HomeMy WebLinkAboutPeripheral Canal - Senate Bill 200 - Senate Bill 346 - State i
�tdl
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCILACTION RCA 800
Submitted by Floyd G. Belsito, City Ad min istra tor Department Administration
Date Prepared February 19 , 1980 Backup Material Attached M Yes No
Subject SENATE BILL 200: PERIPHERAL CANAL
City Administrator's Comments
APPROVED BY CI-~TY
Approve as recommended
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions:
Statement of Issue:
Beginning in 1985, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California will gradually lose most
of the 1 .2 million acre-feet that it currently draws from the Colorado River. A fifteen year old
Supreme Court decision states that Arizona has the right to that .water.
Recommendation:
Support SB 200, the bill which would authorize construction of the peripheral canal.
Analysis;
To make up for the loss of Colorado River water to Arizona, the Peripheral Canal is needed to
ensure delivery of Northern California water to Southern California. Although Huntington Beach
obtains most of its water from our own local wells, it is still necessary for us to purchase some
water from the Metropolitan Water District. It is, therefore, a matter of our own self-interest to
support this canal to ensure that future external water sources are available. The Director of
Public Works supports this bill.
Attached is an informational brochure explaining in more detail the circumstances and need for
the Canal. Also attached is the State Legislative Counsel's Digest of SB 200.
Alternative:
Take no position, or oppose the bill.
Funding Source:
No funds are necessary.
FG B:de
AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 10, 1980
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 7, 1979
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 30, 1979
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 4, 1979
SENATE BILL No. 200
Introduced by Senator Aye4a Senators Ayala, Alquist,
Beverly, Briggs, Carpenter, Craven, Cusanovich, Dills,
Alex Garcia, Greene, Mills, Montoya, Presley, Roberti,
Russell, Schmitz, Sieroty, Speraw, Stiern, Vuich, Watson,
and Wilson
January 15, 1979
An act to amend Section 11460 of, to add Sections 11108,
11109, 11110, 11456, 11457, 11458, and 11915.2 to, to add Article
9.4 (commencing with Section 11255) to Chapter 2 of Part 3
of Division 6 of, the Water Code, relating to water.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 200, as amended, Ayala. Water facilities.
(1) Existing law provides for the design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of specified water development
facilities by the state. Such facilities include, among others,
the facilities specified or authorized as additional facilities in
the state Central Valley Project, and specified facilities in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta including facilities for transfer
of water across the delta, flood- and salinity control, and
related functions.
This bill would designate as additional facilities of the
Central Valley Project, subject to specified conditions, a
specified peripheral canal to be built in specified stages,
relocation of the intake to the Contra Costa Canal, the Los
Vaqueros Unit as described, specified south delta water
�B 200 —2— —3— SB 200
iiality improvement facilities, Suisun Marsh protection Canal units are conditioned upon completion of specified
icilities as specified, specified facilities for utilizing ground favorable feasibility reports.
.eater storage space in specified locations, the Glenn ; (2) Under existing federal law, before federal
Reservoir-River Diversion Unit as specified, the Colusa authorization of a project and if nonfederal public bodies
Reservoir-River Diversion Unit as specified subject to indicate their intent in writing to administer project land and
;pecified conditions, waste water reclamation programs as water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement,
pecified, water conservation programs as• specified, the as specified, and to bear not less than one-half the separable
�Iid-Valley Canal as specified, the Western Delta Overland costs of the project allocated to such purposes and all of the
-,NVater Facilities as specified, and facilities to provide for the costs of operation,maintenance,and replacement,the federal
transportation of water to San Joaquin, San Francisco, San project may take into account such benefits in determining
Mateo, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties as specified. the economic benefits of the project, allocate such costs as
T bill would provide that construction of the peripheral specified and provide that not over one-half of such separable
-an-. or the Mid-Valley Canal are conditioned upon the costs and all joint costs of the project allocated to such
6epartment of Water Resources and the Department of Fish enhancement purposes shall be borne by the United States
and Game entering into a-permanent agreement for the and be nonreimbursable.
protection of fish and wildlife, as specified. The bill would The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Resources
prohibit the transportation of water for the federal Central Agency to make such indication in writing for any federal
Valley Project through state project facilities, including the multiple-purpose water project land and water areas of the
peripheral canal, with specified exceptions, until the Mid-Valley Canal Unit.
enactment of federal legislation or the Secretary of the (3) Existing law prohibits the Department of Water
Interior entering into a permanent contract with the Resources from depriving a watershed or area wherein water
department which requires operation of the federal Central originates, as specified, of the prior right to the water
Valley Project in coordination with the State Water Resources required therein, as specified. "
Development System and in compliance with water quality ® This bill would also require the project to be operated in
standards and permit and license conditions adopted by the compliance with water quality standards set forth as
State Water Resources Control Board, as specified, and in conditions in permits or license's and in water quality control
cor' rmity with a permanent agreement between the United plans,as specified or as established by contract. The bill would
Sta. , and the state for the protection and enhancement of require specified state agencies to take all necessary actions
fish and wildlife, as specified, and until federal agreement to to assure that the federal Central Valley Project is operated
the transportation of water of the federal Central Valley in compliance with such standards.
