HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09232008 - D.2 (3) SE_ L
TO:` BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra`?��� -��'
FROM: SUPERVISOR GAYLE B. UILKEMA, DISTRICT 2 m Costa
DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 �'o�_ ' -_ .-'c:�~~k
Tq COUIy� County
SUBJECT: CONSIDER THE BOARD RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THIS BOARD ON FEBRUARY 13,
1980 REGARDING THE PERIPHERAL CANAL. CONSIDER REAFFIRMING OR
MODIFYING THAT POSITION AND DIRECTING STAFF AS NECESSARY (ALL
DISTRICTS)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
A. CONSIDER the attached February 13, 1980 Board Order on the Peripheral Canal.
B. CONSIDER reaffirming/modifying the Board action taken on the Peripheral Canal.
C. DIRECT staff as necessary to provide any additional information the Board needs in their deliberation on the
Peripheral Canal.
D. DIRECT staff to work with the Delta Counties,the County's lobbyist and other State agencies to further the
County's interest regarding the Delta and the Peripheral Canal.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No direct costs other than staff time associated with gathering data required by the Board.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ❑x SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OFCOUNTYADMINISTRATOR ' RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
� e
SIGNATURE(
ACTION OF BOARD ONQ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER �QQE�1 QLu�J v —
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT
COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE
AYES: I NOES: DATE SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Contact: Steve Dexter 335-1046 Q
GBU: ATTESTED
DAVID TWA,C ERK O THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: David Twa,County Administrator
Jason,Crapo,.County Administrator Office —•
Lara Delaney,County Administrator Office
Julie Bueren,Public Works BY: DEPUTY
' Mitch Avalon,Public Works
Greg Connaughton,Flood Control
Catherine Kutsuris,Department of Conservation Development
Roberta Goulart,Department of Conservation Development
SUBJECT: CONSIDER THE BOARD ORDER ADOPTED BY THIS BOARD ON FEBRUARY 13,
1980 REGARDING THE PERIPHERAL CANAL. CONSIDER REAFFIRMING OR
MODIFYING THAT POSITION AND DIRECTING STAFF AS NECESSARY (ALL
DISTRICTS)
DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
PAGE: 2 of 2
BACKGROUND AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
Senate Bill 200 by Senator Ayala in 1980 proposed modifying the State Water project to include a peripheral canal.
In response to SB200 (Ayala),the Board adopted a position on the Peripheral Canal as it first became a statewide
issue. The position on the peripheral canal at that time is stated in the attached Board Order dated February 13, 1980
and subsequent Board Orders, which are also attached. The statement of opposition to the Peripheral Canal still
exists as the Board's official position and has not been modified.
The voters of California subsequently voted against the Peripheral Canal in 1982.
On August 19, 2008, the Board adopted a broad platform on a wide range of Delta issues. One policy issue in the
platform was conveyance, which included the Peripheral Canal (now often referred to as an isolated water transfer
facility).
At the time the platform was approved,the Board,recognized and acknowledged that it was a living document and
may need to be modified at times. The County of San Joaquin has come out in strong opposition to the Peripheral
Canal. Recently, the cities of Lodi, Manteca and Tracy have also come out in opposition.
In view of the rapidly developing circumstances in Sacramento,the Board may need to reaffirm our 1980 position of
opposition to the Peripheral Canal or consider some other action to fully communicate an official position prior to
any final actions being taken by the State.
The primary purpose of introducing this issue at this time is to promote a full discussion by the Board.and determine
how Contra Costa can become an influential party in the process.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Unknown at this time.
dl
ADDENDUM
September 23,2008
Agenda Item D.2
On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered the Resolution previously adopted by the
Board on February 13, 1980 regarding the Peripheral Canal, and re-affirming or modifying that
position and directing staff as necessary
Chair Glover noted that the Board has had quite a bit of discussion on Delta issues, but because
of movement on the issue of a Peripheral Canal it is now important to be sure the Board is very
clear on the issue.
Supervisor Uilkema introduced the item, saying she had forwarded it to the full Board rather than
TWIC (the Board's Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee) as it was the full Board
that recently adopted a platform on Delta water issues. She said it would seem that some
Southern California legislators are operating under the assumption that the State will be moving
forward with a Peripheral Canal, and added that public policy.also indicates support for a
Peripheral Canal. She said that many ofthe issues surrounding a canal are the same today as they
were when the Board took a position against it in 1980. She quoted from page two of Board
Resolution WA-80/2, wherein the Board supported "legislation to achieve water policy reforms
that will allow California to meet future water needs without massive expansion of the State
Water Project and construction of the Peripheral Canal. " She indicated that this item was
brought before the Board today merely for discussion and for the potential to request more
information and to create latitude for the Board should it decide to create a more substantive
updated statement.
Supervisor Gioia noted that there is not yet a concrete proposal to which to respond, as the Board
did in 1980. He added that it will be in the Board's best interest to be a participant in helping to
shape any proposed solutions to the current water crisis. He added that Contra Costa's position
alone will not have much of an impact but the position of a coalition could.
Supervisor Piepho commented that with these 1980 documents, the Board is already on record in
opposition to a Peripheral Canal, a position that can be reiterated if needed. She said it is
important, though, to stay at the table, quoting the old adage "keep your friends close and your
enemies closer." She said to make no mistake, we are in a quiet war over the Delta.
Supervisor Bonilla suggested TWIC work on laying out a strategic plan for what we want to
accomplish with the Board's recently adopted Delta platform and how to promote it. She added
that it is very important to not just be against the canal, but to also come out in support of other
reasonable solutions.
Roberta Goulart, County Water Agency, noted that item C.30 on this day's agenda addresses
moving the platform, which has now been approved by the Contra Costa County Mayors
Conference, on to the legislators.
Chair Glover requested information on staff's ability to do all the things that will be needed to
accomplish the County's goals.
Catherine Kutsuris, Director of the Conservation and Development Department, said there are
funds available through the Water Agency and a partnership with the Public Works Department,
and said she would include a fiscal section to give the Board some choices when the item is
returned to TWIC or the full Board.
D.2 September 25, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Supervisor Gioia said we need to continue to make it clear that what we stand for is the
protection of the integrity and ecosystem of the Delta.
Supervisor Uilkema suggested that partof the Board's strategy should be giving testimony in
Sacramento.
