Calfed bay delta program goals

This bill would modify the state act to clarify the relationship of the authority and its implementing agencies with the federal government with regard to the program, and to conform the state act to the federal act, including changing the title of the program to the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, requiring state agencies to cooperate with federal agencies to meet the goals and objectives of the program, requiring state agencies to comply with the state act without respect to the cooperation of federal agencies, and removing references to federal authorizing legislation.

The bill would establish a board to govern the authority, comprised of the existing representatives, members, and ex officio members of the authority. The bill would authorize the authority to enter into cooperative agreements with individuals, associations, private entities, boards of supervisors, and with state or federal departments, divisions, bureaus, boards, or commissions for the purpose of carrying out the program.

The bill would require that report on or before February 15 of each year, in coordination with the secretary. The bill would require the authority to review, and comment to the appropriate implementing agency or agencies with regard to, regulations, guidelines, criteria, and awards proposed by the implementing agency or agencies to carry out a specified grant program.

The bill would delete an existing requirement to develop, and report on, an administrative efficiency pilot program.

The bill would additionally authorize the Governor, in consultation with the secretary, to appoint a chief counsel. The bill would authorize the Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee to be treated as a state advisory committee. The bill would exempt members of the committee or its subcommittees from certain financial interest restrictions when they are advising and making recommendations to the authority and director on proposed grant solicitation packages. The bill would authorize the lead scientist and the director to seek assistance and review from scientific experts in the development of scientific programs, performance measures, research questions and other scientific issues.

The bill would exempt a member of the Independent Science Board ISB or other science advisory panel, or an independent scientific expert who assists an implementing agency or the authority from certain financial interest restrictions with regard to participation in the making of a contract that results from a competitive process to fund scientific research, unless the scientific expert participated directly in the preparation of the grant solicitation package or the selection of projects to be funded.

The bill would exempt from the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act the ISB and any other independent science panel established to assist the implementing agencies and the authority, but would subject those entities to other public accountability requirements, as prescribed.

The bill would extend the operation of the state act until January 1, , unless a certain determination is made. The director shall, in consultation with the Secretary of the Resources Agency, develop a three-year program plan to implement the California Water Plan update, and subsequent updates.

This program plan shall be submitted to the California Water Commission for its review and approval. The director and the Secretary of the Resources Agency shall not implement the three-year program plan until the plan has been approved by the commission.

Unless the context requires otherwise, the definitions set forth in this section govern the construction of this article. The California Water Commission, as constituted before January 1, , is hereby abolished. The terms of these members shall be staggered so that the terms of two members shall commence on January 1, , and the term of one member shall commence on January 1, The terms of these members shall be staggered so that the term of one member shall commence on January 1, , and the terms of two members shall commence on January 1, The purpose of the commission is to provide oversight for the development and implementation of state water policy.

In furtherance of that purpose, the commission shall do all of the following: a Assess the overall achievement of state objectives with regard to the implementation of the California Water Plan and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, in each of the following categories: 1 Water quality. The review shall include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following implementing agencies: 1 The Resources Agency.

The commission shall do all of the following: a Track the progress of all projects and activities and assess the overall achievement of the goals and objectives of the California Water Plan and the California Bay-Delta Program. The commission shall adopt criteria for the review, approval, and modification of three-year program plans. To the extent that the commission determines that the CALFED Bay-Delta Program does not reflect balance among the four program areas, the commission shall include in the report submitted pursuant to subdivision g recommendations to bring the program into balance.

B Ecosystem restoration. C Water supply reliability. D Levee improvement. To the extent that the commission determines that the implementing agencies are not working effectively with one another, the commission shall make recommendations on how to improve working relationships among the agencies, and shall include these recommendations in the report to the Legislature described in subdivision g. The commission may host the meeting directly, cosponsor the meeting with an appropriate nongovernmental organization, or provide support for an appropriate nongovernmental organization to host the meeting.

