Delta Stewardship Council Launched on April Fools Day

Delta Flows April 19, 2010

Delta Stewardship Council Launched on April Fools Day

by Karen Medders

April 1st was more than just April Fools’ Day; it was also the seating of the Delta Stewardship Council, which happened to coincide with the West Coast Salmon Summit hosted by Congressmen George Miller and Mike Thompson. RTD had called supporters out to attend the Salmon Summit, which contributed to a glaring absence of Delta supporters at the historic seating of the Stewardship Council. The absence of Delta support in the room was noted by one of the public commentators.

The first order of business was for the Council to elect their Chair. Not surprisingly, Phil Isenberg was unanimously elected Chair. No Vice Chair was elected.

Then the appointees were introduced. Sacramento Supervisor Don Notolli holds the only seat guaranteed to represent any Delta interest on the Council by virtue of the fact that he is the Chairman of the Delta Protection Commission. Besides Supervisor Notolli, we have Hank Nordoff, Patrick Johnston, Randy Fiorini, Phil Isenberg, Gloria Gray, and Richard Roos-Collins, who was absent.

Judge Ronald Robie officiated the swearing in of the Council. Judge Robie, a former head of DWR, reads and interprets water laws, some of which he wrote years ago.

Mr. Isenberg called Judge Robie “one of the best water judges in the state; he wrote the laws.” Resources Agency Director Lester Snow told the newly sworn in Council that one of their goals should be to keep the Council’s actions out of Judge Robie’s court because “he’s not a friend of ours.” It is hard to know whose friend Snow thinks Judge Robie is, but there was chuckling in the room by those thinking the BDCP and Alternative Conveyance are done deals. Time will tell.

Conflicts of interest right from the start

Attending with Gloria Gray were friends and family and a representative of the Latino Water Coalition, along with approximately a dozen water district representatives. Gray is a board member of the West Basin Municipal Water District, a Los Angeles County water provider that depends on the Delta for a large share of its supply. That imported Delta water is distributed by the Metropolitan Water District, the largest single municipal buyer of Delta water. Gray is also a Metropolitan board member by virtue of the fact that West Basin is a Metropolitan member agency.

In fact, besides four independent Delta representatives, the auditorium was full of water exporters gloating over the fact that yet again, their millions of dollars and bullying ways have stacked yet another public entity in their favor.

Supervisor Notolli asked if the relationship of the Delta Conservancy to the Council would include more local representation and address the concerns and interests of the stakeholders living and working within the Statutory Delta.

The answer was that the Conservancy will have 11 members, is required to be located in the Statutory Delta, and will consist of 4 state appointees, 2 governor’s appointees and one appointee from each of the five surrounding counties to make up the total of 11. One would hope the Assembly and Senate would appoint representatives of greater Northern California interests. The counties have made their appointments; the state has not.

With respect to county activities, Isenberg mentioned there is inherent suspicion between local, state and federal governments; the Council should constrain, limit and contract the local-to-state plan. He also stated “local governments are not obligated to have state-wide perspectives.” (Isenberg didn’t say it, but it appears that the reverse is also true: The state government is not obligated to consider the local perspective.)

The Conservancy is expected to roll out on its own after the first fiscal year. The Conservancy is projected to be a multi-billion dollar entity within five to 10 years. (That does tend to happen when you are the “land grabber.”) It is this writer’s opinion that it will be imperative to not only follow and keep up on the machinations of the BDCP, but to actively participate in the Conservancy’s agenda. With billions and billions of dollars in land assets private and public at stake, we must ensure the Conservancy plays “fair” with stakeholders inside the Statutory Delta as well as ALL of the citizens of California.

Among several issues that were discussed or questioned at length was the Conflict of Interest Code the Council must adopt for itself. Chris Stevens, legal council for the DSC stated he would let the members know when the ex parte rules take effect so that there will be no “conflict of interest” triggers.

On that note, Restore the Delta would like to see an official letter of resignation from Gloria Gray, stepping down from her post on the Board of Directors of Metropolitan Water District to sit on the Delta Stewardship Council. In a letter dated March 26, Assemblyman Jared Huffman asked Gray to choose whether to serve the council or her local constituents.

According to the Sacramento Bee’s Matt Weiser, conflict also surrounds Richard Roos-Collins. He is an attorney for the Natural Heritage Institute and serves on the steering committee of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. Since one of the Delta Stewardship Council’s roles is to review the BDCP, this also looks like a conflict of interest.

And then, of course, as previously reported by Restore the Delta, Phil Isenberg’s lobbying firm was representing the Irvine Water Ranch, while Mr. Isenberg was heading up the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force.

A cozy little oversight relationship

Among the DSC’s tasks as outlined in the legislation, the first five are

To make early appointments and establish of bodies and entities;
To establish the Delta Independent Science Board;
To appoint the Lead Scientist;
To consult with the SWRCB to appoint the “Water Master” and;
To work with federal agencies to coordinate the Delta Plan, as long as there is funding to interact with same federal agencies.
Now we move on to another legislated responsibility of the Council, and that is its Appellate authority with the BDCP. This looks more and more like the fox guarding the hen house.

Joe Grindstaff slipped right over from being CALFED Director to being Acting Executive Officer of the DSC. He has been representing the California Bay-Delta Authority on the BDCP Steering Committee. Grindstaff mentioned that at the next BDCP Steering Committee meeting, he will step down due to potential conflict of interest; however he wishes to remain in an ex officio capacity.

The Council has authority to overturn any decision made by the BDCP; it also has the authority to hear appeals from all concerned entities with regard to the BDCP. But in fact, the Council was established specifically to further the BDCP process as one of the responsible entities for the permitting process. They are to comment on the Conservation Plan prior to submittal for the EIR process, yet they have appellate authority over their own decisions.

