More on the Delta tunnels JPA

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California today released the first of three “white papers” on the Delta tunnels, which are supposed to inform MWD board members as the district moves toward a September vote on the project.

Most of what’s in there has been reported previously. But here are a few things I found interesting:

• The JPA. It has already been reported that the state Department of Water Resources and the water contractors were considering forming a joint powers authority to oversee construction. The white paper adds a new justification — the emergency construction work at the Oroville Dam spillway — and a few more details.

“Recognizing DWR staff resources are stretched to an extreme level due to the necessary commitment to complete significant repairs to the Oroville Reservoir spillways as a result of damage during heavy runoff in 2017, there is a need to employ different but proven approaches to pool resources for the design and construction of California WaterFix,” the document says.

In other words: The state has too much on its plate to handle the tunnels, too.

This approach will be controversial, of course. A JPA would effectively give the water contractors who stand to benefit from the tunnels more say in how they will be built. (Then again, they are paying for them.)

Conceptually, the white paper says DWR would retain some level of oversight while the JPA, complete with an executive director and a board of directors, handles the nitty gritty details. A staff would be hired, complete with engineers, accountants, auditors, public relations folks and attorneys, among others.

If something goes kaput, it appears that some changes to the project would have to be approved by DWR while others wouldn’t. Anything more than a 5 percent increase in budget for a major component, for example, would require state approval. Less than 5 percent apparently wouldn’t.

The JPA would have to provide monthly and yearly reports on its progress.

What’s also important in these kinds of deals is the dispute resolution process. What if the water contractors and the state disagree on the best path forward? The white paper lays out a process for an expert panel to help make those decisions. Ultimately, major disputes would come down to the DWR director and the JPA executive director sitting down in a room somewhere and working it out.

The tunnels would be turned over to DWR once they’re finished, and the JPA would cease to exist.

• The cost. Metropolitan’s white paper puts the cost of the project at $15.7 billion. That’s lower than the $17.1 billion that reporters were given by DWR as recently as last week. I’ll ask about this later.

The white paper notes that Metropolitan has a “75 percent confidence level that the project would be completed within the budget estimate.”

The third and final white paper, expected later this summer, will address who pays how much, which may be the thorniest issue of them all.

• The timeline. Metropolitan assumes that construction won’t begin until three years after the project is authorized, which could happen in the coming months. That would mean construction wouldn’t begin until 2020. It would then take about 13 years to build everything. Bottom line, we’d be into the 2030s before it’s over.

• The pumps. This is deep in the weeds. But apparently, when the Sacramento River is flush with water, there are times when the new pumps at the far (south) end of the tunnels can be turned off. I’m not talking about the existing south Delta pumps. I’m talking about the pumps that will be used to pull up water from the tunnels and dump it into Clifton Court Forebay.

So at times, the entire system would be gravity fed — not just the tunnels. Didn’t know that.

• Peat problems? Not according to Metropolitan. The tunnels will be built deep enough to avoid peat soil, which is prone to liquefaction and settlement. Instead the tunnels will be buried in dense deposits of silts, sands and clay layers, the white paper says.

The tunnels will also be deep enough to absorb or dampen vibrations, MWD says. “Induced vibration to structures should be minimal and would not likely be perceptible to the communities on the surface,” the white paper says.

• Why twin tunnels? Why not a single tunnel? Well, a single tunnel would have to be nearly 60 feet in diameter to convey the same amount of water, the white paper says. This would make it among the largest tunnels ever drilled. The proposed 40-foot twin tunnels are plenty big enough, of course, but 40 feet isn’t considered as risky and is more in line with some other major tunnels projects around the world.

• How far along is design? Just 5 to 10 percent. Which perhaps explains why it would take another three years after approval to start building.

• More tests coming. Some Delta property owners fought the state’s efforts to drill for soil samples and conduct other environmental surveys in preparation for tunnels construction. The farmers ultimately lost at the state Supreme Court, but were successful in delaying at least some of the tests.

Today, while 240 drill tests have already been conducted, there are gaps of several miles along the alignment, more work is needed, the white paper says.

