On Wednesday December 15, 2021 the California Water Commission held its meeting online. Chair Teresa Alvarado called the meeting to order at 9:30am. Alvarado once worked at Santa Clara Valley Water District and was always a pleasure to interact with. Evidently modest as well. I never knew until I read her bio at the CWC website she earned a Masters in Engineering from Tufts University. Anyway, despite the quality of the chair I didn’t tune in on Zoom just to go to another meeting.
The governor appointed CWC is a part of the state government and has a lot of duties. The CWC:
- Advises the Director of the Department of Water Resources,
- Annually reviews the State Water Project,
- Chooses the names of SWP facilities,
- Presents preferences to the Congressional appropriations committees about US Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers projects in California.
- And for today’s report administers WSIP which selects which water storage projects will be funded by 2014’s Prop One.
The Projects
In addition to the usual meeting items like roll call, minutes and public comment for matters not on the agenda there were four water storage projects up for review. Prop One dedicated $2.7 billion to be spent on water storage. This is water in California so of course it comes with its own set of initials and acronyms namely WSIP and MCED; the Water
Storage Investment Program and Maximum Conditional Eligibility Determinations. WSIP is the overall funding and MCED is how much each project can get. There were eight projects but Temperance Flat withdrew and its share of the loot was divided amongst the the remaining projects with a little wrinkle we’ll get to in a bit.
Back in December of 2017 a plethora of projects applied for consideration. Not all of them made it of course but now after only four years of being ground through the sandy gears of Sacramento the accepted projects are being reviewed to determine if they have met the feasibility requirements under Prop One.
Four projects were reviewed at this meeting:
- the Kern Fan Groundwater Storage Project,
- the Willow Springs Water Bank Conjunctive Use Project,
- the Sites Reservoir Project and
- the Pacheco Reservoir Expansion Project.
The Kern Fan project is a water banking project that could store up to 100,000 a/f of Article 21 SWP supplies from the California Aqueduct. The proponents are Irvine Ranch Water District and the Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District. Once enough water is banked the project could pump in lieu of taking water from Lake Oroville and the Oroville water could be used for pulse flows on the Sacramento River to help the fish.
Willow Springs is located in Kern County’s eastern desert on the Los Angeles County line east of the intersection of the California Aqueduct and the Los Angeles Aqueduct within the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin. In 2017 it was described as being able to move 280,000 a/f annually from the California Aqueduct to the water bank. It was also stated to be owned by CalPERS, the California teachers retirement fund. The CWC website states Willow Springs can leverage 500,000 a/f of existing groundwater storage provided it can find enough SWP contractors to work with it. Also Fish & Game has to sign off on Oroville operations to make this work.
The proposed Sites Reservoir is an off stream storage facility located in Colusa County. It would be three times the size of Millerton Lake with 1.5 million a/f of storage and would use the existing Tehama Colusa Canal and Glenn Colusa ID conveyance and diversion facilities. The project could work with both the SWP and the federal Central Valley Project.
The Pacheco Reservoir is a project proposed by the San Benito County Water Agency and the Santa Clara Valley WD. Pacheco Reservoir is a small, I think 6,000 a/f existing pond uphill from San Luis Reservoir in the mountains west of Los Banos. A new dam would allow an expansion to 141,600 a/f of storage. This project has a couple of interesting features. In addition to nominal flows from Pacheco Creek water from San Luis Reservoir can be pumped into the expanded reservoir. This extra space could serve a bonus purpose – it could effectively add 100,000 a/f of storage to San Luis if operated properly. Here’s how that would work. If the level at San Luis Reservoir drops to within 100,000 a/f above dead pool, the quality of the water exported to Santa Clara Valley gets very poor. If, during the portion of the year when San Luis has incoming supplies 100,000 a/f can be sent to Pacheco Reservoir and later in the year during the dry spell San Luis wouldn’t have to worry about releasing that last 100,000 a/f above dead pool would harm the good folks in Silicon Valley and San Benito County. So, even though the uber rich, censoring tech giants in the Bay Area may clutch pearls over an extra supply irrigating almonds they want and need water too. They might accidently do a good deed. That ought to blow some brains up at the Mercury News editorial board to find there are still some people of good will at SCVWD.
The Process
Each project was brought up before the commissioners and there was public comment. And it was a little demoralizing to sit through. While the project proponents were there to answers questions almost all of the public comments were negative. Yes, some labor organizations in the Bay Area spoke in favor of Sites and Pacheco. Everyone else, enviros and NIMBYs (even though the proposed projects were hundreds of miles from their backyard) talked liked they’d got up, soaked their panties in gasoline first thing in the morning and went around the rest of the day threatening everyone to strike a match.
Only one objection given was, I felt, based on a reasoned position and presented in a manner not steeped in emotional appeal. I regret not getting the gentleman’s name. He was persuasive. The other objections were end of the world, line in the sand warnings of impending doom – mostly from the enviros. There was also a few folks identified as living in San Francisco who were opposed to everything. I guess when your tap is directly connected to Hetch Hetchy it’s easier to huff and puff that other folks’ desire for stable supplies is harming all Californians. The hypocrisy and condescension – well, it was on display.
