California Water Fix and Eco Restore

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
(Redirected from Bay Delta Conservation Plan)
Jump to: navigation, search

California Water Fix and Eco Restore, formerly known as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, is a controversial $15 billion[1] plan promulgated by the California Department of Water Resources to build two tunnels to carry fresh water from the Sacramento River under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta toward the intake stations for the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project. Each tunnel would be 150 feet below ground, 40 feet in diameter and 30 miles in length. The project would also include three new intakes with a capacity of 3000 cubic feet per second each, and a total annual yield of 4.9 million acre-feet.[2][3] The tunnels themselves would cost $15 billion, while $8 billion would be devoted to habitat restoration, this funding primarily comes from urban water users who will have an additional payment of $5 each month.[1] Politically these tunnels are considered closely associated with Governor of California Jerry Brown.[4]

Background

California has had a history of projects that were aimed to help with water reallocation from the traditionally wetter portion of the state to the lower more arid region. The precipitation in the northern part of the state is vital to the southern portion of the state where water demand is only met by importing water from different watersheds.

The Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) are currently the two primary ways that water is transported from northern California to southern California. The Central Valley Project is a federal owned and operated project that was completed in the 1970s, it has 600 miles of canals, and moves up to 13 million acre feet and generates more than two times the electricity it uses. Before the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) in 1992 the water that was being transported from northern California was going primarily to agriculture (90%) and the remaining 10% was going to urban users, but the CVPIA made it so that at 11% of the yield would go towards environmental uses making it so that agriculture received 79% of the water, and urban users still received their 10% . The State Water Project is owned and operated by the state, it started in the late 1960s. The SWP has 700 miles of canals and can move 5.8 million acre feet of water and it uses more than twice the amount of electricity it generates. The SWP yield is divided 75% to urban use and the remaining 25% to agriculture.

There was also the proposal on the ballot in 1982 for the peripheral canals that would transport water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta into the CVP to export water to southern California, but the Californian voters did not pass the measure.[5]

The last proposal before the current California Water Fix and Eco Restore was the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The project was changed partly because of US Fish and Wildlife Service said they would not issue permits for the plan because the state could not prove that the habitat restoration plans would be effective in helping the salmon, sturgeon, or delta smelt.[6] As a result, the Brown administration separated the habitat restoration plan and the water supply improvement plan.[6][7] The BDCP was proposed in 2009 and it differs from the current California Water Fix and Eco Restore proposal in three primary ways. The first is that there is now a separate project for the tunnels and the restoration, the BDCP was inclusive of both, the second is that the 50-year project permit the BDCP was going to get according to its proposal is no longer going to happen, instead in the Water Fix and Eco Restore proposal there will be short term permits for each endangered species that is encountered and last but not least, the BDCP included restoration of 100,000 acres over a span of 50 years, and in the new Eco Restore project only 30,000 acres are set to be restored and there is a timeline of the next 5 years.[8]

File:Proposed Delta Tunnels.png
Proposed Delta Tunnels

Water Fix

The Water Fix project was proposed to address the issues of the water system in California being "unreliable and outdated" when it comes to infrastructure, which means that the current water system is more at risk than it would be if it were efficient and reliable.[9] There are also possible threats to the water system that the Water Fix is preparing for, such as increasing negative impacts from climate change and the possibility of seismic activity.[9]

Currently, water is exported from the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta to the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project. The water flows through a maze of river channels and sloughs before entering the Clifton Court Forebay north of Tracy. From here the Banks Pumping Plant pumps water into the California Aqueduct and the South Bay Aqueduct; the nearby Bill Jones Pumping Plant pumps water into the Delta-Mendota Canal. Freshwater flows into the Delta rather than entering the San Francisco Bay. The freshwater/saltwater gradient has moved inland due to 5 to 7 million acre feet (6.2 to 8.6 km3) of water being exported each year to the Central Valley and Southern California.

The Water Fix proposal includes the construction that is in two categories, the North tunnels and the Main tunnels. The North tunnels include 3 separate tunnels, and each is about 14 miles long, these tunnels will connect the three intake facilities to the Intermediate Forebay (IF).[1] The Main tunnels are also known as the twin tunnels, but are different from the peripheral canals proposed in 1982. The main tunnels are intended to connect the Intermediate Forebay to the Clifton Court Forebay, the twin tunnels will be about 30 miles in length and they are depicted in the image to the right.[1] The North and Main tunnels are a total of about 45 miles long. The Water Fix is said to make conveyance of water for the State Water Project and Central Valley Project more reliable while relieving the pressure that is currently on the Delta and the environment in the area.

Planning and constructing the Water Fix is detailed in the proposal. The Department of Water Resources is said to enter a contract with the project manager for the Water Fix and there will also be a program director who will coordinate with the department.[1] In order to manage the project there will also be a board of directors known as the "Authority Board" that will receive and review monthly status updates on the construction of the Water Fix.[1] The "Authority Board" will have a "Program Advisory Group" that will act as an informative resource for board members, this group will be made of technical experts from the Department of Water Resources, but it is important to know that any recommendations made by this advising body are not binding.[1] The director of the Department of Water Resources will have the final input in for all aspects of the project.[1] In order to control and monitor each of the facilities there will be a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system at location that has the ability to be controlled either locally or remotely. The system will connect to the to the Delta Field Division Operations and Maintenance Center as well as the Joint Operations Center located in Sacramento.[1]

The Water Fix proposal does aim to resolve the issues with the California water system, however it does not address many issues that plague the system. There is no plan for what will happen if there is less flow in the Sacramento River, or any allocation of water to fisheries that utilize water from Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (some of which are already struggling because of current exports from the Delta).[10] There are also no plans to deal with the extreme subsidence that is going on in the Delta. Although the Water Fix is deemed a solution, it is important to note that there are issues that are not addressed by this proposal that may be exacerbated as a resulted.

