Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09131988 - 3.1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on September 13 , 1988 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors. Powers, -Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson, Schroder NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN• None SUBJECT: Buckhorn Reservoir The Board received the attached letter dated August 23 , 1988 from David Fullerton, San Francisco Bay Chapter-Sierra Club, 6014 College Avenue, Oakland 94618, expressing opposition to the proposed Buckhorn Reservoir. The Board also received the attached letter dated August 17, 1988 from Jerrys Rose, People 's Alliance for Increased. Local Storage (PAILS) , 6114 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 213 , Oakland 94611, expressing support for the Buckhorn Reservoir proposal. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid letters are REFERRED to the Water Committee (Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson) . I hereby certify that this ie a true and oos-estcopy of an ac's on taken and enter-ad c°n !Nc;„n;', gu les ai One Board of Supervisors on the dale shown. cc: Supervisor McPeak Supervisor Torlakson. PHIL BIATMMELOR, of she foard Dave Okita, CDD of Surpervisoss and Dou my Aram€nIst:ator County Administrator 01 By Deputy RECEIVED AUG 261988 PHN BATCHELOR CLERK GUARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. G .... .............. D uut gust 23, 1988 TO: Elected Officials FROM: David Fullerton 540-5226 Chair, Sierra Club Bay Chapter Water . Committee SUBJECT : Buckhorn Reservoir As you are probably aware, EBMUD has decided to place the issue of Buckhorn Reservoir on the November ballot for an advisory vote . The Sierra Club is opposed to Buckhorn Reservoir, nor are we very happy with the wording or timing of the. vote. The enclosed materials will explain and justify our. positions in more detail . We hope that you will support us in our fight to defeat Buckhorn Dam. If you have any questions or desire more detailed documents please call me at the number given above . v�tnxZa�i __,Board iiJiembeM p(mi� County Administrator Hesith Services Community Deveiopm60. Publio works County counsel r THE SIERRA CLUB SAN' FRANCISCO BAY CHAPTER'S POLICY ON EBMUD'S WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY - o EBMUD is currentlyconsidering a Water Supply - Management Program (WSMP) that would include the construction of one or more new terminal storage reservoirs and the construction of facilities to allow large annual diversions from the lower American River. o All the proposed terminal reservoirs . would flood already rare riparian habitat. o Buckhorn Reservoir would flood a spectacular valley visible from Rocky Ridge and adjacent to Las Trampas Regional Wilderness, deprive the public of valuable open space, reduce. recreational use of public land, and destroy the best protected spawning ground of a unique population of rainbow trout. o l•he - diversion fr-- the.. Lower American River would contribute significantly to environmentaldegradation in the lower American River and the Bay/ Delta Estuary. o The ,proposed Buckhorn Reservoir and American River diversion could open up the entire Highway 580 corridor to unrestrained growth. o The -WSMP would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on projects which would provide only small water quality benefits once in many decades. o. Numerous ' alternatives exist which could reliably provide high quality water to EBMUD without the high cost and environmental damage of EBMUD' s proposals. o The primary beneficiary of the WSMP would be the new growth that is already reducing the quality of life in the Bay Area. . o The fees currently levied upon new growth are . insufficient to pay for the WSMP. ----------------------------------------------------------------- THEREFORE, the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club: 1) . opposes, the construction by EBMUD of any new facility designed to divert water from above the Delta. 2) opposes the construction of new terminal reservoirs and in, particular the" he pruposed Buckhcrn Reservolr. 3) believes that current EBMUD drought and security planning is unreas- onably conservative and that it will waste money and cause unnecessary environmental damage. 4) urges that treated Delta water remain the backup supply of last resort in EBMUD planning. 5) believes that a program including water conservation, wastewater reclamation, rate reform, education, drought year contingency contracts with agricultural water suppliers, mutual assistance agreements and physical. interties with urban water agencies, and strengthening of the existing Mokelumne Aqueduct in the Delta would make the actual use of Delta water extremely rare. 6) urges that the cost of any water supply needed for new customers be borne by those customers. w � _ JJ SAN FIZZ-1NCISCO. BAY CHAPTER • SIERR�k CLUB ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA• MARIN • SAN FRANCISCO 601.4 COLLEGE AVENUE. OAKLAND. CA 94618 130OKSTORE (415) 658-7-17 0 OFFICE (415) 653-6127 CONSERVATIONS (4151 653-6127 PRESS RELEASE August 9th , 1988 contact person : David Fullerton (415) 540-522.6 Sierra Club Criticizes EBMUD Advisory Vote Language David Fullerton, Chair .. of the Sierra Club' s' Bay Chapter Water Committee , today criticized a proposed EBMUD resolution' * placing the question of Buckhorn Reservoir on theNovember ballot . Fullerton had two major criticisms of the proposed. resolution, that the vote was