Like many offspring of the Dustbowl Diaspora I’m part Indian. My grandmother spoke and read Cherokee and grew up on the res. My father spoke some also and was often mistaken as being from Mexican heritage when he came to California. That’s my disclosure for this next part.
There was a good number of folks identifying as Native American who spoke and they were not in favor of the projects. Although the appeals were emotional there was a certain dignity to the old ones’ oratory. They’d introduce themselves in presumably a native tongue, Miwok or Mono or ? You could feel a longing in their voice, at least I could but then I grew up with elders speaking differently. And sure as the sun rose this morning some white lady got on and castigated everyone advocating for better infrastructure as inhumane racist trying to commit modern genocide to first nations. It’s like a script when you attend these state presentations. The tribes speak and then here comes – what do they call her, Karen? – takes the stage and boils over with indignation. The intentions may be good but bless her heart she whether she means to or not she comes across with a condescending attitude that unless she helps, the tribes are lost.
But the most disturbing part of public comment was the complete lack of ag’s voice or anyone save organized labor speaking for the proposed projects. I mentioned this to a friend of mine who farms and his response was, “Farmers don’t have time to sit through these meetings.”
My response to his response is – neither do carpenters yet there was someone speaking up for them. The construction trades realize they’ll benefit from improved water infrastructure and die without it. They recognize for their industry to continue a water infrastructure built six or more decades ago when there were 16 million people residing in California needs an upgrade now that there’s 40-million of us living here.
Off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen organizations capable of effective advocation for ag water and I’ll bet you $5 there’s a couple of dozen more. Using water to grow food is nothing to be ashamed of, in fact is the opposite. It’s a good thing to feed people. I hear, “We’re educating consumers about the benefits of ag.” Good, do it, needs to be done. Evidently, until there’s a famine folks need to learn food comes from farms and ranches.
But while you are educating don’t be surprised to find your knees are suddenly cold because those opposing you sneaked up and pants you. Without advocating for what’s right and pushing back ag is going to find itself standing there with its trousers around its ankles. Ag is going to get what it is given and it isn’t going to like it.
The Vote
All the proposed projects were deemed feasible by the commission. Commissioner Jose Solorio is a Valley guy. I met him at a Southern California Water Coalition meeting in Long Beach and he told me he’s from a farm worker family and grew up on the San Joaquin Valley’s westside. He also served in as an Assemblyman and made the motion to approve the Kern Fan Project. Good for him.
As was stated by CWC staff over and over this vote was only to assess if the project had achieved the Prop One criteria of feasibility. There was no money or green lights given, but all the projects are still in the running. There are more steps ahead of approval by the CWC.*
At the beginning of this report I mentioned a wrinkle. Well, here it is. With Temp Flat withdrawing two other proposed projects were able to get over the WSIP application hurdle. One is the Stanislaus Regional Water Surface Water Supply Project. It was deemed feasible at an earlier meeting and will now join the applicants and move forward. This is a drinking water project for the Cities of Ceres and Turlock.
Perhaps of greater interest to readers is the Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir Project. Del Puerto Canyon is west of I-5 near Patterson. The Del Puerto Canyon WD and the Exchange Contractors are the proponents. The plan is for an off stream reservoir that will store 82,000 a/f. The water source is the Delta Mendota Canal. It also passed the WSIP process and is now on board for the Prop One ride to payday, hopefully.
So while it was a long meeting full of opposition and questions, something was accomplished. Something good or something bad depending on one’s view. But something with water and the state government went forward. Rare enough. It could be a different attitude. Contrast this:
State Water Resources Control Board Executive Director Eileen Sobeck from August of 2020, “There could not be a more critical challenge facing us at this time than the challenge of achieving racial equity.” Verses:
“I believe there is nothing more important right now than building out properly vetted water storage projects that will serve our state and its citizens for generations to come,” Commission Vice-Chair Matt Swanson.
DISCLAIMER OF RESPONSIBILITY; Waterwrights strives to provide its clients with the most complete, up-to-date, and accurate information available. Nevertheless, Waterwrights does not serve as a guarantor of the accuracy or completeness of the information provided, and specifically disclaims any and all responsibility for information that is not accurate, up-to-date, or complete. Waterwrights’ clients therefore rely on the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of information from Waterwrights entirely at their own risk. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not represent any advertisers or third parties.
*It’s not too late to advocate.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 by WaterWrights.net/DAW
The California Water Commission consists of nine members appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate. Seven members are chosen for their expertise related to the control, storage, and beneficial use of water and two are chosen for their knowledge of the environment. The Commission provides a public forum for discussing water issues, advises the Director of the Department of Water Resources on matters within the Department’s jurisdiction, approves rules and regulations, and monitors and reports on the construction and operation of the State Water Project. Proposition 1: The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act approved by voters in 2014, gave the Commission new responsibilities regarding the distribution of public funds set aside for the public benefits of water storage projects, and developing regulations for the quantification and management of those benefits. In 2018, the Commission made maximum conditional eligibility determinations for eight projects in the Water Storage Investment Program. https://cwc.ca.gov
Executive Director: Joe Yun josephe.yun@water.ca.gov
