Banks pumping plant

Banks Pumping Plant, State Water Project

In 2018, the California Department of Water Resources delegated the design and construction of the WaterFix project to the Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority (DCA), a Joint Powers Authority created by the State Water Contractors.  The October 26, 2018 Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement states

DWR, in coordination with entities that comprise the Authority, has developed comprehensive project specifications and administrative parameters applicable to the design and construction of the Conveyance Project, hereinafter referred to as the “Specifications.”

The agreement further states,

The Authority .. is authorized by DWR to design and construct, or cause the design and construction of, the Conveyance Project in accordance with this Agreement and the Specifications.

On May 2, 2019, DWR’s Delta Conveyance Office sent a letter to the DCA stating that all approvals for the WaterFix project had been rescinded.  The letter also stated,

As the Department embarks on a new environmental review process and pursues new environmental permits, it will do this in tandem with design and engineering work needed. This work will occur in close partnership with the State Water Project Contractors funding the project. This approach provides the greatest opportunity to deliver a project ready for construction with minimal delay.

The Board of Directors for the DCA met on Thursday, May 16, 2019 in Sacramento.  The Directors heard an “informational item” on a resolution authorizing the Executive Director to negotiate an amendment to the October 23, 2018 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement “to permit the DCA to provide engineering, design, geotechnical, environmental and similar services in support of the environmental analysis for a potential Delta conveyance project.”

The DCA Executive Director’s written report to the Board stated that the DCA is continuing to provide invoices to DWR’s Delta Conveyance Office.   The engineering and geotechnical work on the project was also reported to be continuing under the existing contracts with Jacobs Engineering and Fugro.

The Executive Director’s written report to the Board also outlined a “stakeholder engagement plan” for Delta tunnel project revisions:

3) The DCA worked closely with the DWR Communications team to help develop the stakeholder engagement plan. The DCA will take a significant role in actively engaging the community in understanding the project impacts and developing mitigation measures.

4) The Engineering team has been working on a revised work plan that focuses activities on advancing the engineering to better support the environmental review process and the stakeholder engagement program.

At the meeting, the DCA Board of Directors approved a procurement policy which authorizes the DCA Executive Director to award a “Direct Contract” for “change orders/amendments” to the project.   This would potentially allow the DCA to award a contract for revisions to the WaterFix project directly without any competitive bidding process.

A separate provision in the procurement policy could exempt direct contracts from separate approval by DWR’s Delta Conveyance Office.   These are the relevant provisions in the procurement policy:


(c) Direct Contract. Notwithstanding Subsections (a) and (b), the following contracts may be awarded through direct contract:

.               (4) If the contract is with any governmental agency

(5) Change orders/amendments.

(e) DCO Concurrence. Prior to the award of any contract under Subsections (a), (c) or (d), the Executive Director shall obtain the concurrence of the DCO regarding the noncompetitive procurement method. The Executive Director may obtain DCO concurrence on a per contract, per type of contract, or any other method as agreed to by the Executive Director and DCO. Notwithstanding the foregoing, DCO concurrence is not separately required for a contract if the DCO reviews and approves this Policy, and the procurement of the contract is conducted in accordance with this Policy.(underlining added.)

Delta stakeholders are closely following the DCA actions.  Several Delta attorneys were present for the meeting, as was Sacramento County Supervisor Don Nottoli, a Delta legacy community member, and the Executive Director for Restore the Delta.



Posted by: Deirdre Des Jardins | May 11, 2019

SCVWD pulls purchase of 5,257 acres of Merced ranch land from agenda

The May 14, 2019 Board  Agenda for the Santa Clara Valley Water District included a closed session item to discuss “setting negotiation parameters” for the purchase of 17 parcels of land in Merced County.

County tax records show that the parcels total 5,257 acres, and are owned by 4S Ranch Partners LLC.  The parcels are within the Grasslands Wildlife Management Area, which is managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as winter wetlands for waterfowl migrating on the Pacific Flyway.  The parcels are encumbered by conservation easements.

Grasslands WMA

Grasslands Wildlife Management Area                        Source:  USFWS


On May 9, 2019, Katja Irvin, chair of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Water Committee, sent comments that the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board needed to disclose the rationale for the land purchase and hold a hearing.   The following day, the item was removed from the Board meeting agenda.

Controversial Groundwater Transfer

In 2014 and 2015, 4S Ranch Partners LLC and neighboring SHS Ranch transferred 13,000 acre-feet a year of groundwater to the Del Puerto and Patterson Irrigation Districts.  The groundwater was pumped from 14 wells on the ranches into Bear Creek and the unlined Eastside Bypass Canal.  Both flow into the San Joaquin River.

