From: Katja Irvin To: California Water Commission Cc: Kyle Jones; Barbara Kelsey Subject: Re: Sierra Club - Pacheco Reservoir Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 4:22:06 PM Attachments: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter - Pacheco 1.pdf 041018 SCVWD Agenda Item 5-1.pdf
Dear Commissioners and Staff, This letter is an update/addendum to our previous comments (attached below) about the Pacheco Reservoir project and funding application. Please forward all of these comments to the Commission for the meeting on May 1, 2018. The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter still has many concerns about the project to build this huge new dam on Pacheco Creek. We are opposed to new or expanded on-stream reservoirs, and in this case it isn’t clear the project really is needed. Our understanding is that Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) modelling shows benefits will accrue mostly 50 years in the future. This is absurd since everything will have changed by then so the reliability of these predictions is questionable. We think it is wiser to look at nearer term benefits to evaluate the need for this project at this time. The latest analysis for the District’s 2017 Water Supply Master Plan (April 10, 2018 Staff Report, attached) explains that other District projects are sufficient to meet water supply level of service goals, based on model runs conducted over 94 years of hydrology. On October 17, 2017, the Board conditionally approved participation in California WaterFix, with the goal of offsetting a reduction of about 41,000 AFY of Delta- conveyed imported water supplies. On December 12, 2017, the Board also approved pursuing a public-private partnership to develop up to 24,000 AFY of potable reuse capacity using the Los Gatos Ponds. Staff analyzed the effect of these Board-approved projects, along with additional recharge in the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin that groundwater modeling indicates is needed to meet future demands, on water supply reliability. As shown in Table 1, the projects that are approved for planning are sufficient to achieve the interim water supply reliability level of service goal of meeting 100 percent of demands in normal years and at least 85 percent of demands in drought years. So the District’s own planning process currently underway doesn’t conclude that this huge new reservoir is needed in the foreseeable future. Twenty years ago the District’s Board decided not to pursue a dam project on Pacheco Creek and at the time they expressed a belief that no new dams would ever be built in Santa Clara County. Twenty years in the future, who knows what the Board’s position will be, but they will know a lot more about the impacts of climate change, population growth, and the effectiveness of many other water supply projects the District is currently undertaking. Therefore we feel the need to say again that the timing isn’t right for this project and there is a real risk that Santa Clara County ratepayers will be paying for a $1-2 billion stranded asset.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Katja Irvin Conservation Committee Co-Chair Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Katja Irvin
Dear CWC Staff,
The Sierra Club’s comments on the Pacheco Reservoir Expansion Project WSIP Application are attached.
Please also forward these comments to staff, since we believe they will be very useful for any upcoming analysis or evaluation of this Application. Also, we can provide more background information if there are any questions or need specific references.
Sincerely,
Katja Irvin, AICP Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Conservation Committee Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Serving San Mateo, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Protecting Our Planet Since 1933
3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204 Palo Alto, CA 94303
January 31, 2018
Armando Quintero, Chair California Water Commission 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Pacheco Reservoir Expansion Project WSIP Application
Dear Chair Quintero and Commissioner Members,
The Sierra Club’s comments on the Pacheco Reservoir Expansion Project WSIP Application are attached. Although these comments were not submitted earlier in the application evaluation process, we feel it is important to submit our comments because we are closely following water supply planning processes at the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD).
There have been many other comments sent to the Commission about this project but none have been sent by stakeholders who have been following the SCVWD 2017 Water Supply Master Plan update process. The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Conservation Committee has been studying and commenting on how SCVWD does water supply planning since the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan was under development.
Therefore we hope that you read the attached comments despite our relatively late submittal. These comments are based on considerable research and contain a lot of information that is not easily available elsewhere.
Please also forward these comments to staff, since we believe they will be very useful for any upcoming analysis or evaluation of this Application. Also, we can provide more background information if there are any questions or need specific references.
Respectfully submitted,
Katja Irvin, AICP Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Conservation Committee
Cc: Kyle Jones, Sierra Club California, Policy Advocate Mike Ferreira, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Serving San Mateo, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Protecting Our Planet Since 1933
3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204 Palo Alto, CA 94303
Pacheco Reservoir Expansion Project WSIP Application Comments January 31, 2018
The Sierra Club has many concerns about the Pacheco Reservoir Expansion Project (Project). We see the Project as a new dam rather than an expansion of the existing reservoir. Specifically, this project cannot be compared to the expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir, mainly because this is an on-stream reservoir on the relatively pristine Pacheco Creek. This project will have significant environmental impacts that will need to be mitigated. We are concerned that the public benefits paid for by Water Supply and Infrastructure Program (WSIP) will be required as mitigations anyway, thereby offsetting the cost of water supply benefits (the main goal of the Project). Below we offer more detail about our concerns related to public benefits, followed by general concerns about project feasibility in the context of water supply planning for Santa Clara County.