The commission may exercise all of the following powers: a Delegate administrative functions to the staff of the commission. Meetings of the commission shall be open to the public and shall be conducted in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act Article 9 commencing with Section of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the commission does not approve a three-year program plan that has been submitted by the Secretary of the Resources Agency or the department, the commission shall state its reasons in writing to the submitting agency.

The agency shall resubmit to the commission a revised plan for review within 60 days of the commission action. The Secretary of the Resource Agency or department shall not implement a three-year program plan that has not been approved by the commission. The department shall submit to the commission for review and approval all proposed rules and regulations of the department, other than those relating exclusively to the internal administration and management of the department.

A proposed rule or regulation subject to this section shall become effective only upon approval by the commission. Final reports and written recommendations shall include the names of the principal reviewers who reviewed the report or written recommendation and who are not members of the panel.

It includes over , acres in five counties. The tributaries, sloughs, and islands support over plant and animal species. It also provides the conveyance of floodwaters from most of the rivers in the central valley. The California Bay-Delta Authority was created to coordinate various programs undertaken on behalf of the bay-delta. It is the intent of the Legislature, by the enactment of this division, to implement those recommendations and to make additional necessary changes.

This division shall be carried out in a manner that is consistent with respective state and federal agency budget development, review, and approval processes. The overall program goals of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program are to improve water quality, increase water supply reliability, restore degraded ecosystems, and improve the levee system integrity of the bay-delta.

It is the intent of the Legislature to establish specific objectives for each program goal. The secretary shall coordinate the activities of the state and federal implementing agencies to promote balanced implementation that meets the goals and objectives of the Bay-Delta Program. This division does not abrogate or modify state laws with respect to responsibilities to the State Water Project bondholders and shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Sections and However, nothing in this division shall be construed to give any federal agency or official the authority to modify, halt, or otherwise restrict the discretion of any state agency.

The executive management team shall function under the direction of the secretary, who shall have responsibility for coordinating the work of the state and federal agencies involved in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. If a conflict is not resolved, the secretary shall determine how to proceed to address the issues presented by the conflict, consistent with implementation of the program. The federal agency representatives may participate pursuant to Public Law , or any other federal statute authorizing their participation.

Each member of the executive management team may appoint a senior member of his or her staff to monitor team meetings in his or her absence. The secretary shall carry out all of the following duties: a Consistent with the overall program goals and objectives, as described in Section , provide direction to achieve balanced implementation, integration, and continuous improvement in all program elements.

Modification shall be coordinated with implementing agencies and other affected agencies with public input. The secretary shall notify the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature with regard to any modifications. Revisions to three-year program plans, described in subdivision e , shall be approved by the commission. This program plan shall be submitted to the commission for review and approval. The secretary shall not implement a three-year program plan that has not been approved by the commission.

These annual program plans shall be submitted to the commission for review and comment. The annual program plans shall be consistent with approved three-year program plans. The secretary shall respond, in writing, to any comments or recommendations made by the commission.

These activities shall include, but are not limited to, planning, design, technical assistance, construction projects, and development of an independent science program. Consequently, any attempt to authorize a program departing from the ROD has met with resistance from parties who fear their interests may not be well served. These rivers along with other tributaries form a mosaic of sloughs and waterways that surround 57 man-made islands within the Bay-Delta see Figure 1.

The Bay-Delta is considered the largest estuary on the West Coast and its combination of fresh and salt water ecosystems provide habitat for a diverse array of plant and animal life. An estimated species of plants and animals, including over species of fish are found in the Bay-Delta. The water regime of the Bay-Delta was significantly altered in the s when the federal government at the behest of California, began a massive project to divert water from the Sacramento Valley and Delta to farmland in California's vast Central Valley.

Today, the Bay-Delta ecosystem is still generally considered to be unhealthy and unable to provide reliable amounts of water for water users. Some also believe that the Bay-Delta is unable to sustain viable habitats for all of its plant and animal life. Further, pollutants originating from agricultural runoff, cities, and ranches have lowered water quality in the Bay-Delta.

