HomeMy WebLinkAboutBC Water Resource Cons - CA Water Project, Water Supply Contract Amendments Schuman, Amy
From: Menchaca, Clarissa
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 11:08 AM
To: Schuman,Amy
Subject: FW: State Water Project - Water Supply Contract Amendments for Water Management
and California WaterFix
Attachments: Butte County Comments_SWP Contract CWF.pdf
Correspondence.
Associate Clerk of the Board
Butte Couny_Ad'.irmiiniis..iratii®io.
25County Center aDitiive, Suiite...700,...OitoviiIljle.,.CA95965.
T: 530.552.33081 F: 530.538.7120
1iwlit Q:rFaCeboolk X��u.a�ILu.aIIbe i Iiinteirest
............................................ ........................................................... ...................................................... ........................................................
From: Snyder, Ashley
Sent:Wednesday,January 9, 2019 9:31 AM
To: BOS<BOS@buttecounty.net>
Cc: Menchaca, Clarissa <cmenchaca@buttecounty.net>;Thomas, Autum <AThomas@buttecounty.net>
Subject: FW: State Water Project-Water Supply Contract Amendments for Water Management and California WaterFix
Please see the below correspondence and attachment.
Askl,ej N. .Sw�der
Assistant Clerk of the Board
Butte Couunty..Admii niis..iratii®io.
25County Center aDiriive, Suiite...700,...OroviiILIIe.,.CA95965.
T: 530.538.2867 I F: 530.538.7120
ILwlittQ:.rcQ::Rlboolk )(cuff.a�Ibe i Iiinteirest
............................................ ........................................................... ...................................................... ........................................................
From: BCWater<I3CWa eirlFro l[ esIkI13G...@a..lb u.tecouun.!.y.Pet>
Sent:Wednesday,January 9, 2019 9:02 AM
To: BCWater<IBCWa eirlFront1DesIkIHIG..@...Ib u.tecouulm.y.lmet>
Cc: Gosselin, Paul <{ Go...J.iilm.@Ib ®uu.n..ty..in. >; Buck, Christina <CIES.0 Ik.@.l.y. cogs y.o.et>
Subject: State Water Project-Water Supply Contract Amendments for Water Management and California WaterFix
Good Morning,
Please see the attached letter regarding the State of California State Water Project, Water Supply Contract Amendments
for Water Management and California WaterFix.
1
Thank you,
u i�° it,
Water and Resource Conservation
Administrative Analyst,Associate
308 Nelson Ave.,Oroville,CA 95965
Office:530..552.3594,Fax:530.538.3807
"COUNTY OF BUTTE E-MAIL DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any attachment thereto may contain private,confidential,and privileged material for the
sole use of the intended recipient. Any review,copying,or distribution of this e-mail(or any attachments thereto)by other than the County of Butte
or the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are NOT the intended recipient,please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete
the original and any copies of this e-mail and any attachments thereto."
2
Water and Resource Conservation Paul Gosselin, Director
)
308 Nelson Avenuebut t et nun ty,netlwaterresoul(Leen n se rvati 1
'Inge m;1 y Orovflle California 95965 F: 530.5383807 Lx w ioIP b ut t ec ounty not
W' &RESOURCE CONSERVATION
January 9, 2019
Ted Alvarez, State Water Project, Analysis Office
Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 942836
Sacramento, CA 94236.
By e-mail to: led,ilivarez(d),Wa ter„ca.gov and cwf aintendinent(d?,WH tar.ca gcy
Cassandra Enos-Nobriga, Executive Advisor
State Water Project Department of Water Resources
1416 Ninth Street, Room I 148-3
P.O. Box 942836
Sacramento CA 95814
By e-mail to: ('ontracArrIendinent y,omitients(d);W terea,gov
RE: State Water Project -
Water Supply Contract Amendments fbr Water Management and California WaterFix
Dear Mr. Ted Alvarez and Ms. Cassandra Enos-Nobriga:
Butte County is one of the 29 State Water Project (SWP) Contractors, also referred to as Public
Water Agencies (PWAs). Butte County has participated actively in the development of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the public negotiations among SWP PWAs
leading to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for both the Contract Extension Project (CEP) and
the California Water Fix (CWF).
From the onset of the CEP negotiations, Butte County sought to have a contractual assurance
that it would not be obligated to pay for the costs associated with the CWF. After a long delay,
we are encouraged that the Agreement in Principal (AlP) for the CWF provides the assurance
which specifically exempts the North of Delta PWAs from all applicable CWF costs, The
assurances provided in the SWP CEP AlP and the CWF AlP are suitable to bring to the Butte
County Board of Supervisors for consideration in the next few months.
Despite the positive attributes in the SWP CEP and CWF amendments, Butte County continues
to have concerns with the Department of Water Resources' sequencing and piecemealing of the
three CEOA documents relating the CWF and the CEP. Butte County has actively participated
in the development of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process, which later became
the CWF, and has submitted comments on various regulatory proceedings related to the
BDCP/CWF. We remain troubled that the CEQA analyses for the CWF Final EIR/EIS, the
Final Impact Report CEP and the Draft Environmental Report Validation Action for the CWF
remain inadequate.. By reference, Butte County concurs,joins in and incorporates by reference
herein the comments submitted on December 18, 2018 by Plumas County and submitted on
December 11, 2018 by Roger Moore.
We are encouraged with the AIP for the SWP CEP and CWF amendments. However, we
remain concerned that the BDCP/WaterFix and its related EIR/EIS do not comply with State
water law and inadequately assess the environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
7
Sincerel ,
( ,
1
i ,,,)
>9
1 )1'6 ,,4,,"/
Paul Gosselin, Director
Cc: Bruce Alpert, Butte County Counsel
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Governing Board, Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Bob Perreaull, Manager, Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Roger Moore, Law Office of Roger Moore
LAW OFFICE OF ROGER B. MOORE
LAND, WATER AND ENVIRONMINTAL LAW
337 17TH STREET„SUITE 211
OAKLAND,CALIFORNIA, 94612
LANDWATER.COM, RBM@LANDWATER,COM, 510-548-1401
ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA
December 11, 2018
Karla Nemeth, Director
California Department of Water Resources
1416 9th Street, Room 1115
Sacramento, CA 9581
via email (Jan iene.Fri end @ water.ea.gov)
Re; Prematurity of Final Decision By Lead or Responsible Agencies to Authorize
DWR's Proposed "Contract Extension" Amendments
Dear Ms. Nemeth:
We represent counties and other agencies from the Delta region and northern
Sacramento Valley in the coordinated proceeding in Sacramento County Superior Court
on DWR's proposed California WaterFix project (JCCP 4942), including the Counties of
San Joaquin, Contra Costa, Solano, Yolo, Butte, and Plumas, as well as Central Delta
Water Agency, Contra Costa County Water Agency, Plumas County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District, and Local Agencies of the North Delta. In DWR's pending
WaterFix validation action in JCCP 4942, these public agencies, among others, dispute
DWR's authority to impose billions of dollars in revenue bond debt for California WaterFix
under the State Water Project (SWP) contracts and other laws.
