By STUART LEAVENWORTH
Oct. 14, 2000 (Sacramento Bee)—A federal report released Friday suggests a utility's long-disputed plans to ship water from the American River to the East Bay could be more costly than tapping into the Sacramento River downstream.
Even so, officials with the East Bay Municipal Utility District are still leaning toward taking water from the American River, a relatively clean-running source they have pursued for more than three decades.
"You can't put a cost on water quality," said Charles Hardy, a spokesman for EBMUD, which has 1.2 million customers. "We think the most important thing is to give our customers the best water we can. This is a big part of what this district is about."
The report is sure to result in more jousting between EBMUD and local leaders, who have long derided utility officials for refusing to take water from the Sacramento River, a water source for millions.
The report, a draft environmental impact report prepared by the utility and the federal Bureau of Reclamation, examines eight possible water sources for the East Bay, and doesn't state a preference.
The report concludes that it would cost $409 million to divert water from the mouth of the American — an option EBMUD has been pursuing for the last two years.
By comparison, the cost of taking water from the Sacramento River near Freeport would only be about $12 million more, and wouldn't come with the expense of storing the water during winter months.
Because of a 1970 court ruling designed to protect salmon, EBMUD is largely limited to taking water from the American during wet winter periods. That means it would have to store water, in an aquifer or reservoir, so it could use it during peak-demand months of the summer.
As a result, the utility's critics say EBMUD would inevitably pay more for diverting water from the American River, while increasing the chance of damaging a river that supports salmon, steelhead and other sensitive fisheries.
"This document clearly doesn't help them very much," said Ron Stork, a policy advocate for Friends of the River, a statewide environmental group based in Sacramento. "When you factor in the costs of storing this water, it doesn't make sense to keep pursuing this project."
EBMUD officials, however, say they still aren't sure if storage options will be as costly as environmentalists say.
"Additional storage would be required for the American," said John Lampe, EBMUD's director of water and natural resources. "Would that ultimately end up costing more than the other alternatives? That is not clear."
For decades, EBMUD has pressured the Bureau of Reclamation to deliver on a 1970 federal contract for 150,000 acre-feet of water from the American each year — enough to supply about 300,000 households.
Since 1970, the utility estimates it has paid nearly $20 million for the contract, which would supplement the water it receives from the Mokelumne River.
EBMUD says the water is mainly needed for drought years, but many Sacramentans don't trust those claims. They fear the Bay Area will develop an insatiable thirst for American River water and will use its clout to undermine existing protections for the river.
After years of court battles, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Richard Hodge tried to settle the dispute with a 1990 ruling. The landmark decision affirmed EBMUD's right to take water from the American, but — to protect salmon — largely restricted those flows to the wettest of months.
Last year, the parties were close to an agreement that would let EBMUD divert water from the mouth of the American River, but the talks collapsed. Soon after, East Bay leaders turned to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein for help. Feinstein in turn prodded the Bureau of Reclamation to turn out a comprehensive report on the utility's options before President Clinton left office.
EBMUD officials say they are satisfied with the results — an inch-thick report that examines the eight options and the trade-offs for recreation, fisheries and other resources.
"There is absolutely no intention on part of EBMUD to have any significant impact on the American River, and this report documents that," said Lampe.
Sacramento City Manager Bob Thomas declined to comment on the report Friday, saying he hadn't fully read it. In a Sept. 26 letter to federal officials, however, a lawyer representing Sacramento city and county blasted several aspects of the five-month federal study.
The lawyer, Stuart Somach, said the report was "defective" because it didn't examine the costs or impacts of groundwater storage. He also complained it used improper criteria to determine if various water-withdrawal options would have an impact under state and federal law.
The issue will come to a head in January, after EBMUD holds public hearings and its board meets to pick a preferred alternative.
Stork said he hopes EBMUD will look seriously at alternatives on the Sacramento River or the Delta. If not, he said, "It could set the stage for another 30 years of litigation."
To see more of the Sacramento Bee, or to subscribe, go to http://www.sacbee.com
Copyright 2000 Sacramento Bee. All Rights Reserved.