Project through the peripheral canal. The bill would require The bill would require the costs of benefits in the delta as
the department to enter into contracts with specified delta a result of a project operation, in excess of any detriments
agencies gas prescribed and would require differences caused bythe project, to be repaid, to the extent properly
between the state and such delta agencies, if contracts have allocable, to the department by the beneficiaries and not by
not been executed by the effective date 'of the bill, to be the contractors of the project who do not receive those
resolved by arbitration in accordance .with specified benefits.
provisions. The bill would require the department to make an
The bill would provide that authorizations of the Los allocation of specified costs to the project to compensate for
Vaqueros, ground water storage, Glenn Reservoir-River Diversion, Colusa Reservoir-River Diversion, and Mid Valley historic upstream depletion and diversions, and would specify
that public agencies which have contracted for water supplies
B 200 —4— —5— S B 200
:all not be responsible for such allocated costs. 1 Article 9.4. Additional Facilities and Programs
(4) The bill would also authorize the Department of Fish 2
ild Game to administer, as specified, a comprehensive study 3 11255. The project includes the units authorized in
o determine the interrelationship between delta outflow, 4 this section,subject to the conditions specified in Sections
T-1cluding flushing flows, and fish and wildlife resources in the 5 11256 and 11257, and in compliance with the California
3n Francisco Bay System westerly of the delta and waste 6 Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section
scharges into the San Francisco Bay System. The bill would ! 7. 21000 of the Public Resources Code) and which may be
,quire the Department of Water Resources to study the 8 constructed, operated, and financed as joint-use facilities
ossible interconnection between the State Water Resources 9 with the United States:
)evelopment System and water supply systems serving the 10 (a) A peripheral canal unit, around the eastern and
:ounties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San 11 southern rim-,of the delta. This unit shall be designed,
oa( i, and San Mateo. The bill would also authorize the 12 constructed, acid operated to meet the provisions of this
.epdl.Lment to participate in an investigation of the need to 13 part in the most,.effective manner, and shall consist of
nlarge Shasta Dam and Reservoir or other existing federal 14 canals, pumping plants, intake and outlet structures,
t�servoirs. 15 siphons and fish screens. The department shall design
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. 16 and construct the unit so.,as to optimize its usefulness for
-3tate-mandated local program: no. 17 the protection of the. "resources of the delta and the
18 augmentation of water\supplies. The department may
The people of the State of California do enact as follows. 19 provide for joint use or Oelivery of water from the unit
20 with local agencies or with the United States upon the.
1 SECTION 1. Section 11108 is added to the Water 21 execution of agreements with local agencies or with the
2 Code, to read: 22 United States ' concerning `pperation, financing, and
3 11108: "Delta" 'means the Sacramento/an 23 sharing of benefits of the 'unit. This unit shall be
4 Delta as d c ribed in Section 12220. ` 24 constructed"in three stages,with the work on the first and
5 SEC. 2. Se ion 11109 is added to tl Water Code, to • 25 second stages proceeding concurrently. Stage one shall
6 read: // 26 consist of construction of the facility from the town of
7 11109. "Suisun'-Marsh" mean$ the area defined in 27 Hood 'Ito Shima Tract on the northwest outskirt of
8 . _ction 29101 of the'Public Resources Code. 28 Stockton. Stage two shall consist of preconsolidation from
9 SEC. 3. Section 11110,1s added to the Water Code, to 29 the/San Joaquin River to Clifton Court Forebay of the
0 read: `4 30 California Aqueduct. Stage three shall consist .of the
1 11110. "Historical level"means the average annual 31 completion of the facilities from Shima Tract to Clifton
2 abundance from 1922 through 1967 of the adult 32 Court Forebay. When stage one is completed, it shall be
3 populations of fish and wildlife estimated to have lived in 33 operated for a period of two years to establish adequate
4 or been dependent on any area, as determined by the 34 fish screen. and operational criteria. Thereafter, stage
5 Department of Fish and Game. ` j 35 three shall be constructed when the Director of Water
6 SEC. 4. Article 9.4 (commencing with Section 11255) 36 Resources and the Director of Fish and',Game both
7 is added to Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 6 of the Water 37 determine from the results of the trial period that the fish
Code, to read: 38 screen and operational criteria will adequately protect
39 fish populations. The state water facilities referred to in
40 paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 12934 are
REQUES*OR CITY COUNCIL .ACTION
Date 'March'18, -1982
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED By Clt-k-CO'UNCIL
Submitted by: C. W. Thompson, City Administra
Prepared by: Paul E. Cook, Director of Public Works �..,...Y• r'c% � .__
�'� 01T ELERIf
,Subject: Proposition 9, Peripheral Canal and the 1980 State Water Act
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
In June, 1982, California voters will approve.or reject. Senate Bill 200, Construction
of the Peripheral Canal. r It is. appropriate that the City Council take' a stand on the
issue of Proposition 9.
RBCCD24EADATION:
Adopt the attached resolution supporting the construction of the Peripheral Canal.
ANALYSIS:
Attached is a map showing the proposed location of the Peripheral Canal. This project
would correct the following problems:
1. The existing channel-ways are not large enough to convey the.large amounts..of water
.Southern California will need when more than 600.,000 acre feet_of.water is lost to
Arizona in 1985.
2. The present method of pumping water out of the Delta is. harmful 'to. fish and wildlife.
3. Much of the water conveyed through the Delta is used.to repel sea water. Less fresh
water will be utilized for.this purpose by releasing canal water at certain strategic
locations into the Delta.