DWR's efforts to impose binding debt for the Delta Tunnels project (a.k.a.
"WaterFix") also relate closely to its proposed "contract extension" amendments to SWP
contracts set to expire starting in 2035. The beleaguered and massively expensive Delta
Tunnels project is and remains, the proverbial elephant in the room. The amendments not
only extend the contracts through 2085; they also propose to remove existing constraints
on covered "facilities" that would otherwise prevent imposing revenue bond debt for
WaterFix, and potentially other costly projects opposed by some contractors and the public.
Four members of Congress, noting that "it is clear that DWR's request for a contract
extension is rooted in its desire to bond the cost of WaterFix,"recently warned that making
"such a significant and costly decision" would he premature and risky prior to
determination of the validation action (Exhibit I). Moreover, proceeding to final approval
Karla Nemeth, Director
California Department of Water Resources
December 11, 2018
Page 2
would piecemeal consideration of the extension amendments from a second set of"water
supply" contract amendments facilitating WaterFix, for which Draft FIR comments are not
due until January 9, 2019.
When DWR certified its Contract Extension Final E1R on November 13, 2018, it
did not make a final project decision, and instead indicated that the State Water Project
Analysis Office and Office of Chief Counsel would first issue a "follow-on"memorandum
and recommendation. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) appear to have improperly calendared the
contract extension for consideration as responsible agencies without even waiting for the
lead agency's evaluation and project decision, much less any opportunity for public review
and discussion. To avoid a high potential for confusion, uncertainty, and prejudice,
decisions must clearly inform the public of the timing of any Notices of Determination
under CEQA, and any final authorizations subject to the requirements of the validation
statute (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 860, et seq.).
As detailed below, it is both premature and risky for DWR as lead agency, or any
responsible agencies, to finally authorize DWR's proposed contract extension amendments
at this time. First, deficiencies in the record preclude final determination by both lead and
responsible agencies under CEQA. Absent from the documents referenced in DWR's
November 13, 2018 certification memorandum and the responsible agency agenda items
are the complete hearings, oral and written testimony (including testimony from one of the
undersigned counsel attached in written form as Exhibit 2), and correspondence from
closely related legislative hearings on DWR's proposed contract extension. Hearings
before the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee (SNRWC) on July 3, 2018 and
the Joint Legislative and Budget Committee (JLBC) on September 11, 2018, bear directly
on the environmental review for the contract extension. I This includes the foundational
issue of the extension project's relationship to the Delta Tunnels and the separately
reviewed Water Supply Contract Amendments yet this critically important relationship
is not analyzed in DWR's Final EIR and certification.2
See, e.g., DWR's Water Supply Contract Extension web page, including all linked
documents (11 ttps://w ate r.c a v/P r9sra ms/S ta W a te r-Prgj e c t/Ma n memetitZWater:
Supply-Contract-Extension); SNRWCs web page, including all linked documents for July
3, 2018 hearing and web link to video recording of hearing
(htips://siTh..se na („ 4 ':0v/content/A)I 8-i n forma ionalo ve rsjjit hcanng ); JLBC's web
page,including all linked documents for September 11, 2018 hearing and cancelled August
30, 2018 hearing (httr) ://yr_yi.v.selate,cal,cly/Jcz9gliyel-qidget); video link to September
11, 2018 JLBC hearing on proposed SWP contract extension
([11,11):Lf i1111114111-1etgrallic.l-1 com/Mdi iPlayu:4211?7gW-1(1E7:74012 k58.41)•
2 See, e.g., SNRWC Background Brief to July 3, 2018 hearing, p. 17 (referencing the
recognition of SWP contractors and DWR that the proposed contract extension
amendments are "a necessary, but not sufficient condition to incorporate WaterFix into
2
Karla Nemeth, Director
California Department of Water Resources
December 11, 2018
Page 3
Second, 2018 comments, mainly referenced to legislative hearings, underscore the
prematurity of final approval. Public agency critics throughout California, from Plumas
County and the Delta Counties Coalition to San Diego County, criticized DWR's efforts
to finalize the contract extension without integrated review of all DWR's proposed
amendments related to the Delta Tunnels, including the Water Supply Contract
Amendments still awaiting public comment and completion of review. (Exhibit 3.) The
Legislative Delia Caucus observed that these "poorly defined" amendments would have
"potential adverse impacts far beyond their apparent scope. There is much that remains
unknown regarding the extensive changes to the SWP contracts that are being proposed
and how the changes will impact properly taxes, water rates,the fiscal integrity of the SWP
and General Fund." (Exhibit 4.) Following the 2018 legislative hearings, more than a
dozen organizations identified numerous changed circumstances requiring additional
environmental review since public comment closed in October 2016, only to have DWR,
in its November 13, 2018 certification memo, respond with the non-sequitur that the
general issue areas were discussed in 2016 (Exhibit 5). Commentary in major newspapers
criticized the defective process and lack of transparency surrounding the contract extension,
as well as DWR's attempts to leverage WaterFix indebtedness without adequate review
and debate (Exhibit 6).
Third, testimony at the September 11, 2018 JLBC hearing undermines the premise
of independence from WaterFix upon which DWR's separate Contract Extension Final
EIR is founded. That includes your own testimony on DWR's behalf, following
questioning from Senator Richard Pan, that DWR plans to "use these amendments to
finance WaterFix," and the testimony of Rachel Ehlers of the Legislative Accounting
Office that the contract extension amendments would "affect and facilitate" WaterFix.3
Facilitation of WaterFix through the contract extension amendments is also addressed in
the testimony of Congressman McNerney and of Roger Moore at the same hearing.
