Details on Sites Reservoir proposal

sites insight

past and present status on North State reservoir proposal

from the staff of the California Cattlemen's Association

This article is the first in a series of articles regarding the proposed Sites Reservoir. This first article will provide some basic information on what Sites is and some of the history behind it. This article will also touch briefly on some other reservoir and surface water storage projects, groundwater storage, fish, water conveyance, safe drinking water, habitat restoration and other issues which are all part of the equation in implementation and funding for any future water storage project such as Sites. Over the decades, through a series of legislation, ballot propositions, federal policies and executive decisions, the state has evolved from the 1950s strategy of water management. It used to be: get it from where it is to where it is needed. Now water is viewed as serving many new purposes in addition to human consumption, agriculture and industry.

What is Sites Reservoir?

Many people, especially in the north state, are familiar with the proposed Sites Reservoir that is envisioned to be able to store 1.5 million-acre feet (AF) of water in an off-stream location. 1.5 million AF translates to about 489 billion gallons, enough water to theoretically supply California’s entire population for personal consumption for 124 days, assuming the reservoir was full and then drained down to the bottom. Sites would provide storage for an impressive amount of water and would be the tenth largest reservoir in the state by volume of water once completed and filled.

Off-stream reservoirs do not dam a river, instead they are designed to be a holding area for water that is diverted from a nearby river via pipeline or canals. Motorists who have traveled west from I-5 near Santa Nella to Gilroy or Monterey have driven past the San Luis Reservoir, which is an off-stream reservoir holding over 2 million AF of water. Originating in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta (Delta), San Luis’ water is conveyed south in the California Aqueduct, whereupon it is pumped up from the aqueduct to be stored for distribution. The water has been used for agriculture and municipal water supply since 1967 and San Luis is currently the largest off-stream facility in the country.

Origin of the Sites Reservoir concept

The Sites Reservoir was originally supposed to be part of the second stage of the State Water Project about 40 years ago, but that idea died as collateral damage when the proposed peripheral canal project was killed at the ballot box in the election of 1982. Stage I of the State Water Project was Oroville Dam, the California Aqueduct and their attendant hydroelectric plants and pumping stations, which began construction in the '60s. Stage II was for a peripheral canal to take water from Northern California, divert it around the Delta and move it southwards. Sites was to be part of Stage II. The Sites concept then languished until 2009 when State Sen. Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto) authored a bill to get a water bond on the 2010 ballot which sought to, among many other things, fund surface water storage projects.

The bill was signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, but because of the state’s budget problems at the time, the legislature held off on putting it on the ballot until 2012. It was again pulled back from the ballot for the same reasons as before. A similar effort (AB 1471) was launched in 2014 by Assemblyman Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) and subsequently signed in to law by Gov. Jerry Brown. AB 1471 put Proposition 1 on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot. Proposition 1 was titled the Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 and it was overwhelmingly approved by 67 percent of the voters.

Proposition 1 authorized the issuance of $7.12 billion to finance a water quality, supply and infrastructure improvement program. Proposition 1 also reallocated $425 million from unissued past bond funding to help finance Proposition 1. Proposition 1 was to be implemented immediately upon passage of the bond act.

Sites was not mentioned by name in Proposition 1, rather a portion of the bond language designated $2.7 billion to the California Water Commission for “water storage projects that improve the operation of the state water system.” This section of the bond language identified surface storage, groundwater storage, conjunctive use (a blend of surface and groundwater storage) and local and regional surface storage projects. Surface storage projects were limited to only those projects identified in the

CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision (ROD) of Aug. 28, 2000.

CALFED was a partnership between the state and federal government agencies which sought to create a comprehensive water management program that would improve drinking water quality, provide for watershed restoration and invest in storage and conveyance projects. CALFED identified twelve potential surface storage projects for consideration and two requiring further consideration, one of which was Sites, which in 2000 was envisioned to be 1.9 million AF (400,000 AF larger than it is now being considered). CALFED felt that Sites could “enhance water management flexibility,” reduce the need divert water from the Sacramento River during fish migration periods and provide benefits for other CALFED programs.

Therefore, Sites can be eligible for Proposition 1 funds, however it must compete against many other projects and overcome environmental concerns regarding the impact of building a new reservoir which would cover 14,000 acres of land including 900 acres of oak woodland and 70 acres of vernal pool habitat. Furthermore, some environmental groups believe that Sites, in diverting some water from the Sacramento River and the other tributaries to supply the reservoir, would adversely impact the flows of those already impacted waterways.

Two other projects of note that were mentioned in the CALFED ROD in 2000 were expanding the capacity of Lake Shasta by raising the dam three to six feet to store an extra 300,000 AF of water and raising the dam at Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County. Los Vaqueros was eventually expanded to be able to store up to 160,000 AF in 2012. Expansion of Lake Shasta has undergone multiple proposals and studies for expansion since 2000, but that project has still not come to fruition. These projects and other surface storage initiatives all engender concern and pushback from environmentalists and proponents of other solutions to the state’s water supply problem. In addition to the obvious ecological concerns associated with any plan to change the natural habitat, many groups believe the state should restrict personal, agricultural and commercial water use through conservation and recycling measures and rationing has even been discussed. Some groups also think that the state should focus its energies on groundwater storage/ groundwater replenishment rather than above ground storage.