The US Bureau of Reclamation prepared an Environmental Assessment which found that the transfer of up to 26,000 acre-feet a year of groundwater from the parcels from 2014-2018 would have no significant impact.   Reclamation’s environmental assessment relied on oral statements by Stephen Sloan, an owner of 4S Ranch Partners, that groundwater levels in the area were stable. The Merced Irrigation District disputed this statement, commenting that well records showed that groundwater levels in the area were declining.  MID asserted that the groundwater export would have adverse effects on the Merced groundwater basin.

The Merced Groundwater Subbasin is a high priority, critically overdrafted basin.  Groundwater mapping shows that the parcels are adjacent to a cone of depression.

The Stevinson Water District has pre-1914 water rights to Bear Creek and a historic agreement with Merced Irrigation District to water spilled into the Eastside Bypass Canal.  Stevinson Water District protested that the transfer would be a trespass to their surface water rights, stating:

This Project appears to be a variation of a project recently abandoned by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the project proponent in late 2013. That project was called the 4-S/Smith Ranch Refuge Water Supply Pilot Exchange Project for the East Bear Creek Unit of the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge. When that project was proposed, the District expressed concern regarding the connectivity between the groundwater wells identified for use as part of the project and the East Side Canal. Indeed, the records of the USBR confirmed connectivity and recognized that the wells, located adjacent to the East Side Canal, would pump canal water.   The District obtained numerous documents pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request, including well records, reports, and other studies documenting the link between the groundwater wells and local surface watercourses.

Neighboring farmers also strongly objected, and the Merced County Board of Supervisors expressed strong concerns.  As a result of the storm of protests, the groundwater transfer to the Del Puerto and Patterson Irrigation Districts was reduced to 13,000 acre-feet a year for two years.

In 2015, Merced County passed an ordinance which prohibited the export of groundwater from inside the county without a permit from the Merced Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health.  However, there is an exemption for water released to replace surface water used for fish and wildlife or downstream water quality or quantity needs:

Reasonable use of groundwater resources to supplement or replace surface water released for other reasonable and beneficial purposes, including but not limited to fisheries, wildlife refuges, ecosystem habitat or downstream water quality or quantity needs, when required pursuant to federal and state law, regulations, licenses, or pursuant to conditions imposed by valid permits.

Santa Clara Valley Water District filed a lawsuit in January against the State Water Resources Control Board over new flow requirements on the lower San Joaquin River.   The District  is in settlement negotiations with the state over the lawsuit.   It seems clear that the 4S Ranch wells could potentially be used to supply water for Voluntary Settlement Agreements.  However, such a use would be extremely controversial.

4S Ranch xfer

4S Ranch, Del Puerto WD and Patterson ID     Source: Reclamation

Posted by: Deirdre Des Jardins | April 29, 2019

California’s water resiliency strategy should reduce GHG emissions

On Monday, April 29, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-10-19, “directing the secretaries of the California Natural Resources Agency, California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Food and Agriculture to identify and assess a suite of complementary actions to ensure safe and resilient water supplies, flood protection and healthy waterways for the state’s communities, economy and environment.”   The executive order also states that “climate change is having a profound impact on water and other resources.”

Governor Newsom’s order doesn’t mention reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the state’s water sector.   But this is an important part of achieving our state’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 100% by 2045.

In particular, California’s State Water Project is the single biggest user of electricity in the state.   It takes enormous amounts of energy to ship water hundreds of miles south and up 2,000 feet over the Tehachapi mountains to the Los Angeles basin. While the State Water Project has eight hydroelectric powerplants, they produce only about two thirds of the electricity needed for the project.   As a result, the State Water Project uses electricity from fossil fuel based power plants to ship water south, including the Lodi Energy Center natural gas fired power plant, shown below.


Lodi Energy Center Natural Gas Power Plant

Using fossil fuels to ship water hundreds of miles to water lawns and grow low value field crops is a concept from the 1950s and 1960s. For a 21st century water strategy, greenhouse gas footprints must be considered.

Some detailed recent case studies of GHG footprints are available in “Energy and emissions footprint of water supply for Southern California” by Fang, Newell, and Cousins.  (2015 Environ. Res. Lett.)  The table below shows the authors’ calculations of greenhouse gas footprints for water sources for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.   As LADWP switches to cleaner sources of power in 2020 and 2030, using local sources of water, including recycled water, groundwater, and the Los Angeles Aqueduct, results in substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Fang et al LADWP

Urban water conservation provides even greater greenhouse gas emission reductions, because it also results in savings for water treatment, residential water heating, and sewage treatment.   A  California Energy Commission study found that in 2001, 19% of the electricity and 32% of the natural gas use in California was for water conveyance, groundwater pumping and water treatment and wastewater treatment.