Eco Restore

The Eco Restore plan is to mitigate the effects the California Water Fix will have on the environment either through construction or operation.[9] The planned Eco Restore includes upwards of 30,000 acres for restoration; 1000 of these acres will be for upland and habitat protection linked to flood protection, 3,500 acres for wetland restoration, 9000 acres for tidal and sub tidal zones, and the last 17,500 will be permitted for floodplain restoration.[11] Another item to note is that the Design and Construction Enterprise intends to get 2018b permits from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, this permit allows the incidental take of a species listed on the Endangered Species Act.[1]

File:Biological Assessment Figure for California Water Fix.png
Table of the endangered or threatened species that will be affected by the proposed California Fix

The Eco Restoration has been allocated close to $8 million, some of which will come from Proposition 1.[1]

Restoration is viewed by ecologists as an important way to promote the recovery of an ecosystem.[12] The California Water Fix was subject to a biological assessment, which is required for any project that has the potential of having an impact on the environment. The table to the right shows a page from the biological assessment which lists threatened and endangered species that have the potential of being affected by the implementation of the California Water Fix.[1]

There are currently 12 environmental commitments that are included in the proposal for the Eco Restore. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan proposal before this included similar mitigation under the name of, "conservation measures" and there were 21 of these measures; the 21 have been cut down to 12 measures and are now known as environmental commitments for the Eco Restore.[13] The environmental commitments are as follows:[1]

Environmental Commitment Details
Environmental Commitment 3 Natural Communities Protection and Restoration
Environmental Commitment 4 Tidal Natural Communities Restoration
  • Restoring tidal natural communities and uplands (including transitional uplands & wetland restoration)
  • Includes restoration of 59 acres (this is subject to change, but total will not be more than 177 acres)
Environmental Commitment 6: Channel Margin Enhancement
  • Restoring riparian vegetation
  • Includes a total of 251 Acres
Environmental Commitment 8: Grassland Natural Community
  • Restoring grassland communities
  • Includes up to 1,70 acres
Environmental Commitment 9 Vernal Pool and Alkali Seasonal Wetland Complex Restoration
  • Includes up to 34 total acres
Environmental Commitment 10 Non-tidal Marsh Restoration
  • Includes up to 832 acres of non-tidal marsh
Environmental Commitment 11 Natural Communities Enhancement and Management
  • This actions states that there will be enhancement and management of all protected and restored areas
Environmental Commitment 12 Methylmercury Management
  • The goal is decrease the production of methylmercury in restored tidal wetlands
  • This no longer includes monitoring the Yolo Bypass.
Environmental Commitment 15 Localized Reduction of Predatory Fishes
Environmental Commitment 16 Nonphysical Fish Barrier
  • Installation at Georgiana Slough to alter the direction of juvenile salmon so they avoid channels with more risk

Currently

The application of the Eco Restore is not guaranteed because of a bill that has been introduced in the House and has currently been assigned to the House Appropriations committee. Bill H.R. 5055 makes it so there is a no funding for restoration along the San Joaquin River and it would make it so that pumping is mandated out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.[14] If the bill is passed there will be no mitigation for the damage that may occur along the San Joaquin river or in the Delta due to the California Water Fix.

Another bill that may change the fate of the California Water Fix and Eco Restore is AB 1713. Assembly Bill 1713 in California if passed would make it so that in order for the Water Fix and Eco Restore to be implemented voters in California would have to approve of the project.[15]

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California passed a measure to buy four delta islands for $175 million earlier in 2016, this buying of delta islands was challenged by many organizations (including San Joaquin, North Coast Rivers Alliance, Pacific Coast Federation of of Fishermen's Association), but a district court did decide that it was legal for the water district to purchase these islands because there are no negative impacts of their purchase as of yet.[16]

There are many different opinions when it comes to the California Water Fix and EcoRestore. According to those in favor of building the tunnels directly to the pumping plants would mitigate the problem of salt water intrusion because the pumps would no longer have to pump directly from the delta, but it is important to note that despite water not being pumped directly from the delta, it is a mixture of water from the Central Valley watersheds and any implications to those areas that provide the delta with water will have some type effect on the delta.[17] Those in favor of the tunnels also believe that they would protect the state's water system from the sea level rise predicted to occur as a result of global warming.[17] It would also "reinstate a more natural direction of river flows in the South Delta by 46-160 percent".[3] However, the proposal has been criticized because it would further reduce the amount of freshwater flowing through the Delta. Farmers in the Delta are among the most opposed to the project because it would decrease the amount of water available to them for irrigation.[18]

References

  1. 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  2. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  4. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  5. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  6. 6.0 6.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  7. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  8. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  10. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  11. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  12. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  13. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  14. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  15. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  16. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  17. 17.0 17.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  18. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

External links