Flexibility to Do What? 5 Ways Sites Reservoir

Can Worsen Conditions for Fish Chris Shutes

Water Rights Advocate

California Sportfishing

Protection Alliance

blancapaloma@msn.com

November 17, 2016 1

General principles about new water infrastructure

1. The physical ability to do something doesn’t mean that someone will do it.

2. Water supply improvements are often framed as environmental benefits.

3. Once constructed, new infrastructure is treated as an existing element to optimize.

4. If a new facility is integrated into the CVP and SWP, it will operate according to their rules.

2

Big picture points about a potential Sites reservoir

1. The impacts depend heavily on how it would be operated

2. We don’t know how it would be operated.

3. Sites proponents will over-promise benefits

4. It is reasonable to think that investors will demand priority benefits

5. It is reasonable to think Sites will be optimized for water supply as part of CVP-SWP operations

3

PROMISED WATER SUPPLY BENEFITS WILL REDUCE DELTA OUTFLOW AND INCENTIVIZE DELTA TUNNELS

BAD FOR FISH EXAMPLES #1 AND #2:

4

Sites website: 2016 diversion projection

http://www.water.ca.gov/storage/northdelta/sitesdiversionfaq.cfm

• “Through April 2016, using diversion criteria associated with Alternative C facilities, over one million acre-feet (maf) could have been diverted to Sites Reservoir this water year, which began October 1, 2015.”

• Diversion criteria: Delta is in “excess,” existing Sac River flows met (assumes existing rules)

• “Diversions for Sites Reservoir would have been allowed beginning January 7 and continuing through April 27”

5

WaterFix Exhibit DWR-4

6

But wait, there’s more!

• Jeff Kightlinger, July 31, 2016: “Sites Reservoir from the MWD perspective looks like a good sound project. The problem is, for us, it's north of the Delta. And right now we can't move water through the Delta because we were so restricted in our ability to move water, that it wouldn't provide any real benefits to anyone south of the Delta. … I say well, the problem is I don't know why I would fund it unless I could get some of that water and I can't actually get the water unless we build a conveyance system.” https://mavensnotebook.com/2016/07/31/a-conversation-about-water-with-jeffrey-kightlinger/

7

Bad for fish Examples #1 and #2 Summary

• Sites would have reduced “excess” Delta outflow by 22.7% in 2016

• Delta tunnels AND Sites combined would have reduced 2016 “excess” outflow up to 50%

• Both Sites and “WaterFix” proposed benefits assume existing Delta and Sac River rules: already really bad for fish

• Construction of Sites or tunnels increases likelihood of other: double impacts, bad for fish

8

DISCHARGE OF POOR QUALITY SITES WATER TO SACRAMENTO RIVER

BAD FOR FISH EXAMPLE #3:

9

June 2016 Sites Project Authority Powerpoint

• Ascribed benefit: Salinity repulsion in Delta (Dry and Critically Dry years)

• Ascribed benefit: Preservation of storage in Shasta Reservoir

• Means: release of water from Sites to Sacramento River through proposed Delevan diversion and release pipeline (shown on following slide)

10

11

Assumptions about water released from Sites reservoir

• There will be no significant cold water pool or reservoir stratification

• Sites releases from April through November will be warmer than releases from Shasta

• Sites water will likely have significant water quality issues in addition to temperature, including algae, other aquatic vegetation, mercury, heavy metals

• Releases are unlikely or redundant in Dec – March Sites fill period

12

When would benefits of Sites releases to Sac River

outweigh impacts? • December through March: fill period (why divert

unregulated water to Sites from Sac River while releasing water from Sites to Sac River?)

• May through mid-November: water too warm

• Might be some opportunity mid-November through December; April in really bad years

• Assumes water in storage not already used or allocated

• Will need ever outweigh water quality concerns?

13

Bad for fish Example #3 Summary

• Fish in reach from Delevan Pipeline to Delta adversely affected by higher water temperatures and poorer water quality of water released from Sites reservoir

14

WATER FROM SHASTA RELEASED FOR TEMPERATURE DIVERTED TO SITES AT DELEVAN

BAD FOR FISH EXAMPLE #4:

15

June 2016 Sites Project Authority Powerpoint

• Ascribed benefit: “Shasta cold water releases can be pumped into Sites” (shown on following slide)

• Likely time of year: April and May of drier years

o Cold water demand from Shasta is often higher than irrigation demand

o Delta inflow and outflow can be met from other sources

16

17

Bad for fish Example #4: Summary Reduced flow = warmer water in

Sac River below Delevan 1. Poor survival of adult spring- run salmon moving

upstream in their peak migration period

2. Reduced egg survival of winter- and spring-run (migration through high water temperatures)

3. Poor late-fall-run salmon fry survival

4. Poor sturgeon egg survival during their peak spawning season

5. Poor hatchery and wild smolt survival to the Bay.

See: http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/?m=201605

18

ADDITIONAL EXPORT OF TRINITY WATER TO STORAGE IN SITES

BAD FOR FISH EXAMPLE #5:

19

Benefits of Sites to Trinity overstated

• Ascribed benefit: diverting water to Sites will mean less draw on carryover storage in Trinity (Sites Project Authority powerpoint June 2016; next slide)

• There are existing limitations to Trinity exports because Trinity water is warmer than Sac River

• It is reasonable to assume BOR will move water from Trinity to Sites in fall once water and air temperatures drop

• Tehama-Colusa and Glenn-Colusa canals available before rains in December

20

21

Bad for fish Example #5: Summary

• Sites will give BOR “flexibility” to export Trinity water to Sites, especially in fall

• Unreasonable to think that BOR won’t use it

• In WaterFix hearings, Sac Valley water users made same argument about exporting water stored north of Delta closer to areas of future use to avoid conveyance bottlenecks

• Impacts: Trinity Reservoir carryover and cold water pool, Trinity River fish

22

A few closing thoughts (1)

• “We will have first call on the water,” said Lewis Bair of Reclamation District 108 (SacBee, Nov. 13, 2016)

• No assurance at all

• Competition with urban users paying top dollar

• Long list of potential investors (Sites Joint Authority powerpoint; see next slide)

23

24

A few closing thoughts (2)

• “Having that increment of water during these dry years ... wouldn’t that be a blessing for everything – for fish, for birds, for people, for farms, right?” asked David Guy, president of the Northern California Water Association. (SacBee, Nov. 13, 2016)

• No assurance the water will be held in storage for dry year use, especially if integrated into CVP and SWP operations

• Water sales south of Delta every year? Who will say no?

25

A few closing thoughts (3)

• If Sites is built, what new facilities will be needed to optimize it?

• Delta tunnels?

• Enlarged Tehama-Colusa or Glenn-Colusa canals?

• If Sites is built, what conditions will be needed to make it pencil out?

• Delta flow increases not “feasible”?

26

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

http://calsport.org/news/

http://calsport.org/fisheriesblog/

Donate or join today!

THANK YOU!

27