The November meeting of Metropolitan’s One Water and Stewardship Committee, a joint meeting with the entire Board of Directors, was a marathon of over five hours with many topics covered. However, front and center was the Delta Conveyance Project with the Board vote on funding the remaining planning costs for the controversial Delta Conveyance Project coming up in December. The meeting included an agenda item, and a panel and discussion with both supporters and non-supporters of the project.
Agenda item: DWR’s funding request, SWP contractor participation
This was the second of a series of staff presentations to the Committee in preparation for the December vote. At this time, the board is not being asked to contemplate final implementation and investment in Delta conveyance. That decision will come years from now, assuming the project moves forward only after additional planning is completed.
DWR has asked the participants for approximately $300 million to fund the additional planning costs. Metropolitan’s share at 47.2% is roughly $141 million.
The work DWR has planned is sufficiently funded through 2025. The request in December will fund the completion of significant permitting and planning efforts in 2026-27, including the water rights change petition, the Delta Plan consistency certification, essential engineering and geotechnical design, and other engineering and innovations. This information is needed for evaluating and updating the cost, feasibility, and engineering approach for project implementation.
Regarding the other participants in their relative participation, Metropolitan is by far the most significant participant. Agencies with the green check mark are those that have already had board votes. Staff noted that Alameda County Water District did approve funding after this slide was compiled. (Desert Water Agency has also subsequently voted to approve the funding.)
Metropolitan is working through a protest process related to their State Water Contract billing; Metropolitan has filed protests for nearly $200 million. DWR has given assurances that they will provide a lump-sum advance payment of $75 million in SWP credits by December 1, 2025. Using this credit for additional planning costs would not impact Metropolitan’s already approved rates through 2026. However, in 2027, rates would need to increase by approximately three percent to cover expected expenditures in 2028.
Staff noted there are additional attachments in the Board Agenda Packet that are responsive to requests for further information from the previous meetings:
- Attachments one (Pages 38-75) and two (Pages 76-80) include key CEQA findings that need to be acted upon should the board vote to continue planning efforts; these would be part of the December action and are only included for informational purposes. The CEQA findings are consistent with what other public water agencies are bringing forward to their boards for approval and continued funding.
- Attachment three includes key terms to be included as part of a funding agreement and additional provisions staff believe are crucial to the agreement with DWR. (Page 81)
- Attachment four is communications between Metropolitan and DWR regarding further information needed and resolving outstanding protest items. (Pages 82-85)
- Attachment five summarizes all questions received at the October One Water Committee from directors with the responses using the best information staff have available to date, noting that some answers are yet to be determined and would be completed at a later date as part of additional DCP planning activities or other Metropolitan processes. (Pages 86-100)
The workshop
At the conclusion of the regular meeting, the board transitioned into a workshop featuring two panels, one speaking against the project and the other speaking in support of the project, and a discussion period afterward.
Delta and Tribal advocates speak against the project
MAX GOMBERG
Max Gomberg, a water policy advisor to the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and formerly with the State Water Board, began the presentation.
The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians originates in the Delta and is federally recognized as a sovereign nation according to treaties with the US government. The Tribe is working towards getting Tribal beneficial uses of water identified under the federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Act. Tribal beneficial uses are different and distinct from existing beneficial uses and include using water for cultural ceremonies, traditional fishing practices, gathering of natural aquatic resources for sustenance, navigation related to cultural practices, and accessing water for spiritual ceremonies. The Tribe and others are working to ensure that there are adequate flows into the Delta to protect tribal uses as well as community uses.
The Tribe has also filed a formal complaint with the EPA over discrimination in the management of the Bay-Delta because petitions to the Water Board went unanswered, and the responsiveness to tribal concerns in the Bay-Delta Plan has been lacking.
Mr. Gomberg pointed out that multiple proceedings at the Water Board will have a direct impact on the Delta Conveyance Project, such as the hearings for the water rights permit and the update of the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan, which will set rules for operations and how much water can be pumped where and when. There are competing proposals for how to do it – a regulatory proposal and the voluntary agreements, now called the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes. All of this will affect the amount of water that can be pumped from the Delta.
Litigation is highly likely through multiple avenues:
- The Endangered Species Act
- CEQA
- Unreasonable use provision
- Public trust doctrine
- Water rights
- The validation of the bonds
The Tribe’s goals in engaging are about ensuring that beneficial uses of water for the Tribe are recognized, are incorporated into water management planning, and that the Tribe’s ways of life are respected.
