DESTROY THE PRESENT LOS VAQUEROS DAM?

THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE INITIAL ALTERNATIVES INFORMATION REPORT OF THE LOS VAQUEROS EXPANSION INVESTIGATION, CALIFORNIA, OF SEPTEMBER 2005 ARE PRESENTED FOR INCLUSION IN THE PROCEEDINGS. Complete paper

_{A
REPORT ON THE PROJECT OF CALFED TO DESTROY THE PRESENT LOS VAQUEROS DAM AND
RESERVOIR RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED AT A COST OF $450 MILLION BY THE RATE PAYERS OF
THE CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT (CCWD). THIS FACILITY IS TO BE REPLACED IN THE
CALFED PROPOSAL WHICH PROPOSES TO PROVIDE A LARGER RESERVOIR AT A COST OF
$1-1/2 TO $2 BILLION TO PROVIDE HIGHER QUALITY WATER FOR EXPORT TO AREAS
OUTSIDE OF THE CCWD.}

_{FOR A REVIEW OF
THE MANNER THROUGH WHICH CALFED HAS ASSUMED THE POWER TO REGULATE WATER
MANAGEMENT IN CALIFORNIA, SEE WEBSITES CALIFORNIAWATERCRISIS.ORG OR
LOSVAQUEROS.US.}

_1. _{What is CalFed?}

_{CalFed is a consortium of State and
Federal appointed officials responsible for managing the State and Federal
water export projects from the Delta.}

_{CALFED Agencies} _{(This statement is taken directly
from CalFed reports)}

_{State Agencies}	_{Federal Agencies}
_{Resources Agency of California*}	_{U.S. Department of Interior}
_{- Department of Water Resources}	_{- Bureau of Reclamation*}
_{- Department of Water Resources}	_{- Fish and Wildlife Service*}
_{- Reclamation Board}	_{- Bureau of Land Management}
_{- Delta Protection Commission}	_{- U.S. Geological Survey}
_{California Environmental Protection Agency}	_{U.S. Army Corps of Engineers*}
_{- State Water Resources Control Board}
_{California Department of Food & Agriculture}	_{U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*}

	_{U.S. Department of Commerce, National} _{Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration}
	_{- National Marine Fisheries Service*}
	_{U.S. Department of Agriculture}
	_{- Natural Resources Conservation} _Service*
	_{- U.S. Forest Service}
	_{Western Area Power Administration}
_{*Co-lead agencies for EIS/EIR}

_{Interesting to note is the comparative participation by the State and Federal
agencies as co-leaders

in the agencies for EIS/EIR. Six to one.}

_{2. What is
the CalFed project?}

_{Water export agencies, and contractors in the State Water Project for export
of Delta water, presently receive intake water at Clifton Court at the
southern end of the Delta.}

_{The water quality at that source is inferior to water further upstream in the
Delta, as passage of water southward through the Delta accumulates
agricultural and other wastes and Trihalomethane, a carcinogen.}

_{The CalFed proposal intends to move the water export intake further upstream
in the Delta to secure the higher quality water in that area and pump the
water by pipeline to a proposed much larger reservoir from which it will be
carried to an export facility by pipeline.}

_{Once the state has secured the higher quality source in the Central Delta and
the facility to pump that water by the CCWD pipeline to the new enlarged
reservoir and by pipeline to export, the first half of the Peripheral Canal
proposal will be in place, except that a pipeline has replaced the canal.}

_{The federal water export system will then follow to secure access to the
improved water quality and, in order to replace or blend its present poor
quality source, the San Joaquin River, which at times consists to the extent
of 70% of untreated agricultural wastes (Assembly Office of Research 1987
Report).}

_{With both the federal and state export projects then securing the higher
quality water of the Central Delta, the entirety of the peripheral canal
project of 1982 is repeated, which explains why this huge new reservoir is now
proposed and the expenditure of $2 billion in public funds is required from
federal appropriations, which would not be made if the federal export project
were not a party to this CalFed project.}

_{Keeping in mind the point that in the sizing of the original Los Vaqueros
reservoir I, as co-chair of the Los Vaqueros bond issue for Los Vaqueros, and
the community were told its storage capacity was adequate to serve the needs
of CCWD. If more were required, additional capacity could and should
have been provided for.}

_{Therefore, as CCWD does not need additional storage to function, who does?
Obviously, the state and federal water export projects in order that they too
may secure the advantage of storage of higher quality water upstream in the
Delta.}