Although the proponents indicate that the .project will cost $600.million .(1980 dollars) , the-
California Department of Water Resources recent estimate is' $1.4= billion. Funds to con-
struct the Canal could. be (1) revenue bonds,. (2) tidelands.oil. and gas;:funds, or (3) the
California Water Fund which includes excess payments for future replacements to the State
Water Project made by water purveyors. By-.one:method-.or another, the.costs of the project
will ultimately be assessed to the water purveyors and to consumers by higher water rates.
SB 200 also includes authorization_-for feasibility investigations.on-:reclamation., storage,
groundwater' recharge and conservation projects, :enumerated in'the-1980 State .Water Act.
In 1981, our' City's water requi.rements`were::furnished mostly from.water wells (73% of the
total) . The remainder came from imported water conveyed from. the Colorado. River' and State
Water Project. Additional water wells will be constructed during- 1982-84. By 1985. it is
anticipated that nearly all City water needs will be met .by City wells. The use of im-
ported water would only be during our..well outages.
Our City is fortunate in that we have access to a very, large-groundwater basin of good
quality water. Although pumping levels are shallow,., the. basin. is subject.-to being over-
drafted after years.of below average rainfall. Imported waters are utilized by the Orange
County Water District to recharge the groundwater basin. Curtailment of imported water
could adversely affect the recharge program. For this reason it is strongly recommended(^
�KJ
Request for Council Action
Proposition 9
March 18, 1982
Page 2
that the City Council formally endorse the approval of SB 200 and Proposition 9. A
resolution similar to that attached was recently adopted by'the,:Orange County Division
of the League of California Cities.
ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1. Do not take a stand on Proposition 9.
2. Adopt a resolution urging a "no" vote on Proposition 9.
FUNDING SOURCE:.
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map of Canal
Resolution
CWT:PEC:jy
REQUES i FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION RCA 81-12
' nr
Date June 8, 1981
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: . Charles W. Thompson, City Adminis
slyGITY Gov [ V
Subject: PERIPHERAL CANAL REFERE
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
At the Council meeting of June 1, 1981, Councilman Kelly requested the
preparation of a resolution supporting the Peripheral Canal referendum.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve .the attached resolution.
ANALYSIS:
The resolution urges the Governor to place the Peripheral Canal refer-
endum on the earliest possible State-wide ballot for approval by the
electorate. It also urges the residents of Huntington Beach to join
the City in supporting this measure.
ALTERNATIVES4
Do not support the resolution, or modify the resolution.
FUNDING SOURCE:
No ( funds are necessary.
PIO 4/81
Honorable Edmund 9 Brown Jr
Am
•f
Governor, State o alifornia RiWrti uhty Board of Supervisors
State.Capitol Ad Center
Sacramento, CA 95814 40A0 lmon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
San Bernardino County Board of.Superrisors 175 W. Sth Street league of California Cities
San Bernardino, CA 9241S 1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Honorable:John G. SCh111 tZ tr,
California State Senate ` .
State- Capitol .
x
Sacramento. CA 95814
r. State deter Resouryces Co+ttr+roj
1416 9th Street Board
Sacraeento, CA 95814 605-2
Assea+blyean.Nolan Friuelle r,
19600 Main Street Suitt 210
Huntington Beach. CA 92648
Orange County Board of Supervisors
10 Civic Center:Plasa. 30 floor-
Santa Ana, CA 92701
i os Angeles.County. Board of swervisora ,. :;.
wo W. Temple: Street ROM 311 Ventura County Board of Supervisors ,
[..(is Angeles, CA 90012 800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
San ,Di,ego County Board of Supervisors
County 'Courthouse
220 W. Broadway
San Diego, Ca 92101
- i
• 1 V ./
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE Il
COUNCIL-ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION CA 77-139
HUNTINGTON BEACH IMA-1
To Honorable Mayor and From Floyd G. Belsito
City Council Members City Administrator
Subject SENATE BILL 346 Date October 31 , 1977
PERIPHERAL CANAL
The Phipheral Canal bill , SB 346 , will be coming before the State
Legislature when it reconvenes in January.
Recommended Action:
C
ort SB 346 , and direct the City Administrator to send letters
essing the City' s position to the appropriate legislative repre nt-
es .
Analysis :
Attached is a resolution. adopted by the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California supporting SB 346 , and general background information
on the bill . The purpose of SB 346 is to break the long standing impasse
on construction of the Peripheral Canal, a proposed joint use facility
of the State Water Project and the Federal Central Valley Project.
Bill Hartge, Director of the Department of Public Works , recommends
support of this bill .
L2Z
y submi ed
/L AFPRpyZD BY CITY COUNCIL
1Floyd G. Belsito
City Administrator ......
_.CITY .rltK� I
FGB:JC :bt
4'WATE
p
E
F � 0
`TFE.�'CAUFOP
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
October 17, 1977
Office of Board of Directors
Howard H.Hawkins,Chairman
Lynndon L.Aufdenkamp,Vice Chairman
Hans H. Doe,Vice Chairman
Samuel B. Nelson,Vice Chairman
Milo Dellmann,Secretary
Honorable Ron Pattinson 0 C T 19 1977
Mayor of the City of Huntington Beach CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Post Office Box 190 CITY COUNCIL OFFICE
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Mayor Pattinson:
Next month a joint Assembly-Senate committee will
begin hearings throughout California on Senate Bill 346. I
am thoroughly convinced this bill represents our best--and
perhaps last--chance to get construction of the vitally
needed Peripheral Canal underway.
Like virtually any important piece of legislation,
SB 346 represents a compromise. San Joaquin Valley interests
oppose it in its present form because they believe it gives
too much water to the Delta. Delta interests oppose it in
its present form because they believe it gives too much
water to the San Joaquin Valley. Their respective positions
strongly suggest that the bill is being fair to both.