premature and that the language under consideration was slanted toward a ryes' vote for Buckhorn .! Alternate language was suggested asking whether Buckhorn Reservoir should be ' knocked out of consideration immediately or left in the running. Said Fullerton, "How can the EBMUD Board of Directors possibly expect the electorate to give an informed vote on .Buckhorn? The Board hasn' t decided on how large Buckhorn will be . They don' t know how much it will cost , or how bad the environmental and .growth impacts : of the project , will be . The original Draft . Environmental Impact Report was so poor that they are now redoing it . Finally, the viability of the Los Vaqueros option won' t be known until _ the same November election , This isn' t good government . This is an attempt by the pro-Buckhorn forces , using ' the drought , to induce John Q. Public to sign a blank check one which the Board can later cash in, regardless of the problems with Buckhorn which-an adequate ' EIR will reveal'' . Fullerton suggested that , "if EBMUD really wants to consult with . the voters on . EBMUD' s future , they should wait until all the information can be presented to the voters on the advantages and disadvantages of all the options -- High Pinole , Buckhorn , Los Vaqueros , and' the various non-structural alternatives . At present , it is unreasonable for EBMUD to do more than to test the opposition to Buckhorn . If the voters are strongly against Buckhorn , then perhaps it can be dropped out of consideration . But neither the Board nor the voters are in a position to sign off. on a project when the various options and impacts are so undefined , " Fullerton' s preferred ballot language is as follows : Should the East Bay Utility District continue. to consider Buckhorn Reservoir (with an estimated cost of $150. million) as an option for providing drought and . security protection primarily for the new growth projected to occur within the. Di..Gt.rict? Fullerton continued, '.'If EBMUD Board does insist on asking for a blank check' on Buckhorn , they should at least keep propaganda out of the ballot language . The present language implies that Buckhorn is the only available option and that present customers will be the main beneficiaries of Buckhorn -- both assertions are false . " In fact ,- Buckhorn is only one of many options available to the District . Other options include building Los Vaqueros Reservoir jointly with the Contra Costa Water District, and utilizing non-structural alternatives such as water marketing, water interties , and conservation . Moreover , new growth, not existing customers would get the benefits of Buckhorn Reservoir . Said Fullerton , "essentially all the water stored in Buckhorn would be used to service new growth -- that' s a fact even using EBMU-D' s slanted figures . So why aren' t they willing" to admit it on their ballot language?" i Even more, laughable is the proposed statement on the cost of the reservoir , - _" , . less than 90 cents per month to a typical existing ll s; residential customer . . ," , Said Fullerton, "if EBMUD intends to drain $150 million dollars ..out of the East Bay , it , should say so up front . Giving a monthly cost assumes that the average voter cares only about the affect on him or herself , not the affect on { the .community and environment . OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION 101 SPROUL HALL, BERKELEY, CA 94720 v (415)'642-3734 7/29/88--Atwood--File#10926 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Berkeley -- It could be as much as 10 times cheaper for the East Bay's largest water utility to buy water from nearby farmers who now use its water than to build a proposed new reservoir near Moraga. Even if it is not 10 times cheaper, "water marketing" is still much cheaper, and would leave the sensitive Buckhorn Canyon environment undamaged, according to an economist from the University of California at Berkeley. The economist is Anthony C. Fisher, professor of agricultural and resource economics at Berkeley. In a statement submitted to East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) decisionmakers last month, Fisher argued against the District's proposal to build the B uckhorn.reservoir west of Moraga. EBMUD solicited public comment on its proposal. The utility contends that a new $169 million reservoir near cities is needed as a backup water supply for drought years and, in addition, in case its pipelines bringing Sierra mountain water should break. EBMUD's water'comes from the Mokelumne River west of the Sierra, but it,moves to the East Bay in three pipelines that cross islands and sloughs in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta: A strong earthquake or big flood could rupture those lines, especially the oldest one. In that case, the lines would have to be rebuilt anyway. So why not begin immediately a phased-in (and cheaper than a reservoir) replacement of the three aqueducts with two earthquake- and flood-proof lines? There would be no new damage to the environment, Fisher argued. The flexibility permitted by building in steps would save today's dollars compared with the reservoir scenario, Fisher said. -more- a; -2- He calculated cost in 1988 dollars of building one strong aqueduct at $132.5 million, building one strong aqueduct with a 50 percent chance of building the second in 1-0 years at $158 million, and building the reservoir (plus basic aqueduct improvements) and just one secure aqueduct in 10 years at $204.5 million. For drought-year backup, EBMUD could buy