_{Then, with the Federal Export Project in the new system, the Peripheral Canal
emerges as a peripheral pipeline from the ashes of Los Vaqueros. The
former Los Vaqueros property of CCWD becomes the Kellogg project of the water
exporters which the Feds and the State forgot about when they approved the
CCWD single use facility, Los Vaqueros, and now wish to rebuild a larger
facility to serve both state and federal export operations, a project they had
decades to promote. Obviously, Federal Exports will join in the new
source export project by providing over $2 billion to the proposal.}

_{This proposal to spend over $2 billion on a project that serves only to
increase export of higher quality water from the Central Delta, as did the
peripheral canal, comes at a time when a very long list of public service
programs are being terminated. The present loss of such services as law
enforcement personnel and public works projects involving far more jobs than
the destruction and rebuilding of Los Vaqueros, remedial education, children’s
and medical care services, and a laundry list of vital community services will
result in incalculable expense and social problems in the future.
Highway 4, Caldecott, the Bay Bridge, BART; where are our priorities?}

_{Certainly jobs are important, but they could be even more important if devoted
to projects of real public benefit, not destroying what was built yesterday.
There is more to labor than wages. The satisfaction and pride one takes
in one’s product. What form of satisfaction will labor receive in
tearing down what it created a decade ago for no reason except poor planning.}

_{3.
The CalFed proposal proponents claim this operation is not a peripheral canal.

Is this true?}

_{Yes, it is true, as it is not a canal. Instead, it is a collection of
pipelines that serves the same function as a canal, and is less expensive.
Pipeline or canal is irrelevant. It does not matter whether it was a
Buick or a Ford that totaled your SUV. It is totaled.}

_{4. What are
concerns for this project?}

_{a.
Who is to be responsible for the increased risks of dam or reservoir
failure incident to faulty dam design,
construction, earthquake, or other causes?}

_{b.
CCWD consumers now enjoy the benefits of higher quality water provided by
the storage of higher quality Delta flows. That benefit will be
terminated and/or reduced during the period of destruction of Los
Vaqueros and building the larger reservoir or a reservoir of similar size.}

_{c.
One consistent element of CalFed project publicity repeated statements of
claimed project benefits, with no explanation of how those benefits will
be produced. One example is that the project will “protect the
endangered fish in the Delta.” The centerpiece of this project is
the extraction of more higher-quality water from the Delta. The more
water extracted, together with more pumping to provide it, will clearly
produce increased fish loss at the pumps, however effective the screening.
The more water removed, the less there will be available to accommodate
the already endangered fishery.} _{Nothing is said to explain the claim that, “The fishery will be
protected.” This form of benefit claim appears throughout the CalFed
publicity, and each should be reviewed carefully before acceptance of such
claims becomes reality.}

_{d.
This entire proposal, particularly from CCWD information, is based upon
expectations. How is an absolute guarantee to be made that all
expectations will be secured permanently?}

_{1)
That there will be uninterrupted and timely flow of federal
appropriations, keeping in mind the federal budget deficit is the
highest in history and California, at this time, doesn’t even have a
budget.}

_{2)
If a question arises as to the dam structure safety, what source
determines the safety issue and who will redesign and construct the
project to resolve the issue of safety and provide funding?
Again, who is responsible for the enormous risks of dam failure?}

_{3)
How much additional water will be taken from the Delta for export?}

_{4)
CCWD is a district. It has no autonomy. The State can take
over its management or eliminate it at any time. All of the
alleged benefits of this project are claimed to be assured by
contract. How can one contracting party in three, one that is
subject to removal by another contracting party and depends upon the
other contracting party for its water supply, effectively deal with
both other parties in its limited bargaining power and secure the best
interests of the people of CCWD?}

_{If at anytime CCWD establishes an operating order, and CCWD can be
extinguished by one of the parties it is contracting with and its
water supply is provided by another party, can one seriously rely upon
the CCWD securing the best interests of the people of the District
over the concerns of all the other interests affected and that the
integrity of “contractors” will be guaranteed?}

_{5)
The fact of the matter is that no guarantees are absolute. No
contract can compel the Congress to make appropriations. What
remedy is available? Litigation. Can one seriously give
credence to the proposition that all contract interests of CCWD will
be protected long term?}

_{In a worst case scenario, assume that initial funding to destroy Los
Vaqueros is provided. Los Vaqueros is no longer in place.
The next appropriation to rebuild the dam is not made, just as
appropriations for the San Luis Drain were not made. The people
of CCWD are left with the bond obligations and nothing more.
What is the process through which all Federal commitments are to be
secured? Also, how can one explain the Federal Government
contributing over $2 billion to the project and turning over all
management to CCWD? Refer to CaliforniaWaterCrisis.org or
LosVaqueros.us.}