“Up to 2,000 additional investigations would be conducted, consisting of borings, cone penetrometer and other physical data collection methods,” the paper says.

Overall, the Met concludes that the tunnels are a “potentially successful project.” The white paper will be discussed at a Metropolitan committee meeting on Monday.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Are we hypocrites?

Photo by Calixtro Romias

San Joaquin County residents want a cleaner and greener transportation system, one which leads to fewer greenhouse gas emissions and less sprawl, a new survey finds.

Eighty-one percent of us think reducing GHG emissions is either “important” or “very important.” That number is 64 percent when it comes to preserving farmland. We also strongly support expanding public transit along with bike lanes and pedestrian paths.

In short, we want to change our gas-guzzling, growth-inducing ways.


Wait a sec. In the same survey, 78 percent of us say it’s important or very important to “build new roadways to improve access or support new development.”

So we want all the new green stuff. But we also want more of the status quo.

Apparently we just want it all.

This reminds me of a smaller survey a few years ago, also done by the San Joaquin Council of Governments, in which respondents made it clear they favored development only within existing cities — no sprawl. Yet two-thirds of the same group professed a desire to live in single-family homes or even rural ranchettes (44 percent alone preferred ranchettes, which are pretty much the opposite of infill).

Are we shameless hypocrites? Do we respond to questions with the answers we think we should give, or the answers that we think the questioners want to hear, but when push comes to shove and it’s our own lives we’re talking about we don’t want to change?

I chatted with COG’s executive director, Andrew Chesley, about the latest findings on Friday. He seemed to give folks the benefit of the doubt.

“People know what they’re talking about,” he told me. “They know there is a connection between transportation and land use. They know we can do it better. They also recognize their own behavior is tough to change.”

They also recognize their own behavior is tough to change. We can talk about this stuff forever, and we can acknowledge the consequences of sprawl, but if people’s personal behavior and actions don’t change then can’t we expect more of the same?


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Not exactly ‘whitewater’ rapids

Clark Fork, a major tributary of the Stanislaus River, was not only running high at the peak of last week’s heat wave, but also quite turbid and muddy. It was 90 degrees at 6,000 feet; evidently there was so much flow that the river and its tributaries, including aptly named Disaster Creek, were eroding their banks.

Quite a sight up there.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

More confusion than clarity in tunnels EIR

Gov. Jerry Brown spends quality time with the massive Delta tunnels EIR. Photo courtesy the governor's office

The final version of Gov. Jerry Brown’s twin tunnels plan is better than earlier drafts but still contains “key flaws,” independent scientists say, including an environmental impact report that is so chock full of facts that it doesn’t tell a clear story.

The latest draft critique marks the Independent Science Board’s fifth review of various iterations of the tunnels plan. Their criticism isn’t really about the tunnels themselves, but rather the documents that are being used to justify their construction.

The final EIR is like the drafts before it, “failing to communicate clearly the principal findings and uncertainties of an enormous report,” the panel concludes.

This isn’t all on the architects of the plan, the scientists add. EIRs are supposed to be understandable to the general public, but courts have often thrown them out because they’re not comprehensive enough. The result? EIRs that, for big projects like the tunnels, can total tens of thousands of pages filled with jargon and veritable acres of gray text.

In short, most EIRs now favor comprehensiveness over clarity and readability. And the the tunnels plan is no different.

The problem is that the lack of clarity puts many regular people (including yours truly) at a disadvantage. This includes members of the general public who may be most affected by a project — in this case, Delta residents themselves.

Those who wrote the tunnels EIR “followed what the laws, regulations and permitting processes require,” the science board says. “They faced enormous challenges from such a large and complex system. Yet the Delta’s problems are so important that project proponents should go far beyond the norm when providing and synthesizing scientific information.

“Environmental impact assessments for (the tunnels) have missed opportunities to increase understanding of the Delta as an ecosystem, a water supply, and as a place where people live and work.”

Some of the other issues raised by scientists in their latest review:

• The EIR doesn’t contain enough details about how so-called “adaptive management” would actually work. This criticism should sound familiar to those who have followed the tunnels issue over the last few years. Adaptive management is a way to deal with uncertainty about the future of the Delta that could lead to unexpected changes in how the tunnels must be operated.

The report explains why adaptive management is important, but not the details of how it will actually be done, the scientists say. That plan should be put in place now, they say, not after a decision has been made and officials have already pushed forward with the project.

• The report doesn’t “systematically” address how the tunnels might affect Delta levees and relies on seismic risk studies more than a decade old (a concern, since seismic risk is one of the justifications for building the tunnels in the first place).

• The report also doesn’t go deep enough on the potential impacts of climate change on the project, nor reductions in groundwater availability in the overtapped San Joaquin Valley, which could increase demand for Delta water.

Officials may not want to speculate about things like that, the scientists say, but ”reasoned speculation… is an important part of science and public policy discussions.”

• The report doesn’t look closely enough at potential environmental impacts of providing more water to those agricultural areas, such as pesticide use and agricultural runoff.

• The report is “overly optimistic” about how quickly wetland restoration projects will offset environmental impacts of building and operating the tunnels.

• Finally, of particular interest to Delta residents, the impacts of construction are “substantively” addressed but are not presented in a coherent way, with the details scattered across many chapters and not summarized in a way that might help Delta people understand what to expect.

A final version of the critique is expected to be released this week. I’ll post it here along with any major changes to the draft.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Back on the porcupine beat

A woman called this morning. “This may sound strange,” she said, “but are you the person who wrote an article about porcupines?”

I immediately knew what was up. Every once in a while someone calls me to report a porcupine sighting. See, I wrote a story in 2012 about how porcupines are increasingly rare in the Sierra Nevada. So when people see a porcupine, and they hop on Google to find out how unusual that is, they find my old article and give me a call.

The weirdest such call came a couple of months ago. I wasn’t here so the guy left a voicemail. “I found a porcupine in Winnemucca, Nevada,” he said. Click.

Photo from the National Park Service

Today’s caller, 33-year-old Harper Dial of South Lake Tahoe, was a bit more talkative. But get this: Harper hasn’t seen just one porcupine. No, she’s seen seven of them, over a period of less than three years.

“A bunch of people have told me that they don’t believe me,” she said. “Then they’ve seen one with me. It’s very weird. I think they’re like my spirit animal. I know that sounds really dumb.”

One of the porcupines Harper hit with her car. She took him to a wildlife refuge, and eventually the animal recovered and was released back into the forest.

“I was happy when I went back and it was alive,” she said. “I felt a lot better about the whole thing.”

I’ve spent a fair amount of time in the Sierra and I’ve never seen a porcupine. Though I’ve never lived there, either. Certainly someone who lives at Tahoe would be more likely over the long haul to have that experience.

Porcupines aren’t endangered. Why have they become more difficult to find? One theory is that porcupines, which have a slow reproductive rate, have never fully recovered from aerial poisonings administered by the government in an effort to protect timber half a century ago.

Whatever the cause of the apparent decline, I’m glad Harper called. If one person saw seven porcupines, then there have to be a heck of a lot of them out there, right?

Any bets on how long before I get another call?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Coming soon: Tunnels news

As this piece in the Sacramento Bee reports, things are going to start happening quickly on the Delta tunnels front.

Biological opinions describing the project’s possible effects on fish and wildlife may be finished by June 9, according to information presented at a recent Metropolitan Water District of Southern California committee meeting. The opinions are critical to allowing the tunnels to move forward.

Separately, the agencies that would receive water from the tunnels must soon decide whether they’re worth paying for. On Aug. 14, a Metropolitan committee is expected to discuss a potential financing and cost allocation plan, which could then go before the water agency’s entire board on Aug. 22 and theoretically be voted on Sept. 12.

A Metropolitan official told committee members last week that there has been an “increased intensity” of meetings in Sacramento over the question of how to allocate the $15 billion cost.

Here we go. Buckle up.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Yeah, I’d say the snowmelt is on

Eagle Creek — which dumps into Emerald Bay at Lake Tahoe — was running with such force on Monday that you could probably feel the spray just by watching this little video.

On the west shore of Tahoe, nearly all of the snow above about 6,500 feet has melted, but there are little waterfalls everywhere you look as the snow in the higher, impassable wilderness continues to melt.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Video highlights S.J. County’s flood risks

Lodi resident and videographer Cyndy Green has spent months roaming San Joaquin County in search of compelling flooding and storm imagery.

The result of her labor: a 15-minute video she produced for the county Office of Emergency Services. Check it out. There’s some good information here about the region’s complex flood challenges.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

No pivoting on Smith Canal gate

Elected officials showed no signs of backing off the Smith Canal flood gate project on Thursday, despite a bit of added pressure from the community.

Three separate times, the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency board — made up of members of the Stockton City Council and San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors — voted to move forward with various aspects of the $37 million project.

But not before they heard from a handful of people who expressed some familiar, ongoing concerns about the need to build a flood gate in an area that has not flooded in modern times.

The critics included Dominick Gulli, a levee engineer who is suing SJAFCA, and Ernest Tufft, who lives on Smith Canal and has recently become quite vocal about his opposition.

Tuftt urged the board to slow down. “This winter, the performance of those levees was amazing,” he said. “Take a deep breath, relax, and think about this for the long term.”

But two board members who responded to the criticism suggested that the ship has sailed.

“This was discussed and debated extensively for years,” said Supervisor Kathy Miller.

Failure to build the gate would leave thousands still on the hook for flood insurance, and possibly more to come if FEMA widens the flood zone as the agency has suggested it will.

“As passionate as you are about not putting up this wall, we also hear from people who cannot afford the flood insurance,” said Supervisor Tom Patti. “Not a single person in this room woke up and said, ‘Guys, we want to build this wall, we think this is a great idea because we’ve got nothing better to do’… We are forced into the position we are in.”

The turnout for Thursday’s meeting was larger than usual, for a SJAFCA meeting, but that’s not saying much. All told, four people — including Gulli — shared their concerns with the project.

Among the items approved Thursday was the fourth yearly assessment for residents in the flood zone, who voted narrowly to pay for a share of the gate. The latest assessment, which averages $171 for a single family home, will raise nearly $1.7 million. Officials divulged last year that a portion of the assessment fees are also paying for SJAFCA’s legal defense against two lawsuits including Gulli’s.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Stockton of the future?

Let’s tour Stockton in the year 2100, should an unlikely but “plausible” 10 to 12 feet of sea level rise occur.

Buckle up.

(And by the way: You can look up your own neighborhood — heck, even zoom in on your own house — by clicking here and following the directions.)

Homes in far west Brookside, one of the lowest places in Stockton

More Brookside homes

You'll have to take a boat to Council meetings at Stockton City Hall.

Dameron Hospital

San Joaquin Delta College. The koi are liberated.

The Haggin Museum

Interstate 5 at March Lane

The downtown In-Shape building

Tell me it ain't so... In-N-Out on March Lane is decidedly "out."

San Joaquin County Jail

The water would stretch as far east as the Miracle Mile.

Oak Grove Regional Park becomes boat-in only.

Grocery store at March Lane and Quail Lakes Drive

Spanos Cos. headquarters along Interstate 5 in far north Stockton

Spanos Park West. Some homes completely underwater.

Show's over at Stockton Arena.

Just about every seat is flooded at Stockton Ballpark.

An overview of Stockton, looking from the west toward the east

Weberstown Mall

Trinity Parkway commercial area in northwest Stockton

University Plaza Waterfront Hotel, downtown Stockton

University of the Pacific

The former Washington Mutual building in downtown Stockton

Stockton's wastewater treatment plant near the Port of Stockton

Weston Ranch in southwest Stockton

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
  • Blog Authors

    Alex Breitler

    A native of Benicia, he lives in Stockton with his wife, Ann, who forces him to go backpacking in the Sierra Nevada or Trinity Alps at every opportunity. He has been writing mostly about natural resources since 2003, first in Redding and now in ... Read Full
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Latest Tweets