The Bay-Delta has also suffered from fragmentation and loss of native habitat. Of the nearly , acres of original tidal marshland in the Bay-Delta, only 8, acres remain. Several plant and animal species are on state and federal endangered and threatened lists, including the steelhead trout and the winter-run chinook salmon. These issues are discussed in more detail below.

The limited supply of water in California has been the subject of conflicts among competing interests for decades. The fundamental controversy over water supplies more recently has centered on the distribution of water supplies to urban areas and agriculture, and their effect on the environment.

Limited water supplies during the drought led to water rationing in urban and agricultural areas, a reduction in crop productivity and cultivation, and environmental deterioration in river and marshland habitats. Concerns that annual operations of the CVP and SWP may have been violating federal and state water quality and endangered species statutes resulted in new efforts to provide baseline water supplies for environmental purposes. Several fish species in the Bay-Delta have been listed as either endangered or threatened under the federal ESA.

The ESA generally prohibits actions that involve "taking" including harming a listed species except under certain specified circumstances. It also directs federal agencies to avoid adverse modification of a listed species'critical habitat. Further, the ESA requires the designation of critical habitat areas where a species is currently found or which might provide additional habitat for species recovery. For example, exports of water out of the Bay-Delta were limited to protect salmon runs of the winter-run chinook salmon Onchorhyncus tshawtscha , which was listed as endangered in As other fish species, such as the delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus and spring-run chinook salmon Onchorhyncus tshawytscha , have been listed as threatened, further restrictions on water exports and project modifications have been implemented in the Bay-Delta.

Controversy over water allocated to the environment for recovering fish was exemplified when efforts to protect the then federally listed threatened Sacramento splittail Pogonichthys macrolepidotus resulted in a lawsuit against the U. A federal judge, in , invalidated the decision to list the species, citing the failure of the FWS to consider the opinions of state game scientists, explain high stocking rates in , and explain why the splittail was threatened.

In September , the FWS withdrew the splittail from the threatened species list after analyzing the population and determining that it would not become threatened or endangered in the foreseeable future. Water allocation for endangered species and the environment in general was to be enhanced with the enactment of the CVPIA in The legislation was enacted largely in response to the decline of fish and wildlife species in the Bay-Delta and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers system.

At the same time, many farmers and others have called the CVPIA a disaster, claiming that the priority for allocating water supplies to the environment is too high.

Beginning in the late 's, the implementation of the CWA by the U. The state responded with new water standards that were again rejected by the EPA. In , after a lawsuit brought by environmentalists, the EPA issued a set of federal water quality guidelines for implementation in California.

These were later rejected by the state. In order to forestall cutbacks in water project operations, state and federal authorities jointly adopted mutually acceptable water quality standards and agreed to regulate the CVP and SWP operations to meet these standards, as well as to develop target flows for ESA listed species.

This agreement, known as the Bay-Delta Accord, included the following elements: provisions to regulate springtime flow and export limits to benefit fish species; operational flexibility to comply with provisions of the ESA that address water supply and species monitoring issues among others; and measures to improve environmental conditions in the Bay-Delta Estuary e.

The Accord was in effect until and then was incorporated in part by the ROD. Controversies surrounding implementation of the federal statutes outlined above fueled the creation of the Bay-Delta Framework Agreement a refinement of the Accord , which was signed in by state and federal agencies with regulatory responsibilities in the Bay-Delta. This agreement marked the beginning of the CALFED process and defined three issues that were deemed important for federal-state coordination and cooperation: the formulation of water quality standards; coordination of federal and state project operations with regulatory requirements i.

The funding authorization expired September 30, ; however, some activities that support CALFED program goals continued to receive federal funding. The CALFED process brought state, federal, and other stakeholders together to develop a programmatic response to restoration and water supply issues in the Bay-Delta. First, definitions of the problems to be addressed in the Bay-Delta were listed, and a set of alternative solutions was developed.

Then, from a set of four alternatives, a "Preferred Program Alternative" was selected as the long-term plan for improving water quality, stabilizing Bay-Delta levees, restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem, and improving water supply reliability. The state law establishing the CALFED Authority explicitly states that nothing should extend the application of federal law to actions by state agencies or extend state law to actions by federal agencies.