Fourth, DVVR sidesteps meaningful analysis of a major project element. (See, e.g.,
Planning and Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000) 83
Cal.App.4th 892, 904-920 (requiring CEQA analysis prior to amending contract
provision).) As addressed in the legislative testimony of Roger Moore, echoing
commenters on the Draft EIR (Exhibit 2), DWR's extension amendments would eliminate
limitations on covered "facilities" under article 1(hh)(8) of current SWP contracts that
would otherwise render WaterFix ineligible for revenue bond financing. The Final EIR
fails to address public comments on impacts that would reasonably result from, such a
change in language. (See, e.g., PCL, et al.'s October 16, 2016 EIR Comments, p. 6, and
Ex. A, p. 4.) By contrast, DWR's assurance that projects facilitated by the contract
the SWP," and the contention of many organizations that contract amendments remain
premature while WaterFix issues are unresolved).
3 Video link to September 11, 2018 JLBC hearing, op cit.; see also Exhibit 5, pp. 2, 5, fn.
2, 16-17 (quoting DWR Director's testimony) and p. 13, fn. 46 (referencing testimony of
Roger Moore).
3
Karla Nemeth, Director
California Department of Water Resources
December 11, 2018
Page 4
extension will be covered by separate CEQA review (e.g., FEIR 2-10, 134) ring hollow.
DWR's Delta Tunnels EIR and project approval neither admitted nor analyzed dependence
on a subsequent SWP contract amendment. Critically, CEQA review of later-approved
projects would come too late to address the consequences of redefining covered"facilities,"
because the current contract language would already be eliminated.
Fifth, the FEIR undermines its premise that the contract extension amendments
proposed by DWR have independent utility as a"separate, independent project"addressing
debt compression problems. (FEIR, 2-9.) Debt compression is based on the comparatively
short maturity dates of existing SWP contracts. (id.) And the FEIR recognizes that the
Evergreen Clause in Article 4 of the SWP contracts already provides a way to extend these
dates. (E.g., FEIR, 2-3 to 2-5, 2-33.) DWR has not shown its version of the amendments,
including the proposed facilities redefinition, to be necessary to ensure continued water
deliveries or responsibly address operation and maintenance needs. By facilitating the
issuance of potentially billions of dollars to construct the Delta Tunnels project, and
perhaps other projects not currently eligible, DWR may under the guise of risk reduction
force a risky escalation of indebtedness.
Sixth, as addressed in the written testimony of Roger Moore and the comments of
the Delta Counties Coalition (Exhibits 2, 3), Water Code prerequisites for proceeding to
finality on the extension amendments (Wat. Code, §§ 147, 147.5) still have not been met.
Lastly, to avoid the piecemealing problem discussed in Plumas County's letter
(Exhibit 3), all DWR's proposed amendments must be reviewed and considered together
prior to finality, including the proposed extension amendments and Water Supply Contract
Amendments.
Respectfully,
Roger B. Moore
Law Office of Roger B. Moore
,-
,./1
Thomas H. Keeling
Freeman Firm, a PLC
. /
• '-k.'''' .----' )
Attorneys for Public Agencie' ',.buray of
San Joaquin, Central Delta_,, ter Agency,
County of Contra Costa, Contra Costa
County Water Agency, County of Solano,
4
Karla Nemeth, Director
California Department of Water Resources
December 11, 2018
Page 5
County of Yolo, County of Butte, County of
Plumas, and Plumas County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District
Osha Meserve
Soluri Meserve, a Law Corporation
) /4„,
("471 r
Attorney for Local Agencies of the North
Delta
cc: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Santa Clara Valley Water District
State Water Contractors, Inc.
5
\N/
rui*4
H),,P,A~
'4,1ty -li
i-n
LU I1 S C•Up II TY NTROL 8r, CO SER ATI II I ISTRICT
c/• PLU AS COUNT DE'ART E T *1,7 PUBLIC WORKS
1834 East Main Street, Quincy, CA 95971 Telephone: (53O 283-6268
Jeff Engel, Chair, Governing Board
Robert A. Perreault, Jr., District Manager
December 18, 2018
To: Mr.Ted Alvarez, State Water Project,Analysis Office
Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 942836
Sacramento, CA 94236.
By e-mail to: ted.alvarez@waterca,gov and cwf amendment,Pwatercaq;ov
To: Cassandra Enos-Nobriga, Executive Advisor,State Water Project
Department of Water Resources
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1148-3
P.O. Box 942836
Sacramento CA 95814
By e-mail to: ContrtArnendrnentcornrnents@water.ce.gov
RE: State Water Project
Water Supply Contract Amendments for Water Management and California WaterFix
Dear Mr. Ted Alvarez and Ms. Cassandra Enos-Nobriga:
Introduction and Background:
Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Plumas) is one of 29 State Water
Project Contractors, now called Public Water Agencies (PWAs).
Plumas has participated actively in the development of CEQA and the public negotiations
among SWP PWAs leading to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for both the Contract Extension
Project (CEP) and the California Water Fix (CWF). Plumas has provided comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Reports (DEIRs) and also the Agreements In Principle (AlPs) for both the
DEIR for the CEP and for the NOP for the CWF.
Plumas intends to sign the A|P for the CWF. Plumas supports the AUP for the CWF because it
specifically exempts the North of Delta Public Water Agencies (P\NAs), including Plumas, from
all CWF costs (with the possible exception of blended power rates.) The AlP 'for the CWF also
includes new water management tools to enable SWP PWAs downstream of DWR's Orovilie
Reservoir that sign both the SWP CEP A|P and the CVVF0P to better cope with the real
potential for more unreliable water exports from the Delta despite the additional exports
enabled by the CWF.
Plumas continues to oppose the DWR's sequencing and piecemealing of the three CEQA
documents relating the California VVatmrFix (CWF) and the Contract Extension Project (CEP).
These partial [E[A analyses are the Final EIR/EIS for the BCDP now the CWF, the Final Impact
Report for the Contract Extension Prject (CEP FEIR) and the Draft Environmental Report for the
California WaterFix, the CWF QBR .
Plumas incorporates DWR's CEP FEIR "Responses to Comments" and the economic analysis
used by DWR to determine positive economic benefits of the CWF into our comments 'for the
CWF DEIR. Plumas brings old and new information together to reiterate past concerns raised by
Plumas that are now heightened by new information that has become available after the CWF
Notice of Preparation (NOP) and that are not yet incorporated into the FEIR for the CM. The
Plumas Comments on the NOP for the CWF DEIR are incorporated herein for reference.