Because it seems a reasonable compromise, the
measure is supported by the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California and other major urban water agencies,
such as the East Bay Municipal Utility District and the
Santa Clara Valley Water District, and environmental groups
like the Sierra Club and the Planning and Conservation
League.
All of California will benefit from the passage of
SB 346 and Metropolitan is committed to working for its
passage when the State Legislature reconvenes in January.
Your support and the support of your city council will
strengthen its chances for passage. I am asking you and the
members of your city council to study SB 346 and then add
your voices in its behalf.
1111 Sunset Boulevard,Los Angeles,Calif./Mailing address: Box 54153,Los Angeles,Calif.90054/Telephone:(213)626-4282 1�
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Honorable Ron Pattinson -2 October 17, 1977
I am enclosing a background statement which explains
the provisions of SB 346 and a copy of a resolution passed
by our board of directors last week in support of the bill.
Construction of the Peripheral Canal is absolutely
essential if Metropolitan is to continue to meet the water
needs of the 11 million people it .serves. I know you will
want to join us in working for its passage.
Cordially,
Howard H. Hawkins
Chairman
HHH/aw
Enclosures
RESOLUTION 7728
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
RELATING TO SENATE BILL 346
WHEREAS, the coastal plain of Southern California de-
pends for more than two-thirds of its water supply on three
aqueducts--the Los Angeles , the California, and the Colorado;
and
WHEREAS , the City of Los Angeles ' supply from the
Owens Valley through its Los Angeles Aqueduct has been limited
this year because of drought in the Sierras and a court in-
junction against pumping from the underground in the valley;
and
WHEREAS, because of the worst drought in history in
Northern and Central California, the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California agreed to stop taking delivery
of northern water from the State ' s California Aqueduct on
March 1 for the remainder of this calendar year; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the shortage of supply from
both the City of Los Angeles and California aqueducts , Metro-
politan has been forced to operate its Colorado River Aqueduct
well beyond its design capacity; and
WHEREAS , a flash flood of unprecedented magnitude
put the Colorado River Aqueduct completely out of operation
for five days in September with a resultant loss of supply of
some• 12 billion gallons of water; and
WHEREAS , the City of Los Angeles has fully developed
its potential water supply in the Owens Valley and Mono Basin;
and
WHEREAS , Metropolitan, as a result of the U. S.
Supreme Court decision in Arizona versus California, will suf-
fer the loss of more than half a million acre-feet of the
1. 2 million acre-feet of its annual Colorado River Supply to
the Central Arizona Project in the mid-19801s; and
WHEREAS, Metropolitan fully supports all efforts to
eliminate wasteful uses of water through installation of
water-saving devices and through long-range educational cam-
paigns ; and
-2-
WHEREAS, Metropolitan also fully supports reuse of
water, particularly for industrial needs , and more efficient
use of groundwater supplies in conjunction with surface de-
liveries ; and
WHEREAS; Metropolitan, in addition, urges continuing
research into other potential sources of supply, as , for ex-
ample, the desalting of sea water, which at present are
economically unfeasible; and
WHEREAS , in. the light of all the preceding, it ap-
pears overwhelmingly clear that early completion of the State
Water Project, along with construction of additional features
of the Federal Central Valley Project, is an immediate and
vital necessity; and
WHEREAS , a key element of this overall program is
joint Federal-State construction of the Peripheral Canal
around the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers ; and
WHEREAS, although the Peripheral Canal is and will
remain an authorized facility of the State Water Project and
may be constructed by the State alone, whether SB 346 is en-
acted or not, joint construction and operation with the Bureau
of Reclamation is desirable; and
WHEREAS , such a program offers the best hope of meet-
ing the water needs of not only Southern California but also
Central and Northern California in the years ahead and possibly
until the year 2000; and
WHEREAS , this program is embodied in State Senate Bill
346 which this year received a majority vote in both the Senate
and Assembly but failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds
vote in the upper house; and
WHEREAS , this measure is expected to be before the
State Legislature for further consideration in January :
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California at this its regular meeting on October 11 , 1977 ,
does hereby endorse Senate Bill 346 as an urgently needed step
toward meeting the water problems of the entire State of
California; and
-3-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board does hereby
call upon all members of the State Legislature to join in
supporting this proposed legislation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Boards of Supervisors
of the Counties of Los Angeles , Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino ,
San Diego, and Ventura and all cities and water agencies within
the Metropolitan Water District are hereby urged to go on record
in strong support of Senate Bill 346 and to so notify their rep-
resentatives in the State Legislature.
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a full , true,
and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Direc-
tors of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,
at its meeting held October 11 , 1977 .
A A/-A
Executive Sec re
The Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California
P\
F \
r GrFR\'C,1\F p2`
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Office of.the General Manager
General Background on Senate Bill 346
Senate Bill 346 was introduced early in the 1977
legislative session by Senator Ruben Ayala, of San Bernardino,
Chairman of the Senate Agriculture and Water Resources
Committee. The purpose of the bill was to break the long-
standing impasse on construction of the Peripheral Canal, a
proposed joint-use facility of the State Water Project and
the Federal Central Valley Project.