_{Putting this risk and all the other risks together, what is the
benefit to CCWD to expose the District to these real concerns?
Nothing, if the District’s assurance in the bond issue that Los
Vaqueros was adequate in size to fully serve the requirements of the
project was appropriate.}

_{6)
The realities of the past are now clearly before us. The state
and federal export agencies had decades to resolve the questions of
export management. They did nothing.}

_{When CCWD initiated its own program, Los Vaqueros, it was approved by
both agencies. Now, CalFed, in the interests of its members, the
state and federal export agencies, proposes to destroy what CCWD
achieved and replace it with a larger facility to serve the needs of
exporters. This consortium of exporters has the new proposals to
serve the interests of its members and will remain as planning
director for water management direction for the future.}

_{7)
At present, Los Vaqueros is isolated from the morass of export
interests. Its needs are the limit of Delta water withdrawals
and can protect what little remains of the once pristine Delta by
refusal to join in this CalFed proposal to facilitate the export
agencies’ intrusion into the Delta and the termination of its now
pitiful surviving ambiance.}

_{8)
On November 8, 1988, a voter in the CCWD who was asked to vote on the
issue of CCWD constructing Los Vaqueros without participation of any
water export agencies, and CCWD paying for the entire costs of the
project, how would that voter have voted if the voter had been told:}

_{a)
The dam and the reservoir if built will be destroyed within five
years of its completion and a far larger reservoir built to
accommodate the export projects.}

_{b)
Contrary to the provision in the bond issue that the Los Vaqueros
project in no way would be associated with other water export
projects or a peripheral canal constructed to provide export water
access to higher quality water in the Delta, the voters were told
a peripheral pipeline will be installed to secure such higher
quality water to be carried around the Delta waterway for delivery
to export projects.}

_{c)
Direct access to the pumping facilities of CCWD by the export
projects will be provided.}

_{d)
Instead of a reservoir subject only to the interests of CCWD, the
new larger reservoir will provide service to water export projects
with conflicting operating requirements.}

_{e)
Instead of present constant access to higher quality flows for
storage, this central feature of the Los Vaqueros project will be
terminated and/or reduced during the new dam construction and the
level of higher quality water reduced and/or terminated.}

_{f)
That all the inconveniences of the Los Vaqueros project will be
repeated and CCWD expenses will increase by reason of
administrative expenses during destruction and rebuilding of the
facility.}

_{How would that voter have voted? Clearly and soundly
“no!” -- precisely as he voted to oppose the peripheral canal
while an officer of CCWD publicly supported it.}

_{If and when an election
is called to vote on the approval of the CalFed proposals, the
voter will have these choices.}

_{A “no” vote will
retain the present condition of Los Vaqueros. A “yes” vote
will approve the destruction of Los Vaqueros, the building of a
huge new reservoir, a peripheral pipeline pumping water for export
from the Central Delta through the CCWD facilities, a pipeline
built around the remaining Delta waterway to the export pumps.
It’s as simple as that.}

_{9)
Unfortunately, the liaison of CCWD with the export community has a
life of its own. One official of CCWD, at the time of the
referendum on the peripheral canal, supported the canal. The
District did not oppose it, while 94% of the voters of the District
did.}

_{10) The
support of this CalFed project simply exhibits again the willingness
of CCWD management to join in the proposals of the export agencies.}

_{11) What
is provided to explain this CalFed proposal appears in the following
forms as examples}

_{a)
When the question is asked who the new exporters will be, the
response is, “It could be a combination of CCWD, the USBR, DWR,
and local water districts like Zone 7 and Santa Clara Valley Water
District.” A question concerning the specifics of CCWD and
the Bureau, the answer is couched in “most likely.”}

_{b)
For someone attempting to establish some understanding, let alone
judgment, of the project for a decision that must be made by
voters, this kind of information is not helpful.}

_{12) What are
the long-term circumstances that have led up to this proposal to
demolish the recently constructed Los Vaqueros Reservoir built by the
rate payers of CCWD for a project entirely within CCWD control and
financed by a bond issue for which CCWD alone is responsible?
See CaliforniaWaterCrisis.org or LosVaqueros.us.}

_{a)
Since 1935 the Bureau of Reclamation, as part of the Central
Valley Project, included in its system of water export from the
Delta, an East Contra Costa storage facilities, such as Kellogg
Reservoir, in the vicinity of present Los Vaqueros.}