By 2030, the Department of Finance has projected there will be 44 million Californians.  To achieve sustainability and resiliency, we can and must reduce our individual water footprints.  We can do so by adapting our urban landscaping to California’s variable, Mediterranean climate, and fully implementing indoor water conservation.

Posted by: Deirdre Des Jardins | April 22, 2019

Groundwater depletion and salt-impaired lands in the San Joaquin Valley

The Groundwater Resources Association of California and the University of California Water Security and Sustainability Research Initiative have proposed large increases in future diversions from the Sacramento River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to provide recharge of overdrafted groundwater basins in the San Joaquin Valley.

Their white paper states:

What Are the Legal and Regulatory Bottlenecks, and How Can They Be Eliminated or Reduced?

3.a The current, temporary and standard permitting processes should be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether it is sufficiently effective to support large increases in future diversions. The legislature’s AB 2649, as amended on April 25, 2018, was an important step in the right direction.

There are lower impact solutions to groundwater depletion than large increases in future diversions from the Sacramento River and the Delta. These include retirement of salt-impaired land and agricultural water efficiency measures.  Both are also needed to reduce the rate of degradation of land in the San Joaquin Valley.

There has been a long-standing problem that soils on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley are washed down from the east side of the Coast Range, which was formerly seabed.  As a result, the soils have naturally occurring salt, boron, selenium, molybdenum and other trace minerals.  When the soils are irrigated, the salt and boron wash into shallow groundwater and eventually impair the growth of crops.

The map below  (from Water and the Future of the San Joaquin Valley)  shows salinity in shallow groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley, and how it impairs crop production.

Salinity in shallow groundwater


The Rainbow Report, a comprehensive study in 1990 estimated that 1,000,000 acres of land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley would be salt-impaired by 2000.  A 2017 study of remote sensing data from 2007 to 2013 confirmed that 955,000 acres on the west side is now moderately to extremely saline, with another 349,000 acres slightly saline.

The map below, from Technical Appendix E of Water and the Future of the San Joaquin Valley, shows that some of the areas of largest overdraft during the 2012-2016 drought were in areas with salt and drainage-impaired lands on the west side.

This is a picture of a salt evaporation pan from salinity-impaired lands in the Tulare Lake Basin.  The soils in the western part of the Tulare Lake basin have enormous amounts of salt, and the land is going out of production.


Salt evaporation pan, Tulare Lake Basin.

It is not cost-effective to prop up agricultural production on degraded land in the San Joaquin Valley.  As Laurence McKenney said at the California Water Policy Conference,

Though the problem with salt accumulation was identified a long time ago, and it has been the doom of several past civilizations, we still lack effective financially viable management solutions..

Therefore using increases in diversions from the Sacramento River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to recharge groundwater on salt-impaired lands is a losing proposition. The following solutions should be implemented instead:

  1. The State Department of Land Conservation reported that 276,000 acres of land have been fallowed in the San Joaquin Valley between 2006 and 2012 (net change.)  Funding should be provided to regularly update maps of salt-impaired and fallowed land in the western San Joaquin Valley.
  2. The legislature should implement a program to incentivize retirement of the most salt-impaired lands, and to mitigate local impacts.
  3. According to the 1990 Rainbow Report, over-irrigation of drainage impaired lands increases the rate of deep percolation and soil salinization.  The legislature should provide incentives to rotate away from high water use crops in saline-sodic soils on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.
  4. Both the state and federal governments should prioritize funding for rapid implementation of irrigation management measures in saline-sodic soils on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to reduce the rate of deep percolation and soil salinization.

The most salt-impaired lands on the San Joaquin Valley floor grow salt-tolerant field crops such as cotton, wheat, barley, and canola.   The crops generally require sprinkler or flood irrigation, as well as leaching.  But the most salt-impaired lands on the San Joaquin Valley floor are also the lands that are being converted to non-irrigated uses such as grazing.  As the lands are retired, they free up water for in-valley water transfers to better land with higher value crops.

The PPIC estimates of the benefits of in-valley water trading using the SWAP model in Technical Appendix C of Water and the Future of the San Joaquin Valley.  The following graph is from that appendix:

The PPIC analysis shows that transferring water from low value crops to high value crops significantly reduces the economic impacts of land retirement.  The SWAP model estimates of economic costs do not take into account the lands that are going out of production due to drainage and salinity issues.  The 350,000 acres of “other field crops and grains” would be expected to include such lands.

This post was updated on April 24, 2019.







Posted by: Deirdre Des Jardins | April 15, 2019

Secretary Bruce Babbitt and the CALFED Framework for the Delta

Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has called for creation of a “Bay-Delta Compact,” which he describes as a stakeholder drafted framework for action on the Bay Delta.   It is worth looking at how the CALFED agreement which Babbitt helped negotiate in the 1990s fell apart.

