Delta Policy Decisions

Water Bond Legislation

In November 2009, the California Legislature passed and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a comprehensive water legislation package. In addition to authorizing an $11.4 billion water bond ballot measure that must be approved by voters, the package created or restructured several Delta governance entities. Included in these changes was the Delta Stewardship Council which has broad authority to create and oversee a Delta Plan and ensure that all planned activities in the greater Delta area are consistent with that plan. The package also directs that specific water infrastructure projects be implemented and research be conducted, and it creates new groundwater monitoring guidelines and water conservation mandates, among other things.

The bond must be approved by California voters to secure funding for all elements of the water legislation package. However, its supporters are trying to remove it from the November 2010 ballot and instead have it considered at a later date to increase the likelihood of its success.

What many do not realize is that many of the programs outlined in the legislation are already underway and will move forward regardless of the outcome of the bond and when it will be on the ballot. Although many of those programs require a funding source, it remains unclear where that money will come from if not the water bond.

Many people fear that as the state looks for alternative funding sources - like increased fees - the Sacramento region is at risk of being disproportionately tapped because of our proximity to the Delta.

Delta Stewardship Council

Created by the water bond legislative package in 2009, the Delta Stewardship Council would enjoy broad authority over all activities conducted within the greater Delta area. Composed of individuals appointed by the Governor and Legislature, the Council is tasked with creating a “Delta Plan” by fall of 2010. It will create an additional level of oversight and authority in the greater Delta area to ensure that all planned activities in that area are consistent with that plan. Depending on policy decisions made, the Council could have authority over local land use decisions and any permitted water uses. It may also have the ability to levy impact and permit fees.

These fees could be imposed on water users, wastewater collection and treatment, storm water discharges and land uses. Learn more about the Delta Stewardship Council.

Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)

Water exporters have been operating without take permits for the fish killed by their operations since they began pumping water from the Delta decades ago. The goal of the BDCP is to identify mitigation efforts the water exporters can undertake to offset the number of fish killed by their operations to allow them to legally continue their operations. The BDCP steering committee is comprised of the water exporters, some environmental interests and representatives from state and federal regulatory agencies.

In its search for mitigation efforts, the BDCP is mainly focused on stressors other than water exports as a cause of the Delta’s decline – most notably Sacramento’s treated wastewater discharge. If their plan mandates new treatment requirements for Sacramento’s wastewater facility, Sacramento ratepayers could end up footing the bill for their “mitigation.”

The steering committee is expected to release its plan in November 2010. As directed by the water bond legislation passed in 2009, the BDCP will ultimately be incorporated into the Delta Stewardship Council’s final Delta Plan, which means any person proposing to take any “covered action” in the Delta must demonstrate that the Council that the proposed action is “consistent” with the Delta Plan.

Affecting the BDCP process to guarantee a fair and balanced outcome is critical to ensure protection from unnecessary financial impacts on the Sacramento region.

National Academy of Sciences Review

At the request of Congress and the U.S. Departments of the Interior, Commerce and the National Research Council (NRC), the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has undertaken a review of the scientific basis of the “biological opinions” issued by the US Fish & Wildlife in 2008 and the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2009.

Developed from scientific review of 30 years of existing data on the Delta and its resident fish species, these biological opinions – or “BiOps” as they are referred to – determined that pelagic and salmon fish species in the Delta are being harmed by the continued water exports and identified what actions are needed to minimize that harm. The BiOps’ findings led to pumping restrictions being imposed on Delta water exporters.

This National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review transpired, in part, from pressure from the Delta water exporters, particularly large agribusiness interests from the south Central Valley who are interested in placing more attention and control on “other stressors” in the Delta (such as, stormwater runoff, invasive species, municipal wastewater discharges and predator fish species), and to minimize proven impacts from Delta water pumps.