State plan for rivers doesn’t hold water, MID says

Local water leaders on Tuesday formally scorned a state proposal to drastically change river levels, saying it would cripple farms and the economy and threaten people’s drinking water in Modesto, San Francisco and beyond.

“To me, this is an outrage,” said Greg Salyer, general manager of the Modesto Irrigation District. “This is probably the worst water threat we’ve ever had at MID.”

The State Water Resources Control Board two weeks ago began circulating a draft plan aimed at reversing the damage done to wildlife when people began damming rivers about a century ago, holding water in mountain reservoirs for measured release when crops most need it in summer and fall. The plan could roughly double the flow in the Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced rivers, especially from Feb. 1 to June 30, helping fish migrate and keeping back saltwater intrusion but leaving far less for farms and cities.

“This really is awful,” said the MID’s John Mensinger. Although two of his fellow board members were absent Tuesday, the other three approved a formal resolution condemning the state’s “regulatory overreach.”

MID and its partner on the Tuolumne, the Turlock Irrigation District, estimated damage that would have been caused in this region if the plan had been in place in 2015, and found that the area would have lost $1.6 billion in economic output, $167 million in farm products, 6,576 jobs and a corresponding $330 million in wages. Also, because of drought rules last year, neither district would have delivered a drop of river water to farmers, they said.

“That’s pretty shocking,” said MID spokeswoman Melissa Williams. “We’ve survived hydrological droughts. Can we really survive a regulatory drought?”

Although the districts enjoy some of the oldest water rights among all California agencies, the state plan could negate them by returning the Tuolumne to 40 percent of unimpaired flow, or natural flow if there were no dams. Local officials say it should be far less than 35 percent, while environmentalists and wildlife advocates would prefer 50 percent or more.

The districts created a campaign called “Worth Your Fight; Don’t Go With the Flow” to help people be aware of the threat and give them a way to object. A new website, worthyourfight.org, has lots of information and an electronic petition people can sign. The page also encourages people to spread the word in social media and by obtaining window stickers and yard signs.

“Let them know this is an absurd grab on our water,” MID board member Nick Blom said.

Assembly members Adam Gray, D-Merced, and Kristin Olsen, R-Riverbank, have asked the state water board to explain the assumptions used to develop its plan. The legislators suggest the state hold a series of meetings with various city, county, school and irrigation district leaders, and to extend from 60 days to 120 days the period established for public comment.

“Our communities have been frustrated at the lack of communication and engagement,” Gray and Olsen said in a letter to the state water board.

The water board has scheduled hearings to receive feedback, set for Nov. 4 in Modesto and Nov. 2 and 10 in Sacramento. Gray and Olsen said Merced and Stockton also deserve hearings, as they are the largest cities on the Merced and San Joaquin rivers.

Mensinger said the state plan contains “very sloppy assumptions,” including the idea that if San Francisco, which relies on the Tuolumne, runs low on drinking water in a dry year, the city could buy more from MID and TID. How is that possible, Mensinger asked, if the districts get zero river water during drought?

“It makes no sense. It’s crazy,” he said.

Noting that MID and TID have invested $25 million studying the Tuolumne and its fish, Salyer said, “we think we have better science and better solutions.” Before decimating farms, the state should try controlling nonnative fish that prey on native salmon and steelhead, or improve gravel beds for spawning, the districts say.

Modesto City Hall also relies on treated river water bought from MID, which is mixed with groundwater before it’s delivered to taps in Modesto and some other outlying communities. The plan could ruin that system, and threaten groundwater tables by forcing people and agencies to pump more to meet needs, local officials say.

MID board chairman Larry Byrd said, “There’s no fight like a water fight, so let’s get at it.”

This story was originally published September 27, 2016 at 4:48 PM with the headline "State plan for rivers doesn’t hold water, MID says."