The California Department of Water Resources says the project is needed to combat a changing climate and future water needs.
By Alan Riquelmy, Courthouse News Service
Attorneys and officials opposed to a massive California water project pleaded their case Thursday to an oversight panel, arguing point by point how the Delta Conveyance Project failed to meet specified criteria.
Johnny Pappalardo, with the town of Courtland’s Pear Fair and one of several speakers at the Delta Stewardship Council meeting, emphasized that he wasn’t an attorney. His arguments, Pappalardo’s supporters said, focused more on “vibes.”
“There’s food from all over the place,” said Pappalardo, a volunteer at the annual event. “There’s music.
“The cider?” he added. “The cider’s fantastic … the pear-mosas.”
His sister, Emily Pappalardo, and also a fair volunteer, argued the Delta Conveyance Project, with two proposed intake facilities nearby, would destroy a fair that’s existed for over 50 years. Like other project opponents, she said a 13-year construction period would impact not only the fair but also agricultural land and the families that have farmed it for generations.
The opponents — which included several groups, governmental entities and Native American tribes — delivered similar messages: a certificate of consistency issued in October that shows the project as consistent with the Delta plan is faulty. The state Department of Water Resources failed to show the project would uphold the plan’s two coequal goals: creating a reliable, statewide water supply while protecting and restoring the Delta ecosystem that preserves its values as a place.
The groups appealed to the Delta Stewardship Council, asking it to find the certificate of consistency is inadequate and remand it to the water department.
The appeals hearing is scheduled to continue Friday. A decision is expected within 60 days.
The council doesn’t have independent review power. Instead, it can deny or dismiss an appeal. Its third option is to find the certification doesn’t have substantial evidence to support it and remand the issue to the water department for further consideration.
In that latter case, the water department would have to address the council’s findings in a revised certificate.
The project has long been controversial and led to litigation. It calls for two intake facilities by the Sacramento River, near the town of Hood, that could handle 6,000 cubic feet of water per second. A tunnel some 45 miles in length would carry water south to the Bethany Reservoir and ultimately to Southern California.
It’s expected to cost over $20 billion.
Plan supporters say it’s needed to capture water when it’s plentiful, ensuring the state can weather drier years and a changing climate. Opponents said the water department failed to properly examine project alternatives and offered a certificate of consistency that falls short on several fronts.
Some arguments echoed each other. Sacramento County Supervisor Pat Hume, speaking on behalf of the Delta Protection Commission, said the project was too massive and could not be consistent with the Delta plan.
He likened it to Godzilla, the gargantuan movie monster, trying to carefully walk through a city — an impossibility because of its size.
“The intakes themselves will dwarf the town of Hood,” he added.
Attorney Kelley Taber, speaking for Sacramento County and the Sacramento Water Agency, called Sacramento ground zero for project impacts. It wouldn’t protect or enhance the delta’s natural resources or agricultural values. The water department also failed to use the best-available science when crafting its certificate of consistency.
“DWR’s evidence is flawed, and it fails to meet the definition of ‘substantial evidence,’” she said.
Speaking on behalf of the San Francisco Baykeeper, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Restore the Delta and several others, attorney Eric Buescher said the water department has acknowledged some of the harms its project would cause. However, it brushed them aside by stating they couldn’t be avoided.
The department also failed to properly consult affected Native American tribes.
“That does not make the project consistent,” he added.
Given a chance to speak that afternoon, the water department emphasized how changing weather patterns necessitate the Delta Conveyance Project.
Karla Nemeth, the department’s director, said average temperatures are forecast to climb by 4 to 6 degrees by mid-century. More precipitation is also expected to fall in future years, but its frequency will be sporadic, as the state has seen this winter.
Without the Delta Conveyance Project, California will lose the chance to capture a resource that’s rapidly growing more chaotic, she added.
“Time is not on our side,” Nemeth said.
Carrie Buckman, the project’s environmental program manager, pushed back on some claims made by opponents. She said the department reached out to those affected for potential talks, though its records only show which talks occurred, not the attempts.
“That’s why the Pear Fair is not on there,” she added. “We did reach out to them, but they responded they did not want to talk.”
The department had discussions with some tribes, which told officials they wouldn’t support the project. However, the concerns expressed by them and others led to what Buckman called meaningful changes in the project. In fact, some concerns voiced Thursday reflect prior versions of the project that have since changed.
It reduced the footprint for structures intended near Hood, which number around 20. Those structures could be homes, recreation facilities and storage, Buckman said.
Additionally, workers constructing the intake facilities near Hood must drive to a park-and-ride site, then take an electric bus to the worksite, she added.
“We need to capture water when it’s available,” Buckman said.