As we describe in our comments below, DWR's failure to incorporate new information into the
DEIR for the CWF undermines DWR's obligation as the Lead Agency for the CEP and CWF CEOA
processes to uphold "the statutory requirement and the significance of this obligation to the
financial integrity of the State Water Project... (CEP FE1R, p. 2-25) Plumas provides new
information and links this new information to the financial integrity of the SWP and the
equitable cost allocation for the CWF. Plumas requests that DWR acknowledge that in the face
of these uncertainties DVVRmust look atthe whole project. becauseport|mnUngandseqyendng
the DEIR for the CWF creates real risks for the financial stability of the SWP and long-term
affordability inequities among SWP PWAs, which are DWR's Project Objectives for the CWF
DBR-
P|wmnasapprwdatesthatI]VVR notes in the "Response to Comments" in the CEP FEIR that DWR
relies on, 'the statutory requirement and the significance of this obligation to the financial
integrity ofthe State Water Pro/ect.. (CEP FEIR, p. 2-25) as DWR exercises its agency discretion
on the scope and timing of CEQ,A analyses and certifications.
"DN/Rand the PWAs have a common interest to ensure the efficient deiive,y of SWP water
supplies and to ensure the SWP's financial integrity. in order to address water management
flexibility and to allocate costs for California WaterFix, QN/R and the PWAs agreed to the
following objectives:
(1) Supplement and clarify terms of the SWP water supply contract that will provide greater water
management regarding transfers and exchanges of SWP water supply within the SWP service
area.
(2) Provide a fair and equitable approach for cost allocation of California WaterFix
Plumes recommends that the CWF FEIR describe the whole project as presented by DWR
Director Karla Nemeth in testimony to the Joint Legislative Committee on the September 11,
2018, "Karla Nemeth starting 1:10:27 to 1:13:43:Senator Pan: "I do not hear an answer to my
question."Director Nemeth, "Yes, we wi/I use these amendments to finance WOterFix...We have
a category in our existing contracts that describes the ability of the Department to fundprojects
in the Delta including delta facilities and that would include WaterFix.
ww.senate.ca,RavApediarchivejdflault?titie-Ecstortdate=t09%2F11%2F2018&e
Although CEQA does not require economic analysis,the positive economic benefits described in
the EIR/EIS for the CWF are nonetheless important findings for securing bond financing for the
CWF. Therefore the whole project properly includes new information about the increasingly
uncertain economic benefits of the CWF that are now available by incorporating predicted
environmental changes, changing water management priorities by federal water contractors
and purveyors, and pending actions by State and Federal Agencies into the FEIR for the CWF,
In summary these new uncertainties include:
(1) Predicted significant decreases in inflows to the Central Valley Project's Shasta Reservoir and the
SWP Oroville Reservoir in the 4 Climate Assessment published in late October 2018,
(2) New federal priorities for increased exports from the Delta to the San Luis Reservoir for the
benefit of CVP Contractors becomes available from the US Bureau of Reclamation COA letter in
August and further federal policy directives released in November 2018,
(3) The inability of the CWF in November of 2018 to obtain commitments by the federal
government for this funding year for WWFIA loans of up to 49% of the latest 19.9-billion-dollar
debt estimate for the CWF.
(4) Uncertainty about the future carry over storage and operations at the SWP Oroville Reservoir in
the face of an imsuffimncy determination made public by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) regarding DWR's dam safety repairs at Onovi|Ue in FERC's October 2018
letter to DWR.
(5) Uncertainties about the regulatory responses to the uncertainties listed above by the State and
Federal agencies that in the past have responded to unavailable water supplies to the SWP by
reducing export flows from the Delta to the to the San Luis Reservoir for both CVP and SWP
Contractors. Although the State Water Resources Control Board's July 2018 Framework for the
Sacramento/Delta Update to the Bay-Delta Plan is delayed pending further negotiations, it has
not been withdrawn.
In summary, these five issues, are new information released during the period between the
close of the CWF NOP comment period and the close of the comment period for this CWF DEIR.
For Plumas these five issues present new and potentially cumulatively significant financial and
environmental risks heretofore unanalyzed in past environmental documents for both the CWF
and the CEP, and that are currently proposed to remain undisclosed, unanalyzed and
unaddressed in the CWF DEIR. .....CEQA does not require DWR to analyze the proposed project
{CEP)in combination with California WaterFix as part of a single project in a single Elf?because:
(1) the proposed project(CEP) and California WaterFix are not a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of one another; and (2) the proposed project {CEP} has significant independent
utility, including independent benefits and independent purposes and objectives."(CEP FEIR,p. 2-
7).
According to DWR Director Nemeth's September 11th testimony this premise is no longer
accurate. The insistence by DWR in the CWF DEIR that it has the discretion under CEQA to
continue piecemealing and sequencing CEQA in the face of this new information, in effect,
allows DWR to continue ignore inconsistencies in its approach to analyzing economic and
environmental costs and benefits of the CWF, which in turn, undermines the fundamental basis
for achieving the CWF DEIR Project Objectives for maintaining the financial integrity of the SWP
and equitably apportioning costs for the CWF (and now including unnamed future SWP
projects) after the certification of the CEP FEIR.
Therefore, Plumas recommends the CWF FEIR reconsider the whole project as the CWF and CEP
Projects, "CEQA Guideline § 15378(b) sets forth a list of what the term "project" does not
include. Guideline § 15378(b)(4) in the list exempts from being a "project," The creation of
government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities, which do not involve any
commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact
on the environment. The government's fiscal activities involved here do involve commitment to
a specific project, in fact a number of projects. It is clear under the CEQA Guidelines including §
15378(b)(4) that "the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal
activities" which involve commitment to a specific project or projects which may result in a
potentially significant physical impact on the environment, is an activity, a "project,"which must
be preceded by preparation of a legally sufficient Ell?. CEQA must "be interpreted in such
manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable
scope of the statutory language."
Specific Comments on the five new issues:
(1) Significant decreases in inflows to the Central Valley Project (CVP) Shasta and the Stage
Water Project (SWP) Oroville reservoirs are predicted in the 4th Climate Assessment:
The 4th Climate Assessment warns that the historic patterns of inflow into the SWP's Oroville
Reservoir are predicted to decline over the life of the CWF.
Fru the 4th Climat Assessi ern;
32,.21
Suif ce Wu t r.514 pli.s
The seasonal availability of surface-water supplies will change, with potentially large impacts on
local to state-scale water management systems.
