HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02281989 - S.3 _ S. 3
TDBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Sunne Wright MCPeak
Contra
Costa
HATE: February 28 , 1989 (r�y„r" "1
SUBJECT: Reaffirm Opposition to the Peripheral Canal `
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECONIIM ION
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors reaffirms its opposition
to the Peripheral Canal or any other isolated Delta transfer facility.
Further, each member of the Board of Supervisors and the Board as a
whole pledges to actively oppose any and all proposals for a
Peripheral Canal; and should the Peripheral Canal ever be approved
again by the Legislature and/or the Governor, each member of the Board
of Supervisors will participate in a referendum to again obtain voter
rejection of the project.
Also, the Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Contra Costa County
Water Agency and Water Committee to take the following actions:
a. Write to the Contra Costa Water District and East Bay Municipal
Utilities District requesting that each district reaffirm a
position of opposition to the Peripheral Canal and direct all
staff representatives monitoring and/or participating in studies
sponsored by the Metropolitan Water District to actively oppose
the Peripheral Canal being resurrected as a Delta transfer
facility option.
b. Write to all cities within Contra Costa County and all counties
within the Bay Area asking them to adopt appropriate resolutions
reaffirming their opposition to a Peripheral Canal.
BACKGROUND
The Peripheral Canal scheme is once again being promoted by the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and is being
'considered as a Delta transfer facility option in a study sponsored by
MWD. The issue continues to be raised by water development interests
who want to divert freshwater flows away from the Bay-Delta Estuary.
This concept is being given more consideration currently because of
the controversy surrounding the SWRCB' s Bay-Delta hearing process. We
cannot afford to let the Peripheral Canal scheme be re-established as
a viable alternative. We must be ever vigilant in our opposition.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(s):
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 28, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVI S
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TARN
AYES: NOES. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. .
CC: Dave Okita, CDD ATTESTED %.7-A,& d8r�Q89-__
Community Development Director PHIL BATCH ELO , CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382/7-83 BY ,DEPUTY