Public Benefits
Ecosystem Improvement
The Sierra Club is concerned about the viability of the ecosystem improvement proposed as part of the Project for several reasons.
Water for South of Delta Refuges 1. The District Act which outlines Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) authorities may not include increasing water supplies for wetlands outside of Santa Clara County. The District can “dispose of, outside the district, any waters not needed for beneficial uses within the district.” We see a contradiction if the District gives away 2,000 acre feet per year of Santa Clara County’s imported water supply, supposedly not needed for beneficial uses, and at the same time claims the need for a new reservoir for additional water supply. 2. We question whether providing water to south of Delta refuges benefits the Delta. With the priority given to municipal and industrial supplies, this benefit is unlikely to hold up under drought conditions unless strong water rights are allocated to secure this environmental benefit.
1
Flow regimes and habitat for Salmonids 1. The Sierra Club is concerned that flow targets are unrealistic given the water supply goals of the Project. According to the Pacheco Reservoir Expansion Project Initial Study, average monthly release targets to Pacheco Creek for South-Central California Coast steelhead amount to more than 9,500 AF/year, while the natural hydrology of the North Fork Pacheco Creek watershed yields an average of 13,000 AF/year. The proposed fish operation scenario does not seem realistic since the District also plans to get 6,000 AF/year in additional water supply according to water supply planning documents (20,000 AF/year in dry years according to the District’s December 2017 presentation to the Commission). See section 1.5 of the Initial Study for proposed flow regime; http://valleywater.org/uploadedFiles/Newsroom/PublicReviewDocuments/Pacheco%20 Reservoir%20Project%20Initial%20Study%20Draft_Final_8-7- 17_SCH%20Copy.pdf?n=6069. 2. The Sierra Club is concerned about the Districts ability to deliver habitat improvements for steelhead in a timely manner. In 1996, a water rights complaint was filed at the State Water Resources Control Board indicating that District water supply operations in Coyote Creek, Guadalupe River, and Stevens Creek impact steelhead trout and Chinook salmon. To address the complaint and Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues, the District, Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District, Trout Unlimited, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), participated in the Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort (FAHCE) to develop a Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement was initialed in 2003. A key Settlement Agreement provision is the Fish Habitat Restoration Plan, which proposes changes in reservoir releases, channel enhancements, monitoring and adaptive management. The Restoration Plan is part of Phase 1, to be completed by 2013. However, the District has yet to complete the Plan or release a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for FAHCE. No reservoir releases have been established for environmental public trust benefits. We are concerned that similar delays will occur with the claimed fisheries benefits on Pacheco Creek.
Water Quality Improvement 1. “Public trust resources related to water quality improvements, for the purposes of this Program and quantifying public benefits, mean fishery protection, fish and wildlife conservation, preservation of waterways in their natural state, and recreation. Water quality improvements in the Delta, or in other river systems, that provide these public trust resources are public benefits.” (from CWC’s Layperson’s Guide). 2. The Sierra Club questions any water quality benefits from the Project according to the description above. We are concerned that introducing poor quality Central Valley Project (CVP) water into Pacheco Creek, the Pajaro River, and the Monterey Bay will harm water quality. In the past, the NMFS has also expressed concerns about this. San Luis Reservoir has poor water quality and CVP water has contributed to water quality issues such as algae blooms in Calero Reservoir, which stores CVP water on its way from San Luis Reservoir to District water treatment plants. The Sierra Club comments on the Project Notice of Preparation requested more analysis of these impacts.
2
3. There is a need to improve the quality of CVP water imported into Santa Clara County. The water quality is poor to begin with and worsens when water is stored in San Luis Reservoir. However, the Sierra Club is skeptical about building a new 140,000-acre-foot reservoir to solve water quality issues in another reservoir. Alternatives have not been considered. There are other ways to blend CVP water with local water. Specifically, why would a smaller, less costly, less environmentally damaging reservoir not be sufficient? The environmental impacts of several alternatives need to be analyzed so the public and the District Board have more objective information to weigh the cost effectiveness and environmental impact of each solution to CVP water quality problems.
