It's almost here. The Million Boat Float August 16th and 17th. Click here to see the Million Boat Float navigation schedule on the internet. And don't forget the 11 a.m. rally August 17th on the West Steps of the Capitol. It is important to let the Governor and capitulating legislators know that this water package is incomplete, inaccurate in terms of what's needed for Delta restoration, and not ready for approval.

Yesterday, Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes promised federal involvement and more public discussions regarding the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. To learn more about Hayes' comments and the response from Delta advocates, click here to read Alex Breitler's article in The Record.

Below is an excerpt from the letter given to Deputry Secretary Hayes from Restore the Delta at the hearing.

Dear Deputy Secretary Hayes:

On behalf of Restore the Delta - a coalition of over 3800 Delta residents, business leaders, civic organizations, community groups, faith-based communities, union locals, farmers, fishermen, and environmentalists - I want to thank you for taking the time to come to California to learn more about the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. We appreciate the efforts made by your office and Secretary Salazar's office to contact the people of the Delta who are deeply concerned about the Bay Delta Conservation Plan and new state legislative proposals that if implemented would lead to the final demise of the Delta.

However, today's meeting exemplifies all that has gone wrong with the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, Delta management, and water management planning in California. Department of Water Resource Director Lester Snow brought together for today's panel discussion representatives from the Westland Water District and the Metropolitan District, along with Dr. Jeff Mount. Who was not included in the panel? The Delta's agricultural experts, land owners, environmentalists, commercial and recreational fishermen, water agency leaders, business leaders, boaters, wake boarders, political leaders, the poor, and community advocates from the Delta.

Today, you heard the prophecies of doom for the Delta, but what you did not hear is that according to Delta engineers these dramatic prophecies are quite overstated. According to Delta engineers, who have the type of on-the-ground expertise that cannot come from an accelerated and removed academic study, the various threats to the physical stability of the Delta can actually be solved through manageable engineering projects that would cost a fraction of the proposed peripheral canal if implemented.

But somehow these facts, ideas, and alternative solutions never make it into the discussion. Instead the debate for Delta water management has been set by the Westlands Water District and its supporters, as well as the Department of Water Resources which is petitioning to circumvent the salmon biological opinion, under the guise of people versus fish.

What is being sold to the public is an untrue story that a decrease in Delta exports is the cause of the Central Valley's economic woes, when in truth as reported yesterday by the Business Forecasting Center at the University of the Pacific, the primary cause of unemployment and revenue loss for the Central Valley is the decline in construction jobs and projects. What has been left out of the BDCP process itself, and current proposed state legislation, is the people of the Delta and their numerous connections to the health of the estuary. What has been left out of a real public debate is the total economic value of Delta agriculture, recreational fishing, boating, and commercial fishing - economies all tied to the Delta.

In addition, state political leaders and water bureaucrats often describe the people of the Delta as the group that just says no to any changes in the Delta, and, thus, not worthy of including in the discussion. This, once again, is a mischaracterization of who we are and what we want for the Delta.

First, we strongly believe California's critical water issues need to be addressed, but we need to do so with a more comprehensive approach than what is being put forth by the Department of Water Resources and the other parties at the table for the BDCP. Second, we want Delta water management practices that safeguard the Delta, the environment, and the people who live and work in the area. Third, we want real solutions that include cost effective and environmentally sound programs and projects that will capture, recycle, and treat water for all Californians. And most importantly, we want long-term Delta management that is based on a firm understanding of Delta freshwater needs. Understanding Delta freshwater needs and putting strategies into place to manage the Delta so as to meet those needs must be the primary component of a real habitat conservation plan.

Delta farmers, Delta fishing leaders, Delta environmentalists, and Delta engineers understand the estuary better than any outside person. They are the people who live and work in the Delta. They are the primary hands-on stewards of the Delta. Good governance for the Delta would be comprised of equal representation between local interests and state interests in the Delta. Good governance for the Delta would more importantly make sure starting today that current laws on the books for meeting Delta water quality standards and fish screening at the water export pumps at Tracy would be enforced - which they are not presently.

Thank you for taking the time to hear and consider our ideas and positions.

Sincerely yours,

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Campaign Director

The Delta Stewardship Council bill by Senator Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto (formerly SB 12, now SB 1), provides details about governance and funding that are not part of Huffman's Delta Plan bill. The two bills interlock and must both be enacted for either to be operative. It is clearn that Huffman's bill serves as a type of "environmental greenwashing" for enacting Simitian's legislation, which would end any hopes for Delta restoration.

The language of about a third of each bill is identical, so everything we said yesterday about Huffman's bill being internally contradictory applies to Simitian's bill as well.

This bill establishes the Delta Stewardship Council to advance the coequal goals of assuring a more reliable water supply and enhancing the Delta ecosystem "and certain values of the Delta." (It doesn't specify what those values are.) It is this council that will review plans prepared by state agencies to see if they are consistent with the Delta Plan (to be adopted in Huffman's bill).

The Delta Stewardship Council will have seven members, four appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate, one appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules, one appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, and one the Chairperson of the Delta Protection Commission. The council members should "possess diverse expertise and reflect a statewide perspective." Initial appointments are to be made by July 1, 2010.

Initial terms for council members can be two, four, or six years; all subsequent terms are eight years, and no one can serve two consecutive terms. The Governor can make initial appointments for either two or four year terms, and members with those terms of appointment can be immediately appointed to a subsequent full eight-year term. Thus, some of the Governor's appointees could serve up to 12 years.

The council's chairperson will serve full time; other members will serve one-third time. Members will receive a salary. The council will also appoint a full- time executive officer who can hire additional state employees "subject to the availability of funds." The council will be headquartered in Sacramento.

This bill doesn't say what constitutes a quorum. Is it a simple majority of four people? This is important because only a quorum is necessary to proceed with a number of the early actions outlined in this and the Huffman bill.

The council will authorize any conveyance facility, after first adopting "instream flow determinations for the Sacramento River and waterways within the Delta that provide the volume, quality, and timing of water required for a healthy Delta ecosystem under different conditions, including seasonal, annual, and interannual bases, and including an assessment of increased spring and fall outflow and increased San Joaquin River inflow."

Suppose instream flow determinations show that it is not possible to provide for a healthy Delta ecosystem and still ensure water supply reliability. Is there any chance at all that the council would not authorize a conveyance facility? Apparently not. The "no conveyance" option is not an option for this council of stewards.

The bill requires water exporters to submit to the council contingency plans in case of "Delta water supply curtailments and drought, consistent with the board's instream flow requirements, and a long-term plan for reducing reliance on those exports." Once exporters get their conveyance, what will be their incentive for reducing their reliance on Northern California water?

The council will provide "the board" (presumably the Water Board) with a list of potential candidates for Delta Watermaster. The board will appoint this Watermaster and vest him or her with authority to direct daily operations of all surface water diversions within the Delta watershed. Decisions of the Watermaster can be appealed to an administrative law judge, also appointed by the board.

The bill also establishes the Delta Independent Science Board and provides guidelines for the stewardship council to use in selecting members. This Science Board will submit an annual report to the Delta Stewardship Council and "shall include in the report scientific and technical findings regarding the management of the Delta and recommended actions of the council, an identification of short-term and long- term matters for research, and a description of the relevance of these matter to achieving the coequal goals."

How "independent" can this science board be when it is constrained by contradictory goals of protecting the ecosystem and ensuring reliable water supplies?

The last part of Simitian's bill addresses the question we have all been wondering about: How do they propose to pay for the Delta Plan?

The bill requires the Delta Plan to provide for financing all Delta programs on a "beneficiaries pay" basis, with state funds paying for projects that have public benefits or that benefit a disadvantaged community. Costs associated with a conveyance facility, including mitigation, would be borne by those with contracts to receive SWP or CVP water. Yet, there is also a provision in the bill for general obligation bonds. Indeed, who would pay what and how much is still very unclear.

People or entities holding rights, permits, or licenses to divert water within the watershed, including holders of riparian rights, would pay an annual fee that would be deposited in an unspecified fund in the State Treasury. The Legislature could appropriate moneys in this fund to complete the Delta Plan, implement certain early actions, pay costs incurred by the council, and pay costs of facilities and activities intended to mitigate damage to fish populations and other natural resources in the Delta.

The Delta Stewardship Council may also issue bonds, apparently paying for them with revenues derived from fees.

The bill says that fees for mitigation facilities and programs should bear "a fair and reasonable relationship" to the environmental damage caused by the diversion. The unexamined assumption underlying this policy is that all environmental damage can be mitigated with money. We know this isn't true. We know that money can't bring back an extinct species. We know that money can't change the Sacramento River from a losing stream to a gaining stream, putting water back into aquifers that are being drained by pumping to make up for diversions.

Restore the Delta is a charitable 501(c)3 organization. Donations are tax deductible.

Click on the button below to go to our secure PayPal account.