“For that reason, we are opposing the DCP as well as the voluntary agreements. We think they’re not in the interests of tribal sovereignty, of sustainability, and, frankly, of cost-effectiveness for your ratepayers.”
Mr. Gomberg also pointed out that not all State Water Project contractors have bought in, notably Kern County Water Agency, which is responsible for almost a quarter of Table A allocations, so it begs the question of who will come up with that money.
“We believe there are viable alternatives to spending this money on the tunnel that would achieve the coequal goals for the Delta and for Southern California’s water supply reliability that were set forth by the legislature in 2009,” he said. “Those alternatives are better suited to our changing climate, the increasing upward pressures on rates, and protecting the needs of all users of water, including Tribes, Delta communities, fisheries, businesses, and others.”
BARBARA BARRIGAN-PARILLA
Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta, spoke next. During her presentation she pointed out that there are real questions about the water security of the project.
Restore the Delta is also a party to the Title 6 complaint and the CEQA litigation, along with Shingle Springs. There are 40 protesting parties involved in the water right permit hearing. These will all be points for litigation against the Delta Conveyance Project.
The Camp4Water process will solve the water storage issues for Metropolitan, but the Delta Conveyance Project won’t. And it’s not a climate project. “The DCP is subject to the same whiplash that you are experiencing right now because it is a hardened piece of infrastructure that is going to have a huge debt load that will have to be paid every year,” said Ms. Barrigan-Parilla.
She also pointed out the limited benefits for agricultural contractors, such as Kern County, who would have problems paying for the project. And she cited the high administrative fees of up to 40% listed in the cost estimate.
Ms. Barrigan-Parilla said a better way would be to upgrade Delta levees to 300-year level protection using modern engineering techniques. Doing so would protect the Delta from rising sea levels and seismic threats because ‘if you’re solving for one, you’re solving for the other.’ Upgrading the levees is also crucial because, according to the EIR, the South Delta pumps would still be used 80% of the time.
“There are ways to solve the fish problem and guarantee your water supply, expand wetlands, work on water recirculation flows and new technologies for real-time fish passage … You can solve your problems for 400 to $700 million versus $20.1 billion for a tunnel that will be hardened infrastructure.”
“We stand ready to always work with you and partner with you,” said Ms. Barrigan-Parilla. “We’ve always said this. We all have family who live down here. My grandson’s down here. We care as much about your water supply as we do about restoring that magnificent estuary.”
SUPERVISOR PAT HUME
Pat Hume is a Sacramento County Supervisor, chair of the Delta Counties Coalition, chair of the Delta Conservancy, and a board member of the Delta Protection Commission.
“MWD was formed to distribute water resources from the mighty Colorado River, once viewed as an exhaustible source to meet the needs of a thirsty southwestern United States now that it trickles into the Gulf of Mexico. However, we must allow water to remain in the system, and my fear is that if MWD simply shifts its eggs from one basket into another basket, we could face the same fate with the Delta, because past performance is threateningly indicative of future behavior.
He pointed out that Metropolitan has already committed $160 million and now is being asked to chip in another $141 million. If these costs are this high before the project even begins, imagine what will happen to the projected cost to actually deliver the project. There are alternative projects that could potentially deliver water in a more timely and cost-effective manner, such as improved fish screens, brackish desalination, improving existing infrastructure, and armoring the levees for a pathway that the majority of exported water will continue to rely upon.
“If we commit to strengthening the design of those levees, as well as projects on the land side of the levees that reduce the threat of imminent failure, do things like carbon sequestration, restore tidal marshlands, convert crops over to rice. We can assure you that water is delivered to the doorstep of your existing pumps reliably and redundantly because past performance can be indicative of future behavior.”
Supervisor Hume said he is committed to standing shoulder to shoulder with Metropolitan to deliver these alternative projects so Metropolitan can have the water their agencies and constituencies need. Stop throwing good money after bad. “If we aren’t expending precious resources fighting an ill-fated plan, we can instead free up capacity to work together on these sustainable projects that achieve those coequal goals, but do so in a way that is not an existential threat to a place that we hold so dear.”
“This is not just a means to an end for us. So help me, help you get the supply security that you need without disrespecting the people who live and work there, the people who have always lived there, and the people who can scarcely afford to live anywhere but there because together, we can show Californians that past performance needn’t be indicative of future behavior.”
Business coalitions speak in support of the project
ADRIAN COVERT
Adrian Covert is Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Bay Area Council, a business advocacy organization representing about 350 of the Bay Area’s largest employers across all sectors of the Bay Area’s diverse economy.
