Friends of Gualala River Protecting the Gualala River watershed and the species living within it
February 13, 2003
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District
828 Seventh Street
P.O. Box 95
Eureka, California 95502
Attention: Carol Rische, General Manager
Re: Proposal to Export Mad River Water from Humboldt Bay via Bag- and-Tugboat Operation
Dear Sirs and Mesdames:
We represent a rapidly growing coalition of citizens’ groups that are vehemently opposed to the project proposed to the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District to bag water from the Mad River and tow it by tugboat from Humboldt Bay to unspecified points to the south. The conceptual proposal presented by Aqueous, Inc., and its principal, Mr. Ric Davidge, contained few specifics. It did make extravagant promises of the ease with which the project could be implemented and benefits would accrue to the District, its customers, and the local economy. Upon careful consideration you will find that the Aqueous proposal is fatally flawed in a number of ways and faces considerable regulatory hurdles before it could even begin to be implemented.
Due to these intractable concerns, we strongly oppose the Aqueous proposal and urge you to reject any proposal to export water away from the Mad River or any other watershed in Humboldt County. In our opinion, the Aqueous proposal cannot pass legal muster under the required environmental and other regulatory reviews to which it is subject. We intend to scrutinize every stage of those regulatory processes and to take any deficiencies we perceive to court, if necessary.
Below is a preliminary overview of some of the salient faults with the Aqueous water bagging proposal and of the regulatory requirements that must be fulfilled before the Aqueous proposal could be implemented. This summary is only a taste of the complex and controversial economic, environmental, and social problems that the water bagging proposal promises to raise. That these obstacles have not even been acknowledged, let alone addressed, by Aqueous should give you pause before proceeding in any way with this risky, controversial proposal.
The Risk of Losing Control of Local Water Resources
If a deal could be consummated, HBMWD might well find that the long term contract will prevent it from regaining the water for local uses that may become necessary or that may prove to be far more locally beneficial.
For a deal to be attractive enough to potential customers, and therefore to Aqueous, it would have to be long term and almost certainly would include renewal provisions that the Water District might not be able to escape.
If Aqueous’s potential customers demand that the actual water rights themselves be transferred to Aqueous or themselves, as Monterey has indicated it would demand, then the HBMWD’s loss of control would be beyond doubt.
In addition, you must beware of entering into a business transaction with an entity that lacks any serious assets of its own and that is likely to be controlled, if not owned, by foreign-based multinational corporations. As has been increasingly noted by many commentators, and as was noted by the California Coastal Commission with regard to Mr. Davidge’s failed water bagging proposals for the Gualala and Albion rivers, there is a very serious risk that water export deals with international parties could well be removed from the scope of California law and regulation. All local control over the terms of the transaction, and thus over the fate of Mad River water subject to the transaction, would be sacrificed. Instead, the procedures and requirements of international trade agreements such as NAFTA and the GATS would govern and decisions about local Humboldt Bay area water resources could be made by remote international bodies like the WTO.
You should think long and hard before proceeding any further with a proposal that carries so grave a risk of loss of control over local water resources as Aqueous’s does.
State and Federal Regulatory Obstacles
The water bagging proposal would require petitioning the State Water Resources Control Board for a permit to change the place and purpose of use for the water that Aqueous proposes to purchase from the HBMWD. Cal. Water Code § 1701. Because of the volume of water involved, the proposal will be considered a major petition for change. Therefore, it will be subject to all the public notice, protest, evidentiary hearing, and other requirements under the Water Code. See § 1701 et seq. This petition will require notice and cooperation with other state and federal agencies. The SWRCB will have to notify and consult with the California Department of Fish and Game, which will consider whether any aspect of the diversion, the proposed change in place of use, or any of the work that may need to be done to alter or upgrade existing infrastructure implicates the permitting requirements under section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code or otherwise threatens any fish or wildlife resource.
Among the issues that the SWRCB will have to evaluate in deciding whether to permit the water bagging proposal is the degree to which the existing diversion of the water in question, as well as the proposed changes, are consistent with the public trust interests of California. Under National Audubon Soc’y v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 419, 658 P.2d 709, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 977 (1983), the SWRCB will have to reexamine the degree to which the current level of diversion by the HBMWD adequately protects, or best serves, the State’s public interest in the waters of the Mad River. This inquiry will require evaluating the needs of fish and other wildlife species, as well as other instream uses, in the light of present circumstances and updated information about the Mad River watershed and ecosystem. Thus, the SWRCB’s review of Aqueous’s water bagging proposal could result not only in the denial of a permit to change the purpose and place of use but also in a decision to reduce historic levels of diversion and restore water to the river.
You should be under no illusions about the level of scrutiny to which this project will be subjected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq. The magnitude of this proposed project – both in terms of the volume of water being transferred to an entirely different region of California and the extent of bagging, barging, and water conveyance works involved – leaves no question that the project will require a full blown environmental impact report. The CEQA review process is guaranteed to be extensive and controversial because of the unprecedented nature and grave implications of this proposed export of water.
The Proposal Will Not Survive Scrutiny Under the California Coastal Act
The California Coastal Act is directly implicated by Aqueous’s proposal, which would require a coastal development permit consistent with the policies and requirements of the CCA. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq. This new water bagging proposal raises many of the same potential environmental, social, and economic impacts to California coastal resources that led the Coastal Commission to vote unanimously to protest the Gualala and Albion river proposals. Among the harmful impacts that may violate the CCA and that should concern you are: damage to marine, estuarine, and riverine habitat; degradation of the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas; harm to the geologic stability and geomorphology of Humboldt Bay and to areas within the Mad River watershed or in the vicinity of the delivery point for exported water where infrastructure may need to be built or modified; impairment of commercial fishing and recreational boating; interference with other forms of recreation and public access.