The state law requires that the Secretary of the California Resources Agency make a determination and written notification that "federal legislation has been enacted authorizing the participation of appropriate federal agencies in the Authority" for the sunset clause to be removed. The debate over the reauthorization of CALFED in the th Congress largely centered on specific issues such as the authorization for water storage projects, cost allocation, balance among project and program activities, and water supplies for the environment, as well as broader issues such as governance and the degree to which the ROD is implemented.

Oversight issues during the th Congress are expected to include project financing, water storage project programs, and implementation of the Operations Criteria and Plan and South Delta Improvements Plan. The Senate subsequently took up the House bill, amended it, and passed H. After several weeks of tense negotiations, the House passed the Senate version under suspension of the rules and without amendment on October 6, The bill was signed into law October 25, P.

These activities range from the specific, such as the construction of floodway improvements in the Lower Mokelumne River, to broad categories such as water conservation projects to enhance water supply reliability, water quality, and ecosystem benefits. As passed by the House in July, H. The July version of H.

Thematically, the major areas of bill differences include the degree to which the existing ROD would have been implemented, the entity in charge of managing program activities, the process for project approval e. Congress is expected to face other CALFED issues in the next few years, including funding levels, water storage, water supplies for the environment, land acquisition, and science. A summary of each of these issues is presented below.

However, each program element in the plan may have its own cost-sharing formula. Federal appropriations for the CALFED Program are expected in the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations bills; however, other federal funding may be provided via appropriations for other federal programs.

A draft finance plan was released on December 4, This plan specifies how funding for the CALFED Program is expected to be distributed among the federal and state government, water users, and local grant matching. A final version of this plan is expected in For example, in the joint explanatory statement to P.

To date, federal funding has been appropriated to provide fish screens for existing water diversions; implement pollution control measures; manage fish, riparian, and estuarine habitat; and study water storage projects. The funding has been in addition to funds already authorized for projects and programs under the CVPIA and other previously authorized projects and programs.

As enacted, P. Many argue that an increase in water supplies for California is needed due to population growth in the state and lower supplies from the Colorado River, among other things.

One mechanism to increase the availability of additional water supplies is to increase the capacity for surface water storage. Several stakeholders, including some Members of Congress, have argued for an increase in investments for building additional surface water storage capacity in California.

Others contend existing developed water supplies can be stretched through conservation, water reuse and recycling, conjunctive use storing water in groundwater basins , water transfers, and changes in water management policy e. During a House Resources committee hearing on a CALFED crosscut budget in May of , several Members of Congress expressed concerns that more money has been spent on environmental activities than on storage.

Program officials countered by explaining that the authorization for feasibility studies for water storage expansion projects were delayed until early in , when they were authorized in the FY Omnibus Appropriations P.

Thus, they contend, the CALFED program is designed to be implemented in a "balanced" manner over the life of the program. Both S. This provision was very controversial and was one of the major differences in the House and Senate bills upon which there was strong disagreement.

Ultimately, the provision was dropped from the bill and replaced with a provision requiring a rebalancing of program elements and re-submission of options for water storage if Congress does not authorize construction of water storage facilities within a certain time frame.

The account is seen as a way to add flexibility to the regulatory system to ensure that fish are protected from water project operations while allowing for greater water supply reliability for agricultural and urban users.

The account may use transfers, options, and acquisitions to obtain water to compensate water users when pumps are shut down to mitigate "fish take. These agencies authorize exports from the account to provide additional water for species protection.

Prior CALFED bills would have directed that the EWA provide assurances that actions taken to protect species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA avoid water delivery impacts and costs to project water users. While many stakeholders support the EWA, they are divided as to how it should work.

Some participants have expressed concern that the water level prescribed for fisheries is too low, that baseline water needs are not adequately defined, and that operating rules for the EWA are unclear. Others believe that too much water is already allocated for the environment and want assurances that certain quantities of water for farming will be available. Both H. For example, the definitions of the EWA under S.