In rebuttal to the commentary, Delaying the Delta Conveyance Project puts California’s water security at risk, by Jennifer Pierre, General Manager of the State Water Contractors, Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta, and Eric Buescher, Managing Attorney at San Francisco Baykeeper write,
State Water Project (SWP) contractors who purchase water exported from the Delta are understandably frustrated that after nearly two decades and hundreds of millions of ratepayer dollars, their dream of a so-called Delta solution (now called the Delta Conveyance Project or DCP) is no closer to reality today than in 2017, when the Department of Water Resources (DWR) approved the previous ill-fated twin tunnels project. Despite DWR’s relentless pro-tunnel propaganda, it still lacks most key approvals, including the water rights necessary to divert water at promised levels as well as any means to pay for the latest version of the twenty-plus billion dollar debacle.
DWR and SWP contractors have spent much of the last decade bumbling through various tunnel design and permitting processes, all while cynically accusing Delta public agencies, Tribes, and environmental, business, and taxpayer organizations of delay tactics. Their ire is misdirected — these groups simply ask that DWR play by the same rules applicable to all other public agencies and private developers. To date, every court has ruled against DWR, including invalidating DWR’s most recent tunnel financing scheme and enjoining its attempts to implement the DCP without first complying with the Delta Reform Act. And it was DWR, not Delta residents, that allowed the water rights for its rosy DCP cost-benefit projections to expire. DWR has made no effort to revive them.
This bureaucratic incompetence is nothing new for proposed tunnel “solutions.” It was only after Governor Newsom pulled the plug on the former twin tunnels project did SWP contractors and the public learn from an independent technical review panel that the last iteration of the project they had invested hundreds of millions of public dollars in was unbuildable, necessitating a total redesign.
Moreover, tunnel costs keep climbing, yet DWR lacks a viable means of paying for the project. On top of that, DWR does not, and never had, rights to divert “excess flows” from the Sacramento River as it claims the DCP will do, nor do they have any evidence that such “excess” flows even exist. Agricultural contractors are rightly getting cold feet.
While only one Metropolitan Water District (MWD) board member voted recently against raising water rates by an additional 3% to fund just two more years of tunnel planning and legal expenses, privately, other MWD directors raise well founded concerns about the purported tunnel benefits. Questions have been raised on whether local supply solutions would not better serve their ratepayers and a local economy struggling with a downturn in the entertainment industry and already high costs of living. These same directors suspect, rightly, that DWR is not giving the public the straight scoop about the obstacles facing the DCP.
Despite these massive hurdles, DWR and the SWP contractors are now urging the Delta Stewardship Council to green light implementing two years of geotechnical activities that are part of the DCP, in violation of the current court injunction and the plain language of the Delta Reform Act. The Delta Protection Commission joined Delta public agencies, Tribes, NGOs and environmental justice organizations in objecting to DWR’s schemes. DWR and the contractors’ main argument for fast tracking these tunnel-related activities is that SWP contractors need more information about the project’s viability to inform funding decisions. But the Delta Reform Act’s purpose is not to facilitate SWP finance decisions – it was adopted to provide a more reliable water supply for California and to protect, restore and enhance the Delta ecosystem in a manner that ultimately benefits the Delta as an evolving place and the people who live there and depend on it.
At a recent hearing on the matter, the Council heard first hand from Delta farmers how the same tunnel activities for which DWR is seeking a pass from the Council had impaired agricultural operations and resulted in unrepaired and uncompensated damage to Delta farms. They also heard from Tribal members about how these activities have also disturbed tribal cultural resources — disturbing ancestral remains of people who have been the subject of genocide and near extermination by California, despite DWR’s alleged (and self-touted) “mitigation measures.”
The Council should reject DWR’s attempt to flout the Legislature’s clear directives to protect the Delta, and hold the agency to the same standards that apply to everyone else. By taking a beat on its unlawful tunnel implementation activities, DWR could instead focus its energy and finances on the myriad challenges facing the State Water Project that will persist with or without the DCP, including its expired water rights, sinking aqueducts, properly maintaining Delta levees, an ecosystem in crisis, and more than a century of ignoring or exploiting Tribes and environmental justice communities, all of which are critical to a thriving Delta, state, and sustainable water management system for all Californians.
