Barajas, Bureau of Reclamation; Jason Peltier, Westlands Water District; Chuck Gardner, Hallmark Group; Laura King Moon, State Water Contractors; Paul Cylinder, Science Applications International; Steve Arakawa, Metropolitan Water District; Ebin Marc, Ebbin, Moser, Skaggs, LLP; Brent Walthall, Kern County Water Agency; Joan Maher, Valley Water; Spreck Rosencrans, Envirornmental Defense Fund; Michael Chotkowski, Fish and Wildlife Service; Jennifer Norris, Fish and Wildlife Service; Dan Castleberry, Fish and Wildlife Service; Maria Rea, NOAA; Michael Tucker, NOAA; and Anthony Saracino from the reliably compliant Nature Conservancy.
As stated in our recent opinion piece, while water exporters are paying for a portion of the BDCP, State and Federal officials dedicated to working on this process are funded by tax payers - all to support a predetermined outcome that supports the interest of a handful of groups in California.
While a few representatives on this committee are committed to the preservation of California's fisheries and noble in their intentions, not one representative from the Delta has been included in this clandestine decision making body. We heard from a second-hand source, one individual was identified from this committee as representing the Delta community - a hat he declined to wear.
Holding to this pattern of public obfuscation, BDCP staff sent out notice this past Friday afternoon (June 10, 2011) of the public BDCP meeting that will be held this Wednesday, June 15, 2011 from 1 to 5 pm. (Click here for meeting details.) With such short notice, the public is once again left scrambling to attend, while Meral continues to coat the process with a veneer of transparency.
Even more intriguing, the Water Commission is holding its next meeting on Wednesday, June 15, 2011, at the exact same time as the Public Bay Delta Conservation Plan Meeting. Item #10 on the Water Commission's Agenda is of particular interest to the Delta community:
Briefing on statutory responsibilities of the Water Commission including naming of State Water Project facilities and eminent domain
It should be noted that Anthony Saracino, from the reliably compliant Nature Conservancy, who also serves on the Management Committee of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, is also the Chair of the Water Commission. And we cannot help but to question why Saracino was comfortable with addressing issues of eminent domain through the Water Commission at the same time the Public Meeting of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is being held.
Congressman Devin Nunes (Visalia) was absent from yesterday's second hearing on his bill HR 1837, which reduced the acrimonious rhetoric that was unleashed on the California fishing community at the first hearing on the bill and later on Delta farmers on the Families Protecting the Valley website. According to Nunes, the problem with California water is:
"Delta farmers have been able to hide from reality on their islands, fishermen have filled their pockets with tax dollars, and radical environmentalists have assumed greater control over the state's water."
In truth, Nunes's HR 1837, named the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act, could be easily renamed the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Full Pumping Act. Sold to the public as a job creation bill, HR 1837 would deal an economic and environmental deathblow to Delta communities and coastal fisheries.
HR 1837 would:
Subjugate State water rights law to Federal law, overturning 120 years of legal standing. (Meaning that junior water rights holders like Westside valley growers would move ahead of Northern California farmers when allocations are made for water deliveries in California.)
HR 1837 would:
Set the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord as the stand for deciding how much water can be pumped from the Delta. (Meaning that the flow recommendations made earlier this year to the State Water Resources Control Board for restoring flows to the Delta would be left as a report to collect dust on a shelf. We would go back to levels of pumping that nearly finished off fisheries this decade.)
And HR 1837 would:
Undo the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement. (The San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement took twenty years to produce and is one part of what is needed to restore South Delta water quality. Also, the idea that this settlement could be reversed is once again proof of how promises made to the Delta community are never kept, i.e. pumping surplus water only, screening the pumps at Tracy, water exporters mitigating environmental damage to the Delta.)
As reported on Alex Breitler's blog with The Record, the Delta was represented this time by John Herrick, General Manager with the South Delta Water Agency. Herrick explained that HR 1837 would take away responsibility from those who export water for the health of the estuary. Herrick also explained with great clarity how HR 1837 would disrupt water rights law in California.
It is worth noting that Water and Power Subcommittee Chair Tom McClintock (Elk Grove), who had to grant this follow-up hearing, called it a "waste of time." It seems that Congressman McClintock is confused about whom he represents.
Why would he ignore the water needs of Northern California farmers and fishermen who live in his district to ensure water deliveries for Westside valley growers and Southern California water exporters? We leave that to our readers to answer for themselves.
Last week at the Sacramento River Watershed Forum, a number of important topics were discussed --- too many to list here. We think, however, that our readers need to understand two salient points from the meeting.
The panelists and attendees were made up of representatives from government water agencies that work on water, consultants who do research, studies, and reports on behalf of these agencies, and a few legislative staffers for the State for good measure.
One panel consisted of representatives from State and Federal agencies who discussed the role of their agencies. Restore the Delta's Brett Baker reports that many of these representatives could not articulate where their agency's work ended and another agency's work began. After twenty years of CalFed, Delta Vision, BDCP and the Delta Plan, we find this lack of agency understanding highly disturbing.
Most dismaying, however, were comments made by the Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board Charles Hoppin. He expressed his view of the SWRCB's role in determining adequate water quality standards in the Delta, saying that the flow recommendations that were unanimously adopted by the Board last year must be " reconciled with reality." He then went on to say that the Board was waiting on defining standards on the San Joaquin River and the South Delta until they had heard from BDCP. Hoppin attempted to back pedal on this statement after later being questioned as to whether stakeholder driven processes like BDCP were directing efforts of government agencies like the State Water Resources Control Board, but his second reply was less than convincing.
Our government agencies are unclear about what they do and for whom. We hope that Restore the Delta supporters remind them that they work for the citizens of California.