The major components of CALFED included:

  • Ecosystem Restoration
  • Water Quality
  • Water Supply Reliability
  • Levee Integrity

The components of the CALFED “comprehensive package” were negotiated with stakeholders, including environmental, fishing, and Delta groups.

The CALFED Environmental Water Account

CALFED also had an Environmental Water Account program, which provided for purchases of ecosystem water from willing sellers.   Environmental groups rapidly became disillusioned with the Environmental Water Account program.  In 2008, the Natural Resources Defense Council commented on the Environmental Water Account EIR/EIS:

From 2001-2004, the EWA provided only 29% on average of the expected 195,000 acre-feet of operational assets …. These shortfalls have occurred while exports from the Delta have reached record high levels and the ecosystem has continued spiraling downward.  Clearly, the EWA experiment has not performed as planned.

The agencies have turned the EWA on its head and, instead of using it to supplement the resources needed and required for fish protection, have used it as an excuse to short the environment and avoid committing those mandatory resources.  Unless the agencies make very clear that limited EWA assets cannot be used as a reason not to take an action that would help protect or restore imperiled fish, it should be discontinued.

Because of crashing pelagic fish populations, in 2006, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Bay Institute filed an emergency petition to change the listing for the Delta Smelt to “endangered” from threatened.   A period of intense litigation over federal Endangered Species Act protections in the Delta followed the filings.   In 2009, the State Water Contractors argued that the revised federal Biological Opinions would result in “waste and unreasonable use” of water under the California Constitution.  The argument did not prevail, and the ESA restrictions on diversions in the Delta were upheld.


A Failure of Governance

Meanwhile, the cost of the CALFED program became a major issue for the state legislature. The Ecosystem Restoration Program commitments were $150 million a year, and the Environmental Water Account cost $50 million a year. With the state’s growing budget crisis, and a lack of apparent progress on restoring the Delta ecosystem, the cost of the program became an issue. Governor Schwarzenegger directed a review of the CALFED program by the Little Hoover Commission in 2005.  The report included the following recommendation:

Recommendation:  Policy-makers must adopt clear and specific goals for the CALFED program and fortify those goals with budget and legislative authority.

  • Set clear, specific goals for CALFED. The Legislature must put in place goals that communicate to the implementing agencies and the stakeholders the State’s priorities and preferred strategies for restoring the estuary and meeting water needs.
  • Ensure the implementing agencies have sufficient authority and resources to succeed. The Legislature must embed the CALFED goals in the authorizing statutes of the implementing agencies, empower those agencies to achieve their missions, and provide sufficient staff and funding to succeed.  (p. 47.)

In 2006, the legislature moved all the funding for CALFED from the Bay-Delta Authority to the Secretary for Natural Resources.  Correspondence by the CALFED Independent Science Board in 2008 stated that there was insufficient funding to even finish developing performance metrics for progress in the main program areas.

As a result of the Little Hoover Commission report and general dissatisfaction with CALFED governance, the Delta Stewardship Council was created by the Delta Reform Act in 2009.   The Bay-Delta Authority was dissolved and the responsibilities were transferred to the newly created Delta Stewardship Council.   But the governance problems continued.  The Delta Stewardship Council dropped the CALFED water quality program, leaving consideration of effects of Delta contaminants on fish to the chronically underfunded State Water Resources Control Board. The goals in the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program, which included restoration of at risk native fish populations, were not included in the Delta Stewardship Council’s new Delta Plan. Environmental groups also argued that the measures in the Delta Plan requiring “reduced reliance on the Delta” were inadequate. The performance measures in the Delta Plan were ruled inadequate by Judge Michael Kenney in the Sacramento Superior Court in 2016.   The case is currently being appealed.

Babbitt should examine the reasons for the failure of his previously negotiated collaborative solution for the Delta before suggesting a new one.



By Bill Kier and Deirdre Des Jardins

The California State Water Resources Control Board is in the middle of a comprehensive review and update of the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan, which sets water quality measures and flow requirements to protect Delta fisheries.  In a repeat of political interference with previous major Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan Updates, Governor Gavin Newsom has appointed a new Water Board Chair and has directed the Secretaries of Natural Resources and the California Environmental Protection Agency to engage in negotiations with the Trump administration and water contractors on Voluntary Settlement Agreements to implement the update.

Jennifer Pierre, the general manager for the State Water Contractors, published a breathless Op Ed calling for a “fundamental reset” of the State Water Resources Control Board’s regulatory approach to the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan. Instead of setting regulatory flow targets, Pierre calls for future management to be based on “adaptation and collaboration.”