water from the Woodbridge Irrigation District in San Joaquin county. (Though water purchases from Woodbridge were not mentioned in EBMUD's original proposal, the District recently offered to buy Woodbridge water at a price significantly lower than what Fisher recommends. Woodbridge refused.) The Woodbridge district has a legal right to at lcast 39,000 acre-feet of free water annually from EBMUD and sells it in turn to farmers (in the drought year 1977 it used 51,000 acre-feet). It is one of the largest recipients of water from EBMUD's Camanche reservoir. EBMUD city customers now pay about$291 per acre-foot. Getting that amount (less pumping costs) could be a bonanza for the Woodbridge district and its customers in a dry year, Fisher said. With that much cash at stake, farmers could voluntarily decide what to do: keep on irrigating with dirt-cheap water -- or sell some of it and switch to less water-intensive crops, install less wasteful irrigation systems, take water from wells.on their own property or temporarily take land out of production. Such "water marketing" would bring economic rationality to decisions about deploying water in a dry year, Fisher argued. The present irrational situation has some users (farmers) using thousands of gallons extravagantly, simply because cost is so low -- while others (city dwellers) with big water bills fret over an extra five minutes in the shower. The 1988 drought-year target for reduction of water use in EBMUD is 25 percent. According to Fisher, that represents about 60,000 acre-feet now or 75,000 acre-feet in 2020. He estimated water sales from Woodbridge at no more than 51,000 acre-feet, their historical drought-year use, and probably less. As a source for the rest of replacement water needed, Fisher recommended American River water, which EBMUD has a contract to buy from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The contract for 150,000 acre-feet allows the Bureau to reduce EBMUD's allocation in a dry year, -more- -3- but only a small fraction of 150,000 would be needed. EBMUD estimates the cost of building and filling the proposed new Buckhorn Canyon reservoir at $169 million. Assuming 60,000 acre-feet will be needed from it for a drought once every 10 years, the cost is $2,817 per acre-foot for construction alone, Fisher calculated. Reservoir operating costs would add more. If Woodbridge water can be bought for less than $291 per acre-foot (EBMUD prices less pumping cost) and if American River water costs the same, purchases from Woodbridge thus would be about one-tenth the price of acre-feet from the new reservoir, Fisher figured. Even if EBMUD needed 75,000 acre-feet once,in 10 years and Woodbridge water cost twice as much, reservoir water cost would be at least$2,253 and "marketed" water$582. Fisher also commended EBMUD for its drought-year pricing that rises sharply with amounts of water used. The plan is not completely fair to dry-climate area residents, but it definitely encourages conservation. In fact, such price-induced conservation might make use of American River water unnecessary. In the unlikely event that conservation, water marketing and American River water together could not make up for shortages, Fisher said EBMUD could contract to store water in another utility's proposed reservoir. That reservoir would be the Los Vaqueros site near Brentwood (and also not far from EBMUD's aqueducts), planned for construction by the Contra Costa Water District. Enlarging one reservoir rather than building two is cheaper and less damaging to the environment, Fisher said. In addition, while the reservoir is still in the planning stages it is relatively easy to add a few thousand extra acre-feet to Los Vaqueros' capacity, which can vary between 50,000 and one million. .NOTE: Professor Anthony C. Fisher can be reached at (415) 642-7555. A-10 Wednesday, May 25, 1988 'Thc,T'r,l b Nne Oakland, California Alternatives for EBMUD Pure, inexpensive water supplies aren't accessible to the general public by trails much good if every few decades the tap goes through EBMUD property. As the Sierra dry, killing lawns and shrubs, shutting down Club's Bay Chapter notes, "Buckhorn would industry and leaving households parched. Se- flood a spectacular valley visible from curity against unexpected drought and disas- Rocky Ridge and adjacent to Las Trampas ter is as important as maintaining high lev- Regional Wilderness. It would . .. deprive els of service in normal times. the public of valuable open space and reduce That's why the East Bay Municipal Utili- recreational use of public lands." ty District is developing a plan of action for Quite possibly, it would also cost rate- dealing with potential catastrophes. In any payers more than other options the district _ given year, the probability of a severe water should also consider. shortage is low. But over 50 or 100 years, Buckhorn itself carries a price tag of the district is almost sure to face either•a $152 million. It will solve the drought prob- terrible drought or the loss of its pipelines to lem, but only buy the district time to fix its floods or earthquakes. Delta aqueducts in case of an emergency. As the district grows, demand for water The cost of replacing the aqueducts with has begun to push up against dry-year sup- disaster-proof pipelines is about $265 million plies. Even with conservation measures now in current dollars. in place, another drought of 1976-77 propor- EBMUD might do better to begin work tions would have as severe an impact today on those pipelines now, since