Almost concurrently with the introduction of
SB 346, Governor Brown announced his support of a proposal
by the Department of Water Resources for a comprehensive
program of dams, reservoirs, canals, and other facilities to
meet the combined needs of the State Water Project and
Central Valley Project through the year 2000. This proposal
was the result of more than two years of intensive studies,
including many public hearings. Governor Brown asked that
the many interest groups affected by the proposal undertake
negotiations on a draft of Federal legislation that would
authorize participation in the program by the U.S . Bureau of
Reclamation.
These two approaches to a generally common goal
were merged in early June in meetings in the Governor' s
office. Agreement was reached among representatives of
water, environmental, labor, farming, and other groups on
comprehensive amendments to SB 346. These amendments incor-
porated into Senator Ayala' s bill the many facilities and
1111 Sunset Boulevard,Los Angeles,Calif./Mailing address: Box 54153,Los Angeles,Calif.90054/Telephone: (213)626-4282
-2-
programs needed for the Year 2000 Plan, including a three-
stage Peripheral Canal . The bill was passed by the Senate
in June and sent to the Assembly.
In the. course of extensive hearings by the Assembly
Water Committee during August and early September, the bill
was amended substantially. In the process, a number of
agricultural water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley adopted
the position that the bill and the many amendments had not
been studied sufficiently, and they requested the bill be
held over until January for further hearings.
The bill was passed by the Assembly on September 9
by a vote of 58 to 21. It was heard on the Senate floor on
the closing day of the session, September 15, and received a
vote of 21 to 16. As this was less than the necessary two-
thirds, it was put over until next year. A six-member
joint-conference committee has been appointed and will hold
hearings throughout the State during November.
The major provisions of the bill include the
following:
Peripheral Canal
The key water facility authorized by SB 346 is the
Peripheral Canal (see attached sketch map) . This canal
would be a 43-mile-long channel, 300 to 400 feet wide,
around the eastern perimeter of the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta. It would begin near Hood on the Sacramento River and
extend to the two large pumping plants of the State Water
Project and Central Valley Project in the south Delta near
Tracy. The canal would have a number of outlet structures
for releasing water from the canal into the Delta to control
water quality in the Delta.
The Peripheral Canal was first proposed as a joint
facility of the State and Federal water projects in 1964.
Since that time, there have been various efforts to proceed
-3-
with construction. However, a great deal of controversy and
opposition to the canal developed in the Delta area and
Northern California, and progress on construction has been
bogged down for a number of years .
The canal would serve two major purposes. First,
it would convey water from the Sacramento River to the
export pumps near Tracy. Such export water presently must
pass through existing channels in the central and western
Delta, requiring excessive amounts of freshwater Delta
outflow to maintain water quality at the export pumps and in
the Delta. It is estimated that up to 1, 000, 000 acre-feet
of water a year can be conserved by conveying the export
water in a separate channel, while concurrently protecting
agriculture, industry, and fish and wildlife in the Delta.
The second major purpose of the canal is to restore
and protect the fish that live in or migrate through the
Delta. The present method of conveying export water through
Delta channels disrupts the habitat of Striped Bass, Salmon,
Steelhead, and other fish. The Department of Fish and Game
has long supported the concept of a Peripheral Canal as a
means of not only protecting these fish from the effects of
export flows but also enhancing their habitat.
Other significant purposes of the Peripheral Canal
include various forms of recreation such as boating and the
ability to better manage and control water quality in the
many Delta channels.
Mid-Valley Canal
The Mid-Valley Canal has been proposed as a convey-
ance system for tying together the California Aqueduct on
the west side of the San Joaquin Valley with the existing
Friant-Kern and Madera Canal service areas on the east side
of the valley. Its purpose would be to partially overcome
the serious groundwater overdraft condition on the east
-4-
side. Approximately 500, 000 acre-feet could be conveyed in
most years. The water would be used not to open up new
lands but to protect existing agriculture from continuously
falling water tables. The canal is in the bill because of
the possibility of developing it in some manner as a joint
State-Federal facility. However, the area to be served is a
service area of the Federal project and the bill provides
that the water delivered through the canal shall be water
developed by Federal conservation facilities.
Miscellaneous Delta Facilities
Senate Bill 346 includes a number of facilities to
improve and protect water quality in various parts of the
Delta system. The existing intake of the Contra Costa
Canal, constructed in 1940, would be relocated from the
Western Delta to Clifton Court Forebay in the southern Delta
to assure that this important municipal-industrial water
supply would have the same high. quality as the export projects.
For the western Delta islands, pipelines and small pumping
plants would be constructed to deliver adequate water for
agriculture. In the south Delta, various channel improvements
would be made to alleviate the existing poor water quality
conditions caused by San Joaquin River agricultural drainage.
The protection of Suisun Marsh, an important
waterfowl habitat a few miles west of the Delta, will require
both interim facilities prior to the Peripheral Canal and
permanent long-range facilities. The purposes of these
facilities are to improve water management practices within
the marsh and to bring in additional good quality water to
mix with the brackish waters in the marsh. The overall
objective is to maintain water conditions conducive to
growing the various plants that serve as food for waterfowl .
-5-
Dams and Reservoirs
A number of large reservoir projects would be
authorized by SB 346. one of these would include two conven-
tional on-stream dams and the others would be off-stream
storage reservoirs filled by pumping, similar to San Luis
Reservoir. (San Luis Reservoir is a joint State-Federal
storage facility in the San Joaquin Valley. )
The on-stream development would be the Cottonwood
Creek Project in the northwest Sacramento Valley. The
project would include two large reservoirs on the two forks
of Cottonwood Creek. The project is presently authorized
for construction by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. It is
included in the bill for consideration as a possible joint
State-Federal development.