Flood Control 1. It is in the public interest to operate water supply dams for multiple benefits including flood control. The District is learning about this at Anderson Reservoir after overtopping and flooding occurred in February 2017. Like Anderson, the Pacheco Reservoir will be designed and constructed primarily for water supply. There is very little incremental design and construction cost to provide flood control benefits. The costs will come during operation when $2,700 per acre foot water is released to prevent possible reservoir overtopping. Public benefits cannot easily be mapped to costs in this situation.
Emergency Response 1. Emergency water supply from SWP is already delivered through the current system – will the Project really improve the situation? The mostly likely emergency is a drought and at that time storage should be available in Calero and Anderson reservoirs to accommodate emergency supplies. 2. The District has not reported any problems with transfers, storage capacity, or emergency supplies that would have been solved with this reservoir. 3. The District is already implementing intertie projects with other Bay Area agencies that will do more to improve emergency response than the Pacheco Reservoir Project.
Recreation 1. The Project Description in the Notice of Preparation / Initial Study (referenced above) does not include any recreation benefits.
Project Feasibility
Water Supply Planning
The Sierra Club has been advocating for local and regional water supply and resiliency and the District is moving forward with many projects to improve water supply reliability that are sufficient for the current planning horizon (through 2040). Projects include expanded use of recycled water, potable reuse, investment in the next expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and many smaller projects such as stormwater capture. Pacheco Reservoir is not an essential project – the District has alternatives to meet water supply needs.
3
The Sierra Club is advocating for “Maintenance Before New Dams” in California. The District has a lot of maintenance to do and embarking on the Pacheco Dam project will detract from those efforts. “The assessments of spillways at Anderson, Almaden, Calero and Guadalupe dams have determined that they do not meet the current design standards, and may be susceptible to Oroville-like failure. Alternatives are being developed and evaluated for both remediation and/or replacement of key spillway components at each dam.” (December 7, 2017 SCVWD CEO Bulletin). The District currently aims to complete construction of all these spillway replacements by 2025, thereby reclaiming 55,000 acre-feet of storage.
Local Sierra Club advocates are concerned the timing is not right for the District to move forward with the Pacheco Reservoir Project. With so many other water supply enhancement efforts underway and with climate scientists predicting more dry years in California, the Reservoir could become a stranded asset. In addition, with all the sub-standard dams in Santa Clara County threatening public safety, the District should focus on those other large and complex construction projects.
Meeting Grant Timelines
It seems unlikely this Project will meet the WSIP deadlines, even if District staff didn’t already have large recycled water and dam retrofit projects on their plate. The Districts history with the Anderson Dam Project and Berryessa Creek flood control projects indicate some issues that may arise.
Anderson Dam 1. In 2013, the District planned for construction to occur from 2016 through 2018. Now construction is planned from 2020 through 2024. In 2013, the project cost was projected at $170 million. Now project cost is project to be $515 million. During a community meeting in September 2017 District staff said this happened due to design changes needed because additional seismic issues discovered as design progressed from about 10% design to 30 or 40%. 2. Since January 2017, cost estimates for the Pacheco Reservoir Project have already increased from $800,000 million to $1.2 billion, and the design is not yet 10% complete. 3. According to the FY 2018-19 groundwater production charge analysis recently presented for Board review, $16 million will be allocated in 2018-2019 for the Pacheco Reservoir Feasibility Study. Feasibility studies usually come before committing significant funds to design work, and normally the CEQA process only begins after at least 10% of the design is completed. The Sierra Club is especially concerned that the CEQA process will be short-changed in an effort to meet the schedule requirements of this grant.
Berryessa Creek CEQA and Endangered Species Issues 1. In June 2017, the District filed a lawsuit against the State Water Quality Control Board over mitigation requirements for the Upper Berryessa Creek Flood Control Project. 2. In November 2017, Silicon Valley Foundation for a Better Environment (Milpitas community non-profit) filed suit against the District for inadequate CEQA process and
4
ESA violations related to the Lower Berryessa Creek Flood Control Project. The lawsuit shows a pattern of the District violating mitigation measures that require construction to cease by October 15 of each year to protect aquatic species, with no disclosure to the District Board or the general public. 3. The Sierra Club is concerned about the District’s apparent disregard of environmental review processes and failure to take seriously the responsibility to mitigate the impacts of large construction projects. We hope these legal actions will result in a change in culture, but the required timelines for WSIP projects would create pressure to cut corners. The Project Initial Study (referenced above) says “[c]onstruction activities may require double shifts—two, 10-hour shifts per day, up to six days per week—to meet the construction schedule,” which heightens our concern.