it will almost as it did then. And the gap between demand certainly have to build them sometime (at and drought supplies will grow substantially an inflated price). With the system's security and dangerously over the next few decades. addressed, the district can seek cheaper sol- In times of drought, at least some water utions than Buckhorn to future droughts. trickles into the system. But if an earth- One such solution, which the district is quake or flood knocked out the pipelines that already exploring, involves pumping Delta carry Sierra water from the Mokelumne water into Camanche Reservoir to cover River across the Delta, the district would commitments lower on the Mokelumne Riv- have mainly its local reservoirs to rely on. erand free up Pardee Reservoir to supply The proximity of earthquake faults to those pure drinking water to the Eastbay. EBMUD pipes, the extremely unstable soil they rest could explore buying the Delta water from on and the regions history of flooding make the federal government (instead or on top of it a question of when, not if, the Eastbay's its American River contract) or from irriga- water delivery system will fail. tion districts throughout the state that have Ensuring against such scenarios — the expressed..an interest in selling water.rights subject of a public meeting this evening at in drought years. At current prices, such Raiser Center — will cost big sums of mon- occasional purchases would be far cheaper ey and require complex tradeoffs between than building Buckhorn. water quality,cost and regional environmen- tal amenities. Such a scheme should supply the district In reviewing the district's various op- with drought reserves sufficient to meet any tions, the EBMUD staff proposes killing two expected emergency through the year 2020. problems (drought and aqueduct security) Conservation, reclamation, interties with the with one reservoir. By constructing Buck- San Francisco Water District and limited horn Reservoir in the Eastbay hills near use of Delta water, no one of which might Upper San Leandro Reservoir, the district solve the drought problem alone, would sup- could store enough water to tide customers ply an extra cushion if desired. either through a drought or through a year And, much further down the road if the of reconstructing damaged Delta pipelines. gap between firm supply and demand .con- By banking more high quality Sierra water tinues to grow, the district can always build in good times, staff members argue, the dis- Pinole Reservoir at only 40 percent of the trict will suffer minimal quality degradation cost of Buckhorn. and manageable cutbacks at the lowest pos- These options deserve a far closer look sible cost. than the EIR provides, both to save district The staff, and the draft environmental customers money and to save precious, ac- impact report prepared for the district, pay cessible open space for future generations of scant attention to the cost this proposal Eastbay residents. EBMUD's outstanding would have on beautiful open space now staff should give it a shot. 14e^ ... -:1.:........... ..... -X. ....... .............................�A................ ............................................................................................... PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE FOR INCREASED LOCAL STORAGE • 6114 LASALLE AVENUE, SUITE 213, OAKLAND,CA 94611 j 1( ,,_U41V S t=P 11988 M-ML BA-CH�LCR CLERK QOARD Of SUPE,,;d1SORS CONTRA COSTA CO. August 17, 198$ ° Dept Dear Elected Official: Obviously, we are in the second year of a major drought. California' s weather is unpredictable but the prospect of future droughts is a certainty. We must begin building additional local reservoir storage now to prevent even greater water shortages, in the future. Water shortages adversely impact our environment', and the public health. PAILS is an organization of environmentalists, community leaders and concerned citizens who are dedicated to this goal. Enclosed is a resolution from our organization supporting EBMUD' s proposal to increase local water storage through the construction of Buckhorn Reservoir. We would appreciate this resolution being placed on your next' meeting's agenda, and your supportof it. . Please contact us if you would like a PAILS member to attend. Sinc rely, Jerrys Rose PAILS Steering Committee THE PEOPLES ' ALLIANCE FOR INCREASED LOCAL STORAGE A RESOLUTION WHEREAS, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has declared a water emergency and has experienced its second two-year drought within ten years, and WHEREAS, East Bay Municipal Utility District' s aqueducts traverse unstable Delta islands and are subject to failure from seismic; activity or flood, and WHEREAS, East Bay Municipal Utility District does not have the reservoir capacity needed to maintain normal service standards' in the event of extensive damage to its aqueducts or .prolonged periods of drought, and WHEREAS, the storage and use of Delta water during emergencies is undesirable, and WHEREAS, any growth in the East Bay will increase water demand, and WHEREAS, local storage available during shortages will be more limited as a result of that growth. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Alameda and Contra Costa County Boards of Supervisors and all cities, towns, boards, committees, neighborhood associations, and civic groups within. EBMUD' s service area join this alliance in supporting EBMUD ' s proposal to increase local water storage through the construction of Buckhorn Reservoir.