Warming temperatures are diminishing the water storage capacity of the Sierra Nevada snowpack, with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimating 45% less snowpack by about 45% by 2050. Furthermore, the Ocean Protection Council predicts that the San Francisco Bay will rise another 13 inches by 2050, jeopardizing access to the existing pumps in the South Delta due to increasing salinity.
On average, the Bay area relies on the Sierra Nevada watersheds to provide about 50% of the total water supply. In some parts of the Bay Area, including San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and most of Silicon Valley, it’s at least 85%. More than two and a half million Bay Area residents, about a third of the region’s total, specifically rely on the State Water Project.
“I speak with Bay Area business leaders every single day and every day,” said Mr. Covert. “Their top three concerns are housing costs, housing costs, and homelessness, which is another function of housing costs. And according to every reputable academic and market analysis on housing costs, the only way to reduce them and the rate of homelessness at scale is to build more housing relative to demand.”
California has self-imposed many artificial constraints on housing production over the last century; so far, water supply has not been one of them for most of the state, primarily due to investments made by past generations of Californians. However, that’s beginning to change: About a dozen cities in California have some form of water related restriction on development, including in the Bay Area and Southern California.
“Our great concern is that without action, water scarcity will emerge as a major constraint on housing production across California, making efforts to solve homelessness and to stop the hemorrhaging of California’s families, its talent, and its political representation to other states, that much more difficult to stop.”
Mr. Covert acknowledged that municipal water rates across California have about doubled since 2010, and that’s already impacted low-income residents; at least 1.6 million California households, about one in eight, have a delinquent water bill. So it’s critically important to prioritize water projects that can deliver the most cost-efficient acre-foot per dollar, and the most effective way to do that is to secure the water we already have, including the Delta Conveyance Project.
“Water from the State Water Project will still be about 58% less expensive than recycled water, 52% less expensive than desalinated water, 37% less expensive than stormwater capture, and at $1,325 an acre-foot, within the average range of upper limit conservation programs like turf replacement,” he said. “That’s why in the Bay Area, Zone 7 and Alameda County Water District have already voted to continue supporting the Delta Conveyance Project. I suspect Valley Water will, too, in the coming months.”
TRACY HERNANDEZ
Tracy Hernandez is the founding CEO of BizFed, a massive, diverse network of business networks with 240 business organizations with 420,000 companies employing 5 million people in Southern California.
BizFed believes the Delta Conveyance Project studies should be completed. Gathering data to make an informed decision is crucial, and it’s prudent for public agencies like Metropolitan to ensure the project will meet its stated goals and serve the interests of their ratepayers. Given that Metropolitan has already invested tens of millions of dollars, pulling out now would be ill-advised.
“We encourage you not to pull out, stay the course, and fund the study so that we can learn whether it’s good or not to buy into for the long run,” she said. “Funding the next phase of research ensures that Metropolitan maintains an important seat at the table. It enables you to continue shaping this project. Finishing the information gathering process seems to be the absolute proper course of action.”
Not funding the next round would send a signal to the businesses in the region and the West that Southern California is not open for business. Businesses are already leaving California; adding resource scarcity will make it worse. “More than anything, businesses want stability, reliability, and predictability. With all of those, we can plan to invest more, get capital, put it to use, hire good people, increase our wages, and make our communities thrive.”
Ms. Fernandez acknowledged that raising taxes and rates is sometimes necessary to ensure that important projects progress. Living here in Southern California is expensive, and raising taxes and rates makes it challenging. However, the cost of doing nothing would be worse. Without access to the State Water Project, water agencies would be forced to buy water from other sources that are far more expensive, such as desal and recycled water.
“We want all the above water solutions, but we might as well buy a lot at the lowest cost, a moderate amount of the middle, and a little bit at the most. The DCP remains the most affordable source of water availability at this moment, and we would be in favor of looking at the rates needed to move it forward. You have tough jobs, and I don’t envy you. It’s not easy to be clear-minded leaders, but know that you can all count on the diverse business community to have your back when you do the wise thing and complete the DCP studies.”
JOHN SWITALKSI
John Switalski, Executive Director of the Rebuild So Cal partnership, began by saying that investing in the future is like insurance. The impacts of climate change are already being felt, and this will only increase exponentially over time. His constituents are concerned about the economic prospects for the future and will soon be very concerned about water security.