Dr. Jeff Mount of the Public Policy Institute of California has also advocated for “flexibility” in allocating water for the environment.  In a January 2019 seminar for the Delta Stewardship Council science program, Mount stated:

 “In our view, that means treating it like a water right that has the ability to both store and trade water… What it did in Australia where they set something like this up is suddenly the environment moves from being a constraint on the system to being a partner on the system.  Somebody sits at the table with the other water right holders and is managing that body of water for the ecosystem but also as a partner with the folks in the watershed.  So trading and storage is extremely important for management flexibility.”

Mount’s glowing reference to the Australian model makes one wonder if he has ever stepped foot in Australia, or seen the misery there.  This year has seen millions of dead fish in the Murray-Darling Basin from low flows and harmful algal blooms.


Jan 29 fish kill on the Darling River at Menindee   Source:  Sydney Morning-Herald

A panel of experts, convened by the Australian Academy of Science, found serious deficiencies in governance and management.   In a February 18, 2019 press release, the Chair of the expert panel, Professor Craig Moritz, stated:

“Our review of the fish kills found there isn’t enough water in the Darling system to avoid catastrophic outcomes. This is partly due to the ongoing drought. However, analysis of rainfall and river flow data over decades points to excess water extraction upstream.”

In Cry me a river: Mismanagement and corruption have left the Darling dry, an Op Ed published March 2018 in the Sydney Morning-Herald, Hellen Vivian opined:

there is no escaping the state of this once magnificent river. It’s like a giant neon emergency signal flashing across the four most populous states in the country. Depleted, despoiled, often poisonous and since 2001 frequently dry, the Darling River is an emblem of poor government, mismanagement, greed and anti-democratic activity.

In sum, there is nothing new or exciting about water diverters managing a block of water for the ecosystem.  The Australian corruption and mismanagement shows the catastrophic impacts that could occur in California if those who profit from water diversions are charged with managing flows to protect fisheries.

About the authors

Bill Kier is a certified fisheries scientist who during his long professional life has been a California Department of Fish and Game field scientist, program manager and environmental division chief; an assistant Secretary of the California Resources Agency; a California State Senate consultant to committees on fish, wildlife, natural resources and water resources; developer and Director of the Senate’s office for research and policy development; and, since 1986, a developer of, and Principal with Kier Associates.  His consulting trips have taken him to the coastal estuaries of eastern Australia as well as the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, the Gulf of Maine, and France’s Loire River.

Deirdre Des Jardins, principal at California Water Research, has a background in nonlinear dynamics, chaos theory, and computational modeling.  She is a former researcher at NASA Ames Research center, the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Santa Fe Institute, and the UC Santa Cruz Bioinformatics Group.  She has done research and policy analysis on California developed water issues since 2009, including climate change, water management, and regime change in the Delta ecosystem.

Posted by: Deirdre Des Jardins | April 1, 2019

WaterFix “Executive Sponsor” and Project Risk Management

Who has been the Senior Planning Manager in charge of the WaterFix Project?  John Bednarski, Metropolitan Water District’s WaterFix project manager, refused to answer the question in the State Water Resources Control Board’s hearing on the project. The answer may lie in an obscure arrangement for a WaterFix project “Executive Sponsor.”

According to information provided to water agencies, the Senior Planning Manager of the WaterFix project has been the president of an obscure company in Idaho called 5RMK. 5RMk provides project planning, estimating and risk management services. The Department of Water Resources chose 5RMK to be the Independent Cost Estimator for the WaterFix Project. But 5RMK has been providing other services as well. According to a powerpoint presentation to the Santa Clara Valley Water District in 2017, 5RMK offers the following services:

· Estimating, scheduling, project planning
· Permitting, siting assessments, environmental compliance
· Program & construction management
· Claims support, [legal] defense & dispute resolution

A resume provided by Patrick Pettiette, the President of 5RMK, to Santa Clara Valley Water District and Metropolitan Water District referred to Pettiette as Executive Sponsor and Senior Planning Manager for the WaterFix Project. An Executive Sponsor usually has the following roles:

· Has ultimate authority and responsibility for a project or program
· Approves changes to scope
· Finds additional funds for scope changes
· Approves deliverables

Pettiette’s Executive Sponsorship of the WaterFix project could thus transfer responsibility and liability for the WaterFix project design to 5RMK from the Department of Water Resources and Metropolitan Water District.  This kind of risk management is a common arrangement for construction of oil and gas pipelines. Pettiette’s resume lists experience as the Executive Sponsor of two natural gas projects built by Exxon/Mobil.

· ExxonMobil – RFE LNG – Eastern Siberia, Russia
· ExxonMobil – PNG/LNG – Papau New Guinea

The Papau New Guinea project has reportedly had disputes stemming from the way the New Guinea government and Exxon proceeded with the project without first resolving landowner claims.

