One year ago, the water district that serves portions of Alameda and Contra Costa counties reached a tentative agreement with other local and federal agencies on a plan to divert water from the Sacramento River. Supporters of the plan said it would benefit many different parties. However, the memorandum of understanding among East Bay Municipal Utility District, Sacramento County, the City of Sacramento and the federal Bureau of Reclamation has many detractors. The MOU not only demonstrates how difficult it is to divide up California's water, it also eliminates any chance for unity among water providers. Two associations representing many of the state's major water purveyors, in addition to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Westlands Water District in the Central Valley, and the East Bay MUD neighbor Contra Costa Water District, have sued to halt the planned diversion. "We've got enough problems solving the fisheries issues and everything that we should not be squabbling within the water supply family," said John Coburn, general manager of the State Water Contractors, an association of 27 agencies that is part of the lawsuit. Environmentalists appear divided on the plan. Supporters of the American River — which East Bay MUD fought to tap for 30 years — have endorsed the plan. But advocates of a healthier San Francisco Bay and delta have raised questions about the water diversion's impact on water quality in the delta. How exactly East Bay MUD's plan fits into the larger Cal-Fed Bay Delta project is uncertain. East Bay MUD, which provides water to 1.3 million people, currently relies on reservoirs on the Mokelumne River in the Sierra Nevada foothills. But for 30 years, East Bay MUD officials have recognized that the Mokelumne has too many demands on it, so the district needs to augment its supply, said Charles Hardy, district spokesman. That is why the district fought for and won rights to American River water in 1970. However, when East Bay MUD attempted to exercise those rights by extracting American River water from Nimbus Dam or elsewhere in Sacramento County, the district met stiff opposition from local officials and environmentalists. They said East Bay MUD's proposed diversions would leave the river with an inadequate flow. Decades of political fighting and litigation ensured, and the two sides appeared at a stalemate until U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein brought everyone together in 2000. She helped broker a deal that appeared to satisfy most participants. The plan calls for East Bay MUD to take up to 133,000 acre feet of water — enough to serve at least 200,000 homes — from the Sacramento River near the community of Freeport, roughly 10 miles downstream from the point where the American feeds into the Sacramento. East Bay MUD would pump the water from the diversion point to its main pipelines that flow from the Mokelumne River. East Bay MUD said it would take water from the Sacramento River only during times of shortage, and not use the water to expand its service area. The plan calls for East Bay MUD to pay $400 million toward the project costs. Sacramento County, which could receive some of the water, would contribute $140 million to $200 million. The project could be completed as soon as 2005. "This is a giant step forward," Feinstein said in December 2000. "It is an example of two regions that have fought for 30 years over water finally saying we are going to work together. If we do it right, it's going to set an example for the rest of the state." But East Bay MUD's 133,000 acre feet would likely come at the expense of other Central Valley Project contractors. When those agencies failed to get assurances that they would not lose in a zero-sum game, they fought back. In July of this year, they filed a lawsuit, based primarily on the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, that claimed East Bay MUD and the Bureau of Reclamation did not complete adequate environmental studies. However, Ron Stork, a longtime leader of Friends of the River, which fought East Bay MUD proposals for the American River, said that these water agencies have little on their side. He noted that the lawsuit attacks the process — which can be remedied — but not the merits of East Bay MUD's plan. "They don't have a legal case to suggest that EBMUD diverting water — and them diverting somewhat less — is against the law," Stork said. "It's not against the law. That's the way the Central Valley Project is structured." East Bay MUD spokesman Hardy said the district plans to complete an environmental impact report after it finalizes its agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation and Sacramento County. Thus far, the district has only compared alternative diversion sites, he said. District officials emphasize the "drought proofing" aspects of the project. They say the district would tap the Sacramento River only an average of once every three years, and even then the district would not necessarily take its entire allotment. "For us, this is crucial," Hardy said. "We're coming out of a dry year. Our reservoirs are down 100,000 acre feet. If we have another dry year, we'll be in a drought. We'll have to cut back residential customers by 65%." Stork, for one, believes East Bay MUD's promises. Water from the Sacramento River must be pumped uphill for miles to reach the district's pipelines, and pumping is too expensive for that water to be used as a luxury, he said. "Basically, our hope is that this is a reliability project that is underused so that the diversions that affect Delta flows are not very big," Stork said. But other environmentalists are not so sure. They fear East Bay MUD's diversions could raise salinity levels in the already-troubled delta — especially if the district pumps large quantities of water during a drought, when fresh-water flows to the delta are already low. This is a fear shared by other water agencies and their customers. Rising delta salinity could reduce the amount of water available for pumping south, they say. These East Bay MUD opponents call the project "piecemeal" and say it should properly be considered inside the Cal-Fed framework. This is not the first time East Bay MUD has acted as a maverick. Two decades ago, it was one of the few water districts not lined up in support of the Peripheral Canal. More recently, East Bay MUD headed the effort to forge a closer tie between land use planning and water availability, which led to this year's passage of a three-bill water package (see CP&DR November 2001, October 2001). Contacts: John Coburn, State Water Contractors, (916) 447-7357 Charles Hardy, East Bay Municipal Utility District, (510) 287-0141. Ron Stork, Friends of the River, (916) 442-3155