The Council must consult with the SWRCB to appoint a Water Master—a very important Council function. Another role of the SWRCB under the new Delta Plan is to determine the minimum water flow criteria upon which conveyance will be based. Chairman Isenberg asked, “If SWRCB can’t come up with the flow criteria in a timely manner, then what does the Council do?” No one seems to know.

CALFED redux?

As the DSC has officially taken over the failed CALFED program, the council has also inherited quite a bundle of preexisting conditions. For example, it inherited the appropriated funding for CALFED to apply to start-up of the Council.

It also inherited existing Delta Science Research programs totaling $23,116,000. The Executive Office Expenses total $2,411,185, of which $320,528 is payable to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for the BDCP. What does this mean? CALFED was paying or covering MWD expenses for the BDCP?

This is taxpayer money, and if MWD can get state/federal funding for its activities on the BDCP, certainly it would only be equitable to provide the same amount of money for local, independent and, right now, volunteer efforts in the BDCP process.

CALFED receivables include $750,000 from US Bureau of Reclamation, $300,000 from USGS, and a whopping $9 million from DWR, totaling $10 million in monies owed now to the Council.

Spreck Rosekrans, of the Environmental Defense Fund, said that some critics of the new legislation believe the Council has merely inherited or taken over the failed CALFED, instead of creating something new that answers the intentions of the legislation.

The roll-over appointments from CALFED to the DSC are:

Joe Grindstaff, Interim Executive Officer
Keith Coolidge, Chief Deputy Executive Officer
Clifford N. Dahm, Ph.D., Lead Scientist
Anke Mueller-Solger, Ph.D., the Delta Stewardship Council Lead Scientist for the Bay-Delta Interagency Ecological Program.
Lauren Hastings, Ph.D. Deputy Executive Officer for Science
Chris Stevens, Acting Chief Counsel
Curt Miller Assistant Director for Legislation
Terry Macauley, P.E., Acting Deputy Executive Officer for the Delta Stewardship Council
Livia Page, Assistant Executive Officer for Administration for the Delta Stewardship Council
One can appreciate Mr. Rosekrans’ statement regarding watching out for the same old, same old…that it is imperative new blood and perspectives on a national and international level are brought to bear on the Delta Independent Science Board and the science that will be relied upon to determine not only flow criteria, but science legitimacy of the BDCP as well. It is their science that will drive our future one way or the other. Supervisor Notolli also expressed concern that the Council will be a repeat of the failed CALFED.

Where is reduced Delta reliance in all of this?

Another point driven home at this meeting was mandated reduction of reliance upon the Delta for continued water supply. Actions undertaken by the Council should focus on issues and actions outside as well as inside the Statutory Delta.

Randy Kanouse of EBMUD spoke first, congratulating the Council on its formation. He also mentioned the Council will be forced to make “Solomon-like decisions” with very difficult tasks to accomplish. Mr. Kanouse also recommended the Council have extremely capable staff who provide written materials well before any announced meeting dates. And he advised Council members to allow themselves plenty of time to be briefed by all perspectives, and to digest all available options to the decisions to be made.

Jonas Minton of the Planning and Conservation League handed out PCL’s Eight Affordable Water Solutions to Achieve the Co-Equal Goals. Mr. Minton also pointed out that actions must occur outside the Delta, not just within. He suggested the Council consider two smaller diversions of a 5000cfs canal conveyance and a 3000cfs tunnel. Also, given the state of California’s economy at this time, he recommended withdrawing the Water Bond, waiting two years or so, and readdressing the bond issue with a smaller bond that would have a better chance of being passed.

Ron Jacobsma of Friant Water Authority commented that with the inter-relationship of the BDCP to the Council, “if the BDCP fails, the Council fails.” Not a bad idea is it?

Chairman Isenberg scolded the representative from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) with a reminder that CDFA has a responsibility to submit a report to the Council no later than 01/01/11. This paper must allow time to be submitted to the DPC; then the DPC will submit the paper to the Council. Isenberg stated that any delay in submission of required reports from both state and federal agencies delays the Council’s decisions.

We are all concerned with the aggressive schedule of deadlines.

Gary Bobker of the Bay Institute spoke on the legislated outcomes the Council must provide:

The Council has been tasked to define desired outcomes for the Delta;
The Council must develop a plan that achieves those goals. However, again, the actions must take place outside the Delta more than within.
California has been mandated to reduce further reliance on the Delta water. What is being done to reduce that reliance? There is a disconnect between proposed actions and the actual reduction of reliance on Delta water. Where is the link? That must become a priority.
As with anything related to the Delta and its water, ecosystem and culture, much is at stake here. The Council is the first step California lawmakers have enacted to address this complex issue.

For those of us that reside in or just love Northern California with all of her blessings, this Council is just another layer of government enabling an exporter water and power grab. We need to stay on top of Council activities to ensure that all requirements of the law are met.

The Delta is not an industrial water pumping facility here to make resource-depleting economic development of Southern California possible. Nor is it here to line the pockets of members of Westlands Water District pockets with billions of dollars over time, enabling them to acquire government-subsidized water for resale on the open market.

The Delta is a beautifully created, abundant ecosystem that has done a pretty darn good job of meeting all of the demands placed upon her. But she is maxed out. It is up to our collective inventiveness to find or invent those technologies that truly enable us to become more self-sufficient and responsible with the types of demands made upon our environment.

If technology actually found ways to meet our human demands without requiring those needs be met by free-flowing waters, wouldn’t that also meet the co-equal goals?

http://restorethedelta.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/delta-flows-april-19-2010/