California Water Action Plan

In January 2014, during his State of the State speech, Brown announced a five-year plan to increase the reliability of the state’s water resources, as well as providing restoration and resiliency to the system via the California Water Action Plan. He convened an Interagency Drought Task Force, called on all citizens to conserve water and asked regulators to rebalance water rules, expand water recycling, expand storage and manage groundwater. He also stressed the need for safe drinking water, watershed restoration and addressing the Delta.

In 2016, the Water Action Plan was updated by the governor with 10 priority actions to guide the state’s effort to achieve its water goals. Amongst these priorities was the need to expand water storage and improve groundwater management. In addition to reservoirs, groundwater storage is envisioned by the state to be an equally valid method of water storage. Groundwater storage is accomplished by replenishing groundwater basins by percolation or direct injection.

The Water Action Plan acknowledges that surface and groundwater storage can work in conjunction with each other, however it also states that “surface storage can be challenging for environmental or financial reasons.” There are concerns that as groundwater aquifers empty, the ground subsides around them and leads to a loss of that water holding capacity for the future. The Water Action Plan states that today’s “demand for water goes well beyond water supply and flood management, the traditional purposes for which California’s major reservoirs were built.” This is a key point. Today’s policymakers emphasize that future water storage systems must also “provide widespread public and environmental benefits, such as seasonal fish flows, improved water quality, [and] water cool enough to sustain salmon.”

The Water Action Plan goes on to suggest that any funding of additional water storage must not just provide local water use benefits, but must also serve the broader public benefits mentioned above.

The Water Action Plan also indicated that the

...CONTINUED ON PAGE 24

administration and the Legislature would work toward making funding available if the cost is shared with local partners and stakeholders. To this end, the administration pledged to work with the Legislature to “share in the cost of storage projects if funding partners step forward.” The state would “facilitate” the process amongst “local partners and stakeholders to complete feasibility studies.” The Water Action Plan noted that a joint powers agreement known as the Sites Project Authority, which was formed in 2010 by local government entities, “is a potential emerging partnership that can help federal and state government determine the viability of a proposed off stream storage project” at Sites. The Sites Project Authority is comprised of representatives from special districts, agencies and counties who have a vested interest in working with state and federal agencies to get the reservoir built. some areas that are mainly dependent on groundwater, the aquifers are being depleted and causing subsidence. The portfolio acknowledges that surface storage has played an important part in the state’s water supply but also points out that it does pose environmental costs.

The portfolio also suggests that it may become necessary to fallow farmland to allow aquifers to recharge, stating that “of the total water supply used directly by people, roughly 80 percent is used to grow food and fiber.” While Sites is not mentioned by name, the portfolio states that “aquifers and off-stream reservoirs are the most feasible places to store additional water in the future” because they do not affect the environment to the same extent as damming rivers.

A complex issue with many policies and competing interests

Governor’s Executive Order N-10-19, April 20, 2019

On April 29, 2019, Governor Newsom issued an executive order which directed the state’s Natural Resources Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Food and Agriculture and Department of Finance to prepare a water resilience portfolio. The purpose of the portfolio was to reassess the priorities of the Water Action Plan, conform to new concepts of climate change, recognize the growing population and improve integration amongst the agencies. Other than stating the need to have the state inventory and assess water demand and available water supply, there wasn’t much about surface storage. However, there was mention of agricultural groups as one of many stakeholders including environmental justice, academic experts and myriad government agencies to “inform the process.” Therefore, going forward, it will continue to be very important for the California Cattlemen’s Association to continue its active participation in not only the Sites project, but in a large array of California water policy because of the interconnectedness of the entire state’s water needs.

Water Resilience Portfolio

On July 28, 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom released the final version of the portfolio put together by the state’s resource related agencies and departments. The portfolio again stresses that no single solution can solve California’s water challenges, therefore the plan will “embrace a broad, diversified approach,” broken down in to four categories: Maintaining and diversifying water supplies, protect and enhance natural ecosystems, improve physical infrastructure for conveyance and prepare for threats such as flood and drought.

One part of the portfolio compares reservoir capacity versus groundwater basin capacity and notes that California’s groundwater basins can store over 850 million AF, while the combined reservoir capacity of the state amounts to 50 million AF. It is also noted that two-thirds of water used by people comes from surface supply, while one-third is obtained from groundwater supply. However, in

The bottom line of all of this seems to be that the majority of California’s policymakers grudgingly accept that off-stream surface storage projects like Sites have a place in the solution to the state’s water woes. However, it is clearly portrayed in all of the above policies, studies and pronouncements that there are a lot of competing interests that will need to be accommodated before an off-stream reservoir like Sites is constructed. Subsequent articles will cover what is being done and the different players involved in the Sites debate. There is a popular saying at the State Capitol that portrays the importance of being engaged: “If you are not at the table, you are on the menu.” CCA is and will continue to be at that table and not on it.