Four off-stream storage reservoirs are included in
the program: Glenn and Colusa reservoirs on the west side
of the Sacramento Valley, to be filled by pumping Sacramento
River surplus flows; Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa
County, to be filled by pumping winter flows from the Delta;
and Los Banos Grande Reservoir, adjacent to San Luis Reservoir
in the San Joaquin Valley, to be filled by pumping additional
winter flows through the California Aqueduct.
Senate Bill 346 requires that each project be
extensively studied for engineering, economic, environmental,
and financial feasibility before any decision is made to
proceed with construction. Depending on the size of reservoir
eventually found most feasible for each site, it is probable
that not all of the off-stream storage reservoirs will be
developed.
Existing Water Supply
Many studies have been made of the amount of firm
water supply which the State Water Project could deliver
with existing facilities. The most recent studies indicate
-6-
that the firm yield of the existing facilities based on a
repetition of the 1928-1934 drought would be approximately
2 .2 million acre-feet per year. In a year of average water
supply, the project could probably deliver 2 .8 million acre-
feet per year, with the limitation being the capacity of the
existing channels in the Delta. The facilities provided in
SB 346 are intended to increase the firm yield of the State
project to approximately 3 . 0 to 3 . 5 million acre-feet a
year, depending on what facilities are constructed and what
sharing arrangements are worked out with the Federal Government.
The average year' s supply with the facilities would be on
the order of 3 .5 to 4.0 million acre-feet.
The conventional approach to making yield studies
is to simulate operation of the facilities over a lengthy
period for which hydrologic records are available. Generally,
operation studies for the State and Federal projects are
based on the records beginning in 1922, and the studies
always include the 1928 to 1934 seven-year drought in the
Central Valley. The studies do not include 1976 and 1977.
Operation studies involve many approximations and assumptions,
and the results of such studies generally are used for
making comparisons, not for deriving absolute values . The
assumptions concerning Delta protection requirements are
particularly significant since the standards for Delta
protection have been under continuing study and negotiation.
Federal Role
One of the principal thrusts of SB 346 is to
address the relationship between the State and Federal
governments with respect to operation of the State Water
Project and the Federal Central Valley Project. The Federal
government has already invested more than $1 billion in the
Central Valley Project and is the major supplier of irrigation
water in the Central Valley.
-7-
In recent years, a number of legal and policy
questions as to coordinated operation of the State and
Federal projects and the Federal role concerning Delta
protection have come under serious public debate. SB 346
addresses these questions and concerns by setting forth
steps which the State believes must be taken by the Federal
Government before construction can begin on the Peripheral
Canal and the Mid-Valley Canal . These steps generally
involve Federal-State agreements with respect to fish and
wildlife protection, coordinated operation of the State and
Federal projects, agreements with local Delta agencies, cost
sharing for the new facilities, and common Delta protection
standards. In essence, the bill sets forth an initial
California position with respect to these State-Federal
problem areas for the purpose of opening meaningful discussions
with the Federal Government.
Delta Protection
Various provisions concerning Delta protection are
included in SB 346 . These provisions are not intended to
increase the obligations of the water projects for Delta
protection but only to clarify existing law. The clarifi-
cations involve both interpretations that favor Delta interests
and interpretations that favor the water projects . They
include the following: authorization for releases from
storage reservoirs to protect various purposes in the Delta,
recognition that Suisun Marsh and San Francisco Bay are part
of the estuary system to be protected from possible effects
of the water projects, provision that Delta water users must
pay their allocated share of the costs of providing benefits
which they receive, reaffirmation that the reasonable needs
of Delta water users have a priority over export uses, and a
provision that Delta protection standards be relaxed during
dry and critical years .
-8-
New Programs for State Water Project Contractors
Senate Bill 346 recognizes the growing interest in
wastewater reclamation, water conservation, and increased
conjunctive use of ground waters and surface waters . The
bill provides that these approaches for more fully utilizing
our existing water resources should become an integral part
of the overall program for meeting the needs of the State
project service areas .
Financing
Most of the financing required for the State's
share of the facilities included in SB 346 will come from
presently authorized revenue bonds underwritten by the water
contractors and from tidelands oil revenues. The bill does
provide, however, for a significant change concerning the
use of the tidelands oil revenue funds currently available
to the Department of Water Resources . Presently, of the $30
million a year which the Department receives in tidelands
revenues, only $5 million a year can be allocated to paying
the costs of recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement.
In essence, the bill increases the amount of money which the
Department can annually allocate for nonreimbursable Delta
costs to the full $30 million a year which it receives, up
to an accumulated maximum of $200 million, and this can be
done without further legislative authorization. This change
recognizes that a significant amount of Delta protection
costs involve general enhancement over conditions that would
be present in the absence of the projects and should not
have to be paid by the water contractors .
Self-Destruct Provision
Senate Bill 346 contains a provision which has
come to be known as the "self-destruct provision, " relating
to the various preconditions for construction of the Peripheral
-9-
Canal and Mid-Valley Canal. The provision states in essence
that, if the various conditions required prior to construction
of the Peripheral Canal and Mid-Valley Canal are not attained
by December 31, 1980, then all of the preconditions, together
with the specific authorizations for the two canals provided
in the bill, are automatically repealed.
