An ill-conceived legacy project

The northern Sacramento Valley faces a serious threat. Gov. Jerry Brown continues to push his twin tunnels project, under the guise of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. The plan proposes a pair of massive tunnels with design capacity sufficient to drain the Sacramento River in a dry year.

As Butte Environmental Council’s (BEC) water policy analyst representing North State communities, I reviewed and analyzed more than 40,000 pages of the plan’s description and environmental review documents. An increased, uncompromised water supply for south of Delta interests is the desire. Big Ag and Big Oil will get more water, you get the bill.

Proponents failed to disclose the true source of water (the Sacramento Valley), but water transfers are written all over this plan. In fact, 34 separate documents reference water transfers. Proponents failed to acknowledge the potential for environmental and social impacts to the areas of origin, but removing up to 1 million acre-feet of water surely would have significant impacts. And, proponents failed to disclose the amount of groundwater that will increase water flow through the tunnels.

Proponents of the governor’s plan ignored mandates requiring the development and analysis of appropriate project alternatives. One alternative that makes the tunnels unnecessary is the “Responsible Exports Plan” developed by the California Environmental Water Caucus. BEC fully supports this alternative, which reduces water-transfer impacts to our environment and farming communities. Incredulously, while the State Water Resources Control Board is eliminating water allocations for in-valley use for 2,500 water rights holders, such as Paradise Irrigation District, it is approving water transfers set to move a lot of water—including groundwater—out of our valley.

In addition to the threat of the BDCP and the twin tunnels, Californians will be asked to vote for a water bond in November. While this bond may have funding for much-needed projects, it will also have “lipstick on a pig” funding and may include money for Big Ag and Big Oil to buy water they want! The bond is just another way for project proponents to shirk responsibilities and costs associated with the construction of a boondoggle.

We didn’t get to vote in opposition to the twin tunnels, but we may get to vote whether or not to pay for cleanup during and following project construction. If we say no to the bond and funding cleanup work and further subsidizing corporate greed for water, project proponents may mothball Brown’s ill-conceived legacy project.