Bob Wright, the senior counsel for Friends of the River, on June 14 sent a letter to the Delta Independence Science Board members criticizing the “content and tone” of their public review draft for “defending” the Final EIR/EIS” for the Delta Tunnels/California WaterFix project “instead of addressing such serious deficiencies as the complete failure of the EIR/EIS to include any alternatives finally beginning to restore through-Delta flows by reducing exports.”
The Delta Tunnels project is Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to divert Sacramento River water under the California Delta through two massive 35 mile-long tunnels to facilitate the export of water to corporate agribusiness interests, Southern California water agencies and oil companies conducting fracking and other extreme oil extraction methods in Kern County.
Wright spotlighted the last paragraph’s language on p. 14 of the document stating:
“These comments should not be taken as criticism of those who have assembled the information, carried out the analyses, and prepared the BDCP and WaterFix environmental documents. They followed what the laws, regulations, and permitting processes require. They faced enormous challenges from such a large and complex system.”
In fact, Wright pointed out there have been numerous comments by respected public interest organizations over the years “about significant and profound violations of NEPA and CEQA permeating the project environmental documents.”
He also criticized the review for using language “blaming court decisions enforcing our laws for the length and other problems with some environmental impact statements and reports,” language that plays into the hands of efforts by the Trump administration and Congress to weaken environmental laws protecting fish, water and the environment.
Wright also took issue with language on p. 13 of the last two pages of the review that includes a whole section (at pp. 12-14): “Reflections: Paralysis by Analysis, and an Opportunity missed”:
“In our judgment, what the Courts now require to be included in an EIS/EIR can make them so massive as to be incomprehensible . . . Until legislatures amend NEPA and CEQA and set a new course, we recommend that the agencies prepare a separate document for each project laying out the critical issues for public and scientific review. “
Wright urged the scientists to delete or “drastically modify” that language.
“In the current political climate, the very last thing we need is ‘amendments’ of NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act),” wrote Wright.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recently released a draft biological opinion documenting the harm the tunnels would cause to salmon, steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, other fish and wildlife species, and water quality. This review followed other scathing reviews by independent and federal biologists, including EPA scientists, challenging the flawed “science” the project is based upon. t(www.counterpunch.org/...)
Many public trust advocates fear that under pressure from the water contractors and Jerry Brown administration, the “independent scientists” may be following the dictates of political “science” rather than real science and cave into defending this massive water project, considered by many to be the most environmentally destructive public works project in California history.
The Delta Tunnels project is based on the absurd contention that diverting more water from the Sacramento River for use by corporate agribusiness interests and Southern California water agencies will somehow result in the “restoration” of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary.
Here is Robert Wright’s complete letter:
June 14, 2017
Delta Independent Science Board Members via Email
Re: URGENT Delta Independent Science Board public review draft, Final EIR/EIS for
California WaterFix
Dear Delta Independent Science Board Members:
This follows up some brief comments we made at your teleconference meeting two days ago about your public review draft of your review of the Final EIR/EIS for the California WaterFix Delta Water Tunnels project. First, we were surprised that the content and tone of your public review draft is oriented to defending the Final EIR/EIS instead of addressing such serious deficiencies as the complete failure of the EIR/EIS to include any alternatives finally beginning to restore through-Delta flows by reducing exports. The draft actually includes language in the last paragraph (at p. 14) stating:
These comments should not be taken as criticism of those who have assembled the information, carried out the analyses, and prepared the BDCP and WaterFix environmental documents. They followed what the laws, regulations, and permitting processes require. They faced enormous challenges from such a large and complex system. (Emphasis added).
In fact, there have been numerous comments by respected public interest organizations over the years about significant and profound violations of NEPA and CEQA permeating the project environmental documents. Being neither judges nor lawyers, opining that the environmental documents comply with law is not something that you are qualified to do. Many lawyers have concluded that the environmental documents do not comply with NEPA or CEQA and have sostated in formal comments. That inappropriate conclusion should be deleted from your review.
Second, the last two pages of your review in addition to including the above language, includes a whole section (at pp. 12-14): “Reflections: Paralysis by Analysis, and an Opportunity missed.” This section includes the language (at p. 13) stating:
In our judgment, what the Courts now require to be included in an EIS/EIR can make them so massive as to be incomprehensible . . . Until legislatures amend NEPA and CEQA and set a new course, we recommend that the agencies prepare a separate document for each project laying out the critical issues for public and scientific review. (Emphasis added).
The new Administration and Congress would no doubt appreciate very much language from independent scientists blaming court decisions enforcing our laws for the length and other problems with some environmental impact statements and reports. In fact, most experienced environmental lawyers and judges who handle these cases would, I believe, explain to you that it is the continuing efforts by some public agencies in some situations to fail to make the environmental full disclosure required by NEPA and CEQA that leads to decisions determining that certain environmental documents fail to comply with law. Another ongoing problem is refusal by some public agencies in some instances, like the BDCP/WaterFix, to include development of real alternatives to projects outof concern that the public would end up favoring such alternatives over the project that the agency and/or its masters wish to carry out.
This entire section needs to either be deleted or drastically modified, unless it really is your intent to assist efforts to weaken NEPA and CEQA. In the current political climate, the very last thing we need is “amendments” of NEPA and CEQA.
Sincerely,
E. Robert Wright
Senior Counsel
Friends of the River