The Proposal Will Be Seriously Constrained or Prohibited by the Resource Management Plan for the California Coastal National Monument
Similarly, the Aqueous water bagging proposal will be subject to scrutiny, restriction, and perhaps prohibition under the Resource Management Plan presently being formulated by the U.S. Department of Interior for the California Coastal National Monument (CCNM) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq., and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. Unavoidably, much of the Aqueous water bagging operation would occur within, or pass through, the CCNM. Local, state, regional, and national citizens’ groups already have raised potential harmful impacts on marine habitat and species and other protected values of the CCNM from water bagging operations like those proposed by Aqueous, and those concerns will be addressed in the DOI’s planning process, which will extend over the next few years.
The Proposed Export of Water Is Beyond the Scope of the HBMWD’s Authority It is our understanding that under its existing charter, articles of incorporation, and/or by-laws the HBMWD does not have authority to export water away from its service area and the Mad River watershed. In order to increase the scope of its authority to enable it to engage in such export, the District would have to go through the process of amending its charter, articles of incorporation, and/or by-laws. Such an amendment process would open the HBMWD up to public review and comment on this and possibly other potential charter revisions beyond its control.
The Proposal will Face Stringent Federal Permitting Requirements and NEPA Review
The Aqueous water bagging proposal also will require permitting under section 407 of the federal Safe Harbors and Rivers Act, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq., and may require a permit under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. Accordingly, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will need to scrutinize the project under those acts and the applicable regulations, and may either deny a permit or impose serious/burdensome restrictions on project operations that make the proposal impracticable.
The permitting process under either or both the Safe Harbors and Rivers Act and the Clean Water Act also implicate the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. Under NEPA, the Aqueous proposal will require a full blown environmental impact report given the magnitude of the natural resources affected and the controversy raised by the proposal. Under NEPA, the federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., and Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq., the Army Corps of Engineers will have to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential impacts to listed species that may include protected shore and sea birds, salmonid fish species, and marine mammals. Despite the blithe assurances offered by Aqueous that no protected wildlife species would be affected by its proposed operations, we believe the opposite is true. Mr. Davidge made similar mistaken predictions regarding his defunct water bagging proposals for the Gualala and Albion rivers.
In considering whether to proceed with the Aqueous proposal you also must consider the question of potential, indeed likely, liability under the CWA, ESA, and MMPA. As discussed elsewhere the bag and tug boat technology Aqueous is relying on are still largely untested. No water bagging and barging operation has ever been attempted in the north Pacific. As you know, the north Pacific is characterized by extremely rough seas during much of the year when Aqueous will be attempting to fill and transport its bags between Humboldt Bay and unspecified points to the south, including Monterey and San Diego. There is little doubt among serious people that these unwieldy tug-and-bag combinations will be subject to accidents, including a serious possibility of running aground. Should one of the tug boats spill diesel fuel within the Bay Aqueous and the HBMWD could face liability of an unauthorized discharge under the CWA. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342-1343. Should the water bagging operations result in the unauthorized take of any species protected under the ESA or MMPA, Aqueous and HBMWD could face liability under those statutes as well.
Another federal regulatory hurdle that has been ignored by Aqueous when making claims that it may deliver Mad River water to Monterey, is the need to comply with the restrictions under the National Marine Sanctuary Act,16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq., on various maritime activities in order to protect the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 15 C.F.R. pt. 922. The failure to even recognize that such legal and regulatory constraints apply to Aqueous’s proposal illustrates the carelessness and unreliability of that proposal.
None of these significant regulatory hurdles have been acknowledged, let alone addressed, by Aqueous in its rosy presentation to the HBMWD. As the authority charged with responsible management of local water resources, however, you cannot afford to be as careless as that outside speculator.
Likely Negative Impacts to Local Economy
By transferring the water that Aqueous proposes to export, the HBMWD would foreclose any potential development that the same water could support locally. In this connection, it is essential that you think in the long term and not only in the immediate future. The project is unlikely ever to be approved, and if it were it would not be for several years. Meanwhile, it is quite possible that economic and social forces within California and throughout the nation and the Pacific Rim may shift so as to encourage commercial and/or residential development in the Humboldt Bay area. Such changes might well occur long before the termination of the long term contract Aqueous and its customers would demand. If the water has already been committed to Aqueous and its customers, it would not be available to support such growth and the economic opportunity would get pushed to the south with the water, to the detriment of Humboldt Bay area businesses and residents.
The construction of a water bagging and tugboat mooring facility in Humboldt Bay and the continuous presence of these massive heavy duty diesel tugboats and the colossal water bags would seriously harm tourism in the Humboldt Bay area and along coastal region from Arcata south. The beauty of the Humboldt Bay area and its coastline are renowned throughout California and far beyond. The large mooring and bagging operation that the proposal would require in the harbor would have to be brightly lit around the clock to meet the project’s operational needs and the ever present tugs would produce constant diesel exhaust fumes and auditory alarms. That visual, auditory, and olfactory intrusion on the local area will be further aggravated by the constant parade of giant tug boats towing conspicuous bladders the size of three football fields through the bay and down the coast. These impacts certainly will negatively impact tourism, water and coastal recreation businesses in the Humboldt Bay area and along the coastline to the south
Further, because they will be so unwieldy and massive, the tug boats and water bags are likely to impair other maritime activities in and around the Bay, including commercial fishing and recreational boating. This also will negatively impact the health of the local economy.