The impacts of a changed climate on surface water amounts and timing in the Sierra Nevada
have important implications for water supplies. Observed trends towards earlier peak stream
flow will likely continue through the 21st century, with peak stream flows arriving 20-40 days
earlier than the mid-20th century in many rivers (Stewart et al. 2004, Fritze et al. 2011).
Eventually, warming will drive snowmelt into the earliest spring and latest winter months, when
the sun is not high in the sky, so that ultimately snowmelt is likely to slow (Musselman et al.
2017). Nonetheless, earlier peak stream flow will result in greater winter flows with attendant
enhancements of flood risks, and less stream flow in the longer, drier summers. Declines in
summertime stream flow are particularly important because California's Mediterranean
precipitation regimes is such that it routinely experiences a "seasonal drought" in summer, a
highly predictable dearth of precipitation during the warm seasons. is summertime drought
coincides with when both natural and human communities rely on water reserves stored in
snowpack or reservoirs to survive until the next wet season is when the fuels that support wild
fires cure to their driest points. Thus reductions in summertime surface-water availability place
the water supplies for natural and human communities at great risk, as well as elevating wild re
risks.
As the source of so much of California's water, management of the Sierra Nevada region's water
resources is key to managing water supplies throughout the region and throughout the State.
With projected changes in snowpack, snowmelt and stream flow timing (Fig. 2.8), flood risk,
evaporation rates, groundwater, and upstream water uses, even the state's largest scale water-
storage and conveyance systems may be challenged. Knowles et al. (in review) simulated the
effects of the same 10-model ensemble of climate projections presented in Section 2 on water
conditions in a modified version of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and California
Department of Water Resources's CALSIM II model of water- management operations by the
State Water Project (SWP), USBR's Central Valley Project (CVP), and other less extensive water
supplies and conveyances in the Central Valley. e amount of water stored in the major reservoirs
of the western Sierra Nevada by the end of the water year (the "carryover storage") gives a
useful indication of the resilience of the large- scale systems to manage long-term drought
shortages..
Fig. 3.2.2 shows that, on average over projections from ten climate models responding to
RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 greenhouse-gas forcings, carryover storage in the largest reservoirs (i.e.,
Shasta at the head of the CVP and Orovilie at the head of the SWP) decline markedly, by roughly
one-third over the course of this century. is decline in carryover storage will severely impact
reservoir operations, limiting their capacity to ensure adequate water supply for dry years.
Declines are smaller farther south, becoming almost nonexistent south of the American River
basin (Folsom). Presumably, large declines in the northern Sierra Nevada reflect the dramatic
reduction of seasonal storage in the snowpacks of that lower, warmer part of the range (Figs.
2.5 and 2.6). Farther south, snowpacks survive somewhat better, and constraints on reservoir
releases to the San Joaquin River and water users in the San Joaquin Valley are such that
reservoirs continue to serve at least this most basic of reservoir functions (carryover storage)
throughout the century.
(Source:Fourth Climate Change Assessment Sierra Nevada Region I 47)
[Figure 3.2.2 follows on the next page. ]
,111101101111111,111111111111111111 , 111 1 1111 011100101111 III
0000011111111111111111111111111111 00 0 i ",,1111 imil; 000 1111111111 I 11110000000100000000000110
0 1 0 111111
lo 11.3 001 0000 11001111101100000000100
1,0001111111111111111110,111#000itilli ',J ,' vivoilie
1 111110
111111111 11101111 1111111101111110000
pi ili Ill: 1111111 1
000000010 11111111101111111100100111111111111111111111001
1 ;D 0111111111111
11.0,000000041110000
IIII 1 111111111111111
111111111111111111111111
000 111010 1 0
00.1110"10010 1 11111111111
0 111110110 1111 111111111111111111111111
olloollionalimaiiiliair Voliiiiiird001 .0.10111 °I'd m Iii 1111111111111 11111111111111 . 131 111111111 000001110001111111111111111111111111
dil
)111
6" 1f4 01 1 1 H 1
L.,, 1)111 1 1 040 , th 0 4 it0
, ,0000 000000 0 0
''
r
; 1 1
114'0; 0 0
i 00000 ,0 hl° ( l• ,
a 1
I i
r
Frolecleci end-of-,Naterlear slerag es ld seven major resevoirs al enci
tie %,,Hesem rampa-ts 0:tie sierra Nevada (see inset map), from
tobIbiriati on of '01Todel dtri-ate-c large ensemble, :1E' "v'aniable
lifrbrat*n Cadacity lydrolcgk: model, aid a modified versid 1 of tie
Li5i3RIDIV1 Calsim H wate.-managenlerP. rnodel ,based on data from
Knuo'vles et al, in re,,,,levv;).
This new information becomes important for this DE1R CEQA analysis because DTR utilizes the
"climate change" rationale provided by the Brattle Group in the Sunding Economic Study for
five billion dollars in benefits from implementations the CWF in mitigating sea level rise in the
Delta predicted for the project life of the CWF,
"DVI/R modeling indicates that Delta exports are highly sensitive with respect to sea level rise. A
rise in sea level means more salinity intrusion from the ocean via the San Francisco Bay,
affecting the water quality of exports and requiring more fresh water to be released from
upstream reservoirs to meet salinity standards. By 2100, a 2-foot sea level rise becomes a more
important contributor to reduced annual south-of-Delta export than does annual inflow change,
a result also shown by Fleenor et al. (2008). The DWR study published by Wang et al. (2011)
concludes that sea level rise can be expected to reduce Delta exports by over 119,000 acre-feet
annually by mid-century, and by over 520,000 acre-feet annually by 2100. Construction of the
WaterFix would prevent these losses by giving water managers the capability to divert water
directly from the Sacramento River upstream of the Delta."
It is important to note that the inclusion of the climate mitigation benefits in the Delta creates a
positive cost-benefit ratio for the CWF and without the sea level rise protection benefits, the
CWF is not a cost-effective investment according to the Sunding-Battle Group's economic
analysis. It is also important to note that DWR's only possible rationale for not including and
analyzing the predicted effects of climate change on inflows to the CVP's Shasta facility and the
SWP's Oroville facility is that this information became available after the July 2017 Certification
for the California Water Fix EIR/EIS and DWR's finding that the Sunding-Battle Group's
economic analysis s consistent with the DWR's economic analysis guidelines.