“This may sound far afield and a little esoteric, but in building public works projects, you are literally providing an economic lifeline and an economic foundation for our union members, for your neighbors, for your children and your children’s children,” he said.
Think about who you’re serving, he said. “We have this terrible culture that’s developed in California. I call it the “Culture of No.” We don’t build anything here anymore. We say no all the time. That’s why we have an affordability crisis. That’s why our children can’t afford to buy homes. That’s why we have a homeless crisis – because we say no every step of the way, and the system is built up that way. I’m asking you to reject the continuation of saying no because it’s easy to say no. There’s an immediate political benefit to saying no. Saying yes gives your children the political, economic, and quality of life benefits. So we support this project, obviously, and we support Met’s public Works and infrastructure.”
“Even if you have to raise water rates, we will be there with you,” he said. “We will have your back to ensure that you’re not alone and that when you make the right decision, our values are right there with you to say to the community, you’ve done the right thing. You’ve made the right investment.”
CHARLEY WILSON
Charley Wilson, Executive Director of the Southern California Water Coalition, noted that the Coalition celebrated 40 years since its inception. Over those years, the Coalition has evolved from being predominately focused on Delta conveyance to recognizing how essential the ‘all the above’ strategy is to meeting this region’s future reliability and water resilience needs.
Advancing a strong portfolio requires a great deal of balance, collaboration, and study. It also requires investments in multiple levels, substantial financial investments, but those investments must be made cost-effectively and efficiently.
The Coalition had serious reservations and many questions when Governor Newsom moved from the Twin tunnel concept to a single tunnel. So the Coalition engaged in a robust review and a series of discussions around the current design and the estimated cost.
“We strongly support the notion there should be rigor in the analysis, evaluation of data, studies, and investigations to the best understanding of the whys and hows of the Delta conveyance and how its role in Southern California’s water resiliency portfolio now and into the future,” Mr. Wilson said. “It is imperative we collect and have all the data.”
Mr. Wilson likened the issue of Delta conveyance to owning a house. After the initial investment is made to build and occupy the house, everything is fine for a great deal of time, but as the years go on, some things need to be repaired, replaced, or upgraded.
“It would be unthinkable for a family to just abandon its current house because of the repair and upgrade needs and start all over from square one before you have purchased, constructed, or figured out where the heck you’re going to live,” he said. “As of now, we collectively don’t have the data, the information necessary to make that decision, and you have an opportunity to get that. We are at that stage where the risk is real as to whether we will or not have a stranded asset, an asset that remains vulnerable to earthquakes, sea level rise, flooding, and climate change without making necessary upgrades and repairs. We’re at that stage of evaluating the affordability of the water resiliency going forward, as you’ve heard many talk about. Are we going to make the investment, or are we just going to walk away? Would you walk away from your house?”
“We will force all water suppliers at some point, if we walk away, to simply disaggregate a statewide system, a very tightly woven matrix, balkanizing the existing water delivery system. Is that sound future water public policy? I daresay not.”
“We think there’s an opportunity for you to get the data, review the data, make an informed choice, as opposed to where we sit today, and somebody simply being asked to walk away from and abandon your house.”
DISCUSSION PERIOD
Tolerance for cost?
Director Nancy Sutley (Los Angeles) noted that the final cost of the Delta Conveyance Project is not yet known and asked Ms. Fernandez (BizFed) if there was a breakpoint at which her membership would say it’s not worth the cost. Do you have a sense of what the tolerance is for the cost of this project?
The Delta is a big piece of our water supply, and it’s an affordable piece of our water supply, so shoring it up makes total sense right now,” responded Tracy Fernandez. “That’s why everyone’s leaning in and saying it’s a big price tag, but let’s look at it …. you have to take care of what you know and what you have, and it’s affordable … I can’t say directly where the price tag moves into something unaffordable.”
“For us, the Bay Area Council, this is very nonideological, and we try to be as pragmatic and cold and math-based as we can about it,” said Adrian Covert. “And right now, the current estimate for water from the Delta Conveyance Project is $1,325 an acre-foot. The current estimates for recycled water projects in the Bay Area are around $2500 to $3,500 an acre-foot. Desalination is a little bit more than that. Conservation is about the same price as what you see in the Delta Conveyance Project. But on the other hand, a lot of the Bay Area is already very efficient. We’ve been getting more efficient over the past 20-30 years. There’s not much fat to cut in some parts of the region. There are in others. But if the numbers from the DCP start creeping up to the numbers we see from recycling and desalination, we’ll look at it again. But until then, the DCP for places like Santa Clara Valley is significantly cheaper than local supplies.”
