By Katy Grimes

First there was the bullet train to nowhere. Now there are the tunnels to nowhere.

Gov. Jerry Brown is hell-bent on creating a legacy. Unfortunately, it also appears that most of California’s legislators make decisions based on legacy as well.

But lawmaking by legacy rarely bodes well.

Water wars

Brown announced Wednesday that the state intends to build two large tunnels to move water under the very fragile Delta, from Northern California to Southern California.

Where is Jake Gittes when you need him?

Gittes was the hard-boiled private investigator in “Chinatown,” the 1974 movie about the historical California battle over water. Set in Los Angeles in 1937, “Chinatown” was inspired by the California Water Wars, the historical disputes over land and water rights that raged in southern California during the 1910s and 1920s.

Gittes, played by Jack Nicholson, discovers that water is illegally being diverted, and that that agents of the water department have been demolishing farmers’ water tanks and poisoning their wells.

“Either you bring the water to L.A. or you bring L.A. to the water,” Noah Cross says, played by John Houston. Cross was the movie’s villain, and tried to gain control of all the water in Los Angeles.

It appears that like a character out of the movie, Gov. Jerry Brown has reignited California’s North-vs.-South battle over fresh water.

Water water everywhere, but not a drop to drink

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar  and Brown held a Sacramento news conference at the California Natural Resources Agency to announce a massive, multibillion-dollar water diversion plan, which many are saying is only another version of the peripheral canal plan that voters rejected in 1982, 30 years ago, during Brown’s last run as governor.

Brown is acting like a woman scorned. “Analysis paralysis is not why I came back 30 years later to handle some of the same issues,” Brown said. “At this stage, as I see many of my friends dying… I want to get s— done.”

How eloquent.

Brown called the plan “a big idea for a big state.” But the plan to funnel water from the Sacramento River to pumps that supply water to parts of Southern California, the Central Valley and the Bay Area, has many worried that Northern California will be faced with shortages.

Farmers, fishermen, and environmentalists, oppose the plan, and rallied at the Capitol. They say diverting Northern California water would be the final death blow to the fragile Delta.

Water Politics

Devastating environmental litigation resulted in cutbacks on one third of all water deliveries to California’s Central Valley, causing agricultural production losses, thousands of jobs, and hundreds of millions of dollars in crops.

Three years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ordered major pumping cutbacks into the California Aqueduct that delivers water to the state’s farms, based on arbitrary concerns that the giant water pumps killed the Delta Smelt, a tiny fish not even indigenous to the Delta. The Fish and Wildlife Service ordered 81 billion gallons of water, enough to put 85,000 acres of farmland back into production, to flow out to the ocean each year, instead of feeding California’s Central Valley farms.

Instead of fighting to feed California’s crops and farm families, and to repair the state’s agricultural lifeblood, Brown has created another public works project to feed unions and high-cost union jobs.

This is the second giant public works project deal this month that Brown has sealed.  Just two weeks ago, he signed bills to authorize spending to begin on the phony high-speed rail project, which will tear up valuable Central Valley farmland.

Brown’s political vanity is taking precedence over reforms; his need for a legacy is apparently more important than the 37 million residents of the state. Brown should have done the right thing instead.  Because as Chinatown’s Noah Cross is also famous for saying,”Course I’m respectable. I’m old. Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.”

By WAYNE LUSVARDI

Ready for another phantom “drought”? The National Resources Defense Council is. The NRDC’s bogus Delta Smelt lawsuit brought the court-ordered “drought” from 2007 to 2010.

Now the NRDC is launching a disinformation campaign to divert the public’s attention from the bigger water issues of the Sacramento Delta. On Sept. 16, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Oliver Wanger threw the case out of court as based on bogus science.

Gov. Jerry Brown declared the “drought” over in 2011. Yet water rates have risen anyway across the state as a result of the bogus “drought.”

In the Feb. 6 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle, NRDC attorney Doug Obegi  said there are three “facts” and three “myths” about the Sacramento Delta.  Like any slick attorney, he is working on you as if you were on a jury to make sure you are persuaded of his case.

The Delta is where most of the water runoff from the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range ends up.  California depends on the Delta for most of its water for farms and cites, as well as fishing and water recreation.

To understand the big issues with the upcoming Delta Plan of the State legislature’s Delta Stewardship Council and the proposed $11.1 billion Water Bond on the November ballot, it is important not to be distracted by small facts and alleged irrelevant myths.

