August 1999 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

EBMUD vs. Sacramento et. al. - No End in Sight

"The more things seem to change, the more they stay the same." That could be the motto of East Bay MUD's latest attempts to take water from the American River. Negotiations between EBMUD, Sacramento area water agencies and environmentalists have fallen apart, leaving bruised feelings all around and raising the prospect of yet another round of court battles.

The dispute dates back almost three decades. In 1970, EBMUD, anticipating huge increases in water demand, signed a contract with BurRec to divert 150,000 acre feet annually from above the Nimbus Dam on the upper American River. The contract would have allowed EBMUD to take up to 20% of the river's summer flows, and environmental groups, along with the Sacramento agencies, sued. Finally, in 1990, Judge Richard Hodge let the district take water, but severely limited the amounts it could divert in dry years.

Policy and political arguments went back and forth over the years, and in 1995 EBMUD began talking with Sacramento city and county water officials about a joint project to divert the water from a spot lower down the American, near the confluence with the Sacramento River. EBMUD also renegotiated its contract with BurRec. Environmentalists suspected that EBMUD's real motive was to be able to supply huge new housing projects in the parched East Bay hills - but they went along, mainly because the lower diversion point would leave critical fish spawning and recreational areas intact.

The Sacramento/EBMUD talks were complex, difficult and often acrimonious, and were suspended in the spring. Sacramento offered to come back to the table, provided that EBMUD would give up the idea of the upstream diversion, and limit the size of the pipeline it would use. On June 8, EBMUD's board unanimously rejected the proposal.

EBMUD director Katy Foulkes calls the offer "untenable." The district estimates that it would cost EBMUD an additional $155 million, and reduce the amount of water it could receive below the amount allowed by Judge Hodge's ruling. EBMUD is urging BurRec to officially certify its EIS for the amended contract, which would allow the district to move ahead with its own plans.

These could involve a diversion at the Nimbus Dam, a prospect that upsets Sacramento officials and enviros. Foulkes says without the additional water, the district's rate payers could face massive water cutbacks the next time there's a drought. "It's a huge problem." EBMUD also claims that using water from the Delta could present a health risk, unless the district made a major investment in new treatment facilities.

Environmentalists say the district is exaggerating its plight. They believe that the district could undertake a more extensive reclamation/conservation effort, and they resent EBMUD's insistence on taking water from the upstream site. "EBMUD has continued to set themselves above everybody else," says Jim Jones of the Save the American River Association. If EBMUD needs water so badly, "They should take their water like over half the people in California do - from the Delta."

Ed Schnabel, general manager of the Sacramento Metropolitan Water Authority, says that if EBMUD tries to go ahead on its own, it would not only be endangering the environment, but it would also threaten a six year long planning process that has involved some seventeen different county water authorities. "The whole region will fight them." Schnabel says EBMUD would be better off negotiating an agreement with Sacramento - otherwise it will end up back in court, where it could lose everything. "Part ofsomething is better than all of nothing."

Actually, the whole process may be moving back to the courtroom. Almost ten years after his original decision, Judge Hodge has become involved in the case again. In a letter to both parties, he cited the "somewhat dismal turn of events" in the negotiations, and said that he will consider scheduling a new hearing if the opposing factions can't work things out on their own.

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project