“The Bay Area is certainly not a monolith,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parilla. “We have thousands of supporters in the Bay Area. And there are numerous water districts there that will not draw a drop of water from the Delta Conveyance Project. They tend to side with us on things. Yes, there is an unhoused problem in the Bay Area. There’s one in Stockton. We are often the dumping ground for what gets moved over from the Bay Area. Housing affordability has to be solved across the board in California. However, this project isn’t going to get you there.”
Richard Lambros with the Southern California Leadership Council said that Californians love to take pride in our state. “We are the fifth largest economy in the world. But what is that number? It’s $3.3 trillion. The service by this singular project is 2.25, so fully two-thirds of our state’s economy, something we’re all proud of and we all rely on, is serviced by this project.”
Mr. Lambros acknowledged that $141 million is a significant investment. “But when you do that math, it becomes a very logical investment to preserve that economy, and it’s a one-time investment versus that GDP of 3.3 trillion, which repeats every year. … This at least gets us to that point where all of us can look at the project and make a final assessment on the go forward.”
Bruce Reznik, Executive Director of LA Waterkeeper, pointed out the externalities that aren’t accounted for in the cost of water. “When you’re building something that creates environmental harm and the environmental damage that impacts local communities, there’s a cost to that. It impacts tribes; there’s a cost to that. It contributes to climate change; there’s a cost to all that.”
“However, when you’re investing in stormwater solutions, multi-benefit, nature-based solutions, to capture the resource, it’s providing flood control, it’s providing habitat, it’s providing recreation, which provides mental health benefits and physical health benefits, air quality benefits for communities … we don’t do anything close to full cost accounting to really understand the costs of these issues.”
Mr. Reznik took exception to the ‘Culture of No’. “Nobody says yes more than I do. Nobody. I busted my ass getting water for recycled water projects with Met; I lobbied hard for the city to get money for Pure Water LA … I worked my tail off for measure W, which BizFed opposed … so this notion that we’re groups that just say no …
“When I hear all of the above. Does that mean the pipeline from Alaska? Does it mean towing barges of icebergs when these are ideas that have been thrown out? Of course not. We can’t invest in all of the above. We don’t have the resources. I can identify 20 to $30 billion in local projects, local jobs, and multi-benefit, community-benefiting projects … I will admit that we don’t have all the money we need for recycled wastewater. We need to be doing better, even on stormwater and all these other things. If this Coalition worked on the things we all agreed on, we could get it done.”
What is a reliable amount from the Delta in wet years?
Director Karl Seckel (Orange County) said California is losing storage due to diminishing snowpack, so we need to get water in the wet years and store it for dry years. Have any of the Delta interests done work on what amount of water Southern California could rely on to get from the Delta in wet years?
Supervisor Pat Hume pointed out that the Delta Conveyance Project, as proposed, will only be operated 15% of the time; 85% of the water supply headed to the Central Valley and Southern California would still flow through the Delta. “We all recognize that the snowpack is not as reliable as it used to be. The issue then becomes the amount of capacity, throughput, and where to put that water when we’re trying to capture it. So if all we have is a bigger straw with no larger cup to store the water, we haven’t solved for any of the problems that exist.”
“I wasn’t thinking about a bigger straw,” interjected Director Seckel. “I was thinking of a smaller straw and what could be delivered through newly reinforced levees. I’m trying to reverse engineer it from your perspective in the Delta. How much water would we still get if we did the levee improvements? I think it’s an important number to know because it might change how we think about things.”
“This is where we think we’re going to try to make up for some water supply to keep everybody as whole as possible, even before you talk about fallowing land in the San Joaquin Valley because there’s no way we get out of this with climate change in California without really looking at what is sustainable for agriculture,” said Ms. Barrigan-Parilla. “There’s floodplain restoration work that needs to be done on a massive scale, and we support a lot of these projects on the San Joaquin River system. There’s work starting up in the Sacramento Valley … I’m not talking about Healthy Rivers. We’re really talking about during these high water periods, getting water back underground that will help improve groundwater health and then free up some of the water. You will be able to use some of that water in dry periods that would then allow for more ecosystem water health during the dry periods, to keep the estuary alive and to share with people.”