. This provision was included in the legislation at
the request of water interests to protect against the possibil-
ity that, in spite of good faith efforts during the next
three years to meet the various conditions, it would become
apparent that they were impossible to attain. In such an
event, the water interests did not want to have the precondi-
tions permanently locked into law and thus be a barrier
against some other form of action to move forward with the
Peripheral Canal .
Although the specific authorization contained in
SB 346 for the Peripheral Canal would also be repealed under
this provision, the more general authorization for construction
of Delta facilities set forth in the Burns-Porter Act (1959-
1960) would remain in effect. Thus, if the self-destruct
provision comes into operation, the status of authorization
for the Peripheral Canal will revert to where it was prior
to enactment of SB 346. Presumably, though, whatever agree-
ments or other progress were accomplished during the three-
year period would not be nullified by operation of the self-
destruct provision. Also, the legislative intent language
in the bill which describes the Peripheral Canal as "the
facility which will best protect Delta fisheries and the
Delta environment, and which will best provide adequate
water gifality and supply in the Delta and at the export
pumps of the Federal Central Valley Project and the State
Water Resources Development System" will remain in effect.
-10-
Agricultural Water Conservation
The bill establishes a $50 million fund using the
State' s general fund money to make low-interest loans to
farmers for purchasing equipment and setting up programs for
improved water conservation.
Eel River Studies
The existing State Scenic and Wild Rivers Act,
enacted- in 1972, requires the Department of Water Resources
to report to the Legislature on possible plans for water
development in the Eel River basin by December 31, 1984.
This 1972 provision was intended to provide a 12-year
moratorium on water development in the Eel River basin
while, at the same time, assuring that studies would be
conducted as to the potential need for flood control, water
conservation, and other aspects of water development.
SB 346 provides that the reporting date for these studies be
moved up to January 1, 1980.
October 5, 1977
DNK
Proposed Water Facilities Included in Senate Bill 346
Approximate
Estimated Incremental Tentative
1977 Cost Yield or Delivery Completion
$ Million AF/Yr . Date
Cottonwood Creek Project 320 140,000 1989
Glenn Reservoir Project 1 , 160 1,000,000 1993
Los Vaqueros Reservoir Project 540 160,000 1986
Peripheral Canal 515 1 ,000,000 1988
Mid-Valley Canal 440 500 ,000 1985
Contra Costa Canal Intake Relocation 16 - 1984
Suisun Marsh Protection Facilities 42 - 1984
South Delta Water Quality Facilities 25 - 1984
Western Delta Overland Facilities 10 - 1988
Colusa Reservoir Project
(may be alternative to Glenn) 910 460,000 -
Los Banos Grandes Project
(may be alternative to Los Vaqueros) 530 200,000 -
Groundwater Recharge, Storage, and
Extraction Facilities 240 400,000 1987
Note: The overall program is estimated to develop up to 2 ,700 ,000 acre-feet a year of firm yield
for the State Water Project and the Federal Central Valley Project , at a total cost of approxi-
mately $3 . 5 billion. Some of the above reservoirs can be considered as alternatives to others
on the list . Estimates of cost sharing between the State and Federal Governments are being
prepared and will depend on proportionate benefits provided by a given facility for the State
and Federal projects . The completion dates shown are mainly for illustrative purposes ; some
of the facilities would be partially operational prior to the dates and some would not be fully
operational until sometime thereafter.
10-6-77
DNK
a • � ;i' p
MAJOR FACILITIES
Mks % a\r �'liAStTA 1` a
t .Zy f6'a w i -RESERVOI,
,wQTTQNWOOD� � •fir; � � '•,
CR�EF��C�sPR,a.p ° ` -V �, 'a=• ' .A ;'; INCLUDED I N S B 346
GLENN R SERV,D/R &ry( +'',` °F`it°• I
s LT11OR VXY LE 4
t"COL'l/SAJ�` o W fir. Iry f,.•,r .
ESERVO/R� �►, yr i
� �`' Scc a enYo,
L OS ''`-VA 0 ,ERGS /_• ,rll ,
RESE'R V O/R,�N r PERIPHERi'QL�lCAN;4'L
CAiY:CL•••��• �,�f,�1� oU��
San Francisco
'sOUTN
RESERVOIR� I R' Wsno SJ
�\� •
�d .�..�r«a� .. ( aL4�
a .`" • ti6 ID"IVALL`EY.CANAL
LOS BANOS ORANDES'
RESERVOIRIlk
r: t y' ' '•
��•A` Y�' ,y, T Q 'ate ,,,,Y�,f •.,�F A• "YP ,t.
d GOP
=? • ',�$^�.• fir' s. •;�
. At
WAS• .$° 'i�S't �•,,-,... Y`; .�; _ ,:,.s\
°�xSanBernardino
Los Angeles t• 'f �D` ¢., . :k ' '`S
San Diego • fir'_
KEY FEATURES OF
SB 346 IN THE
SAN FRANCISCO BAY— DELTA SACRAMENTO R.
c0s�m°es
o i
r `FISH SCREEN FACILITIES
WESTERN DEL TA �
OVERLAND FACIL I TIES r
SU/SUN MARSH ��
PROTECT/ON FACIL/T/ES Mokelumne
LO D I
VALLEJO
PERIPHERAL CANAL
✓ b l R.