The NRDC’s device for distracting you from the water issues of the Sacramento Delta is a purported checklist of so-called “facts” and “myths” about California’s water system.  Let’s look at them without being diverted from the larger issues.

Small Facts and Big Myths as Diversions

NRDC Diversion No. 1:  “Northern Californians don’t get their water from the delta, so we shouldn’t care what happens.”

Obegi wants Northern Californians to care about what happens with the water from the Delta.  Northern Californians should not think that they don’t get their water from the Delta.  Ok, being involved is a good thing.

But NRDC’s emotional appeal is to your intelligence.  If you were smart and knew that Northern California relied on water from the Delta you would be politically alert and active.  People want to brag about being smart about the car they bought, about their “Smart Phone,” or the politician or ballot measure they voted for.

It is important for Northern Californians to be educated about the upcoming Delta water issues. But the above so-called myth is just used as a subtle set-up to make you believe that Southern California is about to steal more water again from Northern California. As will be explained below, this is the opposite of what has happened and is likely to happen.

Water is a socialized commodity in California. It does not belong to Northern Californians or Southern Californians.  There is no water to “steal.”  Long ago Californians agreed to a social contract for water: Southern California got water and Northern California got flood protection from the occasional destructive rising of the inland sea of the Sacramento Delta. (Think Hurricane Katrina.) By subtly entering emotionalism into the issue, Obegi diverts you from the bigger facts that will be explained below.

NRDC Diversion No. 2: “Even with stronger restrictions on pumping to protect salmon and other native fish, the state and federal water projects divert as much water from the delta as they did from 1980 to 2000. As much water is diverted from the delta on average today as before the historically high pumping levels of the 2000s devastated the delta ecosystem, according to the state Department of Water Resources and the Public Policy Institute of California.”

What the NRDC has done is slipped what is called a non sequitur into the above fact.  What a non sequitur does is claim to make a cause and effect relationship when, in fact, there is no logical connection. In street language, it is a “disconnect.”

It is true that state and federal water projects are pumping no more water from the Delta on average than they did from 1980 to 2000 (with the exception of the 3 years of the above-described court ordered “drought” from 2007 to 2010).  But that does not mean that “high pumping levels of the 2000’s devastated the Delta ecosystem.”

Salmon and even the Delta Smelt are currently thriving after the high rainfall and snowpack of 2010 and the resumption of pumping from the Delta.

There are other reasons for a long-term threat to the Delta ecosystem.  But high pumping levels typically also mean high water levels in storage reservoirs. They also mean abundant fresh water levels in the Delta that boost the population of desirable species of fish, fishing and recreation.

Huge pumps on the Delta that send water to Southern California are not the only threats to the Delta ecology. The Delta ecology is more threatened by local urban runoff than from pumping water out of the Delta. One of the major sources of pollution of the Delta is local government wastewater treatment plants in Northern California.   But the NRDC wants Northern Californians to believe that high water pumping to Southern California is the only culprit. The NRDC can manufacture an unnecessary water war just as it manufactured a phony drought.

NRDC Diversion No. 3: “As many jobs were lost from closing California’s salmon fishery in 2009 as were lost in farming communities from restricting pumping to protect fish. True. Despite wildly inflated myths, studies by economists from the state, UC Davis and University of the Pacific show that California’s fishing industry lost about as many jobs as did the farming industry when pumping was restricted during the 2009 drought to protect fish.”

This may be true. But unlike fishing, farmers can shift their workers to fallow fields and alternative crops in other locations that are not dependent on Delta water.  Farmers typically rely on groundwater supplies when there is a dry year and the Delta cannot meet all its contractual obligations to farmers.

Once again, what the NRDC is trying to do is cover up its own blame for causing job losses due to the Delta Smelt case they filed to stop pumping of water to farms in Central California and cities in the southern half of the state. The NRDC should be blamed for job losses to both farming and the fishing industries.

The NRDC once again is trying to politically play fishermen against farmers, while shifting blame away from themselves for job losses during the phony drought of 2007 to 2010.  Nice try. But it won’t work.

NRDC Diversion No. 4: “Fact: 4. Despite increasing flows to protect fish over the past two decades, delta fish populations continue to decline. False. Since pumping has been reduced, populations of delta smelt have rebounded dramatically, and salmon populations have also increased after the rainy season of 2010.

