Delta plan approved; cities face water cuts
Dozens of California communities dependent on the cool, clear water of the High Sierra, from Central Valley farm towns to San Francisco, will see cuts to their water supplies under a plan approved Wednesday by state water regulators.
The reductions, which could force households in the Bay Area to curb water use by 20 percent or more, are the product of a decadelong effort to restore the health of the state’s struggling rivers and fish.
But the move by the state water board to boost flows in the waterways by limiting draws, starting with the San Joaquin River basin, is not as strict as initially proposed. The plan leaves open the door for water agencies to trade other improvements to the rivers, such as enhancing salmon habitat, for smaller water cuts. The water agencies have until March to
flesh out alternative proposals.
“We’ve gone out of our way to give multiple opportunities,” said Felicia Marcus, chair of the State Water Resources Control Board, which met in Sacramento for 10 hours Wednesday. But “we’re not just going to walk away.”
At the heart of the water board’s Bay Delta Plan is protecting the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The West Coast’s largest estuary and the hub of California’s water supplies has seen its waters choked and dirtied amid relentless pumping by cities and farms. The salmon population has collapsed, and the harm has rippled up the food chain to bears, birds and whales.
While San Francisco has long been removed from California’s vicious water wars, having coveted rights to supplies in Yosemite, the city’s primary source has not escaped this battle. The first phase of the Bay Delta Plan calls for limiting pumping on the San Joaquin River and its three major tributaries, which include the Tuolumne River that feeds San Francisco’s Hetchy Hetchy Reservoir. The water board is in the process of developing similar measures for the Sacramento River basin.
The apparent softening of the Bay Delta Plan on Wednesday comes after fierce opposition from an unlikely alliance between San Francisco and thirsty agricultural districts, with support from the Trump administration. The powerful bloc has argued that the fallout from water cuts would bring undo hardship to residents and businesses.
The water suppliers, joined by the state Natural Resources Agency, introduced their own last-minute proposal that downplayed the need for water cuts on rivers while emphasizing the importance of timing their water draws with fish runs and restoring habitat.
“This (plan) provides us more flexibility, more tools to address the issues that are facing you,” Michael Carlin, deputy general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, told the water board. The SFPUC provides water to San Francisco and about two dozen other Bay Area communities.
Gov. Jerry Brown and Gov.elect Gavin Newsom had been advocating for such a compromise plan to head off a prolonged legal fight. Sen. Dianne Feinstein this month even introduced federal water legislation that, while controversial, included a provision for restoration funding in the event of a deal.
The plan put forth by the water agencies and the state Natural Resources Agency not only included the San Joaquin River basin, the first target of the water board, but the Sacramento River watershed.
It offered up about $1.8 billion for habitat fixes, coming from fees on water agency customers across the state, and state government money. It also conceded to some water reductions, giving up as much as 1 million acre feet of water statewide. That’s nearly three times what Hetch Hetchy holds.
State water board members praised the alternative plan as a good start and said it represented a commitment to working toward the goal of improving the health of the delta. The board instructed its staff to look more closely at the document before the issue returns in March.
Environmental groups and the fishing industry, which have advocated for stronger protections for rivers and wildlife, flatly criticized the plan from the water agencies.
“Many elements of their proposal have already been tried and failed or represent no change from the status quo,” said Jon Rosenfield, lead scientist at the Bay Institute.
As it stands, as much as 80 percent of the flow in the San Joaquin River basin is tapped by cities and farms during peak spring runoff. Environmentalists and fishermen have wanted to limit draws to 50 percent, saying salmon won’t survive without the reduction, while cities and farms have opposed any major cuts.
State water officials split the difference, approving a plan that allows no more than 60 percent of flows to be diverted, on average.
The decision means urban and agricultural water users in the San Joaquin River watershed will generally have to draw 7 to 23 percent less water, depending on the year, according to state estimates.
The SFPUC believes its customers could be forced to reduce water use 40 percent during prolonged dry spells. The city’s water rights are inferior to those of other water agencies on the Tuolumne River.
City officials say they’ll develop other sources of water, such as groundwater reserves and perhaps desalination, to make up for lost water. But that will take time and money. Building out supplies, according to city estimates, could trigger rate hikes of 17 percent over 15 years, on top of already scheduled increases.
The loss of water to agriculture is estimated to result in a 2.5 percent drop in produce output in the San Joaquin River basin, according to the state. The area is a hotbed of almonds, alfalfa and peaches.
Farm groups say during drought years, crop production could fall even more.
The Trump administration has joined the agricultural industry in trying to scale back the Bay Delta Plan. President Trump has accused California of “foolishly” leaving water in the rivers while the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has threatened to take legal action if its supplies on the Stanislaus River are curtailed, which the plan calls for.