Agenda

Return

C.32

To:	Board of Supervisors
From:	Supervisor Mary N. Piepho
Date:	February 28, 2012

Contra

Costa

County

Subject:

OPPOSE Position on H.R. 1837 (Nunes), the “Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.”

APPROVE	OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR	RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE

Action of Board On: 02/28/2012

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED

OTHER

Clerks Notes:

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

AYE:

John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor

ABSENT:

Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Supervisor

Contact:

L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097

I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: February 28, 2012
David Twa,

BY:	, Deputy

RECOMMENDATION(S):

OPPOSE H.R. 1837 (Nunes), the "Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act," as recommended by Supervisor Piepho.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact to the County from this action.

BACKGROUND:

H.R. 1837 was introduced by Congressmen Nunes, McCarthy, and Denham (R-CA) on May 11, 2011, and on February 14, 2012, Republicans offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute. This revised version contained extreme provisions, which would upset state water rights, placing the priorities of a few agricultural interests over the water needs of other farmers, fishermen, municipalities, industries, and the environment.

BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)

If enacted, H.R. 1837 would have far reaching impacts, not just for California but for the Bureau of Reclamation and the seventeen western states.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Counties of Solano, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, and Yolo, working together as the Delta Counties Coalition (DCC), are in the process of crafting a letter to our legislative delegation and the author of this bill expressing opposition to H.R. 1837, as currently constructed.

The DCC is concerned that H.R. 1837 contains a number of provisions that appear to arbitrarily block legal protections for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) and its fisheries. Specifically, for example, the DCC is concerned about the consequences of provisions that would change or limit the use of the 800,000 acre-feet of Central Valley Project (CVP) water that was devoted to fish and wildlife purposes in the original Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA).

The DCC also has significant concerns about the impacts to Delta fisheries, water quality, and sensitive ecosystems that would result from the bill’s requirement to revert back to the provisions of the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord as the benchmark environmental document to be used in meeting today’s biological and hydrological needs in the Delta. Additionally, the DCC is gravely concerned about the consequences of provisions that preempt state land, water and environmental laws which currently require more stringent protections than those outlined in the Accord, which was agreed to nearly 18 years ago.

Other provisions of the bill would eliminate an existing tiered pricing system for water use and change water contracts so they last 40 years instead of 25 and could be automatically renewed. It also would eliminate a requirement that new and renewed contracts must undergo an environmental impact study.

The DCC appreciates the inclusion of language in Title IV mandating that the Central Valley Project be operated in a manner consistent with State water law provisions related to “area of origin, watershed of origin and county of origin….” This is helpful and consistent with a long-held view that federal law should specifically and fully recognize and respect California’s water rights priority system and statutory protections for areas of origin.

Nonetheless, taken as a whole, the bill would take our region and the state in the wrong direction. The bill is focused on the past; it takes us backwards, and that is not a direction that holds any promise for collaborative, consensus-based solutions to California’s complex water challenges or a healthier Delta. The DCC are troubled by the way the bill was constructed. It was put together behind closed doors, with neither public transparency nor meaningful input from the diversity of California’s water and environmental interests.

This bill is not expected to survive in the U.S. Senate, where both California senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, are in opposition to the bill.

For more information about the bill, see the attached report on prepared by Congressmen Markey and Napolitano, ranking Democrats of the full Natural Resources Committee and its Subcommittee on Water and Power.

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

The Board of Supervisors will not have an official position on the bill from which to advocate its position.