E & E -- House Dems blast Calif.s handling of alternative Delta proposal
November 14, 2013
By Debra Kahn
House Democrats from California are criticizing the state's handling of a massive plan to tunnel underneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Six members of California's congressional delegation who have long opposed the state's Bay Delta Conservation Plan yesterday objected to changing cost estimates of an alternative measure that would take less water from the delta -- which supplies water to 25 million Californians -- than the state-backed proposal.
The state's $24.5 billion plan calls for building two 30-mile tunnels under the delta to carry water from its north side to the south, cutting back on the current practice of running massive pumps in the south delta that disturb fish like the endangered delta smelt. The plan also would provide billions of dollars in funding to improve habitat for 63 species, and would restore 145,000 degraded acres.
On Tuesday, the state revised its estimate of an alternative plan floated by environmental groups and urban water agencies that would build a smaller tunnel and rely more on water storage south of the delta and local water supply development (Greenwire, Jan. 18).
The downsized tunnel would actually cost $8.6 billion, not $11.6 billion as previously estimated, the state Natural Resources Agency said in a blog post. That would make it roughly $6 billion cheaper than the state's $14.5 billion tunnel proposal.
Reps. George Miller, Jerry McNerney, John Garamendi, Mike Thompson, Doris Matsui and Ami Bera issued a statement calling for Gov. Jerry Brown (D) to slow down the process.
"The state's $3 billion error is unacceptable and emblematic of the BDCP's deeply flawed process, one that lacks input from Delta stakeholders," they said. "It's clear that the Brown administration did not honestly analyze the portfolio alternative, which offers an all-of-the-above approach to California's water problems, as a viable option. The state owes the public a full and proper explanation of both of these plans, who will truly benefit from each, and what they will actually cost."
A set of draft environmental impact documents is to be released Dec. 13 for public comment. The release was delayed by a month due to the federal government shutdown (Greenwire, Nov. 1).
Natural Resources spokesman Richard Stapler said the adjusted estimates were due to the state's realization that the smaller tunnel would only require one underground channel, not two, as well as recent changes to the alignment of the tunnel in both sets of plans in response to landowner concerns.
"As we better understood the portfolio plan, it became clear that it would rely on a single bore tunnel, not a dual bore tunnel (for system reliability and redundancy)," he said in an email. "The cost estimate revision reflects a single bore tunnel that does not provide system redundancy."
Groups within the delta pointed to the revision as an example of state bias. "This is just one more error in a long series that indicates the people of California should not trust the state agencies to manage this process, or the project, as they are biased in favor of the massive export of water for unsustainable agriculture on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley," said Steve Hopcraft, a spokesman for the group Restore the Delta.
Six members of California's congressional delegation who have long opposed the state's Bay Delta Conservation Plan yesterday objected to changing cost estimates of an alternative measure that would take less water from the delta -- which supplies water to 25 million Californians -- than the state-backed proposal.
The state's $24.5 billion plan calls for building two 30-mile tunnels under the delta to carry water from its north side to the south, cutting back on the current practice of running massive pumps in the south delta that disturb fish like the endangered delta smelt. The plan also would provide billions of dollars in funding to improve habitat for 63 species, and would restore 145,000 degraded acres.
On Tuesday, the state revised its estimate of an alternative plan floated by environmental groups and urban water agencies that would build a smaller tunnel and rely more on water storage south of the delta and local water supply development (Greenwire, Jan. 18).
The downsized tunnel would actually cost $8.6 billion, not $11.6 billion as previously estimated, the state Natural Resources Agency said in a blog post. That would make it roughly $6 billion cheaper than the state's $14.5 billion tunnel proposal.
Reps. George Miller, Jerry McNerney, John Garamendi, Mike Thompson, Doris Matsui and Ami Bera issued a statement calling for Gov. Jerry Brown (D) to slow down the process.
"The state's $3 billion error is unacceptable and emblematic of the BDCP's deeply flawed process, one that lacks input from Delta stakeholders," they said. "It's clear that the Brown administration did not honestly analyze the portfolio alternative, which offers an all-of-the-above approach to California's water problems, as a viable option. The state owes the public a full and proper explanation of both of these plans, who will truly benefit from each, and what they will actually cost."
A set of draft environmental impact documents is to be released Dec. 13 for public comment. The release was delayed by a month due to the federal government shutdown (Greenwire, Nov. 1).
Natural Resources spokesman Richard Stapler said the adjusted estimates were due to the state's realization that the smaller tunnel would only require one underground channel, not two, as well as recent changes to the alignment of the tunnel in both sets of plans in response to landowner concerns.
"As we better understood the portfolio plan, it became clear that it would rely on a single bore tunnel, not a dual bore tunnel (for system reliability and redundancy)," he said in an email. "The cost estimate revision reflects a single bore tunnel that does not provide system redundancy."
Groups within the delta pointed to the revision as an example of state bias. "This is just one more error in a long series that indicates the people of California should not trust the state agencies to manage this process, or the project, as they are biased in favor of the massive export of water for unsustainable agriculture on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley," said Steve Hopcraft, a spokesman for the group Restore the Delta.