Supervisor Bonilla suggested articulating with the lobbyists and the County Administrator's
Office to advocate proactive legislation:,
By a unanimous vote with none absent, the Board of Supervisors took the following action:
DIRECTED the Board's Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) to
consider, at its next meeting,the development of a strategic plan to help promote and achieve the
goals of the Board's platform on Delta water issues, after which the matter should be returned to
the full Board; and DIRECTED staff to work with the Delta Counties, the County's lobbyists and
other State agencies to further the County's interests regarding the Delta and the Peripheral
Canal.
1p
CO JTRA COSTA CO'. _.:_ ' , J1'Z E .0, CALL"ORNIA
In the Tatter of Strategy fol )
Oppo,:,in� SB 200 (Peripheral )
CanE_'L Bill) - and Promoting )
Appropriate Reforrls in State } February 13 , 1900
.rater Policy . )
Supervisor S . tJ . " tcPea'_.•-_ _-, . _:: submitted a February 13 , 1930
r.eort from the. Water Comrittee �__fnin-, a plan for opposing SB 20C
( Peripheral Canal Bill) and pror_,_.__Y_g appropriate reforms in State Vlater
Poli( and, having advised that a'le-_ consulting with other elected
officials , leadership in many co�ser- ation organizations , -and .numerous
business and labor r"eprese,ntativ:=s - Contra Costa Count.,/' it appears
that. consensus on a strategy to =_ :lB' 200 is emerging and consists
of the following four points.:
1 . Provision of -new' informa.tioz to Assembly members raising
questions about: (a) the financial implications of SB 200;
.(b) the future energy needs for an expanded SWP as en-
visioned in SB 200, and (c) the advisability of..the
approach in SB 200 .
2. Coordinated requests to the, Assembly Water, Parks and
Wildlife Committee and the Speaker of the Assembly re-
questing .(a) hearings throughout the State on the above
issues related to SB 200; and (b) delay of any vote on
SB 200 in Committee and by the Assembly until after the
June election decision o. Proposition .9 (Jarvis II) .
3. Raising the prof,ile. of `he SB 200 issues in the Bay
Area and Northern California through:
(a.) each County adopting another resolution, in
opposition to SB 200 and requesting the*
Assembly to:
(1) thoroughly examine the financial
implications relative to SB 200 .
(2) ' hold hearings throughout the State
on these implications .
(3) delay "vote in Coy-mittee and Assembly
until after, June elections.
(4) support reforms in water .policy that
will allow the' State to meet future
water ; needs %..,thout embarking on such
a questionable expansion. of the SwP.
(b) a coordinated campaign of County. Supervisors meeting
with legislators to discuss the above concerns (in-
cluding presenting testimony at the schedule February
27 meeting) .
(c) promoting media e.:oosure to the issues outlined above. "
4 . Providing information, (as discussed. above) to targeted com-
munities and groups in Southern California. The ultimate
objective of this effort will. be: (a) to encourage citizens
to communicate with their Assembly 'representatives to raise
certain issues and request answers; and (b) to promote
discussion of these i slues in the media , anr,l
/ X' .,. ,..e�..-c_. 'f,_r`w'.._.- ... `�- ,... f� j�,M�`�.r.� �� � �� ,� .-_ J '""„'".y''� 'i�':r'`'v-mw""t� '� �'``�f•-r n .��.
Supervisor Mc Beak Navin - commented that although there are
not nl,�,ny people Tviho observeSacramento polities iiho are optimistic
about stopping SB 200 , it is important thaI Contra Costa County continue
a vio,-orous, battle against SD 200 (and the Peripheral Canal ) and provide
alp ernative approaches to meeting the future water needs in Cali,or'nia,
and ihioreover it is clear that members of tlie Assembly have been lobbied
heavily to support SB 200 and thalt, the only hope to change the outlool.,.-
is t,) develol-. opposition, toSri200 arnonp- the legislators ' own
g
consl[.,ituents , and
C,
Supervisor !,TcPeak' haviin,s; t1hereupon riecoi-Lmended that the Board :
(a) Review and adopt the above strategy.
(b) Agree to participate with other interested groups
in coordinating apublic education campaign
. against SB 200.
(c) Accept the responsibility to coordinate the
efforts of Bay Area and- Northern California
Counties, and assign such coordination re-
sponsibilitIes to the Water Committee'.
(d) , Authorize staff assistanc' e.'as recommended by
the Water Agency to coordinate the County par-
ticipation in the effort to defeat SB 200 .
Such staff assistance is estimated to require
I' to 1 . 5 people for approximately four months .
and could be handled by one or more experienced
individuals on contract. The activities that
would requite staff assistance include:
compilation of information on
financial and energy issues
related to SB 200.
preparation of materials for
submission to legislators .
preparation of public information
on new aspects and concerns related
toSB 200.
scheduling and coordinating of meet-
ings with Supervisors and legislators.
coordination of coverage through media.
assistance in coordinating activities
with other organizations.
The staff should be contracted through the Water Agency.
However, the individuals should work closely with the
Public Information Office and in coordination with the
Water Committee. The .acttal financial requirements of
t"his proposa'1 should be referred to, the Finance Com-
mittee for analysis and recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors.
(e) Direct the Water Agency, Finance Committee, -County
Counsel, and County Administrator to develop an out-
line for the costs of legal preparation during 1980
to 'fight SB 200 in court if it should pass .
IT IS BY '"I'IfE BOARD 019DER.ED that the recommendations of
Supervisor rTCI'eak are APPROVED.
PASSED by the Board on _11'eb r u a r- 13 , 19830.
CERTIFIED Copy
cc : Public
c 11',ss Director I cerri,'Y rhat this is :t full, tmc & correct copyof,the
Env i ronnent al Control 1"d, is op 11,: iii nig: flint 11
U Vit:, 150"s Of
CouritY ("ounse Gnarl" Cul cul r; 17nia. on the Shown.