Pettiette’s resume also lists experience as Executive Sponsor, Program Manager, or VP of Operations of high liability United States government projects, including

· US Department of Energy Hanford Nuclear Reservation Closure
· BP/ARCO McColl Superfund Site Restoration
· US Department of Energy Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project


Pettiette was President and Responsible Corporate Officer of a Limited Liability Corporation created for the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Closure, Washington Closure Hanford. According to a report, Hanford Cleanup: The First 25 Years, there were problems with the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Closure Process during Pettiette’s tenure. The report states that “[a] routine audit showed that a worker at Hanford’s Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) falsified records related to the compaction of waste within the disposal site.” It refers to a huge fine:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which regulated ERDF, issued the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) a $1.14 million penalty — its largest fine ever at Hanford. The fine included $835,000 for failure to correctly perform compaction testing. The penalty covered both the falsification of testing records and what EPA believed was the improper use of equipment to test compaction. An additional $305,000 in penalties was assessed because of problems monitoring a system to pump collected water from the landfill. EPA said both DOE and its contractor were at fault.

Pettiette’s resume lists experience with several tunneling projects on his resume, including Construction Management for the Pin Lin Highway Tunnel in Taiwan. Wikipedia states about the tunnel:

While excavating the tunnel, engineers encountered difficult geological problems like fractured rock and massive inflows of water, which caused severe delays. One of the three TBMs on the westbound tunnel was buried by a ground collapse. In order to speed up the tunnel boring, an additional working interface in Interchange Station No. 2 (under Ventilation Shaft No. 2) was built. Along the tunnel alignment, there are six major faults, ninety-eight fracture zones, and thirty six high-pressure groundwater sources. Hence, serious tunnel collapses with groundwater flooding took place periodically during tunnel construction. Altogether, 25 lives were lost during 15 years of construction.

There are very real questions about what the reference in Pettiette’s resume to Executive Sponsorship of the WaterFix project means. These questions could only be answered definitively by the contracts with 5RMK. But the contracts have not been disclosed.

Senator Bill Dodd’s SB 204 would require disclosure of information from future WaterFix contracts. At the Senate Natural Resources Committee hearing on the bill, the State Water Contractors opposed language requiring disclosure of the contracts. At the request of the State Water Contractors, Dodd’s SB 204 has been amended to not require disclosure of contracts worth less than $5 million, and further amendments are being negotiated.

Posted by: Deirdre Des Jardins | March 25, 2019

WaterFix:  Tunneling risks and tunnel construction contracts


Seattle, January 2016  A large sinkhole formed near the Big Bertha tunneling machine cutterhead  Source:  Seattle Times

Whether there is one Delta tunnel or two, the construction of a large diameter tunnel in Delta soils consisting of sedimentary layers of peat, sand, silt, and clay is a significant engineering challenge.

The Highway 99 tunnel in Seattle, bored by “Big Bertha,” was constructed in glacial deposits with layers of sand, silt, and clay similar to those in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.  On January 12, 2016, a large sinkhole formed near Big Bertha’s cutterhead, creating major worries about tunneling under Seattle’s Alaskan Way Viaduct (a raised freeway.)  Washington Governor Jay Inslee halted the tunnel boring on January 14, 2016, citing concerns over public safety.

The large sinkhole created by Big Bertha shows the problems that can be created by “loss of ground” when tunneling in sedimentary deposits.  Even without “loss of ground” there can still be significant settlement on the surface.  With Big Bertha, there were extensive precautions to protect public safety.  The Alaskan Way Viaduct was closed for two weeks while Bertha tunneled under the freeway. The freeway was shielded from impacts of settlement by buried concrete pilings installed by the tunnel contractors, and there was extensive grouting to protect against further sinkholes.  There were also a large number of measuring devices installed to detect settlement of the freeway and buildings in Bertha’s path.  The tunneling was completed without further problems.

The current alignment of the WaterFix main tunnels passes under Delta island levees, State Route 4, State Route 12, the BNSF railroad tracks used by Amtrak, the Mokelumne aqueduct, and natural gas and other product and services pipelines.  These are all critical infrastructure in the Delta.  But measures to protect this infrastructure from tunneling impacts were not identified in the WaterFix environmental documents.

Tunneling under Delta levees poses a large economic risk.  The horizontal and vertical stresses on the levees from tunnel boring could cause cracks, especially in levee areas that are prone to slope instability.  Cracks in a levee could result in seepage and failure if they happened during times of high flows in the Delta, or if they happened during times of low flow and were not identified and repaired.  These risks were recently discussed in a news segment on KCRA Channel 3.

WaterFix tunnel alignment was moved east to avoid tunneling under US Army Corps of Engineer’s levees

The US Army Corps of Engineers requires a Section 408 permit for tunneling under state-federal project levees.   The state-federal project levees in the Delta are on the Sacramento River and Andrus Island.  (See map below.)

