C-WIN PRESS RELEASE: Bureau of Reclamation analysis shows some benefits of restoring California’s rivers but opts for status quo on groundwater

A recently released draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on the operation of a massive federal water project contains an alternative that would restore fish populations and reduce greenhouse gas emissions but fails to  account for the requirements of the state’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), an omission that  could make the higher river flows needed by native fish infeasible.

Max Gomberg, a water policy expert and Board Member for the California Water Impact Network, notes the DEIS is required to assess “reasonably foreseeable” impacts from laws and regulations. SGMA was adopted in 2014, and some overdrafted groundwater basins will soon be subject to state-mandated plans for reducing pumping.

“Despite the well documented SGMA process, Reclamation used a groundwater model that does not include any pumping restrictions,” stated Gomberg. “As a result, the DEIS claims that agricultural users will pump massive volumes of groundwater to replace reductions in surface water deliveries.”

But SGMA’s full implementation will prevent continued unsustainable pumping and force transitions to more sustainable farming practices, said Gomberg – including the conversion of marginal land to other uses, such as renewable energy production.

“Reclamation missed an opportunity to provide an alternative where river restoration and reduced groundwater pumping produce a wide range of environmental and societal benefits,” Gomberg said.

Another major flaw in the DEIS is the assumption that urban water districts will spend huge amounts of money to replace reduced deliveries from the Bay-Delta, Gomberg observed.

“Reclamation should have analyzed future water conservation potential and included the effects of recently adopted urban conservation regulations by the State Water Board,” he said. “Water conservation remains the most cost-effective way to build climate resilience. Analyses like  this DEIS that support expensive water supply projects reflect outdated thinking and an unwillingness to focus on equity, ignoring the fact that the people with the greatest capacity to conserve are often those with the greatest financial resources.”

Gomberg did commend Reclamation for working with environmental organizations to create an alternative that would significantly improve water quality.

“It demonstrates an openness to listen and engage that has been sorely lacking from the Newsom administration, which recently released a pathetic excuse of an environmental analysis for the State Water Project and is seeking to fast track expensive boondoggles, including the $20+ billion Delta tunnel and the $5+ billion Sites reservoir,” Gomberg said.

However, Gomberg added, Reclamation must abandon its “alternate reality” and amend the DEIS to reflect the impact of SGMA on the CVP’s operation.

Carolee Krieger, C-WIN’s Executive Director, added: “Agriculture uses 80% of California’s developed water but accounts for only 3% of state GDP. Reclamation is basically saying they must maintain high volume deliveries of surface water to corporate agriculture because growers will maximize groundwater pumping if they don’t, accelerating aquifer overdraft and land subsidence. But under SGMA, growers can’t just pump whatever they want whenever they wish, penalizing urban ratepayers and the environment in the process. There are profound legal consequences.”

To review and comment on the Bureau of Reclamation’s draft EIS on CVP operations, go to Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. Comments will be received until September 9.