“The state already has very variable hydrology; we all know that,” said Max Gomberg. “We all understand that the extremes are getting more extreme. The fact remains that 80% of developed water in this state is used by agriculture. I heard the business representatives talking about needing to meet the state’s housing goals. We can easily meet the state’s housing goals. That is not a water issue. It’s about whose priorities get met. We can particularly easily meet those housing goals if we do what we understand we need to do vis a vis climate change, which is stop the suburbanization and build infill housing in our cities; multi-family housing in existing urban areas is very low water use. There needs to be a conversation about shared sacrifice, and it really goes back to what is the burden that this agency is willing to carry when agencies representing the agricultural sector are not stepping up. What does that say about whose priorities are being highlighted here and who is being asked to shoulder the costs?”
Water supplies: is conservation enough?
Director Jay Lewitt (Las Virgenes MWD) said he was president of a water district that literally two years ago didn’t have any water to serve. “I’m shaped by that, so when we see water going underneath the Golden Gate Bridge, to a lot of us, it’s an epic failure. … Personally, I like the ocean desal. It’s the only form of water that’s not affected by climate change. But someone told me we need 26 Poseidon diesel plants off our coast … that’s probably not going to happen. … So I just think that we have to think big. There are 55 million people who rely on the Colorado River. That’s 55 million people who could pay a monthly bill for water. Water bills go lower when you’re 55 million people sharing that bill. So I’m glad we’re all here to study and to get more information. More knowledge is good.”
“Director Lewitt, you said that we’re not going to be able to dig our way out of this with conservation, yet, with the 30% allocation and a 40% allocation these last two years, all our reservoirs are full,” said Chair Adan Ortega. “We’re able to do our cyclic storage program and leverage the asset because of conservation. In fact, of the 3.7 million acre-feet of water we have in storage, over 2 million acre-feet are in storage because of reduced demands. So conservation is filling up our reservoirs, but then we face a paradox because our water rates have to increase, notwithstanding all that because we’re selling less water. So what do you make of that?”
“I think we have to start with the understanding that collectively, we had it good for a long time,” said Max Gomberg. “Bruce mentioned externalities. We haven’t paid for those. We’ve been benefiting from infrastructure that hasn’t been maintained, so we haven’t paid for that. And we’ve benefited, up until recently, from a climate that has been, let’s say, somewhat generous, and it’s not anymore. So we’ve had it good. We no longer have it good. And even during the having it good period, some people didn’t have it good, right? The tribes have not had it good. The fisheries have not had it good.”
“So there needs to be a paradigm shift, which also includes understanding what the real costs are. I know a lot of member agencies right now from San Diego on North are looking at really significant rate increases, and people are struggling and the assistance that was there briefly during the COVID pandemic is no longer there, and there’s a very uncertain future. So this is a time of reckoning. This is a moment of reevaluation.”
“Where is the water really controlled in this state, aside from this room?” continued Mr. Gomberg. “It’s controlled at places like the Imperial Irrigation District. It’s controlled by large irrigation districts from the Sacramento to the San Joaquin Valley. The settlement contractors for the Bureau of Reclamation in the Sacramento Valley have senior water rights to over 2 million acre-feet. The Imperial Irrigation District has water rights to over two and a half million acre-feet, and the list goes on. That is not sustainable, and it shouldn’t be incumbent on the urban communities of Southern California, working-class families, or even the business community, to address that inequity and that reality. It cannot be incumbent upon this board to do that. So, when you’re thinking about what to invest in going forward, think beyond the sphere. The fiduciary duty of the agency, obviously, is to its members, but since this agency’s decisions, particularly its investment decisions, have impacts far beyond the Metropolitan service area, the actual duty needs to extend much further.”
Director Tracy Quinn (Los Angeles) pointed out that while the cost of water may go up per unit, but if you’re using less, your bill could be the same. “Combined with the externalities that we haven’t paid for, the bills come due, and someone’s got to pay for it. So, while we’re selling less water, it’s not as though there is this giant untapped aquifer that we could go to and sell more water. We’re selling less water because there’s less water to sell in a lot of times. So selling less water means that in the dry times, we need to have the water in storage.”
“We can talk about housing and solar energy, but those aren’t the issues we’re talking about here,” said Connor Everts, Executive Director of the Southern California Watershed Alliance. “To really talk about affordability and water and access to water when there are over a million people without access to clean drinking water and sanitation in California – we do have our priorities mixed up. So as long as we keep having this discussion and making it either about supply and demand, and one’s good, and the other one isn’t going to be enough – it is enough. I was elected to the Casitas Municipal Water District. In the 1990s, we actually looked at bringing in State Water Project water. Water or not, we decided it wasn’t reliable. It wouldn’t be reliable with any form of conveyance. It would just be more costly. The best thing we did was to increase our local groundwater and other resources.”