Contrary to the NRDC, the Federal judge in the Delta Smelt case ruled that the science presented by the NRDC and other government agency in the case was “false testimony.” It was never proven that Delta Smelt fish populations declined during the pumping of water out of the Delta.

NRDC Divsersion No. 5: “Most of the water pumped from the delta goes to Southern California lawns and swimming pools. False. Nearly half of the water exported from the delta is for agribusiness. Thanks to improved efficiency, Los Angeles uses as much water today as it did 25 years ago, despite adding 1 million residents, and Orange County has one of the largest water recycling plants in the nation. Even so, improved water-use efficiency could create trillions of gallons of new water each year for cities and agriculture.”

The above is true.  Southern California lawns and swimming pools do not get half of the Delta water exports.  But what the NRDC omits is that the “environment” gets 64 percent of all distributed water in a wet year; and 35 percent even in a dry year.

Southern California water agencies are entitled to a maximum of 62 percent of the water deliveries from the State Water Project through the Delta in a wet year. But that only represents 2.6 percent of all the distributed water in California in a wet year.  And agriculture uses only 28 percent of distributed water in a wet year and 42 percent on average, according to the State Department of Water Resources.

The NRDC touts water recycling as a resource for Southern California. But California’s new Green Chemistry Law threatens water recycling. The Green Chemistry Law may not allow hard to dissolve chemicals from drinking water in tiny amounts.

NRDC Diversion No. 6: “California can divert less water from the delta and still meet its water needs by investing in water efficiency, water recycling and improved groundwater and storm water management.  True. Modeling by the state Department of Water Resources shows that the new water sources available by investing in water efficiency and recycling is more water than California has ever exported from the delta. Urban water managers know this; the City of Los Angeles plans to meet its water needs by investing in these tools, while simultaneously cutting its use of delta water in half.”

What the NRDC does not tell you in the above statement is that Southern California has already reduced water use by 1 million acre feet — enough water for up to 6 million people — from the 1980s to the present.  The new Delta Plan proposes to cut water another 20 percent.  But this will not replace the necessity for a water conveyance system around the Delta that would provide a more stable ecology.

Lost Legitimacy

As in court cases, diversionary tactics can be useful when arguments fail you, when you are backed into a corner, when you feel you are about the lose or when you are uncomfortable with the direction of the conversation.  The NRDC is signaling that they only have diversionary tactics to persuade you to shift local cleanup of the Delta mainly onto Southern Californians.  The NRDC’s arguments have been made to look like they have captured the high ground with facts and that others positions are mere myths.

After the infamous Delta Smelt court case, the NRDC has lost legitimacy in California. Their current disinformation campaign on the Delta is just a continuation of their divisive water wars.  The NRDC should not be listened to any longer on the issue of the Delta.

By WAYNE LUSVARDI

Remember “Chinatown,” the murky 1974 movie about the water wars in the Los Angeles Basin in the 1930s, starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway?

A January 18 California appeals court water rights case is reminiscent of the multilayered plots and subplots in the flick.

The “Chinatown” movie plot involves fictional character Hollis Mulwray who is  murdered due to his opposition to the proposed construction of a new dam.  The fictional Mulwray is based on the real historical person of William Mulholland, the infamous head of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, who allegedly stole water from Mono Lake in Northern California in the early 20th Century.

But the current court case is not like the movie “Chinatown” in one important aspect. There is no sex involved in the putting in and taking out of water from the Los Angeles Central Basin Water District water basin that is the focus of this court case. But there is alleged bureaucratic bigamy and robbery.

Quoted in the Long Beach Press Telegram newspaper, Long Beach City Water Department Director Kevin Wattier succinctly summed up the main issue in the case, “Right now it’s like a bank account where you can put money in but can’t take it out.”

The legal citation for the current case is Water Replenishment District of Southern California versus the City of Cerritos, Case No. B226743, Second District Court of Appeals, filed Jan. 18, 2012.

The Plaintiffs

The original complainants (plaintiffs) were five cities and a regional water replenishment district: Long Beach, Lakewood, Los Angeles, Huntington Park and Vernon; and the Water Replenishment District of Southern California.

A water replenishment district is a special agency of government that recharges underground water supplies from natural rainwater runoff captured from a local watershed.  In this case the water recharge basins are adjacent to the upper San Gabriel River and the 605 Freeway in Los Angeles County.  And the watershed involved is the San Gabriel Mountain and River watershed.