Current Project Status
The Sierra Club see’s history repeating itself given the District’s current approach to the Project. There have already been several actions that indicate a lack of transparency and rush to move forward with the Project before the Draft EIR has been completed and alternatives such as a smaller reservoir have been analyzed.
History of District Actions 1. In January 2017 the District Board authorized the CEO to negotiate and execute a single source agreement with a consultant for up to $900,000 to prepare a Proposition 1 funding application for Pacheco Reservoir. 2. In February 2017 the Board voted to “proceed with the Stantec contract in two phases. In the first phase, a preliminary estimate of monetary benefits will be prepared to determine whether the benefits are sufficient to create a viable Proposition 1 funding application. … If the result is positive, benefit quantifications and other project data will be refined in the second phase, which will include development of application documents.” The cost of staff time was estimated at $100,000. Funding came from savings from other General Fund projects. 3. In July 2017 the Board passed a resolution authorizing that an application be made to the California Water Commission. The preliminary assessment of costs and benefits was not presented and has yet to be discussed as part of a Board meeting or in staff reports. 4. In August 2017, the Board approved a budget adjustment of $2 million from the PeopleSoft Systems Upgrade and Expansion Project to the Pacheco Reservoir Project to cover staff labor and consultants’ fees through the end of the current fiscal year. The staff memo stated “[i]f the Board approves the Committee’s recommendation, staff will undertake the process to hire planning phase consultants.” 5. In August 2017, before planning consultants were hired, the District filed a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact report. However, no local stakeholders were notified of the NOP and no scoping meeting was held. 6. In December 2017, the Board approved an amended agreement with Stantec Consulting with an additional fee of $355,000 for a revised not-to-exceed fee of $1,192,751, covered by a budget adjustment of $710,000 from the General Fund Reserve.
5
7. The adopted 2017-2018 budget allocated only $66,000 for the Pacheco Reservoir Prop 1 Application Study and no updated budget is available on the District’s budget webpage. The Sierra Club is concerned that the District allocated over $3.5 million to the Project using mid-year budget adjustments.
Permitting 1. The District is currently rushing through CEQA requirements in order to meet the deadline, which could easily backfire once nearby communities realize the impacts of project construction. 2. The District will also need to obtain water rights to use water from Pacheco Creek, a process that normally takes several years and could easily delay construction. The Water Right Petition must be obtained before submitting a Dam Construction Permit and Operation License application to the California Department of Water Resources. 3. The project will also require significant property purchases that are uncertain.
6
Gregory J. Reis P.O. Box 161 San Geronimo, CA 94963
April 26, 2018
California Water Commission P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, California 94236 Email: cwcwater.ca.gov
Re: Pacheco Project PBR
Dear Chair Quintero,
I write this letter on my own behalf—the views are my own and not necessarily those of my employers. In my reviews of the projects, I was struck by the missed opportunity for public benefits of the Pacheco project as proposed. A change in the project description could bring much greater public benefits, reduced impacts, and cost effectiveness.
The proposed project involves removing an existing dam. This element of the project has tremendous potential for public benefit, as dams create many impacts and there are many examples where their removal has been shown repeatedly to create great potential for ecosystem restoration.
Unfortunately, the proposed project is to build a new dam immediately upstream of the dam that is to be removed. This would negate almost all the benefits of the dam removal. Bill Trush, with the Rivers Institute at Humboldt State University, has spoken in the past about the value of the “last undammed tributary.” The concept is that if an existing dam were moved upstream one tributary, that last undammed tributary has the potential to create great benefits to the downstream ecosystem in terms of more natural flows, water temperatures, sediment flow, and anadromous fish habitat extent. The Pacheco project should build the new dam just upstream of the next upstream tributary, which is the East Fork of the creek (i.e. it should be built on the West Fork). The high water level should be the same as the proposed project, resulting in a much smaller reservoir. This would open up the East Fork of the creek to anadromous fish (i.e. Steelhead trout), adding habitat that has not been connected in decades.
In addition, I believe the connector to the pipeline from San Luis Reservoir should not be built. This would prevent warm, algae-filled water from entering the new reservoir and impacting downstream resources. The new reservoir would only be filled from local runoff. The new reservoir would presumably be larger, connect to the local water system, and generate an increased water supply, which could still offset diversions from San Luis Reservoir, and free up enough water to still provide a benefit to wildlife refuges.
This opportunity really struck me as I was reviewing the Pacheco project, and I wanted to share these thoughts with the Commission.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Reis Watershed Restoration Ecologist