GUEST COMMENTARY: Tunneling through trouble: Missteps, mismanagement, and the costly pursuit of the Delta Conveyance Project
In rebuttal to the commentary, Delaying the Delta Conveyance Project puts California’s water security at risk, by Jennifer Pierre, General Manager of the State Water Contractors, Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta, and Eric Buescher, Managing Attorney at San Francisco Baykeeper write,
DWR and SWP contractors have spent much of the last decade bumbling through various tunnel design and permitting processes, all while cynically accusing Delta public agencies, Tribes, and environmental, business, and taxpayer organizations of delay tactics. Their ire is misdirected — these groups simply ask that DWR play by the same rules applicable to all other public agencies and private developers. To date, every court has ruled against DWR, including invalidating DWR’s most recent tunnel financing scheme and enjoining its attempts to implement the DCP without first complying with the Delta Reform Act. And it was DWR, not Delta residents, that allowed the water rights for its rosy DCP cost-benefit projections to expire. DWR has made no effort to revive them.
This bureaucratic incompetence is nothing new for proposed tunnel “solutions.” It was only after Governor Newsom pulled the plug on the former twin tunnels project did SWP contractors and the public learn from an independent technical review panel that the last iteration of the project they had invested hundreds of millions of public dollars in was unbuildable, necessitating a total redesign.
Moreover, tunnel costs keep climbing, yet DWR lacks a viable means of paying for the project. On top of that, DWR does not, and never had, rights to divert “excess flows” from the Sacramento River as it claims the DCP will do, nor do they have any evidence that such “excess” flows even exist. Agricultural contractors are rightly getting cold feet.
While only one Metropolitan Water District (MWD) board member voted recently against raising water rates by an additional 3% to fund just two more years of tunnel planning and legal expenses, privately, other MWD directors raise well founded concerns about the purported tunnel benefits. Questions have been raised on whether local supply solutions would not better serve their ratepayers and a local economy struggling with a downturn in the entertainment industry and already high costs of living. These same directors suspect, rightly, that DWR is not giving the public the straight scoop about the obstacles facing the DCP.
Despite these massive hurdles, DWR and the SWP contractors are now urging the Delta Stewardship Council to green light implementing two years of geotechnical activities that are part of the DCP, in violation of the current court injunction and the plain language of the Delta Reform Act. The Delta Protection Commission joined Delta public agencies, Tribes, NGOs and environmental justice organizations in objecting to DWR’s schemes. DWR and the contractors’ main argument for fast tracking these tunnel-related activities is that SWP contractors need more information about the project’s viability to inform funding decisions. But the Delta Reform Act’s purpose is not to facilitate SWP finance decisions – it was adopted to provide a more reliable water supply for California and to protect, restore and enhance the Delta ecosystem in a manner that ultimately benefits the Delta as an evolving place and the people who live there and depend on it.
At a recent hearing on the matter, the Council heard first hand from Delta farmers how the same tunnel activities for which DWR is seeking a pass from the Council had impaired agricultural operations and resulted in unrepaired and uncompensated damage to Delta farms. They also heard from Tribal members about how these activities have also disturbed tribal cultural resources — disturbing ancestral remains of people who have been the subject of genocide and near extermination by California, despite DWR’s alleged (and self-touted) “mitigation measures.”
The Council should reject DWR’s attempt to flout the Legislature’s clear directives to protect the Delta, and hold the agency to the same standards that apply to everyone else. By taking a beat on its unlawful tunnel implementation activities, DWR could instead focus its energy and finances on the myriad challenges facing the State Water Project that will persist with or without the DCP, including its expired water rights, sinking aqueducts, properly maintaining Delta levees, an ecosystem in crisis, and more than a century of ignoring or exploiting Tribes and environmental justice communities, all of which are critical to a thriving Delta, state, and sustainable water management system for all Californians.