Project levees

State-Federal Project levees in the Delta.     Source:  Delta Plan

Kern County Water Agency documented that the WaterFix tunnel alignment was moved east to avoid crossing project levees whenever feasible:

As originally configured, the project’s main 40-foot diameter tunnels crossed under numerous rivers, sloughs and other waterways. At each of these locations, additional construction activities would have been necessary to protect the levees that line each of the waterways while the TBMs were being operated, potentially leading to unnecessary project risks […] Mitigation measures employed during the planning and conceptual engineering process attempted to minimize as many of these issues as possible. The current alignment (1) reduces tunneling under most sensitive surface features and private property, instead tunneling under publically [sic] held lands and avoiding crossing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) levees wherever feasible; (2) minimizes the number of water features crossing with the tunnel alignment; and (3) reduces the number of tunnel contracts to avoid unnecessary surface disruptions.

(Kern County Water Agency, California WaterFix Overview)

But if no US Army Corps of Engineers permit is required for tunneling under non-project levees, what are the protections?

The Waterfix Final EIR/EIS refers to Settlements induced by tunneling in Soft Ground, by the International Tunneling and Underground Space Association.  With respect to tunneling contracts, it states:

It is common practice in France to include in contractual documents for urban underground works, clauses that specify the maximum admissible ground movements in the area of influence of the works. This aims at assigning responsibilities in the case damages are experienced. As a result, damages related to ground movements falling with the contractual thresholds will be covered by the owner, with the contractor being responsible for damages experienced when the threshold values are exceeded.

The early specifications for the Delta tunnels stated that maximum allowable settlement thresholds should be determined for all structures that needed to be protected and included in the contract documents:

Category: Protection of Adjacent Structures and Property

Approach: A survey of all structures and property along or adjacent to the alignment will need to be performed and any property that needs to be protected will need to be identified.

A program of geotechnical instrumentation and monitoring will need to be developed and included in the plans and specifications in order to help evaluate the settlements induced by the tunneling activities.

Maximum allowable settlement thresholds should be determined and included in the contract documents.

The recommendation for inclusion of maximum settlement thresholds in the contract was not disclosed or carried forward. The WaterFix Final Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement only states that a recommendations will be made for “tunneling techniques to avoid excessive settlement.”

the engineer’s recommendations would be documented in a detailed geotechnical report, which will contain site-specific evaluations of the settlement hazard associated with the site-specific soil conditions overlying the tunnel throughout the alignment. The report will also contain recommendations for the type of tunnel boring machine to be used and the tunneling techniques to be applied to avoid excessive settlement for specific critical assets, such as buildings, major roads, natural gas pipelines, electrical and communication lines, aqueducts, bridges, levees, and sensitive satellite dish facilities. (Final EIR/EIS, Chapter 9, p. 9-287.)

There is no indication that criteria for maximum allowable settlement to protect structures on the surface will be determined or included in the contracts. The Final EIR/EIS does not even indicate that levees will be considered to be critical infrastructure that needs to be protected during tunneling:

Given the likely design depth of the tunnel, the amount of settlement beneath developed areas and critical infrastructure (i.e., the village of Hood, SR 4 and SR 12, the EBMUD aqueduct, and a potentially sensitive satellite dish facility) would be minor… Other facilities that may be determined to be critical infrastructure include natural gas pipelines, the proposed EBMUD tunnel, levees, and local electrical distribution and communication lines.  (Chapter 9, p. 9-288.)

As the Newsom administration grapples with the implications of downsizing the twin tunnels project to a still-massive one tunnel project, these critical safety issues must be addressed.  Sweeping them under the rug poses unacceptable risks from a variety of perspectives.

By Deirdre Des Jardins and Tom Williams

Governor Newsom inherited a mess from Governor Brown with the California High Speed Rail project. The first phase of the High Speed Rail project is in mid-construction, the costs have ballooned, and the first phase does not have adequate ridership to be viable on its own. It would have been far less costly to deal with the financial issues during the planning phase of the project.

Meanwhile with Governor Brown’s other mega-project, the twin tunnels, Newsom has announced that he no longer supports the project, but would support a revised, one tunnel project. But while Newsom’s administration is mulling potential changes to the project, the Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority is proceeding to preliminary and final design of the Brown Administration’s original twin tunnels project, under a $93 million contract signed with Jacobs Engineering in January. But there are major engineering issues with the project which have not been resolved.

First, the WaterFix proponents have claimed that the Delta tunnels project will provide $5.7 billion in economic benefits from mitigation of impacts of sea level rise. But the ability of the project to continue to provide fresh water has never been evaluated for recent higher projections of sea level rise, as first recommended by the Delta Independent Science Board in 2013. The project’s failure to use best available science on sea level rise was a key issue in identified in the November 2018 Delta Plan consistency review by the Delta Stewardship Council staff. The draft staff determination stated that the project’s sea level rise assumptions were “suitable for a coastal trail.”