All the cities involved in the case are located downstream of the water recharge basins.  Long Beach is located near the mouth of the San Gabriel River to the Pacific Ocean. A map of the cities along the San Gabriel River can be found here.

The Defendants

The defendants (respondents) are three cities and one sub-regional water agency: the cities of Cerritos, Downey and Signal Hill, together with the Central Basin Municipal Water District.  The Central Water Basin is obviously located near the center of the land surface of the Los Angeles urban basin.

While there is no sex involved in this case, there is bureaucratic bigamy and alleged robbery: all of the parties to the case share the same underground water basin.  In fact, the Water Replenishment District was created to refill the Central and West Coast underground water storage basins.  There has been a history of court cases in the Central Basin alleging “overdrafting.”  That is water terminology for “highway robbery.”

The History of the Central Basin Water Wars

The Central Basin has a 277-square-mile underground footprint.  If the basin were square shaped, it would comprise an area of about 16.5 miles by 16.5 miles. The Central Basin serves city water departments, unincorporated areas, private water companies, school districts, electric utilities and landowners.  The Central Basin Water District sells treated water to cities and others within its regional service area. Like the movie “Chinatown,” water is a many-layered story.  There are no murders but there are plenty of complex water wars.

Going back to 1965, a court ordered that 500 parties having water rights in the Central Basin were subject to limits as to how much water they could take to prevent overdrafts.

In 2001, several interested parties sought unused storage space in the Central Basin.  A court appointed the California Department of Water Resources to serve as “watermaster,” or water traffic cop.  But at that time, the court rejected the legal notion that the right to extract water creates a concurrent right to store water.

By 2009, another group of water pumpers bubbled up. They filed a court action to use 330,000 acre-feet of “dewatered space” in the Central Basin for future water storage.  This would be enough water for about 660,000 households per year. This action sought even more layers of complexity: three “watermasters” were to be appointed.

The trial court issued an order on July 7, 2010. The order said it only had authorization to apportion water rights and not rights to unused capacity space in the Central Basin.  Additionally, the court believed it could not appoint “watermasters” over unused space in the basin that held no water today. The Water Replenishment District of Southern California is appealed the ruling.

The Current Court Ruling

On Jan. 18, 2012 the State Appellate Court ruled that the trial court: 1) had authority to allocate future storage in the Central Basin; 2) had jurisdiction over water transfers between the Central and nearby West Coast Basins; and 3) was not prohibited from appointing a “watermaster” over unused space in the Central Basin. The court additionally ruled that the Central Basin Water District might also be able to serve as “watermaster.”

The defendants — the cities of Cerritos, Downey and Signal Hill — contended: 1) their costs would be increased if others were given the right to lease unused capacity in the Basin; 2) over-drafting of the Basin could result if new “wet water” was not put in first; and 3) there was a threat the appointed watermaster could try to merge the Central and West Coast Basins. The Central Basin did not want a proverbial “shotgun marriage” to result over the issue of renting a room to the unwanted bastard child of unused basin capacity.

Presumably, the above issues can be heard and adjudicated now that the jurisdictional issues have been clarified.

Enormous Implications

The timing of this case has enormous implications for what is happening statewide.  The Delta Stewardship Council appointed by the State Legislature is about to put into place widely encompassing laws that could usurp powers from local water districts.  Local water agencies would no longer be able to do anything that adversely impacted the Sacramento Delta.  The Delta is where Southern California gets most of its imported water supplies.  Conceivably, local water departments might not be able to issue any new water permits or “will serve” letters to real estate developers if that meant using more imported Delta water.

David O. Powell, the former chief engineer of the San Diego Office of the State Department of Water Resources and the Alameda Water District, said he believed the proposed Delta Plan would result in cutting water allocations to Southern California in half.

This is despite Southern California using about the same amount of water it used 25 years ago, even with 35 percent more population. Through conservation, Southern California has already given up about 1 million acre-feet of water per year to the Delta ecosystem. That is enough water for about 2 million households or 4.5 million people. Yet the Delta Stewardship Council wants to reduce water use by and additional 20 percent by the year 2020.

State and regional water agencies have shown an inability to bring more water to Southern California without huge, costly infrastructure projects, such as: the proposed Peripheral Canal that would route water around the Delta and/or the proposed $11.1 billion water bond.  Both of these projects would pinch the already deficit-plagued state budget.  There are matching fund requirements in the proposed state water bond.  Thus, the real cost of the proposed water bond may be about $18 billion.  The cost of the Peripheral Canal is estimated to cost $13 billion, or $23.5 billion with bond interest costs.