_{b)
This facility for storage was never built while CCWD constantly
requested development of the reservoir to provide storage capacity
permitting CCWD to store high quality Delta water flows and store
that higher quality water to blend in later periods of declining
Delta water quality.}

_{c)
Absent a reservoir, CCWD was required to continue to pump water at
all times and accept whatever quality was then available and could
not terminate pumping when fish were at risk.}

_{d)
In addition to seeking performance by the Bureau, CCWD constantly
opportune other water agencies, including agencies now proposed to
be served by the reservoir to be built by CalFed, to join in a
common project. Absent any cooperative effort of the present
agencies now proposed access to Los Vaqueros, CCWD went ahead on
its own and financed and built the present reservoir, Los
Vaqueros, and thus secured sole management of its operation, the
opportunity to store high quality flows, and the security of an
immediately available large water supply for emergencies.}

_{13) In the
bond issue for the Los Vaqueros project, the voters of CCWD inserted a
provision that Los Vaqueros will never be operated in conjunction with a
peripheral canal or to assist in any way to lose local control.}

_{This project is clearly inconsistent with these caveats. This
proposal terminates the sole use of Los Vaqueros by CCWD. It compels
CCWD to join in a joint operation with the export community. It
proposes to construct a facility that serves the same purposes as the
peripheral canal, securing more water for export. Pipelines will
deliver the water, not a canal. The play on words, that it is not a
canal and therefore does not serve the purpose of a canal, is a distortion
of semantics.}

_{14) Putting
aside the present and obvious shortcomings of this project to secure more
water from the Central Delta, the same purpose as the Peripheral Canal,
the far more serious problem will appear with no means to correct.
Once securing any access to Central Delta higher quality water, there will
be no limit that can be established or enforced upon the state and federal
export projects to save the Delta from the present circumstances of the
San Joaquin River today, as any extraction of water from a water dependent
environment will degrade it.}

_{15) The state
and federal water export agencies, CalFed, having now secured management
of water resources of the state, has made it quite clear that management
protocol will be established solely in the interests of those engaged in
water export.}

_{A precise example is the CalFed rule that acquisitions of private property
will no longer be governed by the obligation of the public agency to pay
the fair market value of the property taken, but will be required to pay
whatever the owner demands to become a “willing seller.”}

_{Thus, the owner of tracts of land in the Central Valley made worthless by
poor husbandry and collection of wastes that, for example, once destroyed
the Kesterson Game Refuge will not only be relieved of the responsibility
to restore the lands by public acquisition, but public funds will be
required to pay, not the true value which is less than nothing but a price
at which the owner is “willing to sell.”}

_{An obvious gift of public funds sponsored by the willing seller criteria
of CalFed.}

_{Reference in this proposal to concurrent projects to provide environmental
improvements are meaningless when the total effects are loss of water.
Water has no substitute.}

_{Similar commitments were given to the water projects of the San Joaquin.
What is the condition of the San Joaquin today?}

_{That’s the big picture into which present circumstances will merge.
For an example of CalFed serving the interests of the entire export
community, including its contractors, see 15) above.}

_{If
one has any remaining question it would be why is the Federal government,
that alone will be bankrolling this project, putting over $2 billion on
the table while it is not even an interstate project? The answer
obviously is, federal export projects want more and higher quality water.
Can one seriously accept the CalFed claim that after contributing over $2
billion to the project, the entire management of operations of the system
will be provided by CCWD?}

_{Unanswered is the question of why the CCWD would not resist this project
which removes more water from the Central Delta, the source of the CCWD
supply, when any additional extraction reduces the quality of Delta water
available to CCWD and to the pitiable Delta now remaining.}

_{The
CCWD presently enjoys the security of sole access to Central Delta higher
quality water. No other interests are involved in CCWD decisions or
operations. CCWD has its own reservoir, the operation of which is
solely in the jurisdiction of CCWD.}

_{This
project is clearly not in the interests of the people of CCWD, the Delta,
its environment and the people who enjoy it, as well as the people who
defeated its predecessor, the peripheral canal.}

_{The
mystery within the mystery of why this grossly expensive project is even
being considered remains unsolved, but one fact remains clear! Adios
Los Vaqueros. Adios to what little remains of the Delta today.}

_{Senator John A. Nejedly, Retired}

_{Click here for
original copy of paper
CalFed Delta
Project Report.doc}

CALFED Agencies (This statement is taken directly from CalFed reports)

_{CALFED Agencies} _{(This statement is taken directly
from CalFed reports)}