CONTRA COSTA AN 10CH-
CANAL
RELOCATED STOCKTON
y C. CANAL INTAKE o
•
BERKELEY SOUTH DELTA WATER QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
�` • OAKLAND
" i DELTA 9 TRACY L S�G�jSI�U
RANCI CO L OS VAQUEROS c
� - PUMPING C
off' RESERVOIR PLANTS C jr
_
k o of
�uolumne R
:gym n�.;; � �-� � .. •
-N- moo MODESTO
h
i RCA 80-85
`REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Submitted by D-6a MacAllister Department Councilman
Date Prepared. January 2 , , 1981 Backup Material Attached M Yes No
Subject Peripheral Canal Legislation
City Administrator's Comments
APPROVED BY CITY CO17WCOM
Approve as Recommended
194
GK
CITY CLE
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions:
Statement of Issue
A referendum to bar construction of the Peripheral Canal has qualified
for the ballot. Californians are scheduled to vote on the question
at the June , 1982 election.
Recommendation
Support AB9 (Johnson) which calls for an earlier special statewide
election in June , 1981 . to decide this matter.
Analysis
Without the Peripheral Canal , Southern California will not have a
reliable water supply after the impending cutoff of Colorado River
water. It is in our interest to have an early resolution of the
question, so that
(1) if the Canal is defeated, Southern California will have some
time to search for other water alternatives ; and
, (2) if the Canal is approved, the costs of inflation will be kept
down by providing for an earlier starting date.
It is estimated that a special election would cost the state $12 million.
Attached is a letter from Assemblyman Ross Johnson and a copy of his
bill .
.Alternatives
Oppose or take no position on this bill .
Funding Source
No .funds are necessary.
NO sne
AB 9 —2— .
for allocation and disbursement to local agencies and school
districts for costs mandated by the state and incurred by them
pursuant to this act.
This bill,would take effect immediately as an act calling an
election.
Vote: %. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.-
1 SECTION 1. An election is hereby called to be held
2 throughout the state on the 2nd day of June 1981.
3 There shall be submitted to the voters at such election
4 the following question:
5 "Shall Senate Bill 200, as enacted by the Legislature
6 during the 1979-80 Regular Session, and signed by the
7 Governor as Chapter 632 of the Statutes of 1980, relating
8 to water, become law?"
9 The special election provided for in this act shall be
10 proclaimed, held, conducted, the ballots shall be
11 _ prepared, marked, collected, counted and canvassed and
12 the results shall be ascertained and the returns thereof
13 made in all respects in.accordance with the provisions of
14 the Constitution applicable thereto and the law
15 governing general elections insofar as provisions thereof
16 are applicable to the election provided for in this act.
17 SEC. 2. The sum of dollars ($ ) is
18 hereby appropriated from the General Fund to the
19 Controller for allocation and disbursement to local
20 agencies and school districts pursuant to Section 2231 of
21 the Revenue and Taxation Code to reimburse them for.
22 costs mandated by the state and incurred by them
23 pursuant to this act.
24 SEC. 3. This act calls an election within the meaning
25 of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 8 of Article
26 IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.
O
99 W
• CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1981-82 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 9
Introduced by Assemblyman Johnson
(Coauthor: Senator Ayala)
December 1, 1980
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REAPPORTIONMENT
An act calling an election to be conducted on June 2, 1981,
and to provide for the submission to the voters of the state at
such election the Water Facilities Referendum Statute, as
qualified on .October 16, 1980, making an appropriation
therefor, and calling an election, to take effect immediately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 9, as introduced, Johnson (Elec. & Reap.). Special
election: referendum.
This bill would call an election to be held throughout the
state on June 2, 1981.
It would require the submission of the Water Facilities
Referendum Statute to be submitted to the voters at such
election.
Section 2231 of the Revenue and Taxation Code requires
the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for
costs mandated by the state. The section also specifies the
manner for paying the reimbursement and requires any
statute mandating the costs to contain an appropriation to pay
for the costs in the initial fiscal year. This statutory provision
was supplemented by a constitutional requirement of
reimbursement effective for statutes enacted on or after July
1, 1980.
This bill appropriates an unspecified sum to the Controller
99 40
ESTATE CAPITOL 1501 NO.HARBOR BOULEVARD,SUITE 201
SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95814 FULLERTON,CALIFORNIA 92635
(916)445.7448 $TA2, (714)738-5853
rn
ASSEMBLYMAN ROSS JOHNSON
SIXTY-NINTH DISTRICT
ORANGE COUNTY
December 12, 1980
Dear Councilmember:
I recently introduced urgency legislation calling for a special
statewide election on June 2 , 1981, to decide the fate of the
Peripheral Canal .
The referendum to bar construction of the Peripheral Canal has
qualified for the ballot . Californians are scheduled to vote on
the question at the June, 1982 election. The legislation (SB 200) ,
authorizing the construction of the 43-mile canal , was to become
effective January 1, 1981. However, with the success of the
qualification of the referendum, no work can begin on the canal
until the electorate decides its fate , leaving the canal in limbo
for the next 18 months .
Continued delay on this vital project jeopardizes the well-being of
millions of Californians . Without the canal, Southern California will
not have a reliable water supply after the cutoff of Colorado River
water. If the canal is blocked by the voters , Southern California
will desperately need extra time to locate and develop alternative
water supplies .
On the other side of the question, if the canal gets the green light ,
waiting that extra time will result in much higher construction costs .
It is estimated that delaying the canal construction for one year
will increase the cost by $90 million.
The Secretary of State ' s Office estimates that a special election
would cost around $12 million. The only municipal elections scheduled
for June 2 , 1981 are in Salinas and Compton.
Any support that your city could give to the passage of this legislation
would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely, Q
ROSS JOH ON
Assemblyman, 69th District