Second, because of inadequate geotechnical borings, the design and construction of the 31 miles of Delta main tunnels/tunnel is likely to be subject to significant changes and cost escalation. The graph below is from a presentation by Massoud Manzari, and shows cost overruns vs. number of boreholes. The number of geotechnical boreholes for the Delta tunnels/tunnel project is at the extreme left end of the x axis.

Third, the Delta Protection Commission stated last October that the Department of Water Resources had “failed to grapple with the reality, demonstrated through evidence in the record, that CWF puts the long-term sustainability of small Delta communities in serious jeopardy” and that DWR had also “thoroughly fail[ed] to offer any meaningful mitigation for such impacts.” DWR has yet to address any of the issues raised by the Delta Protection Commission, or in the draft findings by the Delta Stewardship Council staff that the twin tunnels project is inconsistent with the Delta Reform Act and Delta Plan.

Newsom should put a hold on the $93 million preliminary and final design contract with Jacobs Engineering until his administration works out project revisions, and DWR develops a new Conceptual Engineering Report, based on an adequate evaluation of performance under high sea level rise, adequate geotechnical information, consistency with the Delta Reform Act and Delta Plan, and a sound financial plan. To proceed otherwise is folly.

1 Banks Pumping Plant, State Water Project

In his State of the State address on February 18, 2019 Governor Gavin Newsom announced that he did not support a two tunnel WaterFix project:

I do not support the WaterFix as currently configured. Meaning, I do not support the twin tunnels. We can build, however, on the important work that’s already been done. That’s why I do support a single tunnel.

But it is unclear if the California Department of Water Resources will withdraw or amend the August 2015 WaterFix Water Right Change Petition before the State Water Resources Control Board. That application is for a diversion permit for a two tunnel 9,000 cfs diversion project. The Water Board has held hundreds of hours of hearings on the August 2015 petition.

In 2017 and early 2018, DWR was preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for a single tunnel WaterFix project, but still pursuing the August 2015 petition for a two tunnel WaterFix project. In continuing to pursue the 2015 Water Right Change Petition, DWR’s attorneys made the argument that the Board “must act on the petition before it,” and could not consider approval of a single tunnel project unless DWR and the Bureau of Reclamation amended or withdrew the August 2015 petition for a change in point of diversion.

Multiple protestants submitted motions for continuation of the hearing. The co-Hearing Officers, Tam Doduc and Felicia Marcus, ruled that the hearing could proceed, stating in a February 6, 2018 ruling:

Based on reports that Petitioners are in negotiations that could result in a modification of the proposed WaterFix project to consist of one tunnel rather than two, Antioch, et al., argue that a stay is warranted until Petitioners (1) “fully commit” to either two tunnels or one; and (2) if the latter, fully analyze and model the impacts of the one-tunnel project. NRDC, et al., similarly argue that a project that delays construction of one of the proposed intakes for an unspecified amount of time would necessarily result in distinct impacts compared to the three-intake, two-tunnel project currently proposed by DWR. Neither moving party provides support for its assertion that DWR now “intends” to switch to a one-tunnel project. DWR’s opposition to Antioch, et al.’s motion argues that a continuance is unnecessary because DWR has not altered its water right change petition and DWR continues to seek authorization to divert up to 3,000 cubic feet per second at each of three new points of diversion identified in the petition.

News reports that Petitioners are considering a modification to the project do not constitute good cause to halt all consideration of the change petition currently before us. At this time, it is uncertain whether Petitioners will be modifying the proposed WaterFix project, and if so, how. Petitioners have not communicated any such commitment or intent to the State Water Board. Furthermore, it is speculative to conclude that any potential modifications being discussed necessarily would render moot the continued consideration of Petitioners’ change petition.

We direct Petitioners to update us and the parties if and when they decide to modify the proposed WaterFix project. At that time, it may be necessary for us to solicit input from the parties as to whether such modifications necessitate an amended change petition or new or supplemental CEQA analysis. Until that time, however, we will proceed with consideration of the water right change petition that is now before us.

Numerous protestants then put on expert testimony in Part 2 of the hearing about the possibility of a one tunnel project, and the obsolete and inaccurate project description in the 2015 Change Petition.

Ron Stork, senior policy advocate for Friends of the River, testified that if DWR only built a one tunnel project, the petition for a two tunnel project would be an application for “cold storage” rights which might not be exercised for decades, and granting the petition would be contrary to “the fundamental requirement of California water law that appropriative water rights be perfected with due diligence.”

Older Posts »


%d bloggers like this: