EDMUD's Chewbacca Defense

[Theresa L. Simsiman]

Let's confuse them with the EIR's........

Working off some preconceived notion that a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) does not have to be as “detailed” as a later Project EIR, the stock answer from EBMUD’s staff for the overwhelming comments against raising Pardee goes something like this - YOUR CONCERNS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN A PROJECT LEVEL EIR WHEN AND IF WE DECIDE TO ENLARGE PARDEE.

Yet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) details the following under Article 11 Section 15168:

(b) Advantages. Use of a program EIR can provide the following advantages. The program EIR can: (4) Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy and programwide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and

(c ) (5)A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required.

I can not claim to be a CEQA expert but IMO all the opposition/concerns to raising Pardee & flooding the Mokelumne from American Whitewater, BLM, Foothill Conservancy, Friends of the River, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, the City of Jackson, the landowners in Amador & Calaveras Counties (and the list goes on) are largely IGNORED with the stock response form EBMUD’s staff.

Additionally, you will note that they emphasize “if and when they will enlarge Pardee.” Want to know the alternative to Pardee? DESALINATION in the Bay Area.

Let's see....raise Pardee or open a desalination plant? In other words, here are your choices one bad idea or another bad idea. Given the other viable options that did not make their water plan, both of these grand ideas are disastrous but it would not be hard to guess which bad option would be exercised first.

At any rate, it is my hope that the stakeholders who plan to attend the board meeting next week can convince the directors that EBMUD staff has more work to do. Overall, it's my opinion the stakeholders involved are willing to help EBMUD in their quest for water as long as their concerns are genuinely addressed leaving the Chewbacca Defense in the realms of South Park.

I have included below the summary of my appearance at the Sutter Creek public meeting & EBMUD’s actual response which can be found in the Final Programmatic EIR for their WSMP 2040. If you want to see the response to any of the concerns that you sent in download a copy here.

From WSMP 2040 Final PEIR - Volume II 2.3.2

Theresa Simsiman
American Whitewater
Events Coordinator

I am representing American Whitewater and am here to protest enlargements of Pardee Reservoir.

If Pardee is 1/3 of the water supply solution, then where is the balance with the other components? We will be turning over all the rocks, if necessary.

To show how important this river is to us, we just had an impromptu Paddle one the Mokelumne River with 50 participants.
[Read Letter from David Steindorff]

EBMUD Response 14

EBMUD acknowleges the commenter's opposition to the Enlarge Pardee Reservoir component of the WSMP 2040. The Draft PEIR recognizes the whitewater recreation opportunities provided by the Mokelumne River (please see pages 4.2.D-5 through 4.2.D-6). Please see the Master Responses on the WSMP 2040 and the Enlarge Pardee Reservoir component.

The Preferred Portfoilio for the WSMP 2040 includes a diverse range of components to meet the need for water in dry years, and it will also provide the District with flexibility to address uncertainties such as climate change and timing of droughts. As stated on page 3-30 of the Draft PEIR, if the Regional Desalination component is implemented, then the Upcountry projects (including the Enlarge Pardee Reservoir component) would not be required to meet the projected Need for Water. Impacts associated with the Enlarge Pardee Reservoir component will be fully examined in a project-level EIR when and if the District decides to move forward with project-level planning.

[J.D.]

Just out of curiosity, how about the impacts of desalination? In a general sense, of course. What does one do with all the salt? How does it effect the overall salinity of the bay/ocean or does it given the scale of such a project?

Sorry to potentially hijack the thread Theresa and thanks for putting this information out there!

[Theresa L. Simsiman]

You got me thinking….again no expert on desalination but here’s a link that may shed some light - "Desalination with a Grain of Salt A California Perspective"

My main point here with raise Pardee or desalination is the fact they are pitting two potentially non-viable options against each other while ignoring existing viable options like Los Voqueros (which BTW was mentioned in both letters of comment by U.S. Congressman Lungren and State Assemblywoman Huber).

Also, putting this into economic terms for rate payers, it’s my belief the cost of either raising Pardee or desalination will not be cheap which begs yet another question – if EBMUD staff were serious about flexibility in the WMSP 2040, in terms of their supplemental supply, why would they offer such a narrow plank of options?

Finally, another real question here is whether EBMUD staff is putting the cart before the horse since some of the commenter’s wonder if the real demand for this water actually exists.

[markb]

Desal creates roughly a gallon of brine for each gallon of potable water. Salt/toxins/metals are concentrated. Typically this is pumped somewhere offshore to mix, but not all effects of on these mixing areas is known. The main cost is energy, keeps costs too high for widespread use.

Water intakes can cause problems for fish/larvae.

Gotta always think about the alternative/counterfactual. Least worst case.

[Theresa L. Simsiman]

Friends of the River Action Alert. Be sure to scroll down to Ron Stork's letter to EBMUD.

[Theresa L. Simsiman]

Despite 150 protesters gathered outside their headquarters, followed by a packed board room with 70 speakers, EBMUD made their move to grab more water from the Mokelumne with a 4-2 vote to approve their Water Supply Management Program 2040:

YES - John A. Coleman
YES - Katy Foulkes
NO - Andy Katz
NO - Doug Linney
YES - Lesa R. McIntosh
ABSENT - Frank Mellon
YES - William B. Patterson

Interestingly enough EBMUD, who pride themselves on the rates they offer their ratepayers, just spent 6 million dollars for this plan. And now 4 of the directors have knowingly made the choice to mire their ratepayers in the expenses of a legal challenge that is sure to come – remember that CEQA thing?

But all is not lost, we did get one concession in the form of an after the fact resolution proposed by Lesa McIntosh. The EBMUD board will support National Wild & Scenic River designation for the Mokelumne River. It does not carry the same weight as the WSMP 2040 but we’ll take it - thank you Lesa!

Also, if you feel so inclined, please show your appreciation for this small victory by making a donation to the folks who will continue their efforts to protect the Mokelumne River – the Foothill Conservancy. Katherine Evatt, Pete Bell & Chris Wright are unmatched in the energy they have for the river they love & I am humbled by the their tireless/never ending work.

Needless to say the game of chess will continue……

BTW – Big thanks to Marilyn Freedberg, Joe Gerber & Keith Miller for braving the downpour to show their support!

Below you will find the text of my presentations to the EBMUD Board of Directors at yesterdays board meeting:

AMERICAN WHITEWATER COMMENT TO THE EBMUD BOARD OF DIRECTORS 10-13-09

My name is Theresa Simsiman and I am here as a representative for American Whitewater and the private boating community. I would like to thank the board of directors for the opportunity to speak today.

While I appreciate that East Bay Mud acknowledged my comments made at the Sutter Creek public meeting there is a definite difference between “acknowledge” and “address”.

For instance, when a 30 year FERC relicensing agreement with PG&E includes an Electra Run Take-out Facility to be built in the vicinity of Highway 49 and the US Bureau of Land Management finally gets the funds & go ahead to break ground for said facilities, it does not address concerns when staff can only tell you - we may or may not flood this section of the Mokelumne.

When the City Council of the City of Jackson passes a resolution against expanding Pardee citing substantial sums of public and private money spent improving the recreational facilities on the Mokelumne River and restoring the historic Middle Bar Bridge, it does not address their concern when staff just agrees with the commenter on the value of the Mokelumne river resources & then segue ways back to the stock answer - impacts on the Middle Bar Bridge will be evaluated when & if the District decides to move forward.

When both Congressman Lungren and State Assemblymember Huber voice their concerns for the livelihood of their constituents citing the loss of nearly 2 million annually in sales to Mokelumne River kayakers & encourages East Bay MUD to FULLY study other options such as Los Vaqueros, it does not address their concerns when a viable option is dropped. After all, it appears all that is needed, is more information.

And finally, when the US Bureau of Land Management details that inundation of up to 4000 feet upstream of Highway 49 Bridge would have a direct and adverse affect on the outstanding and remarkable values that help make the North and Main Forks of the Mokelumne River from salt springs dam to highway 49 eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System, it does not address the issue when staff cannot pin down the extent of the inundation & impacts until it does a project level EIR. No Senator will support designating a river that is part of someone else’s water plan.

In conclusion, I ask the directors present here today to consider if the tables where turned. Suppose I am a water agency with plans to use Mokelumne water for Duck Creek reservoir – would you accept the stock answer – if and when we decide to go forward with this project you will get more information? Overall, it’s my belief that the stakeholders here today are willing to help East Bay MUD in their quest for water during dry years as long as their concerns are genuinely addressed. Please vote to give your staff time to do just that.

[Theresa L. Simsiman]

Protesters Fight Plans for Pardee Dam - KGO-TV (ABC 7)

EBMUD board votes to boost water supply - San Francisco Chronicle

__________________________________________________ ______________
Foothill Conservancy News Release
For Immediate Release
October 14, 2009

For more information, contact:
Chris Wright, 209.295.4900 or chris@foothillconservancy.org

East Bay Municipal Utility District Keeps Pardee Dam in Water Plan, Supports National Wild and Scenic River designation for the Mokelumne River

In the face of overwhelming opposition and impassioned public testimony, the East Bay Municipal Utility District board voted 4-2 yesterday to include options for a new Pardee Dam in its 2040 water plan. At the same time, the board voted 6-0 to work with foothill interests to secure National Wild and Scenic River designation for the Mokelumne River.

“We’re clearly unhappy with the Pardee result,” said Foothill Conservancy Executive Director Chris Wright. “EBMUD ignored overwhelming opposition from its own constituents; local, state and federal elected officials; organizations; and businesses in approving a plan that could destroy miles of the Mokelumne River.”

The EBMUD board approved its water plan after much debate, following hours of testimony from nearly 70 speakers —foothill residents who traveled to the meeting by bus and local residents who had braved the rain and wind to speak directly to their elected representatives. At the meeting, the dam opponents presented a long list of elected officials, public agencies, organizations and businesses who opposed the Pardee Expansion (attached).

The EBMUD board was split over whether to retain the dam in its plan. A motion by Director Lesa Macintosh to remove the new dam deadlocked on a 3-3 vote. Skillful maneuvering by Director John Coleman, the strongest dam proponent, resulted in a motion that retained four different Pardee options. The smallest would avoid flooding any of the Mokelumne upstream of the existing Pardee Reservoir. The largest would drown the river, cultural and historical resources, Middle Bar Bridge, whitewater recreation areas, and wildlife and fish habitat up to 1,000 feet above the Highway 49 Bridge. Three of the four options drown all or most of the Middle Bar reach of the Mokelumne and the historic 1912 Middle Bar Bridge, and inundate part of the river eligible for National Wild and Scenic River designation.

The Pardee Expansion is “Out of synch with the times we’re in now and where we will be in 20 to 30 years,” said EBMUD President Doug Linney. “It will be an albatross around our neck, a symbol of everything the East Bay Municipal Utility District is not. Taking it off the table forces us to focus on the other solutions. This is about who we are as an organization.”

”National Wild and Scenic River designation is intended to protect the nation’s most important rivers from new dams and diversions,” said Foothill Conservancy Executive Director Chris Wright. “It’s the only way to protect the last flowing sections of the Mokelumne from more dams. Without that protection, the Mokelumne River and the private property along it will always be at the mercy of three or four water agency directors in some distant city.

“While we’re pleased that EBMUD now supports Wild and Scenic designation, the Middle Bar section of the Mokelumne below Highway 49 is rich in historical and cultural resources, important for recreation and wildlife, and incredibly beautiful. It shouldn’t be written off and reserved for EBMUD to destroy.”

Lesa McIntosh, who made the Wild and Scenic motion, said on Wednesday, “I have enjoyed the Moke River's beautiful rapids and breathtaking scenery. I am more than happy to support its Wild and Scenic designation. It seems only fitting. I also think it important for EBMUD to not only support this effort, but to also work at assisting in making it happen. The Mokelumne is a jewel.”

The adopted EBMUD board resolution states that the agency will not build a new dam without support from “upcountry” community, government, conservation, historic preservation, business, tribal, and recreation stakeholders. But local river advocates found little comfort in that pledge.

“When it’s convenient, EBMUD and other water agencies describe their ‘Mokelumne River Forum’ as a broad-based and inclusive group. But when they’re being honest about it, they admit the forum is a made up of water agencies,” said Foothill Conservancy Board Vice President Pete Bell. “They kept us out of the room for years and they’ve ignored our concerns so far – and now, they’ve rejected the concerns of our broader community. We’re not sure how a board resolution will change that. It’s clear that EBMUD management wants this dam and will continue to push their board to support it.”

Calaveras County Supervisor Steve Wilensky, an ardent opponent of the Pardee expansion, which would be located in his district, responded when told about the decision early Wednesday, “The EBMUD board showed callous disregard for the people of this region, and their promises for future collaboration ring hollow in light of their action yesterday. Their decision carries the seeds of their own demise, and history and the next election may prove that out.”

Asked what comes next, Conservancy Board President Katherine Evatt said, “We’re weighing our own options on the Pardee decision. Meanwhile, we’ll keep working hard for the Mokelumne Wild and Scenic River designation. The Mokelumne needs permanent protection so that future dams don’t destroy its remaining free-flowing reaches.”

To endorse National Wild and Scenic designation for the Mokelumne River, see www.foothillconservancy.org.

For more information, contact Chris Wright of the Foothill Conservancy at 209-295-4900 or chris@foothillconservancy.org.

[Theresa L. Simsiman]

Done playing nice - EAST BAY EXPRESS NEWS

[Theresa L. Simsiman]

The lawsuit moves forward - what EBMUD knew!

[Backcountry]

Utility officials knew that a dam proposed for the Sierra foothills would cause serious environmental harm, but the agency said otherwise when it decided to move forward anyway.

I'm by no means a screeching envirowhacko, but for Pete's sake... EVERYONE knows that pretty much ANY dam has a major environmental impact. It's not so much that PG&E lied, but how they got away with it. Is PG&E management so stupid that they believe their own lies?