“I don’t think we can get all there through conservation,” added Bruce Reznik. “I laid out other ways. And I also appreciate your point about we still need to bring water. We are supporters of the county’s plan to get to 80% local water without ocean desal as it is extremely expensive and energy intensive. The city’s plan is to go from 10% local to 70%, so it isn’t like we’re saying anything crazy. That being said, we do know that we still need some of that water imported, whether it’s 20% to 30%; we just want to make sure the money is invested to get that water where it’s going to do the least amount of harm and the most amount of benefit.”
Chris Murray, Association of California Cities for Orange County, noted that Orange County has helped lead the charge with conservation and made significant investments in the latest technologies that are setting the bar for communities nationally. “It’s critical to invest in our groundwater recycling and in new and updated ways to maximize existing water supplies, and it has paid off, but it doesn’t get us there 100%. We support this board doing its due diligence and continuing its investment, because it is part of the solution. It is not the solution; it is part of a critical total water supply and ensuring that our residents statewide, and certainly here in Southern California, have long-term access to resilient, safe water supplies.”
Director Quinn said that what she heard from many of the pro-Delta Conveyance Project speakers was an underlying assumption that reliability in Southern California depends on building the DCP. Do you all believe that our ability to provide reliable water in Southern California, or receive reliable water in Southern California, is dependent on the construction of the DCP?
“We do a lot of work on seismic work and readying for earthquakes, whether it’s getting hospitals ready or homes or commercial buildings,” said Tracy Hernandez. “So part of the solution is keeping that water supply safe from seismic activity, and a big piece of shoring it up for reliability is taking care of the part around the Delta. … There’s a piece of it that makes it reliable, more so than what exists today. The way you couched it was if we don’t do it, there’s no reliability. It’s not that extreme, not that black and white.”
“There are other investments that can be made that might be more challenging if we are making this larger investment,” said Director Quinn. “I know right now we’re just talking about $141 million, but even with the $141 million, there are significant rate impacts. So my question to the group on the left is, is it your belief or understanding that those local supply alternatives and the job creation locally that are associated with those would not be significant enough or reliable enough to meet the goals of Southern California?
Adrian Covert said that Southern California does have room for more conservation, but that leads to hardening of demand, which will make severity of droughts worse. “The question that we keep bringing back in the Bay Area is what’s the most cost-effective way of doing it. So yes, you’ve got stormwater. Yes, you have recycling options and more opportunities for desalination. The question is, how do you go back to the ratepayers and say this decision that we’re going to make is going to cost you $50 an extra a month when we had a $10 an extra a month option? How do you make that case and explain the trade-offs?”
Max Gomberg was at the Water Board two droughts ago when the state imposed mandatory conservation rules. The issue then wasn’t lack of water supply as much as the financial hit to water agencies from folks buying less water.
“We have to be clear on which problems we’re trying to solve, he said. “If you’re just trying to solve a climate problem, it’s really about the dry years. And there’s been a lot of discussion about what to do about the dry years. And again, I want to go back to shared sacrifice. It really is an everyone problem in dry years; it needs to be an everyone solution.”
“But if the issue that you’re trying to solve for is budget, it’s related, but it’s a separate issue, No one is opposing a lot of the things you’re doing. We heard earlier in the afternoon the report on the district’s investments with federal money for the Colorado River for groundwater storage, and an enhanced turf removal program. No one’s opposed to those things. They don’t solve your budget issue, though. And so again, I think there’s a real question about where is this agency going to go in terms of its overall budget structure. Because it can’t be from selling more water. You’re not going to get it out of the Delta Conveyance Project. That much, I guarantee.”
Levee project vs. conveyance project
Director Cynthia Kurtz (Pasadena) asked about the trade-offs between a levee project versus a conveyance project. In addition to levees collapsing and islands that may be being flooded, there are also problems with seepage that could cause a levee to collapse, and then a freshwater passage would not be protected. Secondly, there are times when the only place to pump water is south of the Delta, but the pumps are so strong that they pull the fish to the pumps, so then we have to turn them off. Strong levees with the pumps turned off doesn’t bring us any more water. If the levee solution is one that could be considered, how would we deal with the fish still making us turn off the pumps?
