Laserfiche WebLink
<br />subsidence of highly erodible levees, DWR <br />purchased land on two Delta islands and plans to <br />convert them from agricultural use to wildlife habitat. <br /> <br />Over the years, numerous plans have been advanced <br />to protect the Delta from salt water intrusion, periodic <br />flooding, decreased stream runoff, and to preserve <br />the region for fisheries, wildlife and recreation use. <br />In the latter half of the 19th century and into the 20th <br />century, the state studied physical barriers to prevent <br />salt water intrusion that later were deemed un- <br />economical. Several times over the past 35 years <br />(the first in 1964), proposals have been made to build <br />a so-called peripheral canal in order to move water <br />around the Delta. In concept, doing so would improve <br />water quality for southern California by eliminating <br />the problem of salt intrusion from the Delta. However. <br />concerns over increased water exports to central <br />and southern California, along with concerns over <br /> <br />the high price tag have kept the proposal from <br />becoming reality. <br /> <br />In 2000 a consortium of federal and state agencies <br />with management and regulatory responsibilities in <br />the Bay-Delta, known as CALFED. released its <br />"framework" agreement intended to restore the Delta <br />ecosystem and alleviate chronic water management <br />problems. CALFED. advised by the Bay-Delta <br />Advisory Council (a coalition of stakeholders from <br />the agricultural, urban, environmental, fishing, and <br />business communities), proposes a variety of actions <br />encompassing six main programs: ecosystem res~ <br />toration, water quality, levee protection, water use <br />efficiency, water transfers and watershed manage- <br />ment. The programs will be implemented stages __ <br />the first seven years long. The staging is intended to <br />allow CALFED to monitor progress and tweak the <br />various programs as needed. <br /> <br />DELTA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS <br /> <br />Agreeing on water quality standards for the Delta <br />has been a long and contentious process. The State <br />Board began a series of public hearings in 1987 to <br />reevaluate the 1978 Bay-Delta water quality <br />standards in accordance with the landmark 1986 <br />case U.S. v. State Water Resources Control Board. <br />The opinion. written by Judge Racannelli, held that <br />the State Board was required to consider both <br />instream and consumptive uses when setting water <br />quality standards, and that water rights are to be <br />determined separately. In late 1988, after testimony <br />from dozens of water users and environmental <br />groups, the State Board released a draft water plan. <br />It included water quality and flow objectives but was <br />undone by agriculture and urban water interests who <br />feared supply cutbacks. <br /> <br />In 1992, the State Board prepared interim water <br />quality standards at the direction of Gov. Wilson. The <br />draft plan, Decision 1630, was strongly opposed by <br />agricultural water users but supported by environ~ <br />mentalists and urban water suppliers. In March 1993, <br />Wilson called upon the State Board to drop these <br />proposed interim standards. Subsequently. U.S. <br />Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials <br />stepped into the arena after being sued by a coalition <br />of environmental groups. In December 1993, the EPA <br />proposed an interim water quality plan under the <br />Clean Water Act (CWA). The plan incorporated the <br />requirements of the CWA, ESA and CVPIA. It was <br />opposed by urban and agriculture water users <br />because of the proposed reductions in water exports <br />and increases in fresh water flows to the Bay-Delta. <br /> <br />After one year of intense negotiations between the <br />federal and state agencies, urban water users, <br />agricultural groups and environmentalists, an interim <br />agreement was finally reached. <br /> <br />The December 1994 Delta accord is considered a <br />comprehensive ecosystem management plan <br />that protects the ailing estuary and provides certainty <br />to water suppliers. It requires that exports be reduced <br />by 400,000 acre-feet in normal years and up to <br />1.1 million acre-feet in dry years. Underlying the <br />agreement is an assumption that no additional <br />water will be required to protect listed or potentially <br />endangered or threatened species. In May 1995, the <br />State Board approved its own interim water quality <br />standards similar to those enacted in the historic <br />December 1994 accord. EPA approved the State <br />Board's plan and withdrew its standards. The Stale <br />Board must still determine who will give how much <br />water to meet the standards, which involves the <br />water rights of the CVP, SWP and 5,000 other water <br />rights holders. <br /> <br />Another problem on the EPA's agenda is the <br />presence of suspected human carcinogens, <br />trihalomethanes (THMs). in Delta water. THMs are <br />precursors of disinfectant by-products formed when <br />chlorine is used to treat drinking water. At present, <br />no major water utilities violate the maximum <br />contaminant level for THMs of 100 parts per billion <br />set by EPA. However, by December 2001, thai level <br />will be dropped by EPA to 80 parts-per-billion for <br />water systems serving over 10.000 people. <br /> <br />17 <br />