From the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN)
In testimony to the State Water Resources Control Board, California Water Impact Network senior policy advisor Max Gomberg stated that Governor Newsom’s proposed Delta Conveyance Project (DCP) runs contrary to state laws on climate adaptation, racial equity, and sustainable water management.
Gomberg’s testimony explains that the state legislature has passed multiple laws over the past two decades designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, help Californians adapt to climate change-driven weather extremes without creating an affordability crisis, and ensure that low-income communities receive their fair share of investments in climate resilience.
The climate policies specific to water use, including the Delta Reform Act of 2009, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act [SGMA] of 2014, and the 2018 water conservation statutes AB 1668 & SB 606, all recognize the need to reduce unsustainable water use in an era of increasing hydrologic extremes.
“The Governor thinks that spending $60 to $100 billion building a tunnel to maintain current levels of water use is reasonable, but it contradicts clear legislative direction,” Gomberg observed. “If we want to reduce agricultural sector emissions, reduce the number of people at risk from extreme heat and wildfire, and keep urban water supply affordable, we need a smaller water budget, especially for agriculture.”
Gomberg noted that a major purpose of the DCP would be supplying Kern County agriculture with additional water, which would both decrease the land repurposing necessary to achieve SGMA requirements and cut the greenhouse gas emissions reductions required of the agricultural sector. Also, using the DCP to supply additional water to inland Southern California as planned would increase vehicle GHG emissions, increase the number of people exposed to extreme heat and wildfire, and undermine state water conservation goals.
“Southern California communities will have adequate water supplies so long as we develop local supplies and prioritize existing imported supplies for efficient urban use,” Gomberg stated.
Gomberg also explained that the DCP would have profound adverse effects on tribal economies and cultures and communities of color.
“The project will essentially preclude the Board’s own racial equity resolution that commits to addressing the disproportionate impacts that climate change is having on the access of Black and indigenous communities to safe, clean, and affordable drinking water and sanitation, local groundwater resources, healthy watersheds and robust, sustainable fisheries,” Gomberg stated.
Gomberg testified that shelving the DCP and reducing State Water Project contract allocations would produce multiple benefits, including:
• Improvement of Delta water quality and ecosystems
• Greater water affordability for ratepayers
• Increased capital for sustainable climate adaptation projects, such as recycled water
• Enhanced ability to meet urban water conservation targets
• Retirement of marginal land in Kern County
• Greater SWP operational flexibility
• Elimination of the need for Temporary Urgency Change Petitions
“The public interest implications of the DCP cannot be overstated,” Gomberg concluded. “While denying DWR’s application would not solve California’s climate challenges, it would create opportunities for water sector climate resilience that cannot otherwise be realized. The public interest will be well served by rejecting DWR’s application for this project.”
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Maven’s Notebook.
C-WIN to State Water Board: Newsom’s DCP violates California’s climate and affordability goals
From the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN)
Gomberg’s testimony explains that the state legislature has passed multiple laws over the past two decades designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, help Californians adapt to climate change-driven weather extremes without creating an affordability crisis, and ensure that low-income communities receive their fair share of investments in climate resilience.
The climate policies specific to water use, including the Delta Reform Act of 2009, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act [SGMA] of 2014, and the 2018 water conservation statutes AB 1668 & SB 606, all recognize the need to reduce unsustainable water use in an era of increasing hydrologic extremes.
“The Governor thinks that spending $60 to $100 billion building a tunnel to maintain current levels of water use is reasonable, but it contradicts clear legislative direction,” Gomberg observed. “If we want to reduce agricultural sector emissions, reduce the number of people at risk from extreme heat and wildfire, and keep urban water supply affordable, we need a smaller water budget, especially for agriculture.”
Gomberg noted that a major purpose of the DCP would be supplying Kern County agriculture with additional water, which would both decrease the land repurposing necessary to achieve SGMA requirements and cut the greenhouse gas emissions reductions required of the agricultural sector. Also, using the DCP to supply additional water to inland Southern California as planned would increase vehicle GHG emissions, increase the number of people exposed to extreme heat and wildfire, and undermine state water conservation goals.
“Southern California communities will have adequate water supplies so long as we develop local supplies and prioritize existing imported supplies for efficient urban use,” Gomberg stated.
Gomberg also explained that the DCP would have profound adverse effects on tribal economies and cultures and communities of color.
“The project will essentially preclude the Board’s own racial equity resolution that commits to addressing the disproportionate impacts that climate change is having on the access of Black and indigenous communities to safe, clean, and affordable drinking water and sanitation, local groundwater resources, healthy watersheds and robust, sustainable fisheries,” Gomberg stated.
Gomberg testified that shelving the DCP and reducing State Water Project contract allocations would produce multiple benefits, including:
• Improvement of Delta water quality and ecosystems
• Greater water affordability for ratepayers
• Increased capital for sustainable climate adaptation projects, such as recycled water
• Enhanced ability to meet urban water conservation targets
• Retirement of marginal land in Kern County
• Greater SWP operational flexibility
• Elimination of the need for Temporary Urgency Change Petitions
“The public interest implications of the DCP cannot be overstated,” Gomberg concluded. “While denying DWR’s application would not solve California’s climate challenges, it would create opportunities for water sector climate resilience that cannot otherwise be realized. The public interest will be well served by rejecting DWR’s application for this project.”
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Maven’s Notebook.
Tags