Reinforcing Levees sounded like a good idea at the time…

It sounded like a good idea to us

The Delta Stewardship Council couldn’t wait to get started on the part of the Interim Plan that involves “review and approval of Proposition 1E expenditures for selected projects.”

EBMUD partnered with Delta reclamation districts to propose a Delta Levees Special Flood Control Project that would protect the District’s Mokelumne Aqueducts, Kinder Morgan petroleum pipeline, Burlington Northern Santa Fe raid line, and other Delta infrastructure, including State Highway 4.

The FloodSAFE Environmental Stewardship and Statewide Resources Office (FESSRO), Delta Levees Special Projects Branch, recommended moving ahead with the project.

FESSRO noted that if the DSC didn’t approve the project, the legislative mandate would not be met; the funds (which had to be reserved by June 30) would revert; the opportunity to provide jobs in an economically depressed region would be lost; and water supply and reliability for the East Bay would remain at its current level of risk.

There were so many good reasons to move ahead with this, including the fact that “Recent court decisions have made it clear that the state and other public entities may be held liable for the consequences of failing to maintain a flood management system or for failing to mitigate a known danger.”

But DSC staff told the Council that indemnifications for the project weren’t adequate and that more CEQA work was needed. And Patrick Johnston wondered why EDMUD and the counties weren’t paying for this themselves.

Well, you see, there was this legislation. . . . . But never mind that. The DSC apparently has other plans for this money.

Correction: DSC Director Joe Grindstaff did NOT say the BDCP had “gone rogue,” as Restore the Delta reported last month. He did say that some believed they had “gone rogue,” but he said that he thought that was wrong and explained why.

We’re dancing as fast as we can

As Delta farmers struggle to file water use reports by July 2 to comply with last year’s legislation changing reporting requirements, the Senate will be voting this week on SB 565 (Pavley). This bill would establish several new penalty and investigative powers at the State Water Resources Control Board dealing with water rights, while reducing or eliminating existing due process and property rights protections for California water rights holders.

SB 565

• Allows the State Water Board to review and revise any water right without cause, giving this agency new invasive power to inspect private property for vaguely defined purposes to ascertain whether the beneficial purposes of water use are being met.
• Shifts the burden of proving forfeiture of a water right to the water right holder – dramatically increasing the likelihood of a frivolous lawsuit being filed by a third party.
• Forces property owners to pay for the extremely costly engineering reports that will ultimately be used against them by third party litigants.
• Increases exponentially the penalty to reflect the “market value” of water (regardless of the actual value of the water to the user)

These provisions were considered for inclusion in last year’s SBx7 5 on water rights enforcement, but were ultimately abandoned for lack of support.

Many Delta farmers believe, and we concur, that these new authorities will be used to litigate Delta farmers out of existence. By keeping Delta farmers in a position of defense, those who want to usurp their water rights will keep the financial pressure on, forcing Delta farmers to “sell” the farm. This is a blatant attempt to rewrite the California water code to justify taking away the historical water rights held by Delta families.

What is even more shameful about this proposed legislation is that it does not help to meet the long term environmental needs of the Delta, but actually sets the stage for even more water diversions.