You are here
California’s Delta Tunnels/ Waterfix dealt fatal blow; rejected by Westlands Water District
By Dan Bacher - Red, Green, and Blue, September 20, 2017
Growers in the massive district, located on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, cited the high cost of the state-federal proposal as their reason for rejecting the project. Politically powerful Westlands is the largest irrigation district in the country.
The district would be one of the key beneficiaries of the proposed 35-mile long twin tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta — and their rejection of the project is a major loss for the Brown administration’s campaign to fast-track the construction of the tunnels. It also sends a message to other water districts that the cost of the controversial plan is not worth the potential benefits.
The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California board is slated to vote on the tunnels in early October, but the Westlands vote delivers a major blow to the project.
“Westlands’ decision to not participate in the California WaterFix will make it very difficult for other agencies to participate,” Tom Birmingham, the General Manager of Westlands, told the Los Angeles Times.
Delta Tunnels opponents are very pleased with the Westlands decision.
“Today is a very good day for California,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director of Restore the Delta, in a statement. “By rejecting California WaterFix, the Westlands Water District has dealt a blow to the project. There are many better solutions for creating a sustainable water supply in California.”
She noted that Metropolitan Water District’s math used to justify the construction of the project is based on a “sizable contribution from Westlands,” as is the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s math.
“They now have to come up with a lot more money for the Delta Tunnels,” Barrigan-Parrilla stated. “It won’t pencil out for them either.”
The Brown administration tried to downplay the significance of the Westlands decision.
“There is one thing on which everyone agrees: Our aging infrastructure needs to be modernized,” said California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird in a statement. “Failing to act puts future water supply reliability at risk. This vote, while disappointing, in no way signals the end of WaterFix.”
The Westlands vote against the tunnels is not the only victory in the campaign to stop the project today. The Los Angeles City Council Energy and Environmental Committee also voted no for the Delta Tunnels project — “until the project is fully financed and Metropolitan Water District meets all their considerations,” according to RTD.
Yesterday, over 40 ratepayers drew significant media attention by holding a No Tunnels, No Water Rate Hike rally in front of Los Angeles City Hall.
Rally and meeting participants included representatives of Food & Water Watch, Consumer Watchdog, Union de Vecinos, Restore the Delta, Los Angeles Waterkeeper, Concerned Citizens of Compton, Southern California Watershed Alliance, Sierra Club Angeles Water Committee, March and Rally-LA, People Organized for Westside Renewal (POWER), and Ground Game LA, neighborhood council leaders and faith leaders.
“The Delta Tunnels would raise water rates and property taxes in Los Angeles, costing ratepayers a total of $2.5 to $4 billion,” said Brenna Norton of Food and Water Watch. “These massive tunnels would change the way water is diverted from the Bay Delta and would send additional water to corporate agribusinesses in the Central Valley, while Southern California ratepayers pay more for no additional water.”
Norton said the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has endorsed this rate hike, which would be imposed by the Metropolitan Water District, even though it plans to reduce water imports from the Delta.
Also today, the Santa Clara Valley Water District in San Jose voted to pass a “no regrets package” planning $100 million for 9 different projects like stormwater capture, leak repair and gray water, RTD stated.
Delta Tunnels opponents are urging people to show up for their public meeting on September 26th to tell them to vote no on the project.
On Monday, the Associated Press revealed that “dozens of water agencies and millions of families and farmers would be on the hook” for building the Delta Tunnels. AP obtained new documents from Westlands — and confirmed the expanded funding demands in phone and email interviews with state and local water officials: https://apnews.com/712b5954fa3a4b4e9494cbbadefa6575/APNewsBreak:-Millions-of-Californians-on-hook-for-water-plan
Also on Monday, the California Indian Water Commission joined three environmental groups — the California Water Impact Network, AquAlliance and California Sportfishing Protection Alliance — in filing a legal challenge to the financing of the Delta Tunnels.
A recent landmark 9th Circuit ruling that federally reserved Indian water rights have precedent over all state and federal water rights puts a new twist on how much water there really will be available for the tunnels or any other project — and could put a big wrench in state and federal plants to build the massive 35 mile long tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
“The California Indian Water Commission’s involvement in this filing is about upholding traditional indigenous responsibilities to the lands and waters of California,” said Don Hankins, President of the federally recognized CIWC. “With this filing, we affirm our commitment to future generations through protection of the lands and waters of this state, and the associated organisms, which we also maintain obligations to.”
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.