Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07102012 - SD.6RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT the proposed position on changes needed in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (see Exhibit A) and also to AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board to communicate this position to others as appropriate. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE. BACKGROUND: The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is a joint state-federal effort to construct a major new water delivery system to bring Sacramento River water directly to customers in the Central Valley, Southern California and some Bay Area locations. The plan will also include a significant amount of habitat conservation work in the Delta, because it is required in order to receive state and federal endangered species permits for the new water delivery system. The lead agencies for the plan are the California Natural Resources Agency and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The driving participant and funding entity is an organization called the State Water Contractors, with the primary advocates being several APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/10/2012 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:See Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: John Greitzer, 674-7824 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 10, 2012 David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: SD. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Comm Date:July 10, 2012 Contra Costa County Subject:County position on changes to Bay Delta Conservation Plan BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of their largest member water agencies -- the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Westlands Water District (which claims to be the nation’s largest agricultural water provider), and the Kern County Water Agency, among others. Bay Area water agencies listed as sponsors include the Zone 7 Water Agency in Alameda County and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The plan is similar to the Peripheral Canal, which was proposed in the 1970s but was defeated by a statewide ballot measure in the early 1980s. The new project calls for a tunnel that will take water beneath the Delta and into the South Delta pumps for export, whereas the earlier project involved an open canal that would have taken the water around the Delta to the pumps. The preliminary environmental analysis of the proposed water tunnel shows it would have serious negative impacts, including sending several protected species of fish to near-extinction in the Delta and significantly worsening water quality for Delta water users. Due to these negative impacts, BDCP officials in May announced they are looking at a “change in direction” for the plan, specifically a smaller tunnel project that likely will be designed to carry 9,000 cubic feet of water per second, instead of 15,000 as originally proposed. BDCP officials also informally indicated they will be looking for support from the five Delta Counties for the new, reduced-size tunnel. They spoke with the Delta Counties in a conference call on May 23 with the Delta Counties Coalition supervisors (including Supervisor Piepho) but did not formally ask for the counties’ support during that call. The Governor is expected to make a public announcement about the reduced-size tunnel in mid-July. On the advice of our legislative advocates in Sacramento and Washington, staff developed responses to two potential questions BDCP officials may ask us: 1) Will Contra Costa County support the new, smaller tunnel project? 2) If not, what would Contra Costa County be willing to support? Regarding question #1, based on discussion with consultants, staff of other agencies, and our own Delta staff team, County staff recommends the County should not support the new, smaller tunnel project. At 9,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), and evidently with an option to carry more water in the future, the project is not sufficiently different from the original proposal. Without having seen the environmental impact analysis for this new alternative, the County cannot support it in any event. Staff is unclear as to why the 9,000-cfs tunnel would be significantly better, from an environmental standpoint, than the 15,000-cfs tunnel. We will not know until the environmental analysis on the new 9,000-cfs tunnel has been completed. The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee concurred with this recommendation at its meeting on June 7. Regarding question #2, as to what changes are needed to gain County support, staff proposed a response and discussed it with the Committee on June 7. The attachment shows the revised response which includes the staff recommendations and some additional elements recommended by the Committee. The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee recommends the Board adopt the positions shown in the attachment, as the County's formal response in the event we are asked to support the BDCP. The proposed response (Exhibit A) would ask the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan to evaluate lower-impact water conveyance alternatives, be consistent with local habitat conservation plans, provide a decision-making role for the Delta Counties, and provide funding for technical participation by the Delta Counties, as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not be prepared with a response, in the event that BDCP, state or federal officials ask the County to support the BDCP project. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: NONE. CLERK'S ADDENDUM ADOPTED the proposed position on changes needed in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (see Exhibit A) as amended today to add another bullet point with language highlighting the importance of giving consideration to the relationship between the the delta and San Francisco Bay as referenced in the Association of Bay Area Governments Resolution 08-12 (May 2012); and AUTHORIZED the Chair of the Board to communicate this position to others as appropriate. ATTACHMENTS Position on BDCP Changes Page 1 of 2 E X H I B I T A Contra Costa County’s Request for Changes to the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan As recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on June 7, 2012 This request for changes in the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process will be submitted if BDCP officials ask Contra Costa County about the type of project that we would be willing to support. Contra Costa County does not support a particular project because not enough information has been developed to support any specific project. Enough information has been developed to reject the proposed tunnel project as described in the current Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. The preliminary environmental analysis has shown the tunnel will have significant negative impacts on protected fish species and water quality. Economic analysis also must be performed to determine the negative impacts that a tunnel project will have on Contra Costa County’s Delta economy. Contra Costa County supports the following changes to the BDCP Process: x The BDCP should discard all of the alternatives studied to date, including the new 9,000-cubic- feet-per-second (cfs) tunnel proposal. x The BDCP should adopt both of the state’s “co-equal goals” as objectives to be achieved by the project, with neither goal being accomplished at the expense of the other. x The BDCP should analyze a full range of lower-impact alternatives, including smaller tunnel projects of 3,000-cfs tunnel and 6,000-cfs tunnel, and several alternatives that do not divert Sacramento River under or around the Delta at all. These new alternatives would include a western intake alternative that would draw water from the western Delta rather than the Sacramento River, with constraints on the amount of water that can be taken and the timing for when the water can be taken; and other alternatives based on strategies such as water conservation, increased water storage facilities in the Central Valley and Southern California, and desalination. These latter alternatives would address the state policy of reducing reliance on Delta water (something the current BDCP does not address). x The chosen BDCP conveyance project should be operated by an independent entity not affiliated with the water contractors who will receive water from it. The independent entity should report monthly to the State Water Resources Control Board to ensure transparency in the operations of the new water facility. x The BDCP should provide funds for Contra Costa County to: (1) conduct peer review studies to determine the adequacy of the BDCP environmental impact analysis; and (2) to determine water- quality standards in the western Delta to ensure a healthy water supply for Contra Costa County (approximately $500,000). x BDCP should provide funds for Contra Costa County to conduct an economic analysis to July 10, 2012 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 88 Page 2 of 2 determine the impacts of BDCP alternatives on the County’s Delta economy (approximately $150,000). x Contra Costa County must be given a “seat at the table” so we can work collaboratively with the water contractors and state and federal agencies to develop comprehensive solutions that work for everyone. x BDCP must be consistent with locally developed Habitat Conservation Plans/National Communities Conservation Plans (HCP/NCCPs). If conflicts exist between locally developed HCP/NCCPs and the BDCP, the BDCP staff must work collaboratively with local HCP staffs to resolve the conflicts. BDCP must not interfere with local HCP/NCCPs’ ability to attain their habitat target goals. x BDCP must be subject to the full extent of state and federal environmental review. Contra Costa County cannot support any streamlining or exemptions from either the California Environmental Quality Act or the National Environmental Protection Act. July 10, 2012 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 89