One of the best ways to deal with seepage is rice farming because rice farming reverses subsidence and builds land mass back up, said Barbara Barrigan-Parilla. The wider levees also eliminate seepage. Wetlands in the western end of the Delta and in Suisun Marsh will help absorb a great deal of sea level rise.
“As far as fisheries, the water districts years ago were supposed to spend roughly a billion dollars to properly screen the current existing pumps,” said Ms. Barrigan-Parilla. “If we could get Delta conveyance off the table, I think our campaign would work full time to make sure that everyone in California helped pay for that and get it off the beneficiaries to get those screens in and installed properly to solve the entrainment problem, along with some of the other items that we are talking about. There are other solutions that go with the levees.”
Impacts to Tribes
Director Gloria Cordero (Long Beach) asked about the impacts on Tribal communities. Understanding that the decision we’re going to be making is just to look at the study and move forward, are there any discussions right now on mitigation measures that could possibly avoid or minimize impacts?
“There are dozens of Tribes up and down the valley,” said Max Gomberg. “I’m only representing one, but the impacts are to traditional ways of life, so when we have continued degradation of water quality and ecosystems, the tribes aren’t able to maintain those traditions. It’s different from just someone going fishing or swimming because many Tribal traditions involve ceremonies with extended time in the water. Tule basket weaving, for example, involves putting the reeds in your mouth. It’s a lot more contact than a non-tribal person just recreating in the water, which is why tribal concerns are advocating for their own protected uses.”
He pointed out that the voluntary agreement process has excluded Tribes from the beginning. Tribes were never invited into the room for those discussions, so at a fundamental level, they’re illegitimate. “Whether or not Metropolitan proceeds to fund additional studies on the tunnel, the operating parameters for the State Water Project are going to matter tremendously. And that’s where tribes are seeing impacts right now. And so in terms of mitigation, number one is withdrawing support for those voluntary agreements.”
Kyle Griffith, Californians for Water Security, said that as part of the environmental impact report process, DWR did engage the the tribal communities extensively. “They sent more than 120 letters to tribes asking them to collaborate with them in 2020 on this project in particular. Of those 13 who accepted the invitation, they’ve had dedicated e-blast to tribal leaders on this project and the process, sent personalized letters to the consulting tribes, as well as holding two Tribal-only draft EIR meetings. To say that Tribal communities were not in the room is quite simply untrue. There can be points where they want to emphasize and improve the outreach to these tribal communities, but I do want to clarify that the state and Department of Water Resources have been acting in good faith, trying to connect with these tribal communities.”
“There are two separate processes we’re talking about here,” responded Mr. Gomberg. “One is the voluntary agreements, which are part of the Bay Delta Plan update. Tribes were absolutely excluded from that. There’s no question about that. So I want to make that 100% clear. On the State Water Project, we’ve got the tunnel EIR, and then we’ve got an Operations Plan EIR. On the Operations Plan EIR … the consultation with tribes did not get to the significant issue of the harms the State Water Project has caused and continues to cause because it’s only forward-looking at the operational changes DWR wanted to make. And the EIR for constructing the tunnel – yes, there were letters sent out to Tribes, and essentially our concerns were swept under the rug, and DWR went ahead and certified that EIR regardless. So to say that somehow the state, in this case, DWR, was fulfilling its duties with respect to tribes, is really just not true in any sense of the word.”
A big priority for the Bay Area Council is using wetlands to defend the region against sea level rise, said Adrian Covert, noting that the Council co-chaired the Measure AA campaign, the special tax measure for wetland restoration for the purposes of sea level rise adaptation. “We’re very proud of it, but unfortunately, wetlands and the levees are not going to protect the pumps from the sea level rise, the salinity intrusion that you’re going to be getting in the Delta. The Ocean Protection Council is estimating, with a 67% probability level of 13 inches of sea level rise in the Bay by 2050, and about three feet. That’s a 67% probability of three feet sea level rise in the Bay and into the Delta by 2100; levees are not going to protect from that.”
Director Mark Gold said housing and the homeless are the biggest issues the state is facing right now. “It is crippling how, literally, the only thing we talk about in the LA area is housing and homeless at the expense of everything else, and we keep voting to tax ourselves more and more because we’re so desperate to solve this problem, and so we do understand how difficult it is. But we’re talking about a project that will be completed in 30 years when we have a crisis, and we’re wondering how we will get through it next week … It’s very difficult to hear that dialog. We all know that it is the most complicated, difficult issue we haven’t seen in California. And I’ll just leave it at that.”
You can watch the video and access meeting materials here.