DWR argues in the responses to comments for the Contract Extension Project (CEP) FEIR, "DWR
is not avoiding the demands facing the State and the Delta with regard to these issues. As
recognized in the DEIR, there are administrative and legislative efforts that address these
concerns as part of other comprehensive statewide processes. This EIR does not need to address
all issues facing the SWP or the Delta. DWR leaves resolution of these broader issues to other
established planning, legislative and regulatory processes. CEQA Guidelines Section 15165
provides that "[wJhere one project is one of several similar projects of a public agency but is not
deemed a part of a larger undertaking or larger project, the agency may prepare one EIR for all
projects, or one for each project but shall in either case comment upon the cumulative effect.
The California Supreme Court held that "an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental
effects of future expansion or other action it (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of
the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely
change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. Absent these two
circumstances, the future expansion need not be considered in the EIR for the proposed project."
Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376,
396
Although climate change is not a consequence of the Proposed Project, it does affect the
economic benefits analyzed for the Proposed Project that in turn affect the financial
affordability of the Proposed Project and the financial integrity of the SWP that it becomes part
of with adequate financing. Plumas asks the DWR to use the newly available available science
provided in the 4th Climate Assessment in the CWF FEIR to disclose and evaluate new
information about a broader range of climate factors affecting SWP operations In the Delta
than sea-level rise. The CWF FEIR should discuss the cumulative effect of the full range of
climate change factors on the economic benefits of the CWF as declining inflows and sea level
rise affect the physical operations of the SWP over the next 85 years. For reference, economic
benefits are based on the following water yields in the Sunding-Brattie Group report which may
not be accurate for climate change and other factors as we discuss in further detail below.
Table 2:
Average ;moll Yields(Acre-Feet) for
State Myr Project sad.CV?South o Delta uter Service Contractors
is the 9,000-cfs SWP/CVP See srio
SWP Agencies CVP Agencies
Urban Agricultural
Proposed Project 1,992,232 719,733 950,923
No Tunnels 1,547,885 479,000 634,822
Incremental Yield 444,348 240,733 316,101
Source:California Department of Water llesources
Table 3:
verve Annual Vekis(Acre-Feet)hr
State alter Project C atraetors in the 9, VI) cfs SWt Only Seen rio
SWP Agencies
Urban Agricultural
Propos ed Project 2,091,829 771,619
No Tunnels 1,547,885 479,000
Incremental Yield 543,945 292,618
Source:California Department orWater Resources,
(2) Federal priorities for increased exports from the Delta to San Luis Reservoir (SLR) for the
benefit of CVP Contractors, and
(3) The inability of the CWF to obtain commitments by the Federal Government in this
funding cycle for loans of up to 49%of the now 19.9 billion dollar debt estimate for the CWF.
In light of recent actions by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the Department of Interior
(DOI) regarding the supremacy of federal water exports from the Delta it becomes difficult to
argue that the CEP and CWF DEIRs are not about management and operations of the SWP and
only about financing the management and operations of the SWP because both of the CEP and
the CWF AlPs concern themselves with allocating SWP storage and deliveries from San Luis
Reservoir, and especially concern themselves with carry over storage and banking provisions
and priorities in the San Luis Reservoir times of water surplus and shortage. Below San Luis
Reservoir, the CEP and the CWF are interlinked by the shared SWP and CVP storage and
conveyance in the South of Delta service areas and they both depend on the "common pool" of
the Delta.
Specifically, Plumas argues that given new federal priorities for operations of the CVP, DWR can
no longer assert that "The lead agency has the authority and responsibility to initially frame the
scope of its proposed purpose and objectives. As discussed in Response to Comment 5-11, the
lead agency is free to limit its proposed objectives to the issues it wants to address and is not
obligated to look at broader issues or concerns."(CEP FEIR, p.2-10)
In the Master Responses to the CEP FEIR, DWR states that "CEQA does not require an agency to
examine a project and objectives that are completely different from the one it has chosen to
pursue. This (CEP DEIR) is not an E1R on the operation and maintenance of the SWP...The DEIR
does riot evaluate issues such as impacts attributed to the operation of the SWP, all of the
problems facing the Delta, or activities relating to water conservation and water supply. These
would continue to exist even if there were no proposed project. As a result, under CEQA, they
are considered part of the baseline conditions and are not environmental impacts of the
proposed project. Therefore, in the DEIR DWR is not required to mitigate or consider alternatives
for impacts attributed to the on-going operation and maintenance of the SWP. (CEP FEIR, p. 2-
7)
However, Plumas asserts that that legal premise changed on August 17, 2018, when the US
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) sent a letter to DWR opening renegotiations on the Coordinated
Operating Agreement (COA). The COA governs the SWP and CVP operations in the Delta and in
the San Luis Reservoir. As the BOR letter states,
"There have been numerous meetings over the past two years, which have included Central
Valley Project (CYP) and State Water Project (SWP) contractors. This has included considerable
productive discussion and sharing of information and data through which we have learned a
great deal about our respective operations as they have evolved over the years.At this paint, we
have concluded the Article 14(a) review process. Unfortunately, we have been unable to
mutually agree on revisions to COA for maintaining conformity with the objectives and
principles embodied in the 1986 COA and underlying technical studies. Absent mutual
agreement on revisions needed to COA, Reclamation respectfully makes this Notice of
Negotiations in accordance with Article 14(b)(2). 1 am designating Mr. Federico Barajas as the
Lead Negotiator for Reclamation and request DWR identify their Lead Negotiator. It is
suggested the respective leads immediately form their negotiating teams and proceed with
negotiations within the next 30 calendar days in order to allow for satisfactory conclusion of an
agreement within twelve months of the date of this letter, per COA.
In a November 19, 2018 letter to the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC), a coalition of
environmental groups support the concerns raised by five Counties within the legal Delta by
commenting that, "The WaterFix project is a partnership between DWR and the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. New, repeated declarations of federal policy to maximize exports, regardless of
the consequences for the Delta, have undermined the credibility of any evidence that the Bureau
of Reclamation will adhere to the Delta Plan policies, mitigation measures, and "adaptive
management"for the project...Water Code § 85320(b)(2)(A) contains specific requirements for
incorporation of the project into the Delta Plan including "operational requirements and flows
necessary for recovering the Delta ecosystem and restoring fisheries under a reasonable range
of hydrologic conditions, which will identify the remaining water available for export and other
beneficial uses."Section 85320(b)(2)(B) requires comprehensive review of "A reasonable range
of Delta conveyance alternatives, including through-Delta, dual conveyance, and isolated
conveyance alternatives . ." The Delta Reform Act cannot be reasonably construed to make
everything in it meaningless if the federal partner in the project should wish to maximize
exports...'The Presidential Memorandum, along with such other recent federal actions as the
August 17, 2018, Secretary of the Interior Memorandum, show that it would require ignoring
"practical reality" and defy common sense were the DSC to make a finding that the WaterFix
Tunnels project is consistent with the policies of the Delta Plan. The project is a joint one of
California's DWR, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The federal policy is now to maximize
exports regardless of the consequences for Delta water flows and Delta water quality. These
critical federal documents will have to be officially noticed before any decision could be
considered, let alone reached,finding consistency of the Covered Action with the Delta Plan."