ATTEST: SON,Cutmty Clerk&c�:-officio Clerk-
OT,,;
ry Clerk.
tJ FEB 13 198
Diana M. Herman
SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK 2 Board of Supervisor:
^Supery sor, District Four Contra og�23�og. 3
1331 Concord Avenue Costa
Concord, California 94520 County
(415) 687 8663
=€ RECEIVED`
TO Board of Supervisors FEb /_3 1980
J. R. OLSSON
r Committee CtER AOA F SUPERVISORS
% COSTA
FROM: aSupervisor McPeak g -PUN
Supervisor Hasseltine
DATE: February 13 , 1980
RE Plan for Opposing SB 200 and Promoting
Appropriate Reforms in State Water Policy
In preparing this report the Water Committee members have consulted
and met with other elected officials, the leadership in many con—
servation organizations , and numerous business and labor represen-
tatives in Contra Costa County. It appears that consensus on a
I
strategy to fight SB 200 is emerging ..and consists of the following
four points :
1 . Provision of new., information to Assembly members raising
questions about:; (a) the financial implications of SB 200;
(b) the future energy needs for an expanded SWP as en-
visioned in SB 2"00, and (c) the advisability of the
approach in SB 2°00 .
2. Coordinated requests to the Assembly Water, Parks and
Wildlife Committee and the Speaker of the Assembly re-
questing (a) hearings throughout the State on the above
issues related to SB 200; and (b) delay of any vote on
SB 200 in Committee and by. the Assembly until after the
June election decision on ' Proposition 9 (Jarvis II) .
3 . Raising the profile of the SB 200 issues in the Bay
Area and Northern California through:
(a) each County adopting another resolution in
opposition °to SB 200 and requesting the
Assembly to:
(1) thoroughly examine the financial
implications relative to SB 200 .
(2) hold hearings throughout the State
on these implications .
(3) delay vote in Committee and Assembly
until after June elections .
eoard of Supervi( rs Page 2
(4) support reforms in water policy that
will allow the State to. meet future
water needs without embarking on such
a questionable expansion of the SWP..
(b) a coordinated campaign of County Supervisors meeting
with legislators to discuss the ,above concerns (in-
cluding presenting testimony at the schedule February
27 meeting)..
(c) promoting media exposure to the issues outlined above.
4. Providing information (as discussed above) to targeted com-
munities and groups in Southern California. The ultimate
objective of this effort will be: (a) to encourage citizens
to communicate with their Assembly representatives to raise
certain issues and request answers; and (b) to promote
discussion of these issues in the media.
Although there are not many people who observe Sacramento politics
who are optimistic about stopping SB 200 , it is important that Contra
Costa County continuela vigorous battle against SB 200 (and the
Peripheral Canal),'and, provide alternative approaches to meeting the
future water needs in'' California.
Moreover, it is clear that members of the Assembly have been lobbied
heavily to support SB; 200 and that the only hope to change the out-
look is to develop opposition to SB 200 among the legislators ': own
constituents.
Therefore, it is recommended that the Contra Costa Board of Supervise
(a) Review and adopt the above strategy.
(b) Agree to participate with other interested groups
in coordinating a public education campaign
against SB `200 .
(c) Accept the responsibility to coordinate the
efforts of 'Bay Area and Northern California
Counties, and assign such coordination re-
sponsibilities to the water Committee.
. Y v
(d) Authorize staff assistance as recommended by
the Water Agency to coordinate the County par-
ticipation^ in the effort to defeat SB 200 .
Such staff assistance, is estimated to require
1 to 1. 5 people for approximately four months
and could be handled by one or more experienced
individuals on contract. The activities .that
would require staff assistance include:
compilation of information on
financial and energy issues
related to SB 200.
preparation of materials for
submission to legislators .
Board of Supervi ' - s �'- Page 3
preparation of public information
on new aspects and concerns related
to SB 200 .
scheduling and coordinating of meet-
ings with Supervisors and legislators.
coordination of coverage through media.
- assistance in coordinating activities
with other organizations.
The staff should be contracted through the Water Agency.
However, the individuals should work closely with the
Public Information Office and in coordination with the
Water Committee. The actual financial requirements of
this proposal should be referred to the Finance Com-
mittee for analysis and recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors.
(e) Direct the Water Agency, Finance Committee, County
Counsel, and County Administrator to develop an out-
line for the costs of legal preparation during 1980
to fight SB 200 in court if it should pass .
t
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY , STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Platter, of Urging; )
Assembly Opposition to )
Senate Bill 200 and )
Requesting Certain Actions .. ) RESOLUTION NO. WA-80/2 -
WHEREAS , Senate- Bill 200 seeks California State Legislature
approval of Phase II of the State dater Project (SWP) which will involve
a series of dams , canals , and pumping facilities , and which will include
the Peripheral- Canal as a central feature ; and
WHEREAS , SB 200 has weakened the inadequate environmental
safeguards contained in Senate Bill 3116 and contains no guarantees
against future legislative amendments ; and
WHEREAS , the Department of Water Resources (DWR) estimates
the cost of. the water development projects in SB 200 have increased
from $7 billion in 1977 to $20 billion today (DMR Bulletin No . 132-79 ,
November 1979) ; and
WHEREAS , operation of the SB 200 water development projects
will increase the energy demand of the SWP to 11 . 1 billion. kilowattlhours
of• electric power- in the year 2000 ; and
WHEREAS , Pacific Gas & Electric Company estimates the cost
of electric energy on .its system in. 199$ . to be 12 . 9,j; per. Icilowatthours ;
and
WHEREAS , 11 .1 billion kilowatthours at a cost of 12 . 9 results
in a total annual energy bill of one billion four liundred thirty-one
million nine hundred thousand dollars ( $11,431 ,900 , 000) to operate the
SKIP : this is an average cost of >3111 per acr. e . foot for energy alone to
move the anticipated 4 ..2 million acre feet of Sti^•IP water in the year 2000 ,
and a much higher cost for w1ater `destined. for Los Angeles ; and
WHEREAS ,' the traditional riea.ns of financing water projects
through property tax assessments has been rendered questionable by
reason of Proposition 13 , forcing i:,;ater projects to be financed through
wa.te.r. charges ; and
11HEREAS. DWR proposes to finance the SB 200 projects primarily
by issuing. neer revenue bonds which do not require a. vote of the
electorate and wiliclh will depend on revenue from the water contractors
to repay the bonds ; -and.
