Darian
08-27-2015, 07:52 PM
Just received a note from DWR indicating that it and USBR have submitted a change petition to the SWRCB asking for changes in existing water rights to enable more flexibility in the management of diversion of Sacramento River water for purposes of CVP/SWP.
This petition is lengthy and includes a lot of the same smoke screen info supporting adoption of the tunnels solution for Water reliability. In responding to all of the proposed dual conveyance system in the BDCP EIR/EIS and now in WaterFix, I felt that once approved/constructed, there was the risk that permit holders (Water contractors are proposed to be granted permits) would demand to divert the maximum amount of water capable under the dual conveyance system (e.g. 15,000 cfs). Following is an excerpt from the Regulations section of the petition:
"Importantly, the requested changes to points of diversion/rediversion identified in Alternative 4A would not detract from the ability of the SWP/CVP to meet current or future criteria or objectives. Rather, this Petition enhances the ability of the Projects to adapt operations to changes in the future." (emphasis added).
This language would appear to open the door for increasing flows from the current planned maximum amount diverted (e.g. 12,000 cfs) to the designed maximum (15,000 cfs). One of the concerns raised by water contractors/beneficiaries is the cost vs the reduced benefit (less water diverted) proposed in the WaterFix alternative 4a. As a result, they've expressed some reluctance to fund the project. The unsaid second part of their concern just might be that they would be willing to pay for maximum diversion.
Given that most of the cost would fall on valley water contractors, is it a stretch to wonder if they intend to actually repay the cost of the state bonds?? Afterall, some major contractors didn't repay costs associated with clean-up of run-off into places like Kesterson. Gotta give 'em credit for using that situation to gain rights to water in San Luis Reservoir and elsewhere. During the review/comment period for the BDCP a DWR person told me that water contractors would pay as they would pass the costs on to their rate payers. But, that doesn't seem likely as most of the AG water contractors boards are made up of the growers, themselves.
This petition is lengthy and includes a lot of the same smoke screen info supporting adoption of the tunnels solution for Water reliability. In responding to all of the proposed dual conveyance system in the BDCP EIR/EIS and now in WaterFix, I felt that once approved/constructed, there was the risk that permit holders (Water contractors are proposed to be granted permits) would demand to divert the maximum amount of water capable under the dual conveyance system (e.g. 15,000 cfs). Following is an excerpt from the Regulations section of the petition:
"Importantly, the requested changes to points of diversion/rediversion identified in Alternative 4A would not detract from the ability of the SWP/CVP to meet current or future criteria or objectives. Rather, this Petition enhances the ability of the Projects to adapt operations to changes in the future." (emphasis added).
This language would appear to open the door for increasing flows from the current planned maximum amount diverted (e.g. 12,000 cfs) to the designed maximum (15,000 cfs). One of the concerns raised by water contractors/beneficiaries is the cost vs the reduced benefit (less water diverted) proposed in the WaterFix alternative 4a. As a result, they've expressed some reluctance to fund the project. The unsaid second part of their concern just might be that they would be willing to pay for maximum diversion.
Given that most of the cost would fall on valley water contractors, is it a stretch to wonder if they intend to actually repay the cost of the state bonds?? Afterall, some major contractors didn't repay costs associated with clean-up of run-off into places like Kesterson. Gotta give 'em credit for using that situation to gain rights to water in San Luis Reservoir and elsewhere. During the review/comment period for the BDCP a DWR person told me that water contractors would pay as they would pass the costs on to their rate payers. But, that doesn't seem likely as most of the AG water contractors boards are made up of the growers, themselves.