Therefore the CWF FEIR must now address the possibility that changed CVP operations will
affect SWP operations in ways that could affect the ability of the SWP to store and deliver SWP
water from the Delta to the San Luis Reservoir that is needed to achieve the physical benefits
described for the CEP and the CWF and the economic benefits presented in the Sunding-Brattle
Group economic analysis for the CWF. Delaying the release and certification of the CWF FEIR
until the COA negotiations are concluded and until after the DSC issues its "Findings of
Consistency" is one reasonable approach in the face of this new information.
In addition, the Delta Conveyance Finance Authority (DCFA)'s 1_01 seeking an initial $1.6 billion
in funding for the project's design and construction and discussions of securing up to 49
percent of the CWF's total eligible costs through WIFIA loans was denied for 2018. Plumas
requests that the DWR delay the CWF FEIR until after DWR Capital Improvements Plan becomes
available so that the public can understand the magnitude of debt associated with financing the
whole project including the CWF and unanalyzed future SWP projects that the DWR is intending
to finance through bonds, loans and user charges using the AIP provisions for the CER FEIR and
the CWF DEIR
(4) Uncertainty about the future carry over storage and operations at the SWP Orovilie
Reservoir in the face of insufficiency determinations by FERC regarding DWRis dam safety
repairs,
In October 2018 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) questioned the durability of
the repairs to Oroville Dam and Spillway in mega-flood events which are predicted to occur
more frequently in the future in the 4th Climate Change Assessment. Although it remains
unclear what FERC will require to ensure dam safety under these future circumstances, the
presumption of historic carry-over storage in the SWP's largest facility is questionable given the
Army Corps' existing requirement for lower carry-over storage at Oroville until safety concerns
are addressed by DWR to the satisfaction of the ACOE and the FERC.
(5) Uncertainties about the regulatory responses to the uncertainties listed above by the
State and Federal agencies that in the past have responded by reducing export flows
Plumas commented about the proposed revised Delta flows in the State Water Resources
Control Boards' Although the State Water Resources Control Board's July 2018 Framework for
the Sacramento/Delta Update to the Bay-Delta Plan is delayed pending further negotiations, it
has not been withdrawn. As DWR comments in the CEP FEIR, "When exporting water from the
Delta, DWR must comply with all current State and federal regulatory requirements in effect at
the time of the export pumping, including numerous environmental standards, laws, and
regulations relating to reservoir releases and Delta inflow and outflow, Delta water quality,fish
protection, environmental needs, water rights, and the needs of other users. The needs of other
users include in-Delta users and the water rights of the areas of origin of Delta inflow. These
requirements include applicable State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board)
orders, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)permits, Biological Opinions (BiOps)and
other regulatory constraints including any relevant judicial orders in effect at the time of the
operation. They have established water quality and flow requirements and limits on the rate of
export of water that can be pumped by the state and federal pumping plants. Therefore,
compliance is included in the proposed project and all of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIR.
Approval of the proposed project would not alter the SWP obligation and commitment to
comply with all current and future applicable regulatory requirements, including biological
opinions and water rights decisions."(CEP FEIR, p. 2-11) Plumas Commented extensively on the
NOP for the CWF DEIR that proposed changes to the Delta inflows and exports could
significantly change the water timing and availability of exports from the Delta to San Luis
Reservoir and that therefore extending new contracts and financing new projects under the
CEQA presumptions of unchanged SWP operations is premature. Since these actions are
proposed and pending, the CWF FEIR should be delayed until new regulatory effects on the
financial integrity of the SWP are available for analysis. Otherwise the perception and concern
by Plumas and others that premature Contract Extensions do preempt agency and legislative
authorities over SWP operations in the Delta and the SLR remains unclarified by DWR in the
FEIR for the CWF.
(6) Affordability and equity cost-allocation issues: Provide a fair and equitable approach for
cost allocation of California WaterFix (and other new SWP Projects.
Now that the CEP and the CWF are one project according to Director Nemeth, there are now
two inconsistent approaches for allocating new project debt identified in the CEP FEIR and in
the CWF DHR that need to be reconciled in the final CWF FEIR. The CWF DEIR AlP reaffirm' the
proposed PWA governance structure in the CEP FEIR whereby 80% of Contractors determine
the allocation of costs for new SWP projects. The CWF A|P also specifically exempts North of
Delta PWAs for CWF costs. The CEP FEIR offers no "opt out " provisions for PWAs for future
SWP projects apparently authorized with the certification of the CEP FEIR that do riot see
benefits for their service areas that justify incurring new SWP debt for financing new SWP
projects. Plumas has commented on the inequity of this approach for PWAs without "blank
check taxing authority in the CEP CEQA process and the EWF CEQA process, Plumas appreciates
that DWR notes in the "Response to Comments" in the CEP FEIR, the following statement:
"Given the statutory requirementond the significanceofth{smbkgotionto the financial integrity
of the State Water Project, DWR does not intend to make changes to this provision and expects
that the Proposition 13 exemption for prior voter approved indebtedness will continue to apply
during the extended term of the contracts." (CEP FEIR, P. 2-25). Herein DWR acknowledges that
Contractors with "blank check" taxing authority, generally the largest state and federal water
purveyors in the SWP and CVP water supply and delivery systems, are also the PWAs that now
decide under the CEP FEIR A|P, who benefits and pays for new MVP projects. This creates a
foreseeable "worst case"scenario as described for the five issues discussed above, where PWAs
that are subject to Proposition 13 and Section 218 voting requirements may not be able to
afford their full Table A deliveries Uf8VVP operations and SWP capital improvements costs rise
even as their SWP wter supplies become less reliable, Over time, the PWAs with blank check
taxing authority, under this worst case scenario are positioned to obtain majority shares the
State Water Project because of their blank check taxing advantage. Since there is no DWR
Capital Improvements Plan available, the SWP PWAs that must justify the financial benefits of
additional new debt for new 3VVP projects on top of existing debt face very difficult
circumstances given their Proposition 13 and Section 218 voting obligations. Therefore equity
and AIP uniformity reasons and the need to reconcile inconsistencies for the "whole project",
now the CEP FEIR and the CWF DEIR; Plumas again requests that "opt out" provisions like those
afforded in the CWF A^|P be made available for financing future SWP projects that are
contemplated in the Contract Extension Project AIP. Consistency is achieved for all SWP PVA/As
with the highest level of equitable cost allocation among PWAs for new projects through the
"opt out" or exemption provisions that the CWF DEIR AlP currently affords.