10fHEREAS , unless the taxpayers of the state are asked by the
legislature to subsid_i_Ze expansion of the SWP , the water consumers will
have to Pay the full price of the new i-Tater , including costs for
construction of new facilities and energy to deliver the water;. and
WHEREAS , the bond rating for California and the -state ' s
fiscal integrity may be severely impaired if the water contractors
default on repayment of the ' bonds because the consumers are unable to
afford exp.ens.ive water from the expanded SWF ; and
WHEREAS , the potential passage of Proposition 9 (Jarvis II )
would significantly cripple, the. state ' s ability to assist the SWP in
the event default were to occur on the revenue bonds; and
WHEREAS , escalating costs of -MIP water will encourage
already excess ground grater pumping in the San Joaquin Valley to
increase ; and
WHEREAS , the long-range financialmplications of SB 200
have not been fully analyzed by DWR or presented to the legislature ; and
WHEREAS , DWR has failed to provide the legislature with a
comparative analysis of the costs of developing new water projects
versus .comparison of the costs for implementing grater conservation and
waste water reclamation; and
WHEREAS , SB 200 does not contain the water policy reforms
which must accompany any new water facilities construction if we are to
achieve responsible management of our state water resources ;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED bythe Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors that it hereby urges the California Assembly to :
1 . Vigorously oppose SB 200 at this time ;
2 . Delay a. vote on SB 200 in committee or
in the Assembly until a complete financial
analysis can k)o prepared and until
Proposition 9 "(Jarvis II) has been decided
by the voters;
3 . Hold hearings throughout the state to
accept testimony on the environmental ,
financial and. energy demand implications
of SB ' 200 ;'
ll . Support legislation to achieve water
policy reforms that will allow California
to meet future water needs without massive
expansion of the State Water Project and .
construction of the Peripheral Canal ,
PASSED this 26th 'clay of February , 1980 by the following
vote :
AYES Supervisors T. Powers , R. I . Schroder ,
S . lJ . McPeak, E . H. Hasseltine and N. C . Fanden.
NOES : None.
ABSENT : None .
CERTIFIED COPY
I certify that this i; a fuli;`true & correct copy of the
original document which is on file in my office,and that it
was passed £._ 2dopted E; s'e "pard of Supervisors of
Contra Costa County, Caii ornia, on the date shown.
ATTEST:J. R. OLSSON,County Clerk & ex-officio Clerk
said Board v SuFervisors, by lleputy Clerk.
on FEB 2 G 1980
cc : Contra Costa County Diana M. Herman
Legislative Delegation
Each County Board of Supervisors
of the State of California
City Councils in the nine
Bay Area Counties
Public Works Director
Environmental Control
County Counsel
County Administrator
Public Information Officer
u
i
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF . CALIFORNIA
AS EX OFFICi0 THE GOVERNING BOARD OF
CONTRA COS,ITA COUNTY WATER AGENCY
In the Matter .of )
Senate Bill 200 ) Resolution No, WA 80/3
WHEREAS Senate Bill 200 (Ayala) is now pending in the
California Legislature tl',o authorize the Peripheral Canal project
�as well as other water' development facilities and features to
enable the State Water Project to divert, and export more water
from Northern California: to Southern California; and
WHEREAS the Peripheral Canal would adversely affect the
water supplies and water,; rights of water users within Contra
Costa County; and would lseriously impair the maintenance of an
adequate supply of wateriof good quality for domestic, municipal.,
agricultural and industrial uses of ,water in Contra Costa County
as well as for the preservation and protection of the fish and'
wildlife resources and ojther environmental values of the. Bay-Delta
Estuarine System; and, would reduce the "Salinity Control" provided
by '"Delta .0utflows" which are needed. to prevent the excessive in-
trusion of. salt water into the Delta from San Francisco Bay;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that County Counsel,
representing the Contra ''Costa . County Water Agency, be and he is
hereby authorized to communicate and coordinate with other
interested counties and 1agencies, to plan and prepare such litiga-
tion as may be advisable';, and necessary (alone-or- in conjunction
with other interested parties) to prevent. the authorization,
construction and operation of the proposed Peripheral Canal and
to protect the water supplies and water qualities in, and the
ecological and environmental resources of the San Francisco Bay--
Delta Estuarine System.
PASSED by the Board on April 15, 1980 .
aR n= COPY
I certify that this Is,& full, true & ,correct copy of
the original document whigh is on file inmy, office,
and that it was passed & adopted by the Board of
Supervisors of Contras Costa County. California,, ori
the.date shown. ATTEST: J. R. OLSSON, Coanty
Clerk & e--officio Clerk of said Board of Super sAm%,
by Deputy Clerk.
cc: `County Counsellr :�:!tc�,t
Sunne McPeak
Public Works Director
County Administrator
Y ,
�4 �,
In the Board. of Supervisors
of
.Contra Costa lCounty, State of California
r
June 24 , 19 80
;1
In the Matter of
Report from the Contra Costa
WaterCommittee.
it
Supervisor S. W. McPeak, Chairwoman, Contra Costa Water
Committee, having this day ;d,submitted a report advising of the
schedule of events in Sacramento with respect to SB. 200 and the
Peripheral Canal and on the; need to develop an organizational
structure to address future water concerns and needs; and
Supervisor McPeakj�having recommended that County Counsel
be directed to work with the Water Committee to prepare. a draft
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, for circulation to other
counties and cities, that would provide an organizational structure
for unified action by units of local government to carry out
several common objectives, 'including:
1) to develop a new water and resource
management ethic;
2) to develop a proposal for water policy
reform for California;
3) to outline, a plan for water conservation
and more efficient water use in California;
4) to provide public 'information regarding the
implementation of the above objectives. .
Supervisor McPeakjllbaving also advised that the Water
Committee will work to facilitate the formation of a coalition of
citizens that can work in 'conjunction with the JPA, but outside
of government, to focus attention on various issues related to a
new water ethic and efficient use of water;
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that receipt of the aforesaid
report is ACKNOWLEDGED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the recommendation of Super-
visor McPeak is APPROVED.
PASSED by the Board on June 24, 1980.