Consequently, local water districts and cities are going to have to find a way to capitalize on the unused storage capacity in the eight underground water basins in Southern California.  They may be compelled to contract for some of their own water supplies instead of depending on more imported water from regional water wholesalers.  This could mean water transfers from recycled water, from the new Cadiz water basin in the Southern California desert, voluntary purchases of water from farmers, desalinated ocean water or the development of new water resources. This will require a much more open water conveyance and storage system with reasonable transfer costs than the present semi-socialized system with many trade barriers.

So the outcome of the Water Replenishment District versus the city of Cerritos case may have huge consequences for Southern California’s cities and economy.

Economic Homicide? 

To add another subplot to the story, Assembly Bill 375 — the anti-urban sprawl bill passed in 2008 — would divert future population growth to the coastal urban areas.  But this may result in “no growth” if the water spigot from imported water from the Delta is simultaneously shut off.  This could kill off an economic recovery.

So maybe the above-mentioned court case is like the movie “Chinatown” and will involve murder — economic homicide — anyway.

Or it may have a wedding and happy ending: economic reproduction if local water agencies and city water departments are allowed to contract for future water and deposit it in fertile underground local water basins.

A sequel to “Chinatown” came out in 1990, called “Two Jakes.” It wasn’t as good, even though it starred Jack Nicholson and another great actor, Harvey Keitel.

It’s time for a better sequel. Call it, “Central Water Basin Blues.” Jack Nicholson could star once more, this time with Arnold Schwarzenegger, now an actor again after his stint as governor. As in the original “Chinatown,” and as with the real California, reality and fiction would blend on the celluloid.

By WAYNE LUSVARDI

Is the Delta Stewardship Council:

1. A bunch of environmentalists appointed by politicians to produce endless numbers of useless plans to restore the Sacred Delta Ecology;
2. A group of water agencies serving the thirsty cities of Southern California to pull off a water grab of Northern California water; or
3. A group of Delta landowners who are opposed to the use of eminent domain to take any of their land or water rights for water conveyance facilities for Los Angeles.

Correct answer: None of the above.

The Delta Stewardship Council is a state agency actually created by the California Legislature in 2009 as part of the Delta Reform Act: Senate Bill SB X7-1.  The council’s task is to devise a Delta Plan and Environmental Impact Report  to accomplish what are called the “co-equal goals” of the legislature:

1. Providing a more reliable water supply for California; and
2. Protecting, restoring and enhancing the Delta ecosystem.

The Draft EIR that is now being vetted in different points around the state emphatically clarifies that “restoring the Delta” does not mean returning the Sacramento Delta and Suisun Marsh to a pristine condition by pulling out all the water pumping plants.  According Keith Coolidge, a member of the Stewardship Council, shutting off all water pumps to farmers and Southern California cities wouldn’t restore the Delta anyway.  He was speaking Thursday at an official meeting of the council held at the Pasadena Public Library.

Coolidge said the council’s mission is, “Not to sacrifice the Sacramento economy for the ecology, but also not to sacrifice the ecology for water supplies.”

The purpose of the meeting was to accept formal comments to the Draft EIR for the Delta Plan, which should be finalized in late spring 2012.  Afterward, the council will finalize its Delta Plan, which will become enforceable law.

Diversification?

Emily Green runs a popular water blog, “Chance of Rain.” She asked, “If we’re going to be required to diversify water supplies, where is that diversification coming from?”

Here the council was evasive. Coolidge said there was not necessarily going to be a loss of water or a gain in water supplies.

But common sense dictates that, if there is equal footing between a) Delta eco-system restoration and b) supplying water for farms and cities, the farms and cities are going to have their water supplies cut, especially in dry years.  The members of the council were adept at side-stepping this hot-button issue because the California Legislature has put them on the hot seat.

The maximum total amount provided to cities and farms under the State Water Project is 4 million acre-feet of water per year. That is 4 million football fields of water one foot high; or enough for 8 million households.  Alternatively, it is enough irrigation water for 4 million acres of farmland.  But the actual amount varies each year depending on Sierra snowpack and precipitation.

Southern California is entitled to a maximum 1 million acre-feet of water per year from the State Water Project.

Pasadena resident David Powell is the former head of the State Department of Water Resources’ San Diego Office and head of engineering for the Alameda County Water District. He previously told me that Southern California would likely suffer a cut of half of its water supplies under the Delta Plan.