Plumas-Specific Comments:
Plumas appreciates that DWR's "Responses to Comments" for in the CEP FEIR do address some
of the Plumas concerns about being forced to finance new SWP debt without an "opt out"
provision in the new CEP contracts. The CEP FEIR states for that DWR will extend the current
SWP Contract between the Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(Plumas) and the Departnent of Water Resources for another 50 years to 2085, upon receipt
on an Article 4 letter from Plurnas. "The current SWP Contracts are not uniform osbath Plumas
County FC&WCD and the Empire West Side ID did not sign the Monterey Amendments and DWR
honored the original contracts that they signed without a problem." (CEP FEIR Letter 7-11, p.
160)
"Under the No Project Alternative, DWR takes no action, and DWR and the Contractors would
continue to operate and finance the SWP under the Contracts to December 31, 2035. Upon
receipt of Article 4 letters from the Contractors(at least 6 months prior to the existing expiration
date for each Contract) the term of the Contracts would be extended beyond their current
expiration dates. Under this alternative, the Contracts would not expire beginning in 2035.
Water service would continue beyond 2035 to all Contractors, consistent with the Contracts
including the existing financial provisions. Annual revenue and water supply cost recovery would
continue consistent with the current Contracts." Until the Contractors submit their Article 4
letters to extend their Contract expiration dates and the extended Contract expiration date is
determined, DWR would not sell bonds with maturity dates past 2035 to finance SWP capital
expenditures and therefore the current compression in the recovery of capital costs and the
bond financing costs would be exacerbated."(CEP FEIR, p. 2-2)...."Article 4 states that, by
written notice to DWR at least 6 months prior to the expiration date of a Contract, the
Contractor can elect to receive continued service after the expiration of the term under the
following conditions unless otherwise agreed to: (1) service of water in annual amounts up to
and including the Contractor's maximum annual Table A amount; (2) service of water at no
greater cost to the Contractor than would have been the case had the Contract continued in
effect; (3) service of water under the same physical conditions of service, including time, place,
amount, and rate of delivery; (4)retention of the same chemical quality objective provision;and
5) retention of the same options to use the SWP transportation facilities as provided for in
Articles 18(c) and 55, as applicable. "(CEP DEIR,p. ES-3).
In the CEP FEIR, DWR also clarifies the anticipated benefits of mingling existing debt with new
SWP debt for as yet unidentified SWP Projects by identifying near term new SWP Projects:
"These benefits {of combining current debt with new debt} include the ability to continue to
finance projects such as repairs to the California Aqueduct, replacement of aging pumps,
generators, and other equipment and implementing low greenhouse gas (GHG)emission energy
projects. Capital project that could be financed in whole or in part by the sale of longer term
bonds (if available as the result of Contract extension)include: (1)reinforcing Perris Dam at Lake
Perris against seismic failure and maintaining other SWP facilities to current seismic safety
standards; (2) reconstructing the Ronald B Roble Thermalito pump-generating plant in the
aftermath of a damaging fire to the facility; (3) implementing the Oroville hydroelectric license
project; and (4) obtaining a renewed Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for
the SWP's southern hydroelectric plants."(CEP FEIR,p. 2-10).
For reference, the following these Projects are not included in the "lhh" Provisions of the
Existing SWP Contracts: "Article 1 (Existing SWP Water Supply contract) (hh) "Water System
Facilities" shall mean the following facilities to the extent that they are financed with water
system revenue bonds or to the extent that other financing of such facilities is reimbursed with
proceeds from water system revenue bonds: (1) The North Bay Aqueduct, (2) The Coastal Branch
Aqueduct, (3) Delta Facilities, including Suisun Marsh facilities, to serve the purposes of water
conservation in the Delta, water supply in the Delta, transfer of water across the Delta, and
mitigation of the environmental effects of project facilities, and to the extent presently
authorized as project purposes, recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement, (4) Local projects
as defined in Article 1(h)(2) designed to develop no mare than 25,000 acre-feet of project yield
from each project, (5) Land acquisition prior to December 31, 1995,for the Kern Fan Element of
the Kern Water Bank, (6 Additional pumps at the Banks Delta Pumping Plant,(7) The
transmission line from Midway to Wheeler Ridge Pumping Plant,(8) Repairs, additions, and
betterments to conservation or transportation facilities existing as of January 1, 1987, and to
other facilities described in this subarticie (hh) except for item (5), <Attachment L> (9)A project
facilities corporation yard, and(10)A project facilities operation center."
Plumas thanks DWR for offering Plumas the "opt out" provision for debt from new SWP
projects that is afforded by extending the existing contract with DWR and including the Plumas
Amendment and the final payment to the Monterey Plaintiffs that was stipulated in the
Monterey Settlement Agreement.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Submitted •
111111°%ff Engle, Chair
e.Me1.01g.5@grilaii•corri
Governing Board
Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
and
Plumas County Board of Supervisors
cc. Board of Supervisors, County of Plumas—pcbs@countvofplumas.com,
cc. Governing Board, Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
pcbsecountyofplurRassom
cc. Bob Perreault, Manager, Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District—
bobpffirregAtEcountyofpjurlflas.corn
cc. Randy Wilson, Director, Plumas County Planning Department—
randy_wilso0 coprAyof jumas.corrk
cc. Craig Settlemire, County Counsel, County of Plumas—csettlerriireLbcpuntypf•IADas.cignn
cc. Honorable Ted Gaines, Senate District 1
cc. Honorable Brian Dahle, Assembly District 1
cc. Bruce Alpert, County Counsel, County of Butte
cc. Paul Gosselin, Director, Department of Water and Resource Conservation, County of Butte