I hereby'certify that the foregioing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the
minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid.
cc: Water Committee Witness my hand and the Seal of the Booed of
County Counsel f Supervisors
County Administrator affixed this 24th day of June 19 80
Acting Public Works Director
y J. R. OLSSON, Clerk
B) - Deputy Clerk
ln�
Maxine M. Neufeld
H-24 3/79 15M
Itl'�
.-SU.N'NE WRIGHT McPEAK Contra Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District Four I I/
1331 Concord Avenue ,Costa er
Concord, California 94520 ll County
(415) 687 8663 I
I
MEMORANDUM 1 �..► CEIVEDID
TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS J. olssory
L BO Oi- SUPERVISORS
LX.0
FROM : WATER COMMITTEE RA COSTA
�
DATE : June 24 , 1980
RE Scheduled Events and Activity Update
Two events have been tentatively scheduled relating to our continuing
battle against SB 200 and the Peripheral Canal :
Monday , June 30 , 11 : 00 a . m . " Peripheral Canal Awareness
Day" - North Lawn , Capitol
Wednesday , July' 2 10 : 30 a . m . Press Conference , Capitol
ACA 90 is expected to be "! reconsid.ered by the Senate sometime this
week , possibly. Wednesday ,, June 25 . SB 200 will be heard before
Assembly Ways and Means most likely sometime between July 2 and
July 11 , the scheduled date of recess for the Legislature .
Governor Brown is still the key person to contact with telegrams and
letters . Attached are sample wordings for telegrams . Encourage as
many citizens as possibleto write the Governor .
Regardless of the outcome of SB 200 and ACA 90 , there are many water
concerns that will require attention in the future . We need to
develop the organizational structure that will be prepared to address
water issues . At least two efforts will be required :
( a ) a vehicle to involve counties and cities in a partner-
ship with the Contra Costa County Water Agency ; and
( b ) a broad-based citizen coalition that can raise funds
and promote awareness ; such a support committee should
be composed of 1 'egislators , local elected officials ,
leaders in the environmental and conservation community ,
members of civic organizations and interested citizens .
The Contra Costa County Water. Agency/Board of Supervisors should
di-rect County -Counsel to'hwork with the Water Committee to prepare
a draft Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for circulation to other
SAMPLE TELEGRAMS Jo
1 . PLEASE VETO SB 2.00 .
2 . PLEASE OPPOSE SB 200 . WE NEED WATER POLICY REFORMS , NOT THE
PERIPHERAL .CANAL .
3 . . PLEASE OPPOSE SB, 200 . IT CONTAINS NO TEETH TO ENFORCE PROTECTION
FOR THE SF BAY-DELTA ECOSYSTEM .
4 . PLEASE VETO SB 200 . THE 'FUTURE OF CALIFORNIA DEPENDS ON YOUR
ACTION TO PRESERVE OUR WATER RESOURCES .
N
5 . SB 2.00 IS CONTRARY TO SOUND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT . PLEASE SUPPORT
WATER POLICY REFORMS ANDI';IENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS . PLEASE REQUEST
STATE ENERGY COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE . ENERGY DEMAND -ISSUES IN
SB 200 .
6 . PLEASE OPPOSE SB 200 A—S- URRENTLY DRAFTED . PLEASE SUPPORT- WATER
CONSERVATION AND 4Nt ETHIC . PLEASE CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION
OF ENERGY DEMAND IMPLICATIONS OF SB 200 BY STATE ENERGY COMMISSION .
7 . ( SENT BY SUPERVISOR McPEAK ON 6/2/£I0 )
PLEASE OPPOSE SB 200 . IT IS CONTRARY TO SOUND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT .
YOUR' EFFORTS TO ENSURE STRONG DELTA-BAY SAFEGUARDS AND TO PROMOTE
CONSERVATION AND OTHER WATER POLICY REFORMS ARE CRITICAL TO THE
FUTURE OF CALIFORNIA ' S ENVIRONMENT .
. u
A ,
SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAKnn y (� 2 Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District Four ° Contra 0.11
_Z-3 /6 Q
COS+n
.1331 Concord Avenue
LO
Concord, California 94520 county
(415) 687 - 5663
u -
FOR YOUR URGENT CONSIDERtIT10N
TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS*
FROM : Sunne Wright McPeak J
�,
DATE : June 20 , 1980
RE SB 200
I am writing to ask yourll'llhelp in a critical energy and resource
management issue : SB 200 ,,i (Ayala ) which would authorize construction
of the Peripheral Canal nd expansion of the State Water Project .
SB 200 does not contain any significant provision 'for conservation
or other, water policy reforms . If SB 200 passes in its present
form , inefficient and sometimes wasteful water use practices will
be perpetuated .
In addition , there are many energy issues surrounding SB 200 that
have yet to be fully investigated . The State Water Project is
currently the single largest energy user in the state . Completion
of the SB 200 construction package will double the energy demand
for the State Water Project by the year 2000 . It is disturbing
to me that , on one hand , ', you and I are working through the Governor ' s
Local Government Commission to promote the .use of. solar energy and
alternative energy sources in order to meet future needs while , on
the other hand , the Administration is supporting SB 200 which could
offset our progress by greatly increasing energy demand . This con-
flict in policy initiatives must be brought to the attention of the
Governor . There needs to be consistency in the Administration ' s
thrust -to evolve a new'ieth-ic for resource management .
Your input to Governor Brown ' s deliberations on SB 200 could be very
instrumental in shaping the ultimate decision . If you are - interested
in helping , please telegraph or write Governor Brown urging that he :
( 1 ) Oppose SB 200 inits current form ;
( 2 ) Promote a new water ethic through water policy reforms
( such as conservation ) ; and
( 3 ) Request the State Energy Commission to investigate the
energy demand and cost implications of SB 200 .
For your background . in-1'orniation , I ' m. enclosing :
( a ) a copy of an excellent New West article on the water
battle in California which explores who will really
,p
SUNNE WRIGHT McI1EAK Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District Four Contra
1331 Concord Avenue ...Costa 2
Concord. California 94520 �OU-4-
(415) 687 - 8663
e
June 3 , 1980
The Honorable Edmund G. Brown Jr .
Governor, , State of Ca'lifiornia
State Capitol
Sacramento , California 95814
Attn : Diana S . Dooley
Legislative Secretary
Dear Governor Brown :
1-was encouraged to read in the enclosed article that you are
considering stronger safeguards for the Sari Francisco Bay-Delta
Estuarine Ecosystem . SB 200 as currently drafted is contrary
to sound environmental . practices and appears to be ,inconsistent
with your past philosophical approaches to resource management .
For example , an expanded State Water Project as envisioned in
SB 200 , will perpetuate existing water practices and will double
the energy demand for the State Water Project by the year 2000 ,
all at a time when we - should be promoting more conservation
and wiser use of natural resources .
