The One Water and Stewardship Committee of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California yesterday voted to approve $141.6 million for planning for the Delta Conveyance Project after receiving comments both for and against the project.
The agenda item will go to a full vote (or be delayed) at today’s joint meeting of the MWD Board of Directors and the Executive Committee starting at 12 p.m.
The specific agenda item was: “8-4 Review and consider the Lead Agency’s certified 2023 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Delta Conveyance Project and take related CEQA actions and authorize the General Manager to enter into an amended agreement for preconstruction work planned for 2026-2027.”
The vote was 13 to 1, with 1 abstention. Mark Gold was the one vote against the funding.
Dozens of people from both Northern and Southern California made comments urging MWD to vote against the funding or to delay the vote, citing both environmental and financial impacts of the projects.
Krystal Moreno, Traditional Ecological Knowledge Program Manager for the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, stated, “MWD should draw lessons from the past two decades - demand is down, people are being more efficient with water usage. Costs are up and affordability is a growing crisis."
“This project is being sold on fear and lies. Fear that without it there won’t be enough water for Southern California’s economy. Lies that there is not an affordable alternative,” Moreno noted.
Emily Popilardo, Delta resident and engineer, urged the committee to consider an “armored pathway” alternative to the Delta Tunnel.
“I’ve worked on levees and permitted many projects over the past 15 years,” she stated. “I want to reach across the aqueduct and create a project that actually benefits you. The Delta Conveyance Project is not that project."
"The engineers in the Delta have promoted an armored pathway to improve the levees through the paths that water travels to heighten the levee crowns, thereby increasing flood resilience, benefitting fish species, and protecting the water supply for the State Water Project,” said Popilardo.
Barbara Barrigan Parilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta, also urged the board to consider the freshwater pathway plan.
“Has your staff fully analyzed the freshwater pathway plan for the Delta?” she asked. “Your mindset seems to be that it’s the tunnel versus abandoning the state water project and that’s not true.”
"We ask that you delay the vote,” Barrigan-Parrilla urged. “We’d really like to see Met board members come to the Delta and speak with Delta engineers, local residents, and community groups. I have a feeling you’d change your thinking for costs and conveyance strategies.”
In her comments, Sierra Club California staffer Caty Wagner, asked, “Met has spent nearly $1 billion since the initial planning for the peripheral canal and what does Met have to show for it? Sites and Pure Water are going to cost billions and Met can’t afford it all.”
Nancy Blastos, Inland Empire Resident and water ratepayer, stated, “I strongly discourage spending more money on studying the Delta Conveyance Project. We can catch water and store stormwater and we can also recycle and practice conservation. This is a catastrophic plan for our environment."
Sierra Club California Staffer Layne Fajeau disagreed with the Department of Water Resources’s contention that the tunnel will increase water security in the face of earthquakes, drought, and climate change.
“In reality, the tunnel will increase greenhouse gas emissions and further destabilize the hydrology of Northern California. It diverts funding away from levee stabilization that would actually protect the State Water Project in the event of an earthquake,” Fajeau explained.
Bruce Resnick, Executive Director of the LA Waterkeeper, stated, "All of these previous projects have failed because the folks in charge won’t sincerely sit down and meet with folks - tribal folks and environmentalists - and make genuine compromises. That’s why these projects fail."
Other opponents of the tunnel testified to the destructive impacts the project would have upon salmon, other fish species and San Francisco Bay-Delta Ecosystem.
“Already, the water that is being taken out of the Delta and sent South is having serious environmental consequences,” argued Karen Jacques, a resident of Sacramento, We’re seeing the potential extinction of a number of different species including salmon."
Likewise, John, a Delta resident, stated bluntly: “This is the worst idea I’ve ever heard. The DCP ensures environmental disaster to the largest estuary in western North America. It is not necessary, safe, or practical. Local water capture projects are a much better use of California’s funds.”
Director Desi Alvarez, the representative of the West Basin Municipal Water District on MWD’s Board of Directors, said the “financial aspects are a real consideration here.”
“I don’t understand the urgency. Our current budget is in a $240 million deficit. With this expenditure, this agency has some serious financial issues and needs to think about how it’s spending its money,” Alvarez pointed out.
John, a professor at Dominguez Hills, said, "MWD must grow beyond its traditional role to becoming a water benefactor, investing in water conservation and recycling. We’re looking to MWD for this leadership,”
Mario Barrigan from IEW Local 11 claimed, "This project will serve disadvantaged communities and it is about the human right to clean water.”
However, ratepayer Wesley Chung pointed to the rate increases that would result from investing $141 million in the project.
“As a low-income person, [the tunnel] cost increase would be prohibitive, alongside the rises in cost of living. I would urge you to invest $140 million in other local projects,” he said.
In a similar vein, Sydney, local resident, said, "I do not want our water rates to go up and our hard-earned dollars be spent on a project that might not even hold up as water disappears. I demand that we invest more of our budget in sustainable projects, like rainwater harvesting and stormwater capture.”
Cynthia Cortez of Restore the Delta summed up the environmental and economic consequences of the board’s decision.
“Today you will decide on whether to continue investing in a project that harms local communities and wildlife or fund local projects that supports local communities in Southern California and ecosystem health in the Delta,” Cortez concluded.
In today’s meeting beginning at noon, members of the public may present their comments to the Board on matters within their jurisdiction as listed on the agenda via in-person or teleconference. To participate via teleconference 1-833-548-0276 and enter meeting ID: 815 2066 4276 or to join by computer click here.
Review and consider the Lead Agency’s certified 2023 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Delta Conveyance Project and take related CEQA actions and authorize the General Manager to enter into an amended agreement for preconstruction work planned for 2026-2027
Attachments: 12102024 OWS 8-4 B-L 12092024 OWS 8-4 Presentation
You can also send a message to the Metropolitan Water District via this action alert: www.dailykos.com/...