Phil Isenberg, the Delta Stewardship Council’s chairman, clarified that the Water Code specifies two broad goals for the diversification of water supplies: conservation and greater efficiency.  However, it does not spell out what type of conservation or water storage and conveyance facilities might eventually be built.

Isenberg emphasized that the council is an independent body that can formulate enforceable policies. But it does not have the power to levy taxes, fees and fines, or to authorize bonds.  Those activities will still be done by the Legislature in tandem with voter approval, where required.  Thus, voters will not be taxed without representation.

‘Covered Actions’

Nonetheless, there are still obscure parts to the Delta Plan.  It requires state or local agencies to clear any actions that directly affect the Delta with the Delta Stewardship Council under what is bureaucratically called a “covered action.”   Isenberg said that there were a lot of exclusions to what a “covered action” would pertain to.   Unfortunately, the term “covered action” will likely be the butt of jokes as it sounds like “covert action.”  What it really means is, “actions covered” by the Delta Plan.

I asked whether the Delta Plan, once enacted, would require revision of existing legislation on the books that conflicts with the new Delta Plan. No one on the council knew.

I asked, in particular, if SB 375 –- California’s “anti-sprawl” bill — requires that population growth be directed toward the urban coastline, which has sparse groundwater supplies.  And I asked: If demands on Delta water are going to be lessened, would that mean diverting population growth to inland areas where there are more abundant groundwater supplies to rely on in dry years?

Staff legal counsel Chris Stevens replied that SB 375 is not one of the exemptions to the Delta Plan or “covered actions.”  This might mean that all the hodge-podge of existing laws on the books that conflict with the Delta Plan might remain in place.

However, determining which environmental policy takes priority over the other is a job for the Legislature, not the Delta Council.

Values, Not Science

Unfortunately, the Delta Council has been given only vague directions by the Legislature as to how much freshwater, saltwater and brackish water habitat is desirable public policy for the Delta.  As environmental scientist William Cooper has said, ecosystems such as the Delta can be operated as a freshwater habitat for salmon and sport fishing; a saltwater habitat for catfish and commercial fishing; a brackish water habitat for minnow such as the infamous Delta Smelt; or a mix of the above.  The choice of the mix of these water habitats is not an issue that can be determined solely by science.  They are cultural values; albeit there are some limits as to how much of each type of ecology can be engineered.

Unfortunately, the Legislature is still covering its actions with scientific justifications for what are unavoidable cultural and political value judgments.  It is asking too much of scientists and too much of the Delta Stewardship Council.

It might behoove the Legislature to consider adding a water sociologist to help in developing what cultural values are important.  Then Delta scientists can determine what is feasible and develop a before-and-after plan.

Isenberg also clarified that the proposed $11.1 billion Water Bond for the November 2012 ballot will not halt the adoption or enforcement of the Delta Plan or EIR.  He said only some projects would be affected if funding were not provided.

Bureaucratic Restoration

The Delta Stewardship Council is not only tasked with repairing the Delta, but repairing its image around the state.  To do this, it is holding meetings at various locations to take official comments to its Draft Plan EIR, even though it’s not required to do so.

The next meetings are:

Central California
Tuesday, January 17, 2012, 6 p.m.
Ceres Community Center, Large Assembly Room
2701 4th Street, Ceres, CA 95307

Delta
Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 6 p.m.
Clarksburg Middle School Auditorium
52870 Netherlands Road, Clarksburg, CA 95612

Northern California
Thursday, January 19, 2012, 6 p.m.
Willows City Council Chambers
201 North Lassen Street | Willows, CA 95988

Clarification

But the council might improve its public image if it clarified that it is the “California State Legislature’s Delta Stewardship Council,” not some presumed association of environmentalists, water agencies, farmers, Delta landowners and recreational fishing advocates.  And that unfortunate bureaucratic term “covered actions” might have to be reconsidered.

If the Delta Council is going to be perceived as more than some secret society that shrouds its decisions in scientific language, the Legislature is going to have to do a better job of clarifying what it wants the Delta to look like before and after its proposed plan. In postmodern California, “science says” has become the equivalent of, “God willed it.”

The Delta Stewardship Council is working hard at restoring its public image and eventually re-engineering the Delta.  But it’s going to need more clarification from the Legislature than the vague project alternatives detailing how much water should or should not be exported out of the Delta. It needs a vision and a map of what it wants the Delta to look like.