The energy demand implications of an expanded State Water Project
are of particular concern to me . I serve as one of your appointees
on the Local. Government Commission for Solar Energy and Renewable.
Resources which 1's actively working to promote the development of
alternative energy sources . However , our efforts may be primarily
symbolic in light of SB 200 : while we are striving to encourage'
renewable energy sources at the local level , the State is busily
working to pass SB 200 which will significantly increase the
energy demand for the State Water Project , one of the largest
" energy users in California . There needs to be an overall assess-
ment of how one policy in..itiative relates to .anot-her and whether
or not SB 200 embraces sound resource managment .
As you are probably aware , Contra Costa - County is opposed to SB
200 . We have a long-standing opposition to the Perippheral Can41'
based on historical experience . The Peripheral Canal "potentiarlly
could have significant negative impact on both, the economy and
ecology of the San' Francisco Bay-Delta Estuarine Ecosystem . Over
time we have seen increasing salt intrusion into the Bay-Delta
The Honorable iund G . Brown 'Jr Page 3 �3
Ju,ne .3 , 1980
Peripheral Canal : ( 1 ) to transport more water through the Delta ;
or ( 2 ) to transport existing water more efficiently . If the
proposed reason in SB 200 for building the _Peripheral Canal is
to transport more water ;through the Delta in the future , then
perhaps it would make more sense to actually determine the
feasibility of developing additional water storage facilities
before the Peripheral Canal is actually constructed . Otherwise ,
without knowing the feasibility of expanding Shasta Dam or
building off-stream reservoirs , it is another case of putting
.the cert before the. hors„e . On the other hand , if the purpose
in SB 200 of constructing the Peripheral Canal is to transport
existing grater more efficiently , then the actual cost-effective-
ness of this approach . needs to be closely scrutinezed . DWR
now projects that the Peripheral Canal would at most yield
approximately 500 , 000 AF: through efficient water transport if
operated consistent with Delta protection . This amount of water
is available in the State through a combination of conservation
and waste water reclamation . Is it cost-effective to spend
almost a. billion dollars to construct the Peripheral Canal in,
order to yield this amount of water?
Contra Costa County does realize the need to meet future water
needs in the State.. We , feel this should be accomplished , however ,
without benefitting one !�'region of the State at the expense of
another. We are quite willing to work with your office to find
the best solution possible . Please contact my office if I can
be 'of any assistance .
Thank you for your interest .
Sincerely ,
Sunne Wright McPeak
SWMJvnrc
IN THEA BOARD:'OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA. COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of `
Support for Referendum- Petition. to
Prevent Enactment of Senat{,e Bill 200 RESOLUTION NO. 80/929
ii
WHEREAS the Contra Coista County Board of Supervisors has
invested substantial resources of this County in order to protect
and preserve the integrity of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta;
and
WHEREAS the Board ha6 recognized the potential of irreparable
harm to the Delta should an isolated facility be constructed to
transport Sacramento Riverlwater through and around the Delta;. and
WHEREAS the. Board officially opposed the passage of Senate
Bill 200 due to its lack o'f adequate protection for the Delta;
and
WHEREAS the Board desires a comprehensive water policy for
California which employs efficient use of water statewide;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT''y�� RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Contra Costa County supports the efforts to referend SB 200
and urges the voters of said County, as well as all voters through-
out the State, to sign the;' referendum -petition.
PASSED by the Board on August 12, 1980.
CERTIFIED COPY
Y•certify that this is a full, true & correct copy of
the original document which is .on file in my office,
and that it was passed & adopted by the Board of
Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California, on
the date shown. ATTEST: J. R. OLSSON. County
Clerk &es-0ff1cio Clerk of said Board of Supervisors,
by,Deputy Clerk.
on
cc: Board Members
Acting Public Works Director
County Administrator
Public Information Officer
RESOLUTION NO. 80/929
�3
ip
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE. OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of Opposition to )
Assembly Bill 9 and Assembly ) RESOLUTION NO. 80/1435
Bill 68 )
WHEREAS Assembly Bill 9 and Assembly Bill 68 are now pending in the
California Legislature; and
WHEREAS AB 9 calls for a special election on June 2, 1981 , and AB 68
calls for a special election on April 7, 1981 , to provide for the submission
of the Water Facilities Referendum Statute (Senate Bill 200) to the voters of
the State; and
WHEREAS SB 200, if confirmedlty the voters, would authorize the Peripheral
Canal project as well as other water development facilities and features to enable
the State Water Project to divert and export more water from Northern California
to Southern California; and
WHEREAS the Peripheral Canal '�would seriously impair the maintenance of
an adequate supply of water of good quality for domestic, murlicipal , agricultural
and industrial uses in Contra Costa County, as well as. for the preservation and
protection of fish and wildlife resources and other environmental values of the
San Francisco Bay-Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuarine Sy.- tem; and
WHEREAS SB 200 does not cont i in the water policy reforms, which must
accompany any new water facility construction necessary to assure responsibl-�e -
management of our state water resources; and
WHEREAS a special election would needlessly require additional expenditures
of public funds, estimated by the Secretary of State to cost $12 million; and
WHEREAS a special election would deny the people of California the time
needed to learn of the serious shortcomings of current water planning in the State
and to recognize the need for a complete re-evaluation of future water needs without
massive expansion of the State Water'`Project and construction of the PeriphVral
Canal;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that• the Contra Costa County Board of Super-
visors stand in firm opposition to the passage of AB 9 and `AB 68; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that .the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
hereby uraes the California Assemblyll to vigorou)ily .pose AB 9 and AB 63.
PASSED by the Board on December 9, 1980:
CERTIFIED COPY
I certify that this is a ft:.!, true R correct copy of the
original docvmen,whic'i is
(r ft,e if, rn;:oihce,and that it
was passed sd;:^;ri L. r!:_ .?;�:rd of Supersisors of
Cort--a Costa G;a- :••, G:':ec-❑ia, oto the Cate shown.
ATTEST:J. R. -
O ry Cl;rk�.ex-officio Clerk
ORIGINATOR: Public Works Department' o said Board of Supervisors, by Deputy Clerk.
Environmental Control, /_L.,� �fJ �,,,,__ On C€C 9 1980
Diana M. Herman
cc: Congressman George Miller
Contra Costa County Legislative; Delegation
(via Arthur Laib)
Contra Costa County Cities
Melvyrn G.. Wingett, County Admi,jnistrator
John B. Clausen, County Counsel
Cressey Nakagawa,_ Attorney (vial County Counsel
Northern California Counties
RESOLUTION NO. 80/1435
SUNNF WRIGHT McPEAK Contra Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District Four
1331 Concord Avenue Costa
Concord, California 94520
(415),687- 8663 County
MEMORANDUM
TO Concerned Counties, Cities , Organizations, and
Individuals C�
FROM: S u n n e Wright McPeak7`_'�
DATE: December 22, 1980
RE : Pro posed Special Elections for SB200 Referendum
Two bills have been introduced in the Legislature calling for
special elections on the SB200 referendum related to the
Peripheral Canal and expansion of the State Water Project.
These bills are AB9 by Ross Johnson(R) , Fullerton, proposing
a June 2, 1981 date and ABO by Bruce Young(D) , Norwalk,
proposing an April 7, 1981 election (which would be 1 week
before the Los Angeles municipal elections). .
The.- Secretary of State has _estimated ahe cost of a .special
election to range between a low of $8 million for a November 1981
to a high of $11..9 million for June 2, 1981. AB9 and AB68
propose dates that would cost nearly $12 million.
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors urges that you adopt
a resolution opposing AB9 and AB68 and transmit copies of the
resolution to yourlegislative delegation. Enclosed for your
information is a copy of a resolution adopted by Contra Costa County.
Please contact my office if you have any questions. Thank you
for your interest.
r
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES
Del Norte Alameda
✓Siskiyou ✓Santa Clara
,/Modoc ..-San Mateo
,-Humboldt -.Santa Cruz
Trinity - San Benito
.vShasta Monterey
., Lassen GIenn-
Tehama
Mendocino ,,,Marin
,--GI enn ,Mariposa
'P1umus -Merced
,-Si erra v Fresno
Yuba ✓Madera
•Sutter -Kings
f,Colusa Tulare
,.Lake ,San Luis Obispo
Sonora
✓Yolo
,/Butte
,;Nevada
,Placer
✓E1 Dorado
,Napa
-,Sol ano
✓Sacramento
v-Amado r
=San Joaquin
Calaveras
✓Alpine
.✓Tuolumne
Mono
�Stanislaus .
'P?
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY , STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter. of Opposition )
to Assembly Bills 1481 , 1482, )
1483 and 1484, Alternatives ) '' RESOLUTION N0. (WA) 81/1
to the Peripheral Canal )
WHEREAS Supervisor S. . W'. McPeak having reported to the Board as the .
Governing Body of the Contra Cost6County Water Agency, that Assembly Bill
Nos. 1481 , 1482, 1483 and 1484, introduced by Assemblyman Larry Kapiloff, are
now pending in the California Legilslature; and
WHEREAS these four bills would specify and authorize the Depart-
ment of Water Resources to construct certain water facilities as part of the
State Water Resources Development6ystem; and.
WHEREAS these facilitie"'s include the Reber Plan., which consists
of three salt water barriers in Sa`n Francisco Bay (AB 1481 ) ; salt water barriers
in Carquinez Straits (AB 1482) ; waterway control plan in the Delta consisting of
water flow control structures , channel closures, boat locks and fish ladders
(AB 1483) ; and channel enlargements , levee setbacks, channel deepening and other
related works primarily in the eastern Delta (AB 1484) ; and
WHEREAS the aforementioned bills have been introduced as alternatives
to the Peripheral Canal if the Canal is' rejected by 'the voters; and
WHEREAS the alternate facilities proposed are widely recognized to
be either economically, environmentally, or physically infeasible; and
WHEREAS these alternatives are irrational and do nothing to increase
the public' s understanding of the State' s water problem; and the introduction
of these bills in ,the Legislature,ilis a needless expenditure of public funds; and
WHEREAS alternatives to SB 200 must include water policy reforms and
reevaluation of future water need's without massive expansion of the State Water
Project and construction of the Pe"eripheral Canal to assure responsible manage-
ment of our State water resources;
n
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ,RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors as ex officio the governing body of the Contra Costa County Water
Agency stands firm in opposition ;,to Assembly Bills 1481 , 1482, _14.83 and 1484, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board alert its legislative' dele-
gation and the California Legislature of its opposition to these bills.
PASSED on April 14, 1981 by unanimous vote of the Board.
CERTIFIED COPi'
I certify that this is a full, true &.correct copy of
N the original document which is on file in my office,
and that it tras passed & adopted by the Board of
Supervisors of Contra Costa County. California, on
the date shown. ATTEST: J. R. OLSSON. County
C1erk &ex-officio Clerk of said Board of Supervisors,
by Deputy Clerk.
ORIG. : Public Works Depart. � - - APR
Environmental .Control on —����
Helen H. Kent
cc: Congressman George Miller
County Legislative Delegation (via Art Laib)
M. G. Wingett, County Admin' strator
J. B. Clausen, County Counsel
Cressey Nakagawa, Attorney 'f(via County Counsel)
Supervisor S . W. McPeak
RESOLUTION NO. (WA) 81/1
iN�
' la
In the Board of Supervisors
of
Contra Costa County, State of California
March 10 , 19 81
In the Matter of
Report of the Water Committee
Regarding Senate Bill 200
Referendum
Assembly Bill 9 has been defeated and Assembly Bill 680 has been
amended to provide for the referendum on SB 200 to be included on the
November 3, 1981 ballot. It is ''the consensus of the Water Committee
(Supervisors Sunne McPeak and Tom Torlakson) that there has not been a
change in the County's position! concerning the time for the vote on the
referendum, i .e. , the election ,should be held at the .next primary or
general election in 1982.
The Water Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors
reaffirm the above mentioned position and that the County' s legislative
delegation be notified.
Sunne McPeak Toni Torlakson
Supervisor, District IV Supervisor; District V
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of the Water
Committee is APPROVED.
PASSED by the following vote of the Board on March 10, 1981 :
AYES: Supervisors ,,Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor McPeak
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the
minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid.
Orig. : Public Works Dept. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of
Environmental Control Supervisors
cc: Acting Public Works Director affixed this 10thday of March 1981
County Administrator
County Counsel J. R. OLSSON, Clerk
Legislation Delegation via
Art Laib ByDeputy Clerk
Helen H. Kent
H-24 3/79 15M
lu
<_
. 20
In the Board of Supervisors
of
Contra Costa County, State of California
AS EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING' BOARD OF THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WATER AGENCY
June 2 , 19 81
In the Matter of
County's Comments on Referendum to
,Halt Construction of,..the
Peripheral Canal .
As recommended by the Water Committee (Supervisors S. W. McPeak
and Tom Torlakson) , the Board HEREBY APPROVES the draft of a statement
entitled "A View on the Water Facilities Referendum" containing. the County's
comments on the referendum to hal;,t construction of the Peripheral Canal ,.
and Supervisor .McPeak is AUTHORIZED to present same on behalf of the Board
of Supervisors as Ex-Officio the ,Governinq Board of the Contra Costa County
Water Agency,' at the IJune 5, 1981' meeting of the California Water Commission.
PASSED by the Board on June 2, 1981 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPea k, Torlakson,
and Powers.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the
minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the.date aforesaid.
cc: Acting Public Works Director Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of
Supervisor S. W. McPeak Supervisors
County Administrator affixed this 2nd day of June 19 81
�- J. R. OLSSON, Clerk
ByDeputy Clerk
A11M ine M. Neufeld
H-24 3/79 15M
AJ:mn
�_ � T�
DRAFT t! L D
A VIEW ON THE 1�IATER FACILITIES REFEREfdDUM �, � I
Presented by
Sunne.Wright McPeak
Supervisor, District IV J- R. L"PF",
, AP t9:j
Contra Costa County* c, >> �
puty
On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, I would like to
express our appreciation for the opportunity to present the County' s comments
on the referendum to halt the construction of the Peripheral Canal . As you
know, our County has a long history of involvement in water matters within the
State. because the Delta area is 'a' ma,ior source of water for our residential ,
industrial , agricultural and recreational users.
We agree with the attempts to balance the geographic imbalance between supply
and demand of water in the State ,by transporting surplus water from one area
to other areas of need. However, we have seen a continuous deterioration of
the water quality within the Delta as more and more "surplus" waters. have been
diverted away from the Delta. For this reason, we strongly resist any project
which would take control of all the useful water i.n the Bay-Delta area. The
Peripheral Canal is a project which we believe will ultimately be used for that
purpose. With the political balance of the State as it is, we see this. situation
as one in which the preservation of the Bay-Delta is constantly in peril .
Basically, Contra Costa County supports, the referendum to prevent the implemen-
tation of Senate Bill 200 because of our County's sincere opposition to the
Peripheral Canal and expansion If the State Water- Project, and the inherent
flaws in SB 200. . Our County' s main concerns are based on environmental , economic
and energy grounds.
Environmentally„ we look at the Peripheral Canal in two ways: Firstly, it is
obviously a conveyance facility with the prime purpose of moving water. It
does not move .just any water= out of the Delta,' it moves the highest quality
fresh water completely out of, the Bay-Delta system, causing the remaining water
quality to suffer. Secondly, the Canal being an isolated facility, would physically
prevent .most of the Sacramento River from flowing through the Bay-Delta System.
Quite obviously, the resulting decrease in water quality and -quantity will adversely
impact the ecology of the Bay-Delta System which is highly dependent on these fresh
water flows. We feel. that as long as the Delta is free of an isolated conveyance
* Presented to the California Water Commission, June 5, 1981 , on behalf of the
Board of' Supervisors of Contra ,Costa County, the ex officio Governing Board of
the Contra Costa County Water Agency. .
Water Facilities Referendum -2- June 5, 1981
facility, fresh water will continue flowing through the system and will be avail-
able for use. This uninterupted flow of fresh water through the Delta will
provide the ultimate protection against Delta destruction.
Serious questions concerning the ;cost of the facilities proposed in SB 200 and
the consequent cost of water .must,''' be considered. There are many unanswered
questions regarding the long-te rllfinancial implications- of .an expanded. water
project.
The Rand Corporation, in their relport, was critical of State water resource
planners for not considering gene`ral 'economic criteria in planning expansions
of the State water. system.
The arguments on proceeding withSB 200 for the purpose of constructing the
Peripheral Canal based on the need to transport more water efficiently through
the Delta, must be questioned.
Proceeding with the construction of the Canal on the justification of transporting
future developed water .istotally,�premat.ure and contrary to sound water management.
The feasibility of developing additional water storage facilities must be considered
first.
The purpose of constructing thePeripheral Canal to transport existing water more
efficiently .must be investigated„ on the basis of its cost-effectiveness. Assuming
that Department of Water Resources current yield estimate for the Canal is
500,000 AF and recognizing that this amount of water can -be made available through
a combination of water conservat,,ion and reclamation, the wisdom of spending .a
billion dollars for any project does not appear to be cost effective.
The State 'Water Project is the single- biggest user of energy in the State. Comple-
tion of the SB 200 facilities will double the .energy demand for the. S14P by the
year 2000, all at a time when mol''re conservation and wiser use of our natural resources
should be practiced. Since the 'SWP is a large consumer of energy which will affect
energy requirements and the cost of energy to the citizens of the State, an assess-
ment on the energy needs and energy costs of the Peripheral Canal and its related
facilities must be undertaken.
These are the major reasons whylContra Costa County opposes SB 200. Re believe
the bill has serious deficiencies - environmentally, economically and energywise.
Water Facilities Referendum -3- June 5, 1981
We believe that facilities which can be used to exercise, total control should
not be constructed. We hope very much that you will consider our views and
embark upon a more appropriate 'program designed for meeting the needs for water
within the State. This proaram must not have the potential to destroy existing
areas for the benefit of others'.
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors have just recently endorsed a
water resources policy reform program designed to assure responsible management
of the State'.s water resources ',which will ultimately insure. adeouate protection
for the Bay-
.Delta System. Briefly, the program is a comprehensive approach to .
water supply planning and deve 1opment in the State, based on strict conservation
measures, groundwater management controls and economic. efficiency through water
pricing reforms.
We see. repeal of SB 200 as thellonly viable approach to ever being able. to achieve
water policy reform in California. Therefore, repeal of SB 200 becomes an
essential step towards a comprehensive water policy for California and more
efficient use of our water resources.
